Obama at National Prayer Breakfast: "There is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being."

Halo slightly tarnished already

At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning (full text of his remarks here), Obama made a number of interesting and highly questionable assertions:

[...] But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate.

Arguably, that is true: there is no religion whose central tenet is hate: there is no religion that teaches that the most important thing one must do in this world is hate someone or something else. But certainly the religion that comes closest to teaching such a thing is Islam. If the Qur'an doesn't teach that Muslims should hate unbelievers, certainly it teaches that they should be harsh with them, consider them the worst of all created beings, not become friends with them, and, ultimately, wage war against and kill or subjugate them:

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)." -- Qur'an 9:123

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures." -- Qur'an 98:6

"Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security...." -- Qur'an 3:28

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk." -- Qur'an 5:51

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." -- Qur'an 9:5. "If they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due" essentially means, "If they convert to Islam..."

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." -- Qur'an 9:29

Obama continues:

There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.

True, but how does one define "innocent"? Jihadists believe that no non-Muslim can be innocent, simply because he is a non-Muslim. Muslim leaders in the West have insisted for years that no non-Muslim can be innocent, and no one has had the wit or courage to ask any of them to define what they mean by "innocent."

Moreover, Islamic law clearly devalues the lives of non-Muslims: "Retaliation is obligatory...against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." That means, someone who commits murder must be punished. However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim." That means that there is no penalty for his doing so. ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-01.2). However, under some circumstances if someone causes the injury or death of a non-Muslim, the perpetrator may make a payment to the victim or his family. In that case, "the indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim." ('Umdat al-Salik o4.9).

When will human rights organizations, much less Obama, address this institutionalized and divinely sanctioned devaluing of human beings?

Back to Obama:

We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”...

Jihad Watch reader George expertly addressed that one in an email he sent me this morning:

I am not a Biblical or Islamic scholar, but I have read many of your books and regularly read and comment on JihadWatch articles, so I think I have learned at least a little about Islam and the concept of Taqiyya. As you know, this particular Hadith does not have the universalism of the Golden Rule because Islamic jurisprudence believes it only applies to Muslim on Muslim relations. There are other Hadith which clarify the limitation of reciprocity to relations between Muslim brothers:

Bukhari 9,85,83: Allah's Apostle said, "A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim. So he should neither oppress him nor hand him over to an oppressor. And whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs."
Bukhari 8,73,70: Allah's Apostle said, "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (i.e., an evil-doing), and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)."

Finally, the Qur’an itself makes it clear that brotherhood applies only towards other Muslims (48:29): "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other."

Although the President finished his speech with, “I am not naïve,” I would respectfully have to disagree. The ayatollahs and Islamic clerics must be licking their chops with anticipation of the next four years.

Indeed.

Everything you need to know about Shariah Finance

David Yerushalmi has written the comprehensive explanation of what Shariah Finance is, and why it is a threat to free people. From his Law Offices' website:

In November 2007, the Center for Security Policy retained the Law Offices of David Yerushalmi to prepare a legal memorandum which examined the civil and criminal exposure of U.S. financial institutions involved in Shariah-compliant finance (SCF). This memorandum was shortened and published by the Utah Law Review in Vol. 2008, No. 3. You can access the article directly here.

The article, "Shari’ah's 'Black Box”: Civil Liability And Criminal Exposure Surrounding Shari’ah-Compliant Finance," can be found in pdf form at that link. If you are at all interested in becoming informed on this all-important subject, this article is the single best resource.

Somali pirates receive 3.5 million, largest ransom in history

"Pirates ahoy!" (Bottom, right-hand corner; magnifying lens may be required)

Rest assured a portion, perhaps a very large one, is going to fund the mainland jihad, and perhaps even the international terrorist network, which is all the more reason this ongoing Somali piracy business needs to actually be addressed, preferably in strong military terms. See this Middle East Quarterly article for more on how "what Americans and Europeans saw as piracy, Barbary leaders justified as legitimate jihad"; also, how, in the context of the Barbary Wars, Thomas Jefferson related that "it was a Muslim's right and duty to make war upon them [Christians], wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

"Somali pirates are paid record $3.5 million ransom for MV Faina," by Rob Crilly for the Times Online, February 5:

Somali pirates holding a ship laden with Russian tanks were believed to be preparing to release the vessel last night after being paid up to $3.5 million (£2.3 million), the biggest ransom on record. The MV Faina was hijacked more than four months ago.

US warships and helicopters have kept a watch amid fears that her 33 T72 tanks and other weaponry could fall into the hands of Islamists who are waging a bloody insurgency on land.

Last night Andrew Mwangura, of the East African Seafarers Association, said that talks to free the Ukrainian-operated vessel and her 20-strong crew had concluded. “We hear they are counting the money but I don’t want to say any more until the crew is on dry land,” he added. “The ship could be released in the middle of the night or at daybreak.”

Up to 50 pirates may have been involved. The ship’s Russian captain died soon after the hijacking from a stroke, according to the first mate.

Small dinghies brought food and water from the mainland to the 150m long vessel to feed the crew of Ukrainians, Russians and a Latvian. The pirates made sure they could celebrate the end of Ramadan by bringing aboard a consignment of goats to barbecue on deck.

