Friday, January 4, 2013

Documents emerge: "Moderate" Muslim may have been a key player in the 9/11 attacks

Anwar al-Awlaki - “a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West,” -- New York Times editorial, Oct. 19, 2001

by Eric Dondero

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch writing at David Horowitz's Front Page was way ahead of the game. Actually, one of his readers "Carolynn," tipped him off and deserves a great deal of credit.

From Front Page, December 23, 2012, "Flashback: Anwar al-Awlaki Leading Muslim Prayers on Capitol Hill, 2002":
In 2002, PBS produced a documentary on the life of Muhammad, Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. I wrote in a National Review article at the time that the documentary presented an “attractively packaged, sanitized version of Islam.” It features Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong; Daisy Khan, the deeply deceitful “moderate” who shot to national prominence in the Ground Zero mosque controversy, and others of that ilk.

But now Jihad Watch reader Carolynn has alerted me to the fact that it is also noteworthy for capturing the slain jihad terror mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki, who was in contact with Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; and others, leading Muslim prayers on Capitol Hill. Screenshots above show the minute mark where you can see him in the video.
Pentagon rolled out the red carpet for al-Awlaki in 2002, as a "new generation" of moderate Muslim leader

And then there's this. Keep in mind Spencer wrote this 13 days ago, Dec. 23:
Awlaki was widely reputed to be a “moderate” at the time, but that’s just the point. One of the supposed “gotcha” quotes that Leftists and Islamic supremacists like to use against me is one in which I said that there is “no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists.” This video, however, shows that to be absolutely true: no one was getting up and walking out on al-Awlaki, or saying he shouldn’t be preaching or leading the prayers.
Now a stunning new revelation by Fox News early this morning. Fox, America's largest most-watched news network busts the story wide open and confirms all the facts revealed, and the dots connected by Spencer a mere 13 days ago: "Radical American Cleric May Have Booked Pre-9/11 Flights for Hijackers":
The FBI suspected within days of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that the American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may have purchased tickets for some of the hijackers for air travel in advance of the attacks, according to newly released documents reviewed exclusively by Fox News.

The purpose of these flights remains unclear, but the 9/11 Commission report later noted that the hijackers had used flights in the lead-up to the attacks to test security and surveillance.

The heavily redacted records – obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of information Act request – suggest the FBI held evidence tying the American-born cleric to the hijackers just 16 days after the attack that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

“We have FBI documents showing that the FBI knew that al-Awlaki had bought three tickets for three of the hijackers to fly into Florida and into Las Vegas, including the lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told Fox News.

He added that the records show the cleric, killed in September 2011 by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, “was a central focus of the FBI's investigation of 9/11. They show he wasn't cooperative. And they show that he was under surveillance.”
Al-Awlaki arranged flights for Muhammed Attah, other 9/11 hijackers

And then there's this:
One FBI investigative report known as a 302 summarizes the bureau’s investigation of Al-Awlaki’s Visa transactions. While heavily redacted, the document indicates a credit transaction for “Atta, Mohammed -- American West Airlines, 08/13/2001, Washington, DC to Las Vegas to Miami," the document says. The mid-August flight, according to the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, which first investigated the attacks, was one of Atta’s numerous and crucial surveillance flights.

"On August 13, Atta flew a second time across country from Washington to Las Vegas on a Boeing 757 (seated in first class) returning on August 14 to Fort Lauderdale," the 9/11 report reads.

The FBI documents also show a credit card record for a “Suqami, S. ----Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, Ft. Lauderdale to Orlando.” Satam al-Suqami was one of the muscle hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.

The third individual, identified in the records is a “W. al-Sheri -- National Airlines, 08/01/2001, San Francisco to Las Vegas to Miami.” This appears to be either Waleed al-Shehri or Wail al-Shehri. The two brothers were also muscle hijackers, according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Awlaki infiltrated the Bush administration in 2002; Muslim operatives in the Obama administration?

The first obvious question that arises from these newly discovered documents, is why are the documents so "heavily redacted"? What are the Feds concealing from us? Other names perhaps associated with the 9/11 attacks of individuals who are now deemed "moderate Muslims"? Individuals perhaps that are associated with the Obama administration?

