Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Get Ready for Twenty World Trade Center Bombings (A MUST READ interview from 1997)
Middle East Forum ^ | June 1997 | Steven Emerson

Posted on 09/22/2001 6:16:00 AM PDT by Bull Man

Get Ready for Twenty World Trade Center Bombings

Search for: 
 Current Issue
 Past Issues
 Subscribe
 Submit Manuscript
 Board of Editors
 Contact Editor

The Middle East Quarterly

June 1997

Get Ready for Twenty World Trade Center Bombings
By Steven Emerson

Steven Emerson is the author of four books on the Middle East and, since 1993, the foremost specialist on the subject of fundamentalist Muslim activities in the United States. Formerly a staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a journalist for U.S. News & World Report and Cable News Network, he produced the documentary Jihad in America that PBS broadcast in November 1994 and won the George Polk Award for best television documentary. Daniel Pipes interviewed him on April 8, 1997.

THE THREAT

Middle East Quarterly: Do fundamentalist Muslims pose a threat to the United States?

Steven Emerson: No doubt. All the major terror groups of a fundamentalist orientation have established deeply routed, well-organized cells and infrastructure here -- Hamas Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, as well as the Algerian groups, Islamic Salvation Front and Armed Islamic Group. They believe in the use of violence to carry out their doctrine and to achieve their goals. This is not just my assessment but the publicly stated view of top officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation who repeatedly state that deeply entrenched radical Islamic groups have the ability to strike here in the United States at will.1

MEQ: How do these groups intend to achieve their agenda in the United States?

Emerson: They use the United States as a sanctuary in which they can raise funds, recruit new members, directly control Middle Eastern operations, and initiate terrorists attacks. They also use it to spread da`wa [i.e., to propagate Islam].

MEQ: Did the fundamentalists assess the World Trade Center bombing of February 1993 as harmful to their interests?

Emerson: Yes, at this point Islamic fundamentalists are withholding attacks inside this country, so the current threat is much more to Americans overseas and other Western targets. Not only have funds from the United States paid for the terrorist attacks, but actual recruits have been sent from here on actual missions to fight "infidels" and set up jihad battlefronts in Algeria, Bosnia, Israel and the territories, Lebanon, Chechniya, and the Philippines.

MEQ: At some future point things here will change for the worse?

Emerson: The rage against the United States is increasing. In an environment that not only sanctions terrorism but mandates terrorist attacks against "enemies" of Islam, the question is how long the quiet can remain.

MEQ: The absence of attacks in America since 1993 does not mean the problem of fundamentalist violence has abated?

Emerson: Not at all. If anything, the threat is greater now than before the World Trade Center bombing as the numbers of these groups and their members expands. In fact, I would say that the infrastructure now exists to carry off twenty simultaneous World Trade Center-type bombings across the United States. And as chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons become available to them, the threat becomes ever more ominous. Just because someone holding a gun to your head doesn't pull the trigger should not be understood as the threat not existing. It would be suicidal to permit our national security to depend on the good will or rationality of radical fundamentalists.

MEQ: And in the meantime, what are they doing?

Emerson: They use the United States as a base to spread the word of extremism, to proselytize, and to recruit new members to their interpretation of Islam. They also make efforts to become entrenched and legitimate so that they can provide a base here for the entire panoply of radical policies inimical to the democracy, pluralism, and respect for the individual that characterize Western political life.

MEQ: Might the radical groups limit their violence to American interests outside the United States?

Emerson: No, because these groups are unable to restrict their hatred for the United States to certain geographical regions.

MEQ: You told Congress a year ago that "both Hamas and Islamic Jihad have not only raised considerable ... funds in the United States but have also set up operational headquarters in the US where terrorist attacks and military strategies are orchestrated."2 What proof do you have?

Emerson: Example one: Court documents video tapes seen and other intelligence material relating to the investigation by law enforcement officials of Islamic Jihad in Tampa, Florida. Prior to his assuming leadership of Islamic Jihad in Damascus in October 1995, Ramadan `Abdallah Shallah had been an instructor at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Equipped with several search warrants, the FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service retrieved tens of thousands of documents showing that his Florida office had served as the major operational arm of Islamic Jihad outside Syria.

Example two: law enforcement has identified the Islamic Association for Palestine as the primary Hamas front group in the United States. Its December 1996 conference in Chicago included Islamic extremists from the Middle East, Hamas commanders based in the United States, and radical supporters of Hamas from all parts of the United States. Several of the more secretive sessions included a discussion about killing Jews and other "enemies of Hamas."

Example three: the activities of Hamas in the United States were revealed when materials relating to the case of Musa Abu Marzook, its operative arrested at JFK airport in July 1995, were publicly released. These documents clearly established that Abu Marzook had been dispatching agents to Israel to carry out terrorists attacks. Investigators even found the checks by which he paid his U.S.-based couriers.3

CURRENT ISSUES

MEQ: Given the strength of this proof, why did the Israeli government announce on April 3, 1997, against seeking Abu Marzook's extradition?

Emerson: It feared an outbreak of terrorism just at a time when Palestinian-Israeli relations were already at the breaking point. I think it was a bad decision by the Israelis, who did not hold true to their principles: it showed that terrorists can win. Abu Marzook will be received as a hero who stood up and defeated the United States and Israel. Whenever terrorists make demands it's easiest to cave in and accept the demands, such as releasing someone like Abu Marzook; but as terrorists see that intimidation works and resort to this again and again, the longer-term price will be high. The Israeli decision was not a proud moment for those who believe in counterterrorism and justice.

MEQ: In a related case, why is Anwar Haddam, the leader of the Algerian group Islamic Salvation Front (or FIS), in an American jail since December 1996? Are the charges against him valid?

Emerson: Haddam came to the United States in 1993, ostensibly to seek political asylum but really to use it as a base to orchestrate FIS strategy and actual terrorist operations. The INS studied his case and determined in December 1996 that he had been directly involved in promoting acts of terrorism. Haddam was taken into custody when the INS ruled against his application for asylum, initiating the process of exclusion.4 FIS not only has its own military wing but it has major structural connections to the GIA [Armed Islamic Group], an organization that all agree is terrorist. That makes Haddam an official of an organization that has carried out terrorist acts. More importantly, he not only sanctioned terrorism but was involved in orchestrating attacks.

MEQ: Was the shooting spree carried out by a Palestinian gunman at the Empire State building in February 1997, killing one person and wounding six, related to the organized fundamentalist movement? The man, `Ali Hasan Abu Kamal, left behind a note in which he accused the United States of using Israel as "an instrument" against Palestinians?5

Emerson: We don't know at this point. This is still being investigated. Indications exist that others knew of his attack. For example, Abu Kamal apparently purchased his weapon in Florida together with someone else from a mosque in Florida and practiced his new weapon on a target along with another person from that same mosque.