So they're not just some reckless, nihilistic pirates out for booty? They actually follow Islamic customs? One would think that, if they were pious enough to properly celebrate Ramadan, they would not engage in such barbarous acts as piracy -- unless, of course, piracy vis-a-vis infidels is permitted in Islam. And it is.

UK: Al Qaeda plot to murder MPs uncovered

The logic of "bloggers" Paganslayer and Resistance: If Muslims are going to commit suicide to kill infidels, and even if the odds are 4 dead Muslims for 100 infidels, it's better to at least target some of the higher ranking infidels. Such are the musings of jihadi chat-rooms.

"Al Qaeda’s plot to murder British MPs uncovered London," from Hamara Photos, February 5:

UK Police has uncovered a terrifying plot by al Qaeda to murder Britsh Members of Parliament.

Police were last night urgently probing the plan, hatched on a website used by terrorists and their supporters. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was informed amid calls for extra protection for all 646 MPs.

Security sources said the threat could require measures not seen since the height of the IRA attacks, the Daily Star reported.

The plot was found on a password-protected Internet message board on a site, which has carried an interview with Osama bin Laden’s No.2 Ayman al Zawahiri.

A user named Paganslayer asks what the mood is for another round of deadly attacks on the continent. There follows a warped discussion about the 7/7 London bombings, which killed 52 innocent people.

Using the Arabic word "kuffar", meaning "non-believers", a user called Resistance writes: "What does it benefit a Muslim to have four Muslim lives lost … for only 100 kuffar? I think that’s horrible odds."

Resistance adds: "Now, wouldn’t it have been better to not target a train unless that train had parliament members riding it?"

Paganslayer replies it would take "a miracle" to attack the Houses of Parliament but Resistance tells him: "I didn’t mention the Parliament House. I said its ‘members’."

Paganslayer then writes in Arabic "may Allah reward you", to thank Resistance for the suggestion.

Police were last night investigating and security sources said the threat could affect MPs anywhere away from Parliament, not just on trains., the paper reported. (ANI)

Released Gitmo inmates up the jihadi rhetoric

Gratitude

More on such stories. "Out of Gitmo, spewing hate: Released suspects head to Web to threaten attacks," from Metro International, February 4:

Armed with a grudge and an assault rifle, Said Ali al-Shihri [pictured above] is the kind of man who would be detained as a terror suspect.

The problem is he was released from Guantanamo Bay in 2007 and has since risen to leader of al-Qaida in Yemen.

He and other terrorists have been touting their stays at the Cuban prison in the days since President Barack Obama signed an order to close the world’s most notorious jail.
The primary challenge is deciding what to do with terror suspects administration officials believe cannot be rehabilitated.

“What do you do with a bunch of people who want to kill themselves, who would also like to kill American prison guards if they had the chance?” Houston-based writer and blogger Melissa Clouthier said. “It’s not a normal prison situation. The order to close the prison is just to make a constituency happy.”

Some, however, believe the choice to release or try the 200-plus prisoners is necessary to eventually move forward in the fight on terror.

“The lesson is to detain people according to the rule of law,” Gabor Rona of Human Rights First said. “If we do that, we will not have the same problems going forward.”

US study: Israel did not commit war crimes

Common sense. "US study: IDF didn't violate rules of war," by Yitzhak Benhorin from Israel National News, February 4:

WASHINGTON – Israel did not violate the rules of war during its recent Gaza operation, a new US study says, while praising the IDF's "impressive improvements" since the war against Hizbullah in 2006. Israel "deliberately used decisive force to enhance regional deterrence and demonstrate that it had restored its military edge," wrote Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These, however, are legitimate military objectives in spite of their very real humanitarian costs."

The study notes that "political efforts to manipulate the "rules of war and humanitarian considerations have become a key weapon in asymmetric warfare, and are often used as a basis for propaganda and gaining political leverage in this type of conflict."

"Real suffering is translated into exaggerated charges and numbers that cannot be validated by reliable data or methodology," the study says. "In practice, even if Israel had agreed to all of the conventions involved, they are severely limited and often difficult or impossible to apply to the realities of war — even one fought with restraint and a focus on military targets."

'Noting new about such tactics'

Cordesman notes that "Some buildings like schools merit special consideration, but only require review to determine whether they are really military targets. Hospitals require warning but are not protected if used by an enemy."

"White phosphorous can be used against military but not civilian targets," he adds, noting that "such laws and conventions do not bind or restrain non-state actors like Hamas in any meaningful way."

Indeed not.

"The end result is a situation where one side can potentially be limited by international law where the other is not, and that effectively makes international law a potential weapon for the side that rejects and exploits it," the study says. "It is also a situation that empowers and incentivizes extremists to use civilians as the equivalent of human shields by embedding their forces in civilian populations and areas, and using sensitive buildings like mosques and schools or collocating near them. There is nothing new about such tactics."

Wilders hires top Dutch lawyer, will ask for prosecution to be quashed "in the interest of the law"

It should be quashed in the interest of free speech as a basis for any free society in which dissent from the positions of the powerful is allowed.