Keep in mind, that til this day, the Los Angeles Times refuses to release the video tape of Barack Hussein Obama giving a toast at a dinner to suspected terrorist, Rashid Khalidi (photo above). From Glenn Beck's TheBlaze, Sept. 20, 2012, "LA TIMES REAFFIRMS IT WILL NOT PUBLISH MYSTERIOUS OBAMA, KHALIDI RECORDING":
The release of the hidden camera Mitt Romney video this week is reminding some conservative bloggers of a talked-about story four years ago, and they’re now asking if and when another potentially explosive videotape will see the light of day.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit writes:
Say, where’s that Obama/Khalidi tape? Why won’t the L.A.Times release it? Oh, who am I kidding? They won’t release it because it would make Obama look terrible. What other reason can there be?
The Daily Caller writes:
Speaking of secret tapes, remember Rashid Khalidi? The LA Times hopes you don’t.
Daily Pundit writes:
So sure, I want to hear the “misssing” two minutes of the incomplete video. But you know what I’d really like to see? The video of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi to the skies currently being suppressed by the hack propagandists at the Los Angeles Times.
Non-interventionists, left-libertarians, Pat Buchananites with a little egg on their faces

Obviously these new documents are an embarrassment for a number of individuals and groups. Of course, the liberal media, NY Times, PBS, and the whole alphabet soup of networks. Once again Fox News has scooped them all, on a story that they probably prefer remained untold. And the appeasors of Islam in the Democrat Party, including a great many on Capitol Hill need to be confronted on these new findings. Congressional hearings called by brave hawk Republicans?

But what about some elements on the American right, and the soft on Islam wing of the libertarian movement?

Ron Paulists, Pat Buchanan Paleo-conservatives, the Jesse Ventura/Alex Jones 9/11 Truther crowd, and non-interventionists in general now have some explaining to do. Seems their line, that "not all Muslims support Jihad on the West," is a tad bit optimistic. Keep in mind these groups are vicious opponents of Robert Spencer, Horowitz and our friend Ayn Rand individualist Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs.

But it's not just the Paleos. It's the NeoCons too. Their policy of appeasement of the Arabs, working with them, particularly "our friends the Saudis." Their efforts over the years to increase our foreign aid budget to friendly Arab nations from keeping them from turning radical. It would appear now, that the whole notion of a non-radical Muslim is suspect. Awlaki, a supposed non-radical who "we could work with", has now been discovered to be a key player in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC and a plane that went down in the fields of western Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

Those who diss Robert Spencer as an extremist, write Fox News off as some silly "wingnut" network, and castigate those of us in the pro-defense wing of the libertarian movement who call for a toughening of the War on Islamism, now have some serious "'splainin'" to do.

More at FoxNewsReporting, "The secrets of 9/11 revealed" May 4, 2012.


Gary said...

***** Pat Buchananites with a little egg on their faces *****

Yeah, all that blood and treasure spent on wars really chaged the Muslim world.

Eric Dondero said...

Problem was Gary, we only fought a half-assed War. We went after Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were involved with 9/11, but we ignored the real culprits (and the money bags behind the attacks):


We didn't understand that this was an attack by the entire Muslim World on the West. And the proper response should have been all-out War with the entire Muslim world.

Eric Dondero said...

Same deal with the Soviets. We fought "little wars" in Vietnam and Korea, and scuffles in Central America, instead of taking on the Soviets head on.

Fuckin' shit. Will we ever fucking learn? Ever?????

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Eric Dondero said...

Hit the tip jar!

Erich Domdero said...

Go to a psychiatrist!

Charlie said...

"Same deal with the Soviets. We fought "little wars" in Vietnam and Korea, and scuffles in Central America, instead of taking on the Soviets head on." - Eric

If memory serves we won the Cold War and didn't Nuke the planet in the process LOL! Damn you're delusional Eric...

The Right Guy said...

who says we won the cold war? You take a short view.

Chuck said...

Better yet, who but a fool would claim we "nuked" the planet? Over a hundred thousand American men died in Viet Nam and Korea fighting Communism.

The Right Guy said...

and to point, North Korea and Vietnam are still communist. So is Cuba. Russia isn't, but they are still our enemy, make no mistake about it and China is still communist and bigger and better than ever.

Charlie said...


The only "fool" is you who did not read. I said we DIDN'T Nuke the planet, vis-a-vis Eric's call for an equally destructive Holy War.

Charlie said...

"Who says we won the cold war?" - RG

Anyone who looks around and sees that the world is more safe and free than it's ever been. Communisim has been completely discredited as an ideology and Russia and China are slowly becoming free societies.

Who's not taking the long view here????

Erich Domdero said...

I have to say that if your enemy no longer exists, you won the war.

Erich Domdero said...

