Category Archives: Counter Jihad

Four California Prison Inmates Convicted of Plotting Terrorist Attacks

Posted on by

Three were American citizens, one a Pakistani. The leader, Levar Hanley Washington, is a Muslim convert who was allowed to form a Muslim group in prison that preached, among other things, the necessity of Muslims to murder Jews, Americans and “infidels.” He was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

His co-defendants will be sentenced later.  N.T.A. reports that the Pakistani defendant, Hammad Samana is a legal U.S. resident.

Religion of peace? What are the chances that four members of a “tiny minority of extremists” would end up in the same prison?

Three Ohio Jihadis Convicted on Terrorism Charges

Posted on by

Mohammad Amawi, Marwan El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum were convicted of a variety of charges, including plotting to attack troops in Iraq, by a federal jury in Toledo, Ohio. The case is interesting because The NEFA Foundation has released one of the expert reports used to convict the men which gives details of the evidence against them but more importantly has a succinct operational history of Al-Qaeda. It’s a must read.

Along with Jihad Incorporated by Steve Emerson and Future Jihad by Walid Phares this report by Evan F. Kohlmann belongs in the library of any serious counter Jihadist.

America Pretty Much the Only Country in the World Where You Can Tell the Truth about Islam

Posted on by

Western Civilization is truly ending. America definitely stands alone:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia: A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States did not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Under Canadian law, there is a serious argument that the article contained hate speech and that its publisher, Maclean’s magazine, the nation’s leading newsweekly, should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions in Vancouver last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up animosity toward Muslims.

As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions – even false, provocative or hateful things – without legal consequence.

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone.” The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”

“But in the United States,” Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”

In other words America’s really the only free country left in the world. Read the rest if you want to be depressed. There is a movement afoot by Americans to limit free speech. Surprise, they’re “liberals” who think they can “fix” the First Amendment to make it better:

Some prominent legal scholars say the United States should reconsider its position on hate speech.

“It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,” Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, “when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.”

Waldron was reviewing “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment” by Anthony Lewis, the former New York Times columnist. Lewis has been critical of attempts to use the law to limit hate speech.

But even Lewis, a liberal, wrote in his book that he was inclined to relax some of the most stringent First Amendment protections “in an age when words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism.” In particular, he called for a re-examination of the Supreme Court’s insistence that there is only one justification for making incitement a criminal offense: the likelihood of imminent violence.

The imminence requirement sets a high hurdle. Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to, and be likely to, produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article – or any publication – aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not.

Lewis wrote that there is “genuinely dangerous” speech that does not meet the imminence requirement. “I think we should be able to punish speech that urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” Lewis wrote. “That is imminence enough.”

Attitudes like this on the left are why I’ll begrudgingly end up voting for McCain. The most chilling quote is here however:

“In Canada, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, nor should it be,” the commission’s statement said. “By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to ‘the West,’ this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others.“

I’d always thought Muslims promote prejudice toward Muslims through embassy bombings, honor killings and modern day slave trading.

Islam is a religion, a way of perceiving reality. Those of us who aren’t Muslims have the right to challenge that view. That’s a right we are born with regardless of what country we are in and it is a right fascistic ideologies steal from people, sometimes in the name of tolerance.

Look, I think people have the right to be Muslim. But that doesn’t change what Islam is. It is an imperialist, racist, expansionist, violent ideology that has the subjugation of the world as its ultimate goal.

Islam teaches Arab superiority and Black inferiority. God in Islam is understood to be an Arab. He speaks Arabic, he promotes Arabic culture and custom. This is why racist attitudes among Arab Muslims are, toward Blacks especially, so overt. Islam is similar to Christian Identity in that it presents believers with a god who is of a particular ethnicity and one that favors that group above all others. Unlike Christian identity, however, Islam is universalist, so it seeks to force all other groups to conform to the favored group’s status. In other words, Arabization.

Many people may disagree with my assessment, but the facts I use to form my opinion are all verifiably true. The Koran was recited in Arabic, it enshrines Arab culture as holy. Arab Islam in Africa was always a racist affair, and continues to be today. These are facts and in Canada and most western countries I’d be forced to ignore them in the name of harmony.

It is no wonder fundamentalist Muslims, unfettered by modern western pretentiousness, have made vast inroads into the other western countries. No one is allowed to speak out against them. No one is allowed to challenge them and their assertions. The First Amendment in America is literally protecting our country from Arabization.

