Boo-ya!

Separating the men from the boys.

Remarks by former Vice President Dick Cheney
Center for Security Policy

Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran’s leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic’s authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime in Tehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran’s democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran’s democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran’s protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran’s authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President
Bush’s bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings (until the Era of O) – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Thank you very much.

H/T Yid With Lid

“Islam is clearly not a religion of peace. It is a framework for establishing power and conquest” – Chapter 3

Dare to Speak
Islam versus Free Democracy and Free Enterprise
By Al Bailey

Introduction
Much has been written about Islam, its ethics, and its relationships with other religions. Despite this large volume of work, there appears to be something missing, something even more basic and important to people of all faiths. What is missing is a study of Islam with regard to governance, particularly regarding its relationship to what we call democracy. The goal of this book is to fill the gap by providing this investigation and presenting its findings.

Why choose this subject? Because, throughout the world, we receive starkly conflicting information about Islam. Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace. They also claim that our democratic traditions of religious tolerance require us to respect the freedom of Muslims to practice Islam. At the same time, we see Muslims practicing violent religious intolerance around the world. This intolerance is often against their non-Islamic neighbors, who range from Orthodox Russians to Sudanese Christians, Hindu Indians, Catholic Filipinos, and Buddhist Thais. Additionally, Muslims practice religious intolerance against each other. We hear of Sunni Muslims persecuting Shiite Muslims, Shiite Muslims persecuting Sunni Muslims, and Wahhabis persecuting everyone else.

Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Yet many people fail to associate the violence committed by Muslims with Islam itself. They steadfastly seek alternative explanations, such as colonialism, tribal tensions, racism, and poverty. They refuse to even consider the idea that Islam may be inherently aggressive and intolerant toward other religions.

This self-deception cannot continue for long. Islam’s presence and influence is growing throughout the world, and it demands our attention. For example, Nigeria’s northern states announced their conversion to Islamic Law in 2002 by sentencing several women to death by stoning for adultery. In 2006, the entire nation of Denmark was terrorized by Muslims around the world because a mid-sized, independent Danish newspaper published some political cartoons of Muhammad.

An ever-growing cascade of violence tells us that we are approaching a time when we will have no choice but to confront two disturbing possibilities:

• Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy as we know it, because it opposes the individual freedoms and protections that citizens of democracies cherish.

• Muslims are in the process of using our own democratic institutions to subvert democracy and to replace democratically determined law with Islamic Law.

Before you dismiss these words as bigotry, please allow me to explain:

In the United States, we have embraced principles of tolerance and freedom that may be described as “live and let live.” Applied to religion, “live and let live” means that no one has the right to force their beliefs on others; nor may they prevent others from changing their beliefs. While Americans may not always live up to these principles, we aspire to them, and use our freedoms to correct ourselves as we progress.

5
Tolerance and freedom are essential parts of what we call democracy, which political theorists usually call Liberal Democracy or Western Democracy.

In Dare to Speak, this form of democracy is called Free Democracy. Religious tolerance is an essential principle we live by in the United States and throughout the Westernized world. This principle has evolved from centuries of futile religious battles that caused us to violate the very beliefs we claimed to fight for. It was codified in complete form by the Constitution of the United States, which has been an example and a beacon of hope for nations around the world. While these nations have created constitutions of their own, to serve their particular circumstances, the U.S. Constitution has remained a guiding reference for progressive thinkers everywhere. Why? Because it exemplifies a framework for governance that grants unprecedented powers and freedoms to its citizens.

In contrast, there is a part of the world where Free Democracy has not flourished, and its freedoms are not valued. Free Democracy did not evolve there, and we are discovering that it does not grow there, despite a variety of working examples in other parts of the world. This infertile soil is the House of Islam.

Why has the form of democracy we cherish failed to take root and grow in the Islamic world? Because Islam ties religion and politics together in a Gordian knot. Islam has its own body of laws, known as Shari’ah,1 and these laws sharply oppose Free Democracy. Islam and Free Democracy are as opposed to each other as Communism and Free Democracy, or Fascism and Free Democracy.

Many people refuse to consider the possibility that Islam and Free Democracy are irreconcilably opposed to each other. After all, the benefits of Free Democracy are obvious, and many Islamic nations have worked diligently to adopt it. Unfortunately, the fruits of these efforts confirm that Islam and Free Democracy do not mix. Islamic nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Algeria have histories of secular governments, but those governments have uneasy relationships with their citizens. These nations have often found themselves resorting to warlike tactics against Islamic fundamentalists to preserve themselves. In Iran, Islam’s mullahs won such a war, and they now use their authority to thwart the superficially democratic institutions they control.