Eric also calls for the extermination of a group of people due to their religion. But Obama is the nazi, not him.

The Right Guy said...

You don't Charlie. Our enemies think in 100 year increments. You think in 4 year increments. As far as Russia and China becoming freer...By whose standars? China has forced abortions, reeducation camps and people still disappear when they get in the way of progress. As far as Russia goes, they see us as an adversary and Putin doesn't preside, but rules. A slightly kinder and gentler totalitarian state is still that. On the other side of it, we are becoming more like they are. In the net, we aren't freer.

Charlie said...

"In the net, we aren't freer." - RG

I disagree. Worldwide and as a whole, humanity is freer. All the abuses you cite happening in China and Russia we're significantly worse during the cold war.

China will change the one child policy at some point due to market pressures. The new wealthy in China will push for a more open society as it leads to greater profit.

As for Russia Putin is a puppet of the Russian industrial class just as Bronco Bama is. And you are correct their freedoms are expanding while ours are contracting, but all this does is confirm my thesis. The West's values CLEARLY won the Cold War and humanity is benefiting greatly from that victory.

Do you propose in 100 years we will be living in some totalitarian dystopia as opposed to a world that has incrementally moved toward greater liberty for all??? I thought I was the javascript:void(0)pessimistic nihilist around here :-)

The Right Guy said...

The rest of the world may become freer or parts of it, but I see the US going the other way. To put it another way, the world won't be as free as we once were and neither will we. In that scenario, it's all downhill.

Eric Dondero said...

Yeah, who says we won the Cold War? We thought we won it. And now we have a Marxist in the White House, and Putin is laughing at us.

Eric Dondero said...

"Communism has been completely discredited???"

Really, than how is it that America has elected its first Communist ever as president in its 233 year history?

Eric Dondero said...

And Venezuela and Chavez?

Eric Dondero said...

Hell, the Communist Party USA didn't run a candidate in 2012. First time since they were formed in the friggin' 1910s. They instead endorsed Obama.

The Right Guy said...

And China, NK and Cuba are still communist. Then we have the dictatorships. Right in our own back yard we have Chavez and his puta Kirchner. It's easy to go up when you are at the bottom, but if you are at the very top, it's a long way down.

Eric Dondero said...

But Jim, the world's biggest Communist is right here in our own backyard.

Communism with a smile and a golf club, is still Communism.

The Right Guy said...

He's a fabian communist, which is the worst. Yup, we have to clean up our own house first, but how? The GOP seems bent on shooting itself in the foot and the LP has as much chance at the white house or any majority than bill barty would have had at playing center for the lakers.

Charlie said...

"To put it another way, the world won't be as free as we once were and neither will we" - RG

Who's to say??? The thing is globalization is full of unintended consequences. We're unlikely to have a Nuclear Holocaust because of MAD. There's now a certain economic MAD that keeps things from getting to crazy between us and our enemies. That cross borders economic freedom could/should lead to greater personal freedom.

As for how "free" we were, tell that to those who disagreed with Honest Abe... Or the Japanese-Americans interned during WW2... Or someone who didn't feel killing Vietnamese was in their or the country's best interests... Or Randy Weaver...

We've been under the illusion of freedom since the beginning. Compare the illusion to the reality and we're not doing so badly vis-a-vis history.

The Right Guy said...

And yet we are still better than the rest, freer than the rest. Believe me, if I thought there was a better country, I would move there and it's still possible in my lifetime.

Eric Dondero said...

And yet Charlie, all the way up until the mid-1990s the government didn't force us to wear seat belts in our cars. I'd say freedom has gone down hill dramatically in the last few years.

Eric Dondero said...

What's changed is the nanny-state. We didn't have a nit-picky government before. We could smoke, bang chics in the backroom of the office, have a whiskey lunch, talk any way we so pleased without having to worry about "offending" some constituency.

Mr. Mcgranor said...

This moderate nonsense is the terminology of a compromised, or non-existent faith. What most are not emphasizing is the politics--not religion behind these terrorists and paramilitary groups. Such groups seek not an establishment of a caliphate and the murder of Christians; but a resistance towards Globalism, America's New World Order, and Israel worship.
We Paleoconservatives respected the Mid-Eastern demand for hegemony in their area, and we respect the sovereignty of nation-states and the autonomy of the mid-East's prospective cultures. However when that happen the neoconservative call to holy war and dispensationalist noahidism caused disdain for our side. As we also lost some respect for the Mid-East.