Wilders Defender of Free Speech Update: "Top lawyer to defend Dutch anti-Islam MP Wilders," by Rob Kievit for Radio Netherlands, February 3 (thanks to Mackie):

Rightwing populist Dutch MP Geert Wilders has enlisted one of the Netherlands' top lawyers to fight his prosecution over inciting hatred and discrimination. The lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, has confirmed he is taking the case to the country's Supreme Court, requesting an immediate end to the proceedings. He is calling for the Court to quash the prosecution order "in the interest of the law". The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) is the country's highest judicial body.

The Amsterdam appeals court in January ordered that Wilders must be prosecuted for inciting hatred and discrimination, and for insulting Muslims by describing the Qur'an as "the Islamic Mein Kampf [Adolf Hitler's political credo]". Mr Wilders, leader of the opposition Freedom Party, claims he is doing nothing other than exercising his right to free speech, both inside and outside parliament.

Ruthless fight

Following formal objections by individual citizens and interest groups, the Amsterdam court order reversed a decision by the public prosecutor's office to refrain from opening a case against Mr Wilders.

On his website, the maverick MP, referring to Mr Moszkowicz, says, "I've hired the best lawyer of the Netherlands for a ruthless fight against the charges that I'm facing."...

Iran: Dialogue with US will succeed only if Obama accepts Iranian nukes

Obama said that he would talk to Iran without preconditions. The Iranians have reacted with contempt, saying that Obama wants to talk because the U.S. has failed. And the Iran has cheerfully begun setting out its own preconditions: first Ahmadinejad said that Obama "must apologise to the Iranian people and try to repair their past bad acts and the crimes they committed against Iran." And now we hear that Obama must accept a nuclear Iran for "the chances for dialogue and co-operation" to "succeed."

They have done more in this line, as Caroline Glick notes in "Honest Obama and Iran" in Jewish World Review, January 30 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The Iranians for their part have reacted to the new president with a mixture of relief and contempt. On November 6, two days after the US election, Ahmadinejad sent a congratulatory letter to Obama. Ahmadinejad's letter was considered a triumph for Obama's conciliatory posture by the American and European media. But actually, it was no such thing. Ahmadinejad's letter was nothing more than a set of demands much like those he had set out in a letter to then-president George W. Bush in 2006.

In his missive to Obama, Ahmadinejad laid out Iranian preconditions for a diplomatic engagement with America. Among other things, Ahmadinejad demanded that the US send all its military forces back to America. As he put it, the US should, "keep its interventions within its own country's borders."

So Obama's conciliatory gestures have led only to increased Iranian demands. Numerous historical examples show that appeasement often inspires increased bellicosity in the one being appeased; Lawrence Auster makes a terrific point about this:

Caroline Glick demonstrates that just two weeks into his presidency, Obama is already in the far reaches of appeasement of Iran. Her article reminds me of Allen Drury's 1970s Cold War novel Come, Ninevah, Come Tyre. It's about a very liberal U.S. president who thinks that if he makes sufficient conciliatory gestures to the USSR, the latter will react in kind and the superpower standoff will be ended and the world will be at peace. So he announces a huge, unilateral drawback and reduction of U.S. forces, tantamount to a surrender in the Cold War. And what do the Soviets do in response? They instantly demand further U.S. concessions, accompanied by hostile threats. But that's not the end. Now comes the most amazing moment of the story, showing that Drury truly understood the liberal mind. The president, instead of realizing that the Soviets' belligerent response to his peace move has shown it to have been a fiasco, makes yet another extravagant peace move.

Read Glick's article. You'll see that something like that (though not yet as extreme and consequential) has happened between Johnnie [Ahmadinejad] and Obama. Also, I recommend the Drury novel. It is highly relevant to our time, now that, under our new president, as in some nightmare from which we thought we had long ago awakened, we seem doomed to relive every folly of liberalism, as though the spirit of every past appeaser, fictional as well as historical,--Neville Chamberlain, Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, Robert A. Leffingwell, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter--had been incarnated in the current U.S. president.

Not that Busheron [GW Bush] wasn't a despicable appeaser, with his joshing around with enemies of our country who openly despised him. But Barack seems to be on a whole other level.

I read Come Nineveh, Come Tyre long ago, and, coincidentally, revisited it last year, and agree with Auster's assessment: Drury has the mind of the appeaser down cold, and when I reread it I was amazed by the large numbers of parallels between the Cold War scenario of the novel and the large-scale appeasement mode of the West vis-a-vis the global jihad and Islamic supremacism today. There is a vastly inferior companion novel, The Promise of Joy, in which Drury imagines that the liberal appeaser's opponent, a proponent of a strong stand against the Soviet Union, becomes President instead -- with an outcome that is catastrophic in different ways, not least because, in opposition to the President, the appeasers still control the media and a great deal more. Both are worth visiting or revisiting, especially Come Nineveh, Come Tyre, if you can find them.

Anyway, will Obama reward Iran's increased arrogance and new demands with new concessions, after the pattern of President Edward M. Jason in Come Nineveh, Come Tyre? I wouldn't be surprised. Would you?

"Iran says US must accept nuclear programme," by Roula Khalaf and Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Financial Times, February 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A senior adviser to Iran’s president says dialogue with the US will succeed only if the Obama administration accepts Tehran’s right to have a nuclear programme.