What makes Islam different from other religions? Why is it hostile to Free Democracy? To put it plainly, it does not believe in “live and let live.” Devout Muslims do not feel obligated to convince others to convert to Islam through reason. Instead, the Koran encourages them to use persecution. According to the Koran,2 people of other faiths are allowed to continue in their practices only if they acknowledge that Islam is a superior religion and pay extortion money to an Islamic government in the form of special taxes.3 This exception, which is extolled by Muslims as an example of tolerance, is actually designed to grind down other religions to nothing over time. To people who are weak, or young in their faiths, this persecution raises a…

_{1 Also referred to as Sharia or Shariah.}

_{2 The Koran, which is also spelled “Qu’ran” or “Quran,” is a compilation of the recitations of Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be literal words of Allah.}

_{3 Jizyah, which is a per capita tax imposed on adult male non-Muslims living under Muslim rule.}

6
…question: “Why pay extra taxes and accept an inferior position in society when all I have to do is convert to Islam?”

In a sense, these mercenary conversions are a saving grace. There are many Muslims in the world who are Muslim in name only. They know that if they left Islam, their Apostasy4 would be considered a capital crime. They are prisoners of their faith instead of believers. Therefore, the apparent strength of Islam can be deceptive, and many nominal Muslims are far more benevolent than Islam calls them to be.

Many of us Westerners grew up ignorant of Islam. Therefore, with few experiences to contradict our democracy-inspired beliefs, which seek to accommodate different religions, we have absorbed the notion that the world’s religions as merely different paths to the same goal. For people who still believe this, the words of this book will come as a shock, because they reveal that Islam violates this assumption. Dare to Speak will show that Islam is overtly hostile toward other religions. More importantly, it will show that Islam is overtly hostile to non-Islamic governments.

This book will also uncover the subterranean war that Muslims are currently waging against the world’s Free Democracies. It will lay out the issues, provide references to back them up, and begin to discuss the actions that Westerners can take to preserve Free Democracy for future generations.

This book quotes extensively from the Koran (a compilation of recitations that Muhammad claimed were Allah’s) and the Hadith (compilations of Muhammad’s other words and deeds), as well as recent news articles and modern religious books written by Muslims. It does so to demonstrate two key points:

1. The portions of Islamic holy scripture that carry disturbing messages are not merely stray quotes in otherwise benign books. They are essential components of Islam, and the Koran and the Hadith emphasize them repeatedly. Faithful Muslims take these messages seriously and act on them.

2. The actions of Islamic terrorists around the world are not merely the products of a few deviant minds or some splinter group; they come from the violent messages of one “eternal” source: Islamic holy scripture .

Dare to Speak will demonstrate that, as long as Islam is treated as a respectable religion, and not as a hostile political ideology bent on global domination, Islam will continue to expand and sow its seeds of terror throughout the world. If we allow this to happen, the nations that currently embrace Free Democracy may one day find themselves destitute and chaotic, with their democratic laws replaced by Islamic ones.

As you read this book, you will find many references embedded directly into the text rather than exiled to appendices or footnotes. This structure gives you direct access to the sources of Dare to Speak’s assertions, to help you view them easily and form your own conclusions.

_{4 The abandonment of one’s religion. While most religions frown upon Apostasy, Islam views it, in specific legal terms, as the greatest of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. It is a crime punishable by death.}

7
If, after reading this book, you doubt its assertions, please do your own independent research. With vast resources and newspaper archives available on the Web and in libraries, your job will be easy and inexpensive. As a starting point, I highly recommend the University of Southern California’s “Compendium of Muslim Texts,” which provides on-line access to three translations of the Koran, plus a comprehensive compilation of hadiths, along with keyword search functions for all texts. You can find this site at www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html.

Please do not dismiss or pre-judge the points of this book if they disagree with what you want to believe. You have a duty to yourself and your family to understand the issues we face, so that you can respond to them appropriately. Your actions may impact your children far more than yourself.

Before moving on to the first chapter, I would like to tell you why I call this book Dare to Speak. According to Islamic Law, these writings could easily be interpreted as insulting to Islam, and to Muhammad himself. The punishment for such insults, according to Shari’ah, is severe and may include death. Therefore, by writing to you, I am truly putting my life on the line. But this is why I feel I must speak. If I was silenced by fear, it would already be too late; Islam would be in control of my life, and yours.

8
Chapter 1: The new Cold War
Back in the exciting days of the late ‘80s, when it became apparent that Communism had failed, and that Free Democracy held the keys to the future, Francis Fukuyama wrote a hopeful article called The End of History? which was later expanded into a book.5 As he saw it, history records the evolution of society. Through it, we have learned how primitive tribes progressed through various forms of government and economy in a series of experiments that ultimately led to a perfected structure that Fukuyama felt could no longer be improved. He believed that, while actual governments and laws may still evolve, the basic structures of modern democracy, including Free Enterprise and the fair treatment of minorities, were firmly established and needed no additions. He, and many others, believed that the battle between Communism and Free Democracy was the last great conflict of humankind. The popular image of Afghani Muslims at the time was that of courageous freedom fighters, who helped the West finally break the back of the Soviet Union. With the Cold War over, we could all look forward to pounding our swords into plowshares and cashing in on the “peace dividend.”