Even if turns out that Abu Kamal acted totally alone, I have no doubt that his compulsion to carry out this would-be massacre resulted from an intellectual environment created by the radical groups. He lived in an atmosphere that demonizes Jews, Americans, and other "enemies of Islam." Terrorism need not be directly organized by an ayatollah sitting in Qum or a Hamas commander in Gaza or Chicago. In the United States, as in Israel and some Arab countries, individuals take it upon themselves to avenge an "assault against Islam" or to "fight in the path of God" by killing innocents.

HOSTILITY TO THE WEST

MEQ: Please characterize the views of fundamentalists toward the United States.

Emerson: They have a visceral hatred of the United States and the values it represents.

MEQ: From what comes this hostility?

Emerson: In their own literature and speaking to one another they are very candid about seeing a profound an all-encompassing war between Islam and the West. Let me give you an exact quote or two from conferences of the Muslim Arab Youth Association, on organization sponsoring annual meetings since the late 1970s. Sheikh Mohammed Siyyam of Hamas declared in December 1989 that "the Islamic solution is the only solution, the fighting, that is the military solution, is the only solution ... America is the sworn enemy and it is from her that the Jews take the weapons and soldiers.6

Kamal Hilbawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, told thousands of radical fundamentalists in Oklahoma City in December 1992, that the Palestinian cause is conflict "between truth and falsehood. Between two inclinations -- one Satanic, headed by Jews and their [Christian] co-conspirators and the other -- religious, carried out by Hamas, the Islamic people in general and the Islamic movement in particular."7

MEQ: These are exceptional statements?

Emerson: Hardly. I have analyzed materials from some ten MAYA conferences and have found repeated exhortations to audiences to strike against "infidels," to instill terror in the hearts of the "enemy", to slaughter Jews, to engage in jihad against the "West" and destroy it, and so forth. You get the picture.

GOALS

MEQ: What are the short-range goals of fundamentalist Muslims in the United States?

Emerson: To strengthen worldwide their movements financially, politically and militarily.

MEQ: What about ultimate goals?

Emerson: Ultimately, incredible as it seems to us, to turn the United States into an Islamic country. They believe the world has to be made Muslim, preferably through da`wa but if necessary through other means. They seek to impose the Shari`a [Islamic sacred law] and even to resurrect the caliphate.8 The success of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan prompted some of them to turn their sights on Western targets. Strange as it sounds, they think that they brought down one super power: one down, one to go. You have to see the World Trade Center bombing in light of that ambition.

They are sometimes publicly explicit about this goal. The Muslim, a British-based Islamic fundamentalist publication, appeals to Muslims, "let us not hesitate in preparing for Jihad against the unbeliever--to subjugate the world to Islam."9 Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (or CAIR) openly declares that he would like to see the U.S. become a Muslim country.10Abdulrahman Alamoudi, head of the American Muslim Council, stated at the Islamic Association for Palestine conference in December 1996 that the United States will become a Muslim country, even if it takes a hundred years.

MEQ: Islamic history shows two main patterns of conversion: from above, by taking control of the state, or from below, through individual conversion. How do they hope to make the United States a Muslim country?

Emerson: Most fundamentalist groups in the United States seek to spread Islam through da`wa, by establishing moral leadership and proselytizing individuals. As the same time, keep two points in mind. First, the radicals also support groups that seek to topple, from above, the non-fundamentalist regimes in the Middle East. Second, strategies change. Hamas, or its precursor, for many years did not carry out violence in Gaza because it deemed themselves not to be ready for this. It adopted violent methods against Israelis only when saw the success of Islamic Jihad, which used violence, and was jealous of its popularity.

LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES

MEQ: If the fundamentalist groups and leaders hate the United States so much, why do they live here?

Emerson: It is an apparent paradox, but the United States is the best place to operate from. American laws make this country the freest in the world -- which is precisely what attracts foreign militants to come here. The FBI labors under serious restrictions that prevents it -- unless there is evidence of specific criminality -- from monitoring groups who advocate violence or other extremist policies. These groups know about the FBI's limitations and take advantage of them. They also take advantage of the fact that they are nearly impervious to infiltration by the authorities, speaking foreign languages and living in a different cultural universe. Living here benefits them in other ways too: modern technology makes it possible for them to spread ideas via faxes and the Internet all over the world, and instantly to transfer monies and give instructions.

MEQ: Is the United States more attractive for them than Western Europe?

Emerson: They are equally attractive, although Europe is closer to their homelands and a lot easier to infiltrate. On the other hand, Western Europe is a bit more arbitrary about imposing restrictions on immigrants. The United States seems less inclined to crack down on radicals.

MEQ: Why is that?

Emerson: For several reasons: the American belief in near-absolute free speech, the rights of immigrants, and the rule of law -- all principles I strongly endorse, by the way.

ORGANIZATIONS

MEQ: What's the reach of the radical groups?

Emerson: They have created a substantial social-religious infrastructure in the United States like in the Middle East, one that is radicalizing segments of the Muslim population and getting them to see the United States as an "enemy of Islam." This extremist environment, which fails to get appropriate media attention, is rapidly growing. For evidence, just look at the growing numbers who attend radical conferences and the proliferation of militant Islamic organizations. Look also at the near-unanimous defense of Hamas and Hizbullah terrorism, among not only radical Islamic groups but even such "moderate" Arab groups and leaders, such as James Zogby. Look how the established Muslim and Arab organizations spread anti-American and anti-Semitic literature and videos.

MEQ: Which fundamentalist organization do you consider the most threatening?

Emerson: The ones that succeed most in deceiving the White House, Congress, and the media. They advance themselves politically largely by creating false-front organization that permit them falsely to portray themselves as moderates who reject violence and are committed to pluralism and civil rights. These groups remind me of David Duke, a former KKK leader who has also put together a "human rights" organization; or how the mafia created an Italian-American civil rights group to intimidate its critics; or the communist front groups of old.

MEQ: Which are some of those groups?

Emerson: The most duplicitous include the American Muslim Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both Washington-based and portraying themselves as in favor of "civil rights" and "dialogue" but in fact dedicated to an ideology of violence, the suppression of true freedom of speech, and discrimination against women. These groups also defend and support militant Islamic terrorist groups.

Specifically, the American Muslim Council helped raise defense funds for Hamas terrorist leader Musa Abu Marzook; defended Omar Abdel Rahman, the militant cleric who organized the World Trade Center bombing; portrayed Iran and the Sudan as "moderate" regimes with good human-rights records; and headquartered Anwar Haddam, a leader of Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front (known as FIS), a fundamentalist group that has carried out horrific executions of (among others) Algerian women who refuse to wear a veil.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has branches around the country, was created by the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that former FBI official Oliver Revell has labelled a Hamas front.11 CAIR attacks those who expose militant Islam as "defaming Islam." As such, it hopes to import the "Salman Rushdie rules" to intimidate opponents, though instead of proclaiming fatwas, it claims that their writings lead to "hate crimes" against Muslims. Toward this end, CAIR fabricates acts of anti-Muslim bias. For example, they claim both the arrest of Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook and the conviction of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman as acts of "anti-Muslim" persecution. CAIR is Hamas with a K Street address in Washington. But a terrorist in a suit remains a terrorist.