Mojtaba Samareh-Hashemi, right-hand man to Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the fundamentalist president, said, in an interview with the Financial Times, Tehran was studying its options, just as the new US administration was reviewing its Iran policy.

The US hopes to engage with Iran and persuade the country to halt its uranium enrichment activities, the most sensitive part of the nuclear programme, and withdraw its support for militant groups in the region....

But Iran too has a list of demands requiring US policy shifts.

On some issues – such as the removal of US troops from Iraq and stabilising Afghanistan – Iran and the US can find common ground.

Others, particularly Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is peaceful in nature and so advanced that it has become a fact on the ground, could prove the two sides’ differences are irreconcilable.

“If [US] policies change the two nations will get closer to each other, the two governments will get closer to each other and the chances for dialogue and co-operation will succeed,” said Mr Samareh.

“The policy of [George W.] Bush was to use this [the nuclear issue] as an excuse to stand up against the Iranian nation.

“For there to be change, this policy has to change.” In Afghanistan, he said, Iran was expecting a more robust effort to fight opium production....

Bullets fired at Jewish Center in Amsterdam

"However, police are investigating whether the incident was related to the escalation of tension in the Middle East." No kidding, do you think there could be a connection?

Eurabia Update: "Jewish Center in Amsterdam Attacked, No Injuries," by Avraham Zuroff for Israel National News, February 5 (thanks to Kenneth):

(IsraelNN.com) Two bullets grazed a window of the Sinai Jewish Center in Amstelveen, Holland’s daily newspaper De Telegraaf reported Wednesday. Bulletproof glass prevented any casualties. According to the report, the center’s maintenance man discovered two bullet holes on Tuesday that were fired towards the building’s main entrance. There were no injuries, and the motivation is unclear. However, police are investigating whether the incident was related to the escalation of tension in the Middle East.

The Sinai Center is a Jewish mental health center. Although the police confirmed that gunshots were fired, they refused to offer additional comment. The Sinai Center is also withholding comments until the results of the police investigation are completed.

Two weeks ago, there was an arson attempt on a synagogue in Amsterdam’s southern district. Since Operation ‘Cast Lead’, security on Jewish community property has been stepped up. "In the last month, there were as many anti-Semitic incidents as there were throughout 2007 and what worries me the most is that they are of a much more serious nature," says Ronny Naftaniel, director of Centre Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI)....

Cheney: Obama making U.S. less safe

"These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek"

Or, in Obama's own words, "winning hearts and minds" and censoring language. "Obama making U.S. less safe, Cheney says," from Political Ticker, February 4:

(CNN) – The Obama administration's new policies on Guantanamo Bay prison and the treatment of detainees makes it more likely a terrorist attack against the United States will succeed, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday.

In an interview with Politico, the former vice president issued a stringent defense of the Bush administration's record on the war on terror, and said he worries the President Obama has already made the country more vulnerable.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said in the interview published Wednesday.

Cheney also predicted the Obama administration is likely to backtrack on its pledge to end coercive interrogation techniques, since the protection of the United States from terrorists is a "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business.”

"These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek," he said.

The blunt comments come two weeks after President Obama issued executive orders that will close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and shut down secret CIA prisons abroad. Obama also signed an executive order calling on U.S. personnel to follow the Army Field Manual's guidelines when it comes to interrogation.

In the interview, Cheney suggested Obama was irresponsibly adhering to “campaign rhetoric,” and called Guantanamo Bay a “first-class program.”

Jihadists using male rape to turn men into suicide bombers

Just as jihadists rape women in order to turn them into suicide bombers, they're raping men also. "Al-Qaeda accused of using male rape to 'create' suicide bombers," from PinkNews, February 4 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

Islamic terrorists are raping young men in order to drive them into suicide bombings.

The Sun quotes Algerian militant Abu Baçir El Assimi:

"The sexual act on young recruits aged between 16 to 19 was a means to urge them to commit suicide operations."

The paper claims that "intense social stigma and fear of more gay sex attacks leaves Muslims prepared to die."

Rape and homosexual acts are punishable by death under Sharia law....

Missing from Obama's outreach to Muslims "is any sense that the United States has long been the target of jihadist fanatics who enjoy widespread support in the Muslim world"

Jeff Jacoby sees Obama's outreach to the Islamic world as the mirror image of Carter's naive and ultimately disastrous outreach to the Soviet Union.

"Obama's charm offensive and the global jihad," by Jeff Jacoby for the Boston Globe, February 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

EARLY IN HIS presidency, Jimmy Carter set about to a letter US policy toward the Soviet Union. Six days after his inauguration he sent a letter to Soviet ruler Leonid Brezhnev, hailing the two countries' "common efforts towards formation of a more peaceful, just, and humane world" and saluting Brezhnev's supposed "aspiration for strengthening and preserving. . . peace." In a commencement address at Notre Dame, he declared that Americans had shed their "inordinate fear of communism." In the months that followed, Carter slashed the defense budget, scrapped the B-1 bomber, welcomed the Sandinista coup in Nicaragua, and launched diplomatic relations with Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castro.