Only one minor problem remained: the Middle East. But Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres 6 were having productive talks in Oslo, 7 and, in 1994, their break-through agreements won them the Nobel Peace Prize. The 1979 revolution in Iran was seen by the general public as an isolated case in an isolated country. The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon in 1984, which killed 240 Americans, was portrayed as political rather than religious, and rooted in Europe’s occupation of Ottoman territories after World War I. Somalia’s bloody rejection of U.S. aid in 1993 was blamed on inept interference in a chaotic country that the U.S. did not understand. But all those issues were mere side-shows. The main event was Peace in the Middle East. A giddy world prepared for the revelry and looked forward to giving history its final curtain call.

Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist for negotiating away too many Jewish demands. Later, the few remaining negotiating points became stumbling blocks that broke the whole deal. On September 28, 2000, Yasser Arafat declared the Intifada, 8 and Israeli-Palestinian relations fell apart.

An amazing detail in this deadly deterioration is that the area of land that broke the deal is less than 50 square miles, and most of it is barren wasteland.9 Equally amazing is the fact that no one seems willing to point out that it is absurd to rage eternally over such small stakes. Why do we ignore the apparent silliness of these people, who sacrifice thousands of lives over a small expanse of arid dirt? It might be because it is too embarrassing – we would rather think….

_{5 The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama, 1992, publisher: Penguin Books}

_{6 At the time, Yasser Arafat was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel, and Shimon Peres was Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.}

_{7 Capital of Norway.
8 Arabic term for “uprising.” The Intifada referred to here is more formally known as the Al Aqsa Intifada, or the Second Intifada. It refers to the uprising of Palestinians against Israel, beginning in September 2000, which began as hopes for a resolution on issues unsolved by the 1993 Oslo Accords deteriorated.}

_{9 Apartheid Wall, by Nigel Perry, The Electronic Intifada, 2000-2002 Palestine Independent Media Center.}

9
….that the world is being rocked to its foundations by something important. To Americans, living in a country formed by the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, and the Gadsden Purchase, the situation is unfathomable. If the parties involved really wanted to solve their problems, they could readily do so through some kind of purchase or land swap. There is obviously something more ominous afoot, and it has little to do with land.

Other events soon revealed that history was not going to end any time soon. They included the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. The United States responded but was ineffective. The country was so caught up with Bill Clinton’s trysts with Monica Lewinski that people barely noticed. Osama bin Laden was a shadowy, unknown figure who had rarely surfaced in the news before these attacks. Some cynics even viewed him as a convenient distraction from Bill Clinton’s impeachment process. After bin Laden openly declared war on the United States, the U.S. assailed him with a military fly-swatter – an ineffective cruise missile attack – and then returned to its scandals.

On September 11, 2001, everything changed. With the Twin Towers collapsing in a cloud of dust, a gash in the Pentagon billowing smoke, and Flight 93 smashing into a Pennsylvania field on its way to Washington, presumably to the White House, the United States woke up and declared its War on Terror and Osama bin Laden.

But how could Osama bin Laden, an outlaw in a remote part of the world, with only a few thousand terrorists at his disposal, strike such a devastating blow? And, how could he elude capture even to this day?

The answer is that bin Laden is not an outlaw: his actions were condoned by his Afghan host, the Taliban. And, despite his apparent outlaw reputation among most Islamic governments, he was considered by many citizens of those governments to be a combination of Robin Hood and spiritual leader. These people saw him, and still see him, as a hero for declaring Jihad 10 against the Infidel West, and they cheer his tirades against the United States.

The alarming truth is that the only thing that can keep Osama bin Laden at large while a $25 million dollar reward hangs over his head is the intense loyalty of a vast multitude of Muslims.

<sub>10
1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
2. A crusade or struggle. – The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.</sub>

[Continue reading online at Scribd]

Related:

Hizb ut-Tahrir: Spread Islam or Die Trying

The Enemy Has Breached The Gates

Also see: American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us- Steven Emerson

Full video of Private Bowe Berdahl in Taliban captivity. They have threatened to kill
him if the U.S. does not pull out of Afghanistan.

Why hasn’t Obama spoken out on this hostage situation?
Where are his empty words?

Mangy flea bitten Islamic barbarians. May they die a thousand deaths.
So much for closing GITMO to save Soldiers. I have a news flash for the spineless Obama admin.
Even if GITMO never existed –at all. The bloodthirsty savages would still do all they could to harm
and kill our Troops.

It’s what they do.

Related:
Hey Obama! Haven’t You Heard! An American Soldier was a Victim of Jihad on US Soil [Update2: Terror mosque ties?-WH finally issues a statement]