MEQ: Are the AMC and CAIR the only groups you consider dangerous?

Emerson: Hardly. The Islamic Circle of North America (or ICNA) proclaims in writing its support for jihad, or holy war, against the "enemies of Islam"; its U.S.-based conferences and publications are replete with the need to support the terrorist regime of the Sudan and the need to support "Islamic movements" in which category they include Hamas and the Islamic Salvation Front among others. ICNA's hatred of Jews is so fierce that it has taunted Jews with a repetition of what Hitler did to them.

The Islamic Society of North America features speakers who have issued radical attacks on the United States, Christians and Jews as well as fundraising events for arrested terrorists. The United Association for Studies and Research is Hamas' strategic arm in the United States; its leader, Ahmed Yusef, has called for the annihilation of Jews. The Islamic Association for Palestine and it cousin charity, the Holy Land Fund for Relief and Development are Hamas fronts. The World Assembly for Muslim Youth and the International Institute for Islamic Thought are two wealthy Islamic foundations that provide millions of dollars to other smaller radical groups. The Muslim Arab Youth Association has featured speakers who openly exhort their followers in the United States to carry out suicide bombings.

MEQ: The MAYA conference included calls to commit violence in the United States?

Emerson: Calls for attacks against the United States do not differentiate geographically between in or outside the United States, at least in the materials I have examined. But bear two important facts in mind. Documents from the World Trade Center trial show that several of the conspirators attended the MAYA convention in Oklahoma City in December 1992; there is good reason to believe that they discussed the World Trade Center attack at that time. Also, American intelligence suspects the famous expatriate Saudi Usama bin Ladin has ties to the two bombings against American troops in Saudi Arabia as well as to the World Trade Center bombing; my evidence also shows he has a network of financial and political extremists operating throughout the United States.

MEQ: But were they calling for violence in the United States itself?

Emerson: What's the difference? There's hardly any distance between support for terrorism against the "enemies of Islam" in Palestine and carrying out attacks against the "co-conspirators of the Jews" -- meaning the United States. Despite the claims of apologists, you cannot claim to favor peaceful dialogue with the West while supporting terrorism or a militant version of Islam that would destroy the West's very nature.

THE APPEAL

MEQ: What do you see as the appeal of fundamentalist Islam in this country?

Emerson: Its primary appeal has to with the esteem, hope, and empowerment that come from identifying with a strong and growing world-wide movement.  It is the appeal of a minority which identifies as a majority and seeks to recapture the old glory days of Islam where Islamic achievements in science and society were unsurpassed; where worldwide Islamic geo-political power defeated Western efforts to subjugate it.  It's a powerful emotion: observing thousands of second-generation American Muslims at meetings of the Muslim Student Association and other groups identify with Hamas and Islamic Jihad gives me a sense of the nearly overpowering draw of fundamentalist Islam.

It might seem strange that a way of life that so circumscribes individual freedoms would appeal in this country famous for the liberty of its citizens. But it's precisely that freedom that leads some to seek out a mental straightjacket that promises all the answers.

MEQ: Is fundamentalist Islam seen as upholding tradition?

Emerson: Yes, tradition and family values -- though family values for some Islamic fundamentalists means the right to carry out suicide attacks against Western families.

MEQ: Can you estimate the number of fundamentalists in the United States?

Emerson: No one really knows but one can extrapolate some numbers. I have attended conferences in Detroit, Oklahoma City, and Chicago that were attended by thousands of people yelling "Allahu Akbar" on hearing the announcement of a suicide operation against Israel. Based on the number of participants at radical Islamic conferences, the estimated membership rolls of a dozen other radical Islam groups, plus the number of subscribers to Az-Zaytuna, the Hamas publication, I assume there are at least one hundred thousand hard-core believers in militant Islamic fundamentalism.  The number may actually be significantly higher.

I should stress that this is only a very small percentage of the total Muslim population that ranges somewhere between 5 to 8 million. Islamic fundamentalism is but an extremist off-shoot forwarding a totalitarian interpretation of Islam. It does not represent mainstream Islam, which advocates the principles of peace and remains overwhelmingly non-violent.

MEQ: How many individuals in the United States might be willing to participate in a terrorist act?

Emerson: Impossible to say. For example, at a New Jersey rally for Hamas, more than 1,500 supporters chanted "We buy paradise with the blood of the Jews." Does that make all 1,500 terrorists? Not at all. But nearly all 1,500 can be catalogued as subscribers of militant Islamic fundamentalism and theoretically a percentage of them could be called upon to carry out acts of violence.

MEQ: Do you discern common characteristics among them?

Emerson: No. The popularity of radical Islam crosses every single demographic and age category.

MEQ: What about geography?

Emerson: Due to immigration patterns, some cities have larger concentrations, including Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Oklahoma City, Tampa, and New York City as well as northern Virginia. These places usually serve as headquarters for these radical organizations.

MEQ: What about levels of education?

Emerson: As in the Middle East, you find that they run the gamut of education, from illiterates to doctors of philosophy. Nidal Ayyad, convicted for his part in the World Trade Center bombing, came from a solid middle class background, worked as chemist at Allied-Signal, and had gained financial and professional success. Those in charge of the Islamic Jihad command-and-control-center in Tampa, Florida, all had Ph.D.s.

MEQ: How about financial circumstances?

Emerson: Again, you find a wide range.  This is interesting because to become wealthy in the United States means playing by the rules of the infidel.  Most wealthy Muslim-Americans are not radicals but there are some, especially doctors and engineers, who are. Several CEOs have donated millions of dollars to Islamic fundamentalist groups.

MEQ: Do fundamentalist Muslims in this country tend to be immigrants or converts?

Emerson: Both seem to be represented. Take the gang that bombed the World Trade Center: it included immigrants who came as radicals, secular immigrants who became fundamentalists in the United States, second-generation Muslims, and converts to Islam. That said, two groups disproportionately make up the fundamentalist ranks: immigrants or second-generation American Muslims and disaffected non-Muslim Americans, especially blacks.

It is both ironic and tragic that many immigrants who come here to flee the violence of Islamic fundamentalism in their homelands subsequently converted to that very cause. Take the case of El-Sayyid Nossair, the Egyptian who assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in November 1990. He arrived in the United States as a Westernized, secularized middle-class immigrant and become radicalized in Pittsburgh. As for American blacks, their alienation from and anger at white society has generated several movements that emphasize self-esteem along with secession.  The Nation of Islam is one of them, and it often serves as an access to traditional (or Sunni) Islam -- and possibly to fundamentalism. American blacks comprise nearly 40 percent of the entire Muslim American population.