It wasn't until the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979 that Carter finally woke up to his naiveté. Moscow's brutal aggression "made a more dramatic change in my opinion of what the Soviets' ultimate goals are," he admitted, "than anything they've done in the previous time that I've been in office."

Carter's failure to understand the threat posed by the Soviet Empire had costly consequences for America and the world. Will that pattern now be repeated with Barack Obama and the threat from radical Islam?

Ever since taking office two weeks ago, Obama has been at pains to proclaim a change in US-Muslim relations. In his inaugural address he invited "the Muslim world" to embark on "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Six days later he gave Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language satellite channel, his first televised interview as president. This week he continued his charm offensive with a friendly letter to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. He has promised to deliver a major address in an Islamic capital by spring.

The president cannot be faulted for using his bully pulpit to reach out to the world's Muslims, especially given his Muslim roots and family ties. But running through his words is a disconcerting theme: that US-Muslim tensions are a recent phenomenon brought on largely by American provincialism, heavy-handedness, and disrespect. Missing is any sense that the United States has long been the target of jihadist fanatics who enjoy widespread support in the Muslim world....

Read it all.

11 ex-Gitmo prisoners flee the Saudi "rehabilitation program" and join up with terrorist groups

Not enough to sate jihadi impulses

Apparently PlayStations and finger-paints are not enough to change the minds of terrorists concerning the jihad. Thus, even if it were true that "jihad" really means "being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" -- this story indicates that we can at least rule out trying to redirect the jihad from targeting infidels to, say, "Jihad-of-the -Nintendo" or the "Crayon Jihad."

"11 ex-Gitmo prisoners on Saudi wanted list," from UPI, February 4:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- Eleven Saudis released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are on a list of 85 wanted terrorism suspects made public by the Saudi Interior Ministry, officials said.

Saudi officials said the 11 former Guantanamo Bay detainees underwent a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists and are thought to have fled the country, joining terrorist groups elsewhere, The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) reported Wednesday.[...]

Unclear was whether any of the 11 former Guantanamo Bay detainees participated in terrorist attacks, the Times said.

U.S. counterterrorism officials have confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri, a Saudi released from Guantanamo in November 2007, was the deputy leader of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaida and suspected of being involved in a deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen last year.

Obama: U.S. choosing words carefully in terror war

Winning the "hearts and minds" of Muslims?

It appears Obama is going to implement the new lexicon of "sensitive" words introduced by various U.S. governmental agencies. However, not only will he most likely drop words such as "Islamic terrorism," "radical Islam," "jihadists," and so forth; the all but generic term, "war on terror," also appears to be on its way out. Obama's logic? "Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds." More on the "words matter" debate.

"Obama: US choosing words carefully in terror war," by Lolita C. Baldor for the Associated Press, February 3 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

WASHINGTON – When talking about terrorism — words matter, President Barack Obama said Tuesday.

Asked in a television interview why he hasn't used the oft-repeated "war on terror" phrase coined by the Bush administration, Obama said he believes the U.S. can win over moderate Muslims if he chooses his words carefully.

"Words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds," Obama said in an interview with CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

The Associated Press reported Saturday that Obama has used the catch phrase just once, in contrast to its repeated use by the Bush administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Instead, Obama has spoken broadly of the "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism" and pledged to "go after" extremists and "win this fight."

"I think it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations," Obama said Tuesday. "But that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community."

He added that he believes the U.S. can convince Muslims "that we should be working together to make sure that everybody has got a better life."

Former President George W. Bush launched his war on terror just hours after planes piloted by terrorists slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania countryside. "America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism," he said, warning days later that, "this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

"Do most really believe it makes sense to shut down Gitmo for world adulation, while we possibly put Americans at greater risk by relocating these jihadists within our borders?"

Maybe Obama and Murtha and Co. think the jihadists are not dangerous -- that they are poor innocent lambs caught up in George W. Bush's Islamophobic Crusade.

They may be surprised.

"Top 10 Reasons Gitmo Should Be on Alcatraz," by Chuck Norris in Human Events, February 3 (thanks to James):

All joking aside, remember when America was known as being tough and compassionate? Will we now polarize from waterboarding to being pantywaists?

Do most really believe it makes sense to shut down Gitmo for world adulation, while we possibly put Americans at greater risk by relocating these jihadists within our borders?

Is Time magazine serious when it suggests six possible domestic military facilities, from New York City to San Diego, as the new home for these enemies of the state?

Was Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) serious when he told Fox News last week that he'd offer his own district as a future dwelling place for the 245 Gitmo terrorist detainees? He said: "Sure, I'd take them. They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo. … There's no reason not to put them in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."

Do Americans really want terrorists -- such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11 -- on our soil?!

In Robert Spencer's excellent new book, "Stealth Jihad," he documents well how radical Islam is subverting America via intentional and pervasive subtleties throughout our culture. Rather than crashing into our buildings with planes, they're breaking down every stratum of society using our tolerance and passivity. Rather than overpowering America through combat, they are influencing Americans of all ages by saturating the soils of our minds that there is nothing to fear from extreme Islam's theology or presence. We've shifted from protecting Americans to defending the terrorists. Our universally accommodative spirit literally is opening the doors for those who seek to destroy us, and Gitmo is just more proof of that.