So we can’t afford to let “liberals” alter it help spare Muslim feelings.

Yet Another Snuff Film Uploaded to YouTube

Posted on by

Trench found this on Sky News. This time a 17-year-old Russian uploaded a grisly video of a massacre, including images of terrified men having their throats slit. My money’s on it being from Chechnya, where Jihadists still roam free. Islamists are known for their love of snuff films, which would explain why the heavily Islamized YouTube community let the film stay up for days without flagging it.

From Sky:

Thousands of people have been able to watch a sickening video showing the massacre of young Russian men before it was eventually deleted from YouTube.

The horrific footage shows the terrified men lying beside a road having their throats slit in turn.

It was posted on Sunday, May 18. Three days later it was still there and had been viewed more than 8,300 times.

YouTube promises that videos flagged by users as inappropriate will be removed from the site.

The film clip was removed within two hours of Sky News Online contacting YouTube on Wednesday.

One sickened Sky News Online user, Robert Read, said: “This video was horrific to me, a 33-year-old man, so just think what affect this would have on someone like a child!”

The 10-minute video was apparently posted by a 17-year-old Russian.

The description which accompanied it said: “This is a little part of the full horror!”

Mr Read said: “While the video title and description was in what looked to be Russian or a similar script that is no excuse for YouTube to allow such videos on to a public website.

“If YouTube cannot discriminate against foreign language entries like they can with English text… then maybe they should review their policies. Ideally, every video should be checked by a moderator.”

YouTube says its own community of users police their site.

Yes, they police the site by banning Conservatives and uploading snuff films. The whole community policing concept falls apart if the community is made up of Jihadists, child pornographers and anti-American kooks.

As Trench points out in his post, YouTube’s parent company Google has no trouble moderating content for the Communist Chinese, so why can’t they keep snuff films and child porn of YouTube?

Maybe they just don’t want to?

CNET: Snuff Films, Jihadi Training Videos Protected by The First Amendment

Posted on by

I wasn’t going to post about this story but my mild comment was considered a violation of CNET’s terms of service. I’ll post that comment at the end but first the story.

YouTube has a long history of providing degenerates with quasi-legal or in some cases illegal spank material. Child exploitation is de rigeur on YouTube and Jihadists often post snuff films on the site. More to the point YouTube provides a forum for Islamists to not just state their views, but recruit, train and engage their followers. Joe Lieberman sent this letter to YouTube management:

May 19, 2008

Dr. Eric Schmidt
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Dr. Schmidt:

YouTube is being used to share videos produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. The purpose of this letter is to request that Google implement its own policy against this offensive material, remove these videos from YouTube, and prevent them from reappearing.

Today, Islamist terrorist organizations rely extensively on the Internet to attract supporters and advance their cause. The framework for much of this Internet campaign is described in a bipartisan staff report released last week by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (“Committee”), which I am privileged to chair, titled Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat. The report explains, in part, how al-Qaeda created and manages a multi-tiered online media operation that produces content intended to enlist followers in countries all over the world, including the United States. Central to this media campaign is the branding of content with an icon or logo to guarantee authenticity that the content was produced by al-Qaeda or allied organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, Ansar al-Islam (a.k.a Ansar al-Sunnah) or al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb. All of these groups have been designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) by the Department of State.

Searches on YouTube return dozens of videos branded with an icon or logo identifying the videos as the work of one of these Islamist terrorist organizations. A great majority of these videos document horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. Others provide weapons training, speeches by al-Qaeda leadership, and general material intended to radicalize potential recruits.

In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training – activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack. YouTube also, unwittingly, permits Islamist terrorist groups to maintain an active, pervasive, and amplified voice, despite military setbacks or successful operations by the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

YouTube posts “community guidelines” for users to follow, but it does not appear that the company is enforcing these guidelines to the extent they would apply to this content. For example, the community guidelines state that “[g]raphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don’t post it.” Many of the videos produced by one of the production arms of al-Qaeda show attacks on U.S. forces in which American soldiers are injured and, in some cases, killed. Nevertheless, those videos remain available for viewing on YouTube. At the same time, the guidelines do not prohibit the posting of content that can be readily identified as produced by al-Qaeda or another FTO.

I ask you, therefore, to immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons identifying their provenance. In addition, please explain what changes Google plans to make to the YouTube community guidelines to address violent extremist material and how Google plans to enforce those guidelines to prevent the content from reappearing.