PUBLIC RESPONSES

MEQ: You mentioned that the media is knowingly complicit in presenting propaganda of the fundamentalist Islamic movement.

Emerson: The media has used unwittingly and wittingly by Islamic fundamentalists. Most alarming are journalists who are used wittingly -- National Public Radio, The New York Times, The Washington Post, to name a few. They promote a false definition of jihad as moral self-improvement so that it appears to be a pacifist doctrine. They portray Musa Abu Marzook as a man falsely accused of terrorist activities, even as a martyr, then reprint statements of his top aides, such as Ahmed Yusef, who claim he is a misunderstood moderate.12

MEQ: What are their motives?

Emerson: Maybe journalists at The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post have falsely presented Hamas front groups in the United States as "moderate" because they see these movements as genuine movements of self-determination. Or they believe these groups are oppressed by the West. Or they have an agenda that dovetails with radical Islamic fundamentalism and the truth would undercut some of their political objectives. National Public Radio and The New York Times do not provide any substantive reporting to the Hamas collaboration with Arafat because that would jeopardize the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

MEQ: Do you offer information to these media outlets?

Emerson: Sure, but some of these reporters decline to accept evidence proving that the Hamas network in the United States is far more extensive than they report. I once offered a New York Times reporter documents clearly showing Hamas involvement with terrorism within the United States, to no avail. The Washington Post's assistant foreign editor, Jackson Diehl, has flatly ordered his reporters not to take documents proving Hamas terrorist activities in the United States. He has even changed the text submitted by Post reporters to reflect pro-Hamas sympathy.

MEQ: What topics should the media be covering about the fundamentalists?

Emerson: We in the media should expose wrongdoing in this instance, as we do with regard to the government, corporations, and other radical groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. For example, the media should expose how radicals have hijacked the leadership of mainstream Muslim organizations.

MEQ: What about American civil rights groups, have they taken a strong stand on this issue?

Emerson: No. There exists an unfortunate alliance between some radical Islamic factions and leftist groups, including such publications as The Village Voice and The Nation. Ironically, although The Nation came out against Khomeini's death sentence on Salman Rushdie, some of its writers (like Robert I. Friedman) have defend the same fundamentalists who support Rushdie's assassination.

MEQ: What about the record of academics?

Emerson: Again, not a pretty sight; many of them make excuses for the fundamentalists. A number of academics, including John Entelis, John Esposito, Yvonne Haddad, James Piscatori, and John Voll help justify the false notion of moderate Islamic fundamentalism by affirming the duplicitous public statements of savvy fundamentalists, rather than looking at the internal materials disseminated by these leaders, which is the real test of their views.

Even more troublesome is that some militant Islamic groups have made inroads to prestigious public policy organizations. The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, publishes a newsletter (the Muslim Politics Report) with the stated goal of providing a "more diverse" view on Islam. In fact, the newsletter usually carries apologetics for Hamas and other militant Islamic groups. When I pointed this out to the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, he replied that Hamas has a right to be heard. Even under a false cover, I asked? Presenting Hamas views as the council did is like introducing David Duke as a distinguished authority on human rights.

U.S. POLICY

MEQ: What must the government do to prevent a future rash of violence?

Emerson: There's not much that can be done to preempt groups promoting extremism and the ideology of violence. Regulations called the Attorney General's Guidelines restrict law enforcement so that it can preempt these groups only when it has evidence ahead of time of a crime about to happen. Effectively, however, and particularly with militant immigrants, the knowledge of illegal activity is found out only after the event.

MEQ: These limits mean that nothing more can be done?

Emerson: Some steps can be taken. The government should enlarge the pool of Arabic translators; establish a real expertisze in fundamentalist Islam; ensure better and more effective coordination of intelligence among its many agencies and branches; and top officials should avoid embracing U.S.-based Islamic groups that really represent radicals and terrorist supporters. This both legitimizes them and crowds out moderate Muslims.

MEQ: Do law enforcement agencies take the threat of fundamentalist groups seriously?

Emerson: The threat of radical Islamic violence in the United States is no doubt taken very seriously, as indicated by an extraordinary series of public statements made last year by CIA Director John Deutch, FBI Director Louis Freeh, and other top officials. But that doesn't mean law enforcement agencies are always capable of preventing it.

MEQ: Do you see a need for more laws?

Emerson: It would be a good idea to apply the ones already on the books. President Clinton's Executive Order in January 1995 froze the assets of 14 terrorist groups (twelve Arab or Muslim, two Jewish) but little came of it. FBI and other investigators recommended that, pursuant to the Executive Order, millions of dollars be frozen but the administration rejected those recommendations, with the exception of $800,000 of terrorist assets that had to be frozen since their existence was made public.

More laws are not likely now. Although incidents like the explosion of TWA flight 800 in July 1996 -- which ironically now appears to have been the result of a structural malfunction -- keep public sensitivity high, and it immediately led to an increase in Federal air safety regulations, there has lately been a relative relaxation on issues of security. The consensus about the threat to the United States depends upon public perceptions. Were bombs to start going off in the United States, there would certainly be a demand for more strict anti-terrorism laws.

MEQ: What about the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, which included new laws against terrorist fund-raising and conspiracies hatched in the United States?

Emerson: Theoretically it should be effective, but the law has yet to be fully defined or implemented, let alone tested.

MEQ: In two Wall Street Journal articles, you established that both President and Mrs. Clinton, as well as Al Gore, had met with fundamentalist representatives affiliated with terrorism.13Have such incidences been repeated since then?

Emerson: Yes, they have. The Islamic groups' records, as well as official records released by the White House, show that the Executive Branch, the State Department, and the FBI continue to meet with radical or anti-American Islamic groups that openly support terrorist leaders (like Hasan at-Turabi of the Sudan) or even raised money for the defense of terrorists (such as for Musa Abu Marzook).

MEQ: Why does the Clinton administration meet with them?

Emerson: The radical groups have gained political clout derived from their growing demographic influence. In addition, there's a spirit of moral relativism and political multiculturalism that expands the definition of acceptable political groups to include even Islamic extremist groups. To which I reply, if they meet with these groups there is no reason not to meet with the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam, and other extremists.

MEQ: Can the U.S. government cut a deal with the groups, so that each side leaves the other alone?

Emerson: Leaving aside the moral cravenness of such a deal and its long-term futility -- deals embolden terrorists to carry out more terrorism -- it cannot work even in the short term. Unlike secular groups, radical Islamic ones cannot neatly compartmentalize their enemies. They see the whole of the West as their enemy, including its governments, private institutions, and cultures. Moreover, they cannot compromise their ideology. For militant fundamentalists, any deal with any part of the West contradicts their bedrock doctrine of imposing Islam on the West. Deals are part of a deception. They would be broken when it becomes expedient to do so.