While we worry about the way the rest of the world sees us, we are stomping upon the souls of Americans. Have we forgotten so quickly? Can our politicians not see? Have we lost our 9/11 minds? Gitmo's closing and future relocation reflects upon the families and friends of those precious souls who sacrificed everything on the battlefields of the Middle East, in the Twin Towers, on Flight 93 and at the Pentagon. We've memorialized their sacrifices; let's not bury their memory.

UN: Hamas stole blankets and food meant for the poor, starving Palestinians

It's amazing that they didn't find a way to blame the cruel oppressive Zionists for this one. But that may have been Hamas' intent: to keep the Palestinians in a state of want that they could then exploit for propaganda purposes against Israel. "UN says Hamas seized Gaza food aid and blankets," from AP, February 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

JERUSALEM – A U.N. spokesman says Hamas police in Gaza have seized thousands of blankets and food parcels meant for needy residents.

Spokesman Christopher Gunness says Hamas police raided a U.N. warehouse in Gaza City on Tuesday evening. He says police snatched 3,500 blankets and more than 400 food parcels....

Israeli officials have charged that the militant group routinely confiscates supplies meant for needy Gazans....

Spencer: Obama Misunderstands the Global Jihad

In this week's Human Events column, I explain that Obama misunderstands the true nature and dimensions of the jihad threat -- as did his predecessor.

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.” So said Barack Obama in his first interview as President, which, in a highly significant symbolic move, he gave to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya network.

For the new president, it amounted to little better than a preemptive surrender to jihadist ideology.

Obama emphasized what he perceived as a break with the past in relaying the instructions he gave to his personal envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell: “What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved.”

Yet Obama himself has not thus far demonstrated any awareness of -- to take just one of many available examples -- the fact that one of the foremost Islamic groups in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood, is dedicated in its own words to “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion” -- Islam -- “is made victorious over all other religions.”

Does Obama think this imperative was caused by the United States being dictatorial and ignorant? Does he believe it will be turned aside by some judicious listening by George Mitchell? Will Obama himself listen to anyone who will tell him about the deep roots that jihadist aggression and Islamic supremacism have within Islamic theology, law, and history? Or will he continue to assume that the conflict between the Islamic world and the West is all the West’s fault?

UK woman admits producing leaflet that misunderstood Islam

Somehow she got the nutty idea that jihad had something to do with waging war against non-Muslims. Ah, the glorious complexity of the concept of jihad in Islam! How many Muslims misunderstand it as having something to do with warfare and supremacism!

"Woman admits producing jihad leaflet," from Pendle Today, February 4 (thanks to Twostellas):

A woman from Oldham has admitted that she produced a leaflet which encouraged terrorism.

Shella Roma, 28, pleaded guilty to dissemination of a terrorist publication at Manchester Crown Court.

The charge was brought under Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006.

Roma, of Chester Street, committed the offence between October 2007 and January last year. The leaflet urged readers to go abroad to fight a jihad or holy war.

She was jointly accused with her 30-year-old husband, Amjad Mahmood, who denied the charge. The pair were due to go on trial this week.

Roma, who has a baby, had 200 copies of the leaflet she wrote printed at a photocopy show in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester.

She was arrested after the shop assistant tipped off police about the leaflet, an eight page essay entitled The Call.

It contained theological, political and historical commentary and mentions the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the war on terror....

She had them raped and then turned them into suicide bombers so they could escape the shame

Mother of the Believers

Otherwise they would have been killed anyway -- by stoning as adulterers -- but this way, they were celebrated as heroes.

"Iraqi woman had 80 women raped then recruited as suicide bombers," from Agence France-Presse, February 4 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A WOMAN suspected of recruiting more than 80 female suicide bombers has confessed to organising their rapes so she could later convince them that martyrdom was the only way to escape the shame.

Samira Jassam, 51, was arrested by Iraqi police and confessed to recruiting the women and orchestrating dozens of attacks.

In a video confession, she explained how she had mentally prepared the women for martyrdom operations, passed them on to terrorists who provided explosives, and then took the bombers to their targets.

"We arrested Samira Jassim, known as 'Um al-Mumenin', the mother of the believers, who was responsible for recruiting 80 women'', Major General Qassim Atta said....

U.K.: Some jihadists under house arrest "manage to maintain some contact with terrorist associates ... and a determination to become operational in the future"

Abu Qatada's story is looking less like an isolated case. "Britain: 15 terror suspects under house arrest," by David Stringer for the Associated Press, February 3 (thanks to Sr. Soph):

LONDON -- Terror suspects being held under Britain's house arrest-style detention program are in contact with extremists and plan to carry out attacks in future, the lawyer responsible for overseeing the country's terror laws said Tuesday.

Britain's Home Office said 15 terror suspects are being held under the regime, which monitors suspects who are considered a risk to national security but have not been charged with a criminal offense.

Suspects must observe strict curfews, wear an electronic tag and can be banned from using cell phones and the Internet.

Lord Alex Carlile, who oversees Britain's terrorism laws, said that though suspects can be banned from meeting certain individuals, some are still in touch with known extremists.