Protecting our citizens from terrorist attacks is a top priority for our government. The private sector can help us do that. By taking action to curtail the use of YouTube to disseminate the goals and methods of those who wish to kill innocent civilians, Google will make a singularly important contribution to this important national effort.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this critical matter and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT)
Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

In other words, YouTube is allowing Al-Qaeda and their fellow travelers break the terms of service YouTube already has. Lieberman wants YouTube to ban people posting snuff films and hate speech, some things YouTube supposedly does now.

Google’s answer to this is to tell Lieberman to suck it. I’m paraphrasing of course, but fellatious Google groupie Charles Cooper has the company’s statement on his CNET piece that strongly implies Lieberman is lying about the availability of offensive material on YouTube:

Senator Lieberman’s staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Of course we all believe there are hundreds of Jihadist videos which do not advocate violence and hate.

Videos containing hate speech are routinely left up if they’re popular and draw enough of eyes to YouTube’s ads. Frank Weltner of Jew Watch has a YouTube channel that has been flagged dozens of times (several times by me) yet he remains unbanned. The anti-Semitic channel called Synagog of Satan has been up since June of 2007. They’re videos breaking the YouTube terms of service but are still up.

I point these two out to show the rank hypocrisy of YouTube when they claim that to be on top of hate speech. Only a person who has never used the site or is completely in the tank could fall for such vapid nonsense. Enter Charles Cooper, who has this to say about Lieberman’s letter:

When I learned that Lieberman wanted Google to pull what he described as “terrorist content” from YouTube, my first thought was that his PR director obviously was incapacitated. But no, this was a team effort in scare-mongering.

Scare mongering. Strong stuff. Then he uses YouTube’s “nuanced” statement claiming that there is no hate speech on the ‘tube to further castigate Lieberman:

That important distinction was glossed over in Lieberman’s official communications with the company. Of course, Google’s refusal to play ball may get it featured as a candidate for Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Point segment, but management’s entirely right to stick by its principles. Lieberman’s gone hunting with a blunderbuss, lumping violent and hateful content together with unpopular points of view. In this instance, Google did no evil.

I know we’re about to get into the thick of the political silly season, but no less than a veteran U.S. Senator should take a look at the United States Constitution now and then. It’s one heck of a document. Really.

If Cooper took a look at the Constitution he’d see that it in fact doesn’t apply to foreign terrorists. But that aside Cooper could have looked at YouTube for 20 minutes and seen that their official statement was essentially false. The Jawa Report included a link to this Jihadi snuff film in their post on this story. I found several within five or so minutes of searching. Most of which had the logo Lieberman discusses.

The Jawa Report also gives Cooper a quick lesson in Constitutional law:

Seems to me like Charles Copper of CNET and Eric Schmidt of Google need to read International Emergency Economic Powers Act as well as executive orders 12947 and 13224. All of which are quite constitutional.

See when a US company hosts videos (or other propaganda) created by specially designated terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda with the goal of aiding their war against the United States, that is unlawful.

Maybe Cooper should stop checking Wikipedia for his facts on the Constitution and check an actual law book.

Now what about this comment considered too hot for CNET? Boilerplate I assure you, just a response to some geek’s claim that Lieberman should be ashamed of himself. It seemed tame to me but judge for yourself:

So videos of beheadings, stoning, soldiers being shot by snipers etc, is free speech? I thought they were snuff films.

Let me test my understanding of the theories of Hunter and Whoreallycares, the author et al. If I go out and film myself and my crew stomping a couple of Ron Paul supporters to death, add some catchy music and upload it to YouTube, you guys would allow it to stay up because of “free speech?”

The Bill of Rights doesn’t give you the right to film yourself killing people. And YouTube is not legally allowed to profit from snuff films, but they are.

I mean, so the video of that girl getting jumped by that gang is protected by free speech? What about a rape? Child rape? All those things are protected by the First Amendment?

Maybe the Americans who should be ashamed are the ones who won’t bother to learn about the sort of videos being objected to before making their pretentious pronouncements of “patriotism.” YouTube has exploited snuff films and allowed child porn blogs to advertise through their channels for years, all for advertising dollars. As an American that should offend you.

By the way, the Bill of Rights, as Ron Paul and the Libertarians are fond of reminding people, only applies to Americans, not Al-Qaeda operatives from other countries.

But the above violates their terms of service. I thought they were defenders of The First Amendment, but I guess only if you’re an Islamist posting videos of how to make pipe bombs.