YOUR WORK

MEQ: How did you find this topic, which, other than your efforts, has been virtually invisible to the American public?

Emerson: I actually stumbled across it quite by accident. In December 1992 I was a correspondent with CNN and on assignment in Oklahoma City to do some interviews on another subject entirely. On Christmas Day I found myself with nothing to do. While looking for a fast-food restaurant, I passed a convention center where I saw thousands of Muslims dressed in traditional garb congregating in the streets and entering the center. At first, my own ignorance led me to think they might be extras on a movie set.

When I went inside, I discovered what was really going on. Radical groups were openly declaring themselves to be Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah, and even Gama`a Islamiya (Omar Abdel Rahman's group in Egypt). They made absolutely no effort to hide their identity or their agendas. Just going to the stalls I collected a phenomenal amount of material, some of which I have subsequently showed on national television. Alarmed, I called a FBI official in Washington to see if it was aware of their existence. I was even more shocked to discover the FBI did not know this conference was taking place.

MEQ: Have these groups become more discreet since you've made public what they say?

Emerson: Yes, the broadcast of Jihad in America caused them to become more careful. It also had the unintended effect of driving them further underground while teaching them to adopt a false presentation of themselves as moderates or academics or humanitarians. The agenda remains the same: spread and promote militant Islam, justify Hamas and other groups, and insinuate totalitarian groups into American public life.

MEQ: The fundamentalists often speak harshly of you, both in their own counsels and publicly. Have they tried to intimidate you?

Emerson: Without going into too many details, there have been efforts at intimidation that go beyond your garden-variety efforts. Obviously they've been unsuccessful, but it is an occupational hazard.

MEQ: Have you had to take steps to protect yourself?

Emerson: For obvious reasons, I cannot get into this matter. I would gladly leave this subject alone if I wanted a more quiet and secure life. But I can't leave it because I don't see that anyone else is willing to tackle it.

1 Testimony of Acting Director of Central Intelligence William Studemann to the House Judiciary Committeee, Apr. 6, 1995; testimony by Director of the FBI Louis Freeh to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Mar. 12, 1996; speech by Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch to Georgetown University, Sept. 5, 1996; testimony by Acting Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Feb. 6, 1997.
2 Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, Mar. 19, 1996.
3 For details, see Yehudit Barsky, "Terror by Remote Control," Middle East Quarterly, June 1996, pp. 3-9.
4 "Exclusion" seeks to remove undesirable aliens from the United States, prevent their acquiring the rights of citizenship, or ever returning to this country.
5 Associated Press, Feb. 25, 1997.
6 Speech recorded at the MAYA conference, Kansas City, Missouri, December 1989.
7 Speech recorded at the MAYA convention, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, December 23-28, 1992.
8 The caliph, or vice-regent of God, inherited the Prophet Muhammad's temporal responsibilities. Although the caliphate remained powerful for only two centuries, the institution continued to exist in vestigial form until its abolition by Kemal Atatürk in 1924. Reviving the caliphate implies an intention to deemphasize or even bring down borders between Muslim states.
9 The Muslim, March-May 1989, page 3.
10 Minneapolis Star Tribune, Apr. 4, 1993.
11 The New Republic, June 12, 1995.
12 The Washington Post, Mar. 1, 1997.
13 "Islamic Terror: From Midwest to Mideast," Aug. 28, 1995 and "Friends of Hamas in the White House," Mar. 13, 1996. ");}srb="na";srw="na";//-->



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1997; jihadinamerica; stevenemerson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last
Long...but important.
1 posted on 09/22/2001 6:16:00 AM PDT by Bull Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bull Man, ATC, Pericles, Sawdring, Travis McGee, Red Jones, Black Jade
Very important. Check this link as well;

http://www.emergency.com/islamusa.htm

2 posted on 09/22/2001 7:00:24 AM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Excellent article.

There exists an unfortunate alliance between some radical Islamic factions and leftist groups, including such publications as The Village Voice and The Nation.

We need to learn more about this...

3 posted on 09/22/2001 7:08:54 AM PDT by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Wonderful find. Thanks,

Richard F.

4 posted on 09/22/2001 7:12:08 AM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
MEQ: Do you offer information to these media outlets?

Emerson: Sure, but some of these reporters decline to accept evidence proving that the Hamas network in the United States is far more extensive than they report. I once offered a New York Times reporter documents clearly showing Hamas involvement with terrorism within the United States, to no avail. The Washington Post's assistant foreign editor, Jackson Diehl, has flatly ordered his reporters not to take documents proving Hamas terrorist activities in the United States. He has even changed the text submitted by Post reporters to reflect pro-Hamas sympathy.

And we need to learn more about this as well.

5 posted on 09/22/2001 7:12:43 AM PDT by Interesting Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
I assume there are at least one hundred thousand hard-core believers in militant Islamic fundamentalism [in the US]. The number may actually be significantly higher.

I should stress that this is only a very small percentage of the total Muslim population that ranges somewhere between 5 to 8 million. Islamic fundamentalism is but an extremist off-shoot forwarding a totalitarian interpretation of Islam. It does not represent mainstream Islam, which advocates the principles of peace and remains overwhelmingly non-violent.

6 posted on 09/22/2001 7:13:47 AM PDT by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
President and Senator Krinton Ying-Al Ahmed.

Does everyone see this?

Why is the power couple directly linked with every enemy of America?

Hollywood, media, IRS, NOW, China, Cuba, Islamic terrorists, IRA...

Incredible, really.

7 posted on 09/22/2001 7:29:05 AM PDT by Stallone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man, bert, ForGod'sSake, Peacerose
Thanks for posting this, Bull Man - interesting, indeed. And, once again, the media/journalists get a big fat "F".
8 posted on 09/22/2001 7:56:28 AM PDT by calypgin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jauntybeesting,jesda,sadimgnik,luvzhottea,ankaboot
The very religious Fatwa spoken and widely disseminated by Osama Bin Laden urging all moslems to kill all Americans whether military or civilian specifically quotes the Kuran, Surya 9-5.

He orders his followers world wide to kill any Americans that they can find, and reads the Surya 9-5 word by word and explains how Surya 9-5 demands that they kill Americans.

Please explain this.

It is not lost on us that the Pentagon terrorists lived in the home of the founder of the San Diego Islamic Center, a professor at San Diego State University and a major leader of CAIR.

9 posted on 09/22/2001 7:58:43 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pocat,lent,KitJ,patent,rebdov,maica
This is a critical read.

It shows that 100,000 terrorists are on our soil, living covertly (or not covertly) among 5 million moslems.