Some suspects are able to dodge checks and "manage to maintain some contact with terrorist associates ... and a determination to become operational in the future," Carlile said in an annual report published Tuesday.

"For some people, these measures simply aren't doing the job, while for others, they violate the basic legal principle that we are innocent until proven guilty," Chris Huhne, a lawmaker with the opposition Liberal Democrat Party said.

Carlile said that the number of people held under the program had risen since last February, when around 12 suspects were being monitored.

He said that since the program was introduced in 2005, a total of 38 people have been held - 23 of whom have been released or deported out of Britain.

But Carlile, who sits in the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat lawmaker, said that the government has ignored his warning that suspects should not be held under the program from more than two years.

Some suspects have been held for more than 3 years under the program, he said.

Gaddafi: Closer to becoming "president" of the U.S.A. (United States of Africa)

"The Bible is forged; you are a loser"

So says the the new chairman of the African Union, an organization that represents millions of Christian Africans. "Africa: Anti-Christian Gaddafi Takes Over as AU Chair," from AllAfrica.com, February 3:

President Muammar Gaddafi whose public statements have had the potential of worsening the delicate Muslim-Christian relations in Africa was on Monday elected chairman of the African Union (AU).

The Libyan leader replaces Tanzania's Jakaya Kikwete in the one-year-term position that is held on a rotational basis by a head of state from Africa's four regions. His pet subject is greater African unity.

"I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa," Gaddafi said in his inaugural speech, but admitted that African leaders were "not near to a settlement" on the issue.

Gaddafi, on his 40th year in power, has for the past decade pushed the unity agenda, but without sensitivity to the continent's religious reality. Christianity and Islam are Africa's main religions.

The man who has previously dismissed the Bible as a forgery and Christianity as a religion not meant for Africans will for the next year be the spokesman for a continent where religious tensions have sometimes erupted into violent confrontations.

On the other hand, Christian minorities, especially in North Africa, do not enjoy freedom of worship and continue to suffer official discrimination.

In the past two years, Gaddafi has used celebrations to mark the birthday of Prophet Mohammed to disparage Christianity. Last year while visiting Uganda, he delivered a tirade against the Bible, dismissing it as a forgery.

"The Bible we have now is not the one that was revealed to Issa [Jesus], and the Old Testament is not the one that was revealed to Musa. Mohammed is mentioned in both (original versions), but in the Torah and Bible we have now, there is no mention of him," he said.

"It means that it (Bible) has been forged. Prophet Mohammed was sent to mankind. Allah wanted mankind to have one religion. The Koran that we have is the only book that was sent by Allah."

In 2007, the Libyan leader said it was a mistake to believe that Jesus had been crucified and killed. "It is not correct to say that. Another man resembling Jesus was crucified in his place," Gaddafi told a mass prayer meeting in Niger to mark the birth of Prophet Mohammed.

Christianity, he added, was not a universal faith alongside Islam. "There are serious mistakes - among them the one saying that Jesus came as a messenger for other people other than the sons of Israel," he said.

"Christianity is not a faith for people in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Other people who are not sons of Israel have nothing to do with that religion."

"All those believers who do not follow Islam are losers," Gaddafi said. "We are here to correct the mistakes in the light of the teachings of the Koran."

The Libyan leader seized power in a military coup d'état in 1969, deposing the monarchy and imposing socialism and Islamic orthodoxy on the country.

Al-Qaeda's Zawahiri mocks Obama

"The sacrifices of Gaza, and the conspiracies"

Apparently calling the U.S. Commander in Chief a "house negro" was not enough. "Al-Qaida No. 2 criticizes Obama over Gaza," by Maggi Michael for the Associated Press, February 3:

CAIRO (AP) — Al-Qaida's No. 2 criticized President Barack Obama for not mentioning Gaza in his inauguration speech, and urged Muslims around the world to target U.S. interests to avenge American backing of Israel's offensive against Hamas.

In a new audio recording posted Tuesday on the Internet, Ayman al-Zawahri also called on Muslims to continue fighting in the Gaza Strip, where a two-week truce remains fragile.

While Obama later voiced concerns about the killings of civilians, "in his inauguration speech, he gave no mention to what happened in Gaza," al-Zawahri said.

"As for Obama, he has expressed his worries over the killing of civilians in Gaza. Worried? We really appreciate your worries Mr. Obama," he said. "We have learned about your worries, as well as about thousands of the missiles and white phosphorus," al-Zawahri added in a reference to charges that Israeli forces used phosphorous shells in a way that burned civilians in Gaza.

The recording was the second al-Zawahri has posted this year about the three-week offensive that began on Dec. 27. The terror network's chief Osama bin Laden also issued an audio message on Gaza in January, urging Muslims to launch a jihad against Israel.

"The path to fighting the occupation is open to all Muslims," al-Zawahri said in the recording accompanied by video and still images from the Gaza offensive. "Bring weapons into Gaza. ... Punish everyone who stands against Gaza and the rest of the Muslim world."

Al-Qaida holds little influence among Palestinians but the network's Gaza-related postings are likely aimed at harnessing Muslim anger about the offensive and channeling it at the new U.S. administration.

