Posted on 10/19/2003 8:08:29 AM PDT by knighthawk
A year ago, when the self-regarding buffoon Chief Moose was bungling the Washington sniper investigation and the cable-news shows were full of endless psychological profiles of "white male loners," a few of us columnists entertained the notion that the killer was linked to Islamist terrorism. My colleague Richard Roeper thought this was so absurd that he very kindly apologized to Sun-Times readers on my behalf. "An awful lot of conservatives really, really wanted the snipers to be terrorists," explained Richard. "But they were wrong. I'll say that because they never will."
Even at the time, the Roeper position required a certain suspension of disbelief. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim, a supporter of al-Qaida's actions, a man who marked the events of Sept. 11 by changing his name to "Muhammad" and a man who marked the first anniversary of Sept. 11 by buying the Chevy Caprice subsequently used in the sniper attacks. Coincidence? Of course! According to Richard Roeper, it's only a handful of conservative kooks who'd even think otherwise.
Interesting item from the London Evening Standard last week:
"Evidence has emerged linking Washington sniper John Allen Muhammad with an Islamic terror group. Muhammad has been connected to Al Fuqra, a cult devoted to spiritual purification through violence. The group has been linked to British shoe bomber Richard Reid and the murderers of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan last year."
Hmm. Might be nothing. Might be just another coincidence. Lot of them around at the moment -- like that Saudi Cabinet minister who coincidentally stayed in the same hotel on the night of Sept. 10 as some of the 9/11 terrorists. Just one of those things. But the authorities seem to be taking the links more seriously than when they first surfaced a year ago.
Here's another coincidence: The guy who heads up the organization that certifies Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military was arrested at Dulles Airport last month and charged with illegally accepting money from Libya. The month before that, Abdurahman Alamoudi was caught by the British trying to smuggle some $340,000 into Syria.
Think about that for a minute. Ten years ago, at an American military base, at a ceremony to install the first imam in this country's armed forces, it was Alamoudi who presented him with his new insignia of a silver crescent star. And the guy's a bagman for terrorists.
Infiltration-wise, I'd say that's pretty good. The arthritic bureaucracy at the CIA say oh, no, it would be impossible for them to get any of their boys inside al-Qaida. Can't be done. But the other side has no difficulty getting their chaps set up in the heart of the U.S. military.
What kind of chaplains did Alamoudi's American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council pick out to serve our men and women in uniform? Well, among them was Captain James "Yousef" Yee, recently detained under suspicion of spying at Guantanamo Bay. Also arrested were two Arabic translators, found with classified documents from Gitmo on their CDs, etc.
Infiltration-wise, that's also pretty good. The CIA say sorry, folks, the best we can do with all the gazillions of dollars we get is monitor phone calls from outer space. But the other side has no difficulty getting their boys inside America's most secure military base and principal terrorist detention center.
The Pentagon, of course, is taking this subversion of its chaplaincy program seriously. It's currently reviewing all its chaplains. By "all," I mean not just all the Muslim chaplains, but also all the Catholic, Episcopalian, Jewish ones. After all, it might just be another one of those coincidences that the chaplain detained for spying is Muslim and that the organizations that certified him are Muslim. Best to investigate the Catholics just to be on the safe side.
If the Democrats hadn't decided to sit out the war on terror by frolicking on Planet Bananas for the duration, they could be seriously hammering the administration on this. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was converted to radical Islamism while in prison by a chaplain who came to Britain under a fast-track immigration program for imams set up by Her Majesty's Government. They felt they had a shortage of Muslim chaplains and not knowing much about the business or where to look for 'em felt it easiest to put up a big neon sign at Heathrow saying "Hey, mullahs, come on down!" It all seemed to be working well until they noticed that these guys seemed to be the spiritual mentors of a lot of the wackiest terrorists.
So how come two years after Sept. 11 groups with terrorist ties are still able to insert their recruiters into America's military bases, prisons and pretty much anywhere else they get a yen to go? It's not difficult to figure out: Wahhabism is the most militant form of Islam, the one followed by all 19 of the 9/11 terrorists and by Osama bin Laden. The Saudis -- whose state religion is Wahhabism -- fund the spread of their faith in lavishly endowed schools and mosques all over the world and, as a result, traditionally moderate Muslim populations from the Balkans to South Asia have been dramatically radicalized. How could the federal government be so complacent as to subcontract the certification of chaplains in U.S. military bases to Wahhabist institutions?
Here's an easy way to make an effective change: Less Wahhabism is in America's interest. More Wahhabism is in the terrorists' interest. So why can't the United States introduce a policy whereby, for the duration of the war on terror, no organization directly funded by the Saudis will be eligible for any formal or informal role with any federal institution? That would also include the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute, whose "adjunct scholar" is one Joseph C. Wilson IV. Remember him? He's the fellow at the center of the Bob-Novak-published-the-name-of-my-CIA-wife scandal. The agency sent him to look into the European intelligence stories about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium in Africa. He went to Niger, drank mint tea with government flacks, and then wrote a big whiny piece in the New York Times after the White House declined to accept his assurances there was nothing going on. He was never an intelligence specialist, he's no longer a "career diplomat," but he is, like so many other retired ambassadors, on the House of Saud's payroll. And the Saudis were vehemently opposed to war with Saddam.
Think about that. To investigate Saddam's attempted acquisition of uranium, the United States government sent a man in the pay of the Saudi government. The Saudis set up schools that turn out terrorists. They set up Islamic lobby groups that put spies in our military bases and terror recruiters in our prisons. They set up think tanks that buy up and neuter the U.S. diplomatic corps. And their ambassador's wife funnels charitable donations to the 9/11 hijackers.
But it's all just an unfortunate coincidence, isn't it? After all, the Saudis are our friends. Thank goodness.
I am still very angry that NYTNBCABCCBS suppressed the Muslim angle of the snipers at every possible opportunity.
Bwaaa!!!
What??? Has this been reported before???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.