10 posted on 09/22/2001 8:00:47 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep,lavrenti,jimkress,MHGinTN,Boris
Please read and bump!
11 posted on 09/22/2001 8:01:57 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator,AGaviator,Bernard Marx,semaj
Please read and bump.
12 posted on 09/22/2001 8:02:57 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TwoDees,HardStarboard,JeepInMazar,nunya bidness,
Please read and bump.
13 posted on 09/22/2001 8:04:08 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961,stingray,wardaddy,harpseal,SquantosFITZ,serge,dennisw
Please read and bump.
14 posted on 09/22/2001 8:05:27 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Great article. Bookmarked. These terrorists intentionally infiltrated US organizations. Terrorist cells growing in strength and number, fanning across the world require massive human, financial and government assistance. Terrorists posing as relief organizations makes a sick sort of sense after 8 years of the Clinton administration and the creation of an international 'nursery school' of angry victims demanding more US handouts, and angry foreign leaders holding a bag of Clinton empty promises and "feel good" pap.
15 posted on 09/22/2001 8:14:01 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Thank you for posting this. An excellent summary of the danger in this country.
16 posted on 09/22/2001 8:17:19 AM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Please bump this article around, it's a critical one.

One Hundred Thousand Terrorists in the USA...


17 posted on 09/22/2001 8:18:07 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
MEQ: What about ultimate goals?

Emerson: Ultimately, incredible as it seems to us, to turn the United States into an Islamic country.

How, using their obviously twisted thinking, can this be accomplished by killing us off? Do they truly believe that instilling fear alone is enough to control millions of people?

Those who have never tasted Freedom can not possibly understand how fiercely any threat against it will be fought. Perhaps they're about to find out.

18 posted on 09/22/2001 8:18:49 AM PDT by I am still Casey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Bump.
19 posted on 09/22/2001 8:23:11 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.
20 posted on 09/22/2001 8:25:08 AM PDT by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chapita,StandFirm,GWfan,AwareTexan,aristeides,M Kehoe
Please read and bump!
21 posted on 09/22/2001 8:25:27 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head,Kaj,Physicist,Vigilanteman,Samaritan,Eagle Eye,KO5A
Please read and bump!
22 posted on 09/22/2001 8:27:06 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jefferson Adams,Freedom007,Joe Brower,SLB,Blam,SevenDaysInMay
Please read and bump.
23 posted on 09/22/2001 8:28:35 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
BUMP!
24 posted on 09/22/2001 8:28:35 AM PDT by piasa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Very informative and prescient article. Thanks for the flag.

Btw, how is that book coming?

5.56mm

25 posted on 09/22/2001 8:33:36 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
One Hundred Thousand Terrorists in the USA...

And one hundred million patriots. I'd like the long-term odds even if these numbers were reversed.

26 posted on 09/22/2001 8:34:40 AM PDT by Physicist (sterner@sterner.hep.upenn.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: Travis McGee
Great catch by Bull Man. Thanks for the ping.

This is a very important article. The mention of northern Virginia and the comments on the Clinton administration's pretense of freezing assets are particularly interesting.

28 posted on 09/22/2001 8:41:52 AM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Bump for a critical read....Emerson has been the target of many threats for a reason.
29 posted on 09/22/2001 8:42:01 AM PDT by newwahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I am still Casey
"Do they truly believe that instilling fear alone is enough to control millions of people?"

Look how far it gets them with Israel. These people are like , spoiled punks whose parents coddle their BS. It's only a cycle of violence, because their is never decisive action taken. Everytime they are defeated in their attempt to annihilate the Jews, they resort to throwing a tantrum. Then they are coddled. It's time to be linear and force a decision. Stop the crap or you'll get the beating of your life when we blow up your crapper.

30 posted on 09/22/2001 8:42:45 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
We are officially bending over backward to make clear that we are NOT attacking ALL Muslims - This is correct...we are NOT! But, doesn't the leadership in the Muslim community have an obligation to at the same time demonstrate that they are Americans and clearly separate themselves from this type of activity. I suspect there is plenty playing both sides of the fence.
31 posted on 09/22/2001 8:43:30 AM PDT by Bull Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Physicist, cc:gonzo,YougottabekiddingSouthack,backhoe
But rooting the 100,000 terrorists out of the "moderate" moslem communities which hide them will be arduous and perhaps ugly.

After several more 9-11 level events, it will turn vicious.

Don't forget where the Pentagon terrorists lived.

32 posted on 09/22/2001 8:45:11 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
GREAT POST - A MUST READ

MEQ: Can you estimate the number of fundamentalists in the United States?

Emerson: No one really knows but one can extrapolate some numbers. I have attended conferences in Detroit, Oklahoma City, and Chicago that were attended by thousands of people yelling "Allahu Akbar" on hearing the announcement of a suicide operation against Israel. Based on the number of participants at radical Islamic conferences, the estimated membership rolls of a dozen other radical Islam groups, plus the number of subscribers to Az-Zaytuna, the Hamas publication, I assume there are at least one hundred thousand hard-core believers in militant Islamic fundamentalism.  The number may actually be significantly higher.

33 posted on 09/22/2001 8:47:26 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
two groups disproportionately make up the fundamentalist ranks: immigrants or second-generation American Muslims and disaffected non-Muslim Americans, especially blacks.

As for American blacks, their alienation from and anger at white society has generated several movements that emphasize self-esteem along with secession. The Nation of Islam is one of them, and it often serves as an access to traditional (or Sunni) Islam -- and possibly to fundamentalism. American blacks comprise nearly 40 percent of the entire Muslim American population.

I'm not suggesting that American blacks are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, but if the American people believe "birds of a feather flock together" then the reparations debate takes on a powerful new dimension.

34 posted on 09/22/2001 8:47:55 AM PDT by DoctorHydrocal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Look also at the near-unanimous defense of Hamas and Hizbullah terrorism, among not only radical Islamic groups but even such "moderate" Arab groups and leaders, such as James Zogby.


35 posted on 09/22/2001 8:48:52 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man, Travis McGee, innocentbystander
MEQ: In two Wall Street Journal articles, you established that both President and Mrs. Clinton, as well as Al Gore, had met with fundamentalist representatives affiliated with terrorism.13Have such incidences been repeated since then?

Emerson: Yes, they have. The Islamic groups' records, as well as official records released by the White House, show that the Executive Branch, the State Department, and the FBI continue to meet with radical or anti-American Islamic groups that openly support terrorist leaders (like Hasan at-Turabi of the Sudan) or even raised money for the defense of terrorists (such as for Musa Abu Marzook).

I suspect that there was the policy of not mounting terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration because of an implicit deal between that administration and the Islamic terrorists. With Clinton out and Bush in, that deal is off.

36 posted on 09/22/2001 8:49:15 AM PDT by aristeides (demosthenes@olg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Read and bumped. Thanks
37 posted on 09/22/2001 8:50:53 AM PDT by GWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man,Travis McGee
Dear Reader:

This mailing has four parts. The first two are about the work by Steven
Emerson and myself.