The authenticity of the 17-minute recording could not be independently confirmed but it was posted on an Islamist militant Web site known as a clearing house for al-Qaida messages.

The recording opened with video scenes of Gaza, showing buildings exploding and wounded crowding into hospitals. Then it settled into a montage of still photographs showing the white-turbaned al-Zawahri, dead Palestinian children, and photographs of Egyptian and Saudi leaders, as well as French President Nicolas Sarkozy standing next to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Hamas rival.

Al-Zawahri, who is Egyptian, also lashed out at Arab rulers. He singled out Egypt for refusing to open its border with Gaza and preventing humanitarian access to the strip.

"Anybody who imposes a siege on Gaza is an enemy," he said.

He urged Muslims to not just protest, but to attack U.S. and Israeli targets.

"The Israeli and American interests are spread everywhere," he said. "If it (attack) doesn't work in one place, it's possible in other places. And if the enemy fortified some of its interests, many others remain without cover and under threat."

UK: Muslim dad told 10-year-old to flog himself

What does this have to do with jihad? Everything. The fact that this man was punished is a welcome indication that multiculturalism has not triumphed in Britain to the extent that this case was waved away on cultural grounds. In order to resist Islamic supremacism, Western nations will need to recover a sense of themselves -- a willingness to defend certain principles, and at the same time to declare other unacceptable for free people in Western societies. This story is a sign that at least some people are prepared to do that.

"Muslim dad told 10-year-old son to flog himself," by Emma Stone for the Coventry Telegraph, February 2 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm):

A WARWICKSHIRE man encouraged his 10-year-old son to flog himself during a centuries-old Muslim ceremony, a court heard.

Jurors found the 47-year-old guilty of being cruel to a child after they heard the youngster, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was allowed to beat himself at a mosque in Birmingham.

His father, who also took part in the ceremony, was given a suspended jail term.

Prosecutors said the man, who works as a taxi driver and lives in Rugby, was the second Muslim to be convicted of cruelty as a result of allowing a boy to take part in the Matam Zanjeer ceremony.

During the ceremony, men who follow the Shia faith beat themselves with a Zanjeer – a wooden implement which has chains and blades attached to it – to commemorate the death and martyrdom of a 7th century Muslim leader.

The father, who also took part in the ceremony, had denied cruelty during a trial at Huntingdon Crown Court.

The court heard that the boy had participated in the ceremony in January 2007.

Mozammel Hossain, defending, told Judge Nicholas Coleman that the father had acted out of “love” and “devotion”.

“What he did, it is very clear, was out of devotion – religious – and his love for his son, in a very funny sort of way, and for his god,” said Mr Hossain.

“He loves his son ... his son loves him.”

“The same thing was done to him. This is the way he has seen life. His father took him to Pakistan. He wanted his son to be a man the way he himself is.”...

Flogged for love.

Wilders re-invited to speak at the House of Lords!

The House of Lords recovers its spine.

Wilders had been invited to screen Fitna before the House of Lords, but was then disinvited. In "The intimidation of the House of Lords," February 3, the incomparable Melanie Phillips (thanks to Pamela, who has more on Lord Ahmed) explains why, and what happened next:

But various representatives of the British Muslim community protested; and Lord Ahmed issued a threat that he would personally mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the Upper House and would take the peer organising the event to court. In the face of such threats, the meeting was cancelled.

Lord Ahmed then boasted of his victory in the Pakistani media. The Associated Press of Pakistan reported him exulting in

a victory for the Muslim community.

It was of course a major defeat for Parliament’s sovereign right and duty to protect free speech, the right to issue an invitation to a democratically elected member of a European parliament, and the right of British citizens to live without intimidation. It was an appalling development.

Now, however, it is fighting back. Wilders has been re-invited to speak and screen his film in the Lords later this month. Parliament now has a second chance to show that jihadi thuggery will not be allowed to prevail within the cradle of democracy. But if it is really to demonstrate this, it should also surely take action against Lord Ahmed, who abused his position as a peer of the realm to threaten mass intimidation of the House in which he sits. If it fails to do so, it will be another notch on the ratchet of Britain’s slide into submission.

Wilders appeals prosecution on free speech grounds

The battle to defend free speech against Islamic attempts to snuff it out is joined in the Netherlands. The outcome of this case will affect the whole world. "Anti-Islam lawmaker appeals hate speech charges," from The Associated Press, February 3 (thanks to Twostellas):

AMSTERDAM: A right-wing lawmaker says he has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to halt his prosecution on hate speech charges for anti-Islamic remarks.

"Right-wing": AP thus semaphores to its readers that Wilders is evil, not to be trusted, not to be supported.

In fact, there is nothing "right wing" about supporting the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law against Islamic supremacism.

Geert Wilders says the remarks — including labeling the Quran a "fascist" work and calling for it to be banned — fall within the realm of normal discourse and his prosecution threatens his right to freedom of speech.

In March 2008, Wilders released the film "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses with violent film clips and images of terrorism by Islamic radicals....

Those "Islamic radicals," of course, are the ones who actually connected the Qur'an with violence. But it isn't they who have aroused the anger of the Islamic world. It is only Wilders, because he is an Infidel who has dared to speak out against this religiously sanctioned violence.