The second two are a bibliography of articles I have written and have
appeared in the Middle East Quarterly on Islamist violence in the United
States, with links. I hope you find this useful.

Yours truly, Daniel Pipes

I. Nobody Took it Seriously!

By Jonathan S. Tobin
Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia)
September 13, 2001

http://www.jewishexponent.com/Guide.asp?uid=&szparent=21&pubID=120

... For years, experts on terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism have warned
us to start listening to the things being said about America in the Arab and
Islamic world.

Scholars such as Philadelphian Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum have
written books and articles and given countless lectures about the dangers of
Islamism (as opposed to mainstream Islam, which does not support terrorism).

Pipes warned us about the way these people feel about America. He outlined
the deep roots of this perversion of a culture and religion, and made it
clear that what was happening was a war against the West and specifically
the United States.

But though he was treated respectfully by some in the media and his writing
appeared regularly in The Wall Street Journal and other places, he was often
put down as a right-winger. Some in the media even allowed themselves to be
influenced by the smears against Pipes being spread by American sympathizers
with the terrorists themselves.

In the same way, journalist Steven Emerson, who specializes in the subject
of the role of Arab terror groups in the United States, was also put down as
out of the mainstream.

Emerson was responsible for an award-winning documentary about American
support groups for Palestinian terror groups, and he has frequently
testified before Congress about the subject of terrorism. But, like Pipes,
he never achieved the kind of status that elevates journalists into a
television talking head who is given the opportunity to spread his ideas on
the broadcast and cable networks.

Emerson, too, was smeared by Arab groups - and suffered for it. Indeed, he communication to an Arab group promising that he would not be heard again.

And though the U.S. government paid lip service to counterterrorism, it
never gained the support it needed. All too often, both Republicans and
Democrats downplayed talk about terrorism because they feared it would
undermine a Middle East peace process that was itself a shell game.

The trouble with Pipes and Emerson is that they weren't telling us what we
wanted to hear.

Instead of pooh-poohing the threat of terror internationally and even on our
own shores, they pointed out the strength of the enemy and reminded us that
we are a target. Even worse, they had the chutzpah to call domestic
supporters of terrorism by their right names and refused to put down this
lethal enemy as marginal to Arab culture. ...

II. Bush's Big Blunder

SmarterTimes.com
September 18, 2001

http://www.smartertimes.com/archive/2001/09/010918.html

A front-page article in today's New York Times reports on a meeting between
President Bush and American Muslims. The Times article says "The president
of the Council on American-Islamic relations, Nihad Awad, who attended the
session with Mr. Bush, said, 'We thank the president for taking the
initiative to reach out to the American Muslim community during this time of
national crisis. His supportive remarks will help set a tone of tolerance
and inclusion for our society.'"

The Times article refers to "Mr. Bush's twin messages of retaliation abroad
and tolerance at home," and it notes that the president, in his appearance
with the American Muslims, referred to "the good folks standing with me."

The New York Times, which wasted supertankers full of ink in the immediate
aftermath of last week's attack criticizing Mr. Bush for not answering
questions publicly, for not publicly explaining his personal security
measures, and for not flying immediately to New York, lets Mr. Bush's
appearance today go entirely uncriticized. There's not even a hint in the
Times coverage that the characters Mr. Bush met with might be anything other
than "good people," or that by meeting them with them the president is
sending a dangerous message of naive complacency about the real dangers of
Islamic radicals in America.

Since the Council on American-Islamic Relations is mentioned in the New York
Times article by name, let's look at its record first.

Here's a rundown from Daniel Pipes, a former Reagan administration Middle
East aide who now runs the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia and the
wonderfully informative Web site DanielPipes.org:

Mr. Pipes says: "CAIR is a particularly worrisome organization because it
has succeeded in portraying itself as a public affairs organization
promoting 'interest and understanding among the general public with regards
to Islam and Muslims in North America.' In fact, this organization is
radical to the core; it seeks nothing less than the imposition of Islamist
mores on the United States."

Mr. Pipes notes that CAIR's record includes the following: "Apologizing for
such killers as Hamas (a group associated with the murder of 7 Americans)
and Usama bin Ladin (charged with the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings a
year ago). . . . Helping promote terrorism: In the words of Steve Pomerantz,
a former Chief of Counterterrorism for the FBI, 'CAIR, its leaders, and its
activities, effectively give aid to international terrorist groups.' . . .
Intimidation of patriotic Muslims who disagree with CAIR's chauvinist
agenda: In one case (Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani), the FBI is looking
into charges that he received death threats after renouncing the
chauvinists. . . Defense of even the most archaic and barbaric of customs
associated with Islam: When a prosecutor in Cleveland argued that the bail
of two young men being held for an 'honor killing' of their female cousin
should be increased, CAIR replied by accusing him of 'ethnic and religious
stereotyping' and called for a formal investigation into the prosecutor's
actions."

In addition, as anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson has noted in
Congressional testimony, CAIR co-sponsored a May 24, 1998, all-day program
in the Walt Whitman Auditorium of Brooklyn College in Brooklyn, New York. As
Mr. Emerson testified, "In Arabic, Wagdi Ghuniem, a militant Islamic cleric
from Egypt, mesmerized his audience, with his relentless tirade against the
Jews, reminding them of the Jews' 'infidelity,' 'stealth' and 'deceit.'
Known for his folksy deliveries and exhortations to commit violence against
the Jews, Ghuniem did not disappoint his crowd, several of whom had come
just to hear him. The conflict with the Jews, he said, was not over land but
one of religion. 'The problem of Palestine is not a problem of belief.
suppose the Jews said "Palestine-you [Muslims] can take it." Would it then
be ok? What would we tell them? No! The problem is belief, it is not a
problem of land.'"

Mr. Emerson continued: "Ghuniem then led his rapt audience, which numbered
as many as 500, in a special song, the audience responsively repeating each
refrain: 'No to the Jews, Descendants of the Apes.'"

Says Mr. Pipes: "In short, CAIR represents not the great civilization of
Islam but a radical utopian movement originating in the Middle East that
seeks to impose its ways on the United States. Americans should consider
themselves warned: a new danger exists in their midst."

So much for CAIR. But, according to the CAIR Web site, CAIR wasn't the only
radical, terrorist-sympathizing American Muslim group that President Bush
met with yesterday, less than a week after the worst terrorist attack in
American history. In fact, according to the CAIR web site, the meeting
yesterday also included "representatives from the American Muslim Alliance"
and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council is a group founded and headed by Salam
Al-Marayati. He's the man whose views on terrorism were so problematic that,
after an outcry, Rep. Richard Gephardt withdrew his support for Mr.
Al-Marayiti as a nominee to a federal anti-terrorism commission.

According to an article in the August 22, 1998, Los Angeles Times, the
Muslim Public Affairs Council called America's 1998 missile strikes on Osama
Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan "illegal" and "immoral."

Again, Daniel Pipes, in an article posted on DanielPipes.org, is
instructive. Mr. Pipes writes of Mr. Al-Marayati: "Here are three elements
of his radicalism: First, he wraps the American flag around some of the
least attractive features of Middle Eastern life. In 1993, he memorably
asserted that 'When Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death,"
that statement epitomized jihad [Islamic holy war].' In 1996, he made the
silly and inaccurate observation that 'American freedom fighters hundreds of
years ago were also regarded as terrorists by the British.' Mr.
Al-Marayati's intent here is obvious: to render jihad and terrorism Mr. Pipes continued: "Second, Mr. Al-Marayati apologizes for the most
ghastly Middle Eastern regimes and draws moral equivalencies between them
and America. In his view, Iraq is no better or worse than America:

'Saddam Hussein's behavior in and around Iraq has been characterized as
reckless. The same can be said about U.S. policy as a result of its
reactionary mode.' . . .Third, Mr. Al-Marayati turns a blind eye to
terrorism if it is of a fundamentalist Muslim persuasion (not a great
credential for someone hoping to serve on a counterterrorism commission).
Take the February 1996 incident when a Palestinian named Muhammad Hamida
shouted the fundamentalist war cry, Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great), as he
drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing
one Israeli and injuring 23 others. Before he could escape or hurt anyone
else, Hamida was shot dead. Commenting on the affair, Mr. Al-Marayati said
not a word about Hamida's murderous rampage but instead focused on Hamida's
death, which he called 'a provocative act,' and demanded the extradition of
his executors to America 'to be tried in a U.S. court' on terrorism
charges."

Then there is the American Muslim Alliance, another group that CAIR reports
had a representative at the Bush event yesterday. That's the group so
extreme that even Hillary Rodham Clinton, no anti-Muslim extremist, decided
to return $50,000 it had raised for her senate campaign. The American Muslim
Alliance was also a sponsor of the "No to the Jews, Descendants of the Apes"
rally at Brooklyn College. And, as Steven Emerson has reported on
OpinionJournal.com, "AMA's head, Agha Saeed, has openly sanctioned the use
of 'armed resistance' against Israel and declared that the 'Zionist
occupiers of Palestine can be beaten back.' At its 1997 annual convention,
the AMA distributed an article by S.A. Ahsani, head of the AMA's Texas
chapter, denying the existence of 'Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek.' At AMA
national conferences in 1997, 1998 and 2000, numerous speakers numerous
speakers condemned the 'Jewish and Zionist' lobbies and their 'control' of
the United States."

Mr. Bush may have had a good reason for luring these folks to a meeting with
him. He could, for instance, have wanted to give the FBI a way to get their
faces in the database. But there are also less sympathetic possible
explanations. Mr. Bush's staff could have blundered in trying to achieve the
worthwhile goal of distinguishing between fanatic Muslim terrorists and
patriotic American Muslims who genuinely condemn terrorism (yes, there are
indeed some). Or, even worse, it is possible that Mr. Bush's actions are
being driven in this critical hour not by his national security team but by
his political aides with a misguided eye on the 2004 vote in Michigan and
other swing states with large Arab and Muslim populations.

Regardless of the reason, though, describing the CAIR, MPAC and AMA gang as
"good folks" is so inappropriate that the Times would have been wise to at
least probe further into what exactly Mr. Bush was doing at this event.
Inappropriate, too, is the message of "retaliation abroad and tolerance at
home." Tolerance at home is one of the things that got America into the
trouble it got into last Tuesday morning. Some of the terrorists had been
tolerated for years while living in apartments in Florida and getting flight
training. It's as if during the height of the Cold War, an American
president had shown up at a convention of the Communist Party, USA, declared
that the American communists were "good folks," and called for containment
abroad but tolerance at home. That's not to defend the excesses or First
Amendment violations of McCarthyism, but neither is it to be complacent or
naive about the genuine threat that was posed by Soviet spies in America.
Tolerance is one thing; a presidential appearance and endorsement of enemy
sympathizers during wartime is quite another.

38 posted on 09/22/2001 8:52:32 AM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
With 6,000 dead or missing under the WTC and more attacks promised, it had better be.
39 posted on 09/22/2001 8:52:45 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Odds of 1000 to 1 don't daunt you???;^0...Glad I'm on your side!!

We must never doubt that reason trumps self-willed ignorance.;^)

40 posted on 09/22/2001 8:54:06 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lent
Is Emerson's PBS documentary "Jihad in America" available?

We should start a major FReep to demand that television networks show it again.

We are being treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed merde.

Our leaders are still more concerned about PC and moslem hurt feelings and crocodile tears than they are about preventing the next 9-11.

41 posted on 09/22/2001 8:57:46 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
What's more, the Clinton administration knew (not quite ready to bury the hatchet as long as his pundits are rewriting history and blanketing the news shows as President Bush tries to unify the nation).

Bump!

42 posted on 09/22/2001 8:58:52 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
What you said!! Bump
43 posted on 09/22/2001 9:00:00 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Assuming that the fundies are intelligent would they not want to provoke what you are saying in an attempt to open a battle on a second front? It seems to me that they could also divide the country by having a sympathizer use the right implements in a terror attack, call it a "Columbine for God." Do the fundies drop a second shoe, if so, when?
44 posted on 09/22/2001 9:02:54 AM PDT by junta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Is Emerson's PBS documentary "Jihad in America" available?

I don't know, but I started a search on it look at the hornets nest it started:

7 July 1995

Press statement for immediate release

RE: NNTV's decisions to withdraw "Jihad in America ‘ from advertised line-up of programmes for
Tuesday 11 July.

The Freedom of Expression Institute strongly condemns the decision to withdraw -even if temporarily - the film ‘Jihad in
America' from the line up of NNTV's programmes on Tuesday night, 11 July. Apparently, the film has been withdrawn
following protests from members of the public following its screening on American television. The film deals with the rise of
Islamic fundamentalism in America, and has been criticised by fundamentalist groups there for being derogatory. We believe
that South Africans lodges objections with NNTV once the film was advertised on the basis of these criticisms, in spite of the
fact that the film has not been shown locally. We further believe that NNTV has not made a decision about when to reschedule
the programme, and plans to screen it with an accompanying panel discussion.

We find it reprehensible that NNTV, and the SABC generally, have chosen to buckle under public pressure. This action
smacks of the same editorial cowardice that characterised the Corporation's approach to the made-for-television series ‘The
Line' last year. Offended members of the viewing public have a right to reply after the programme has been screened, but the
SABC should not buckle under pressure once it has made editorials decisions on what to screen. Such actions make a
mockery of the supposed editorial independence of the SABC. We call on the SABC to have the courage of its editorial
convictions and screen the film Tuesday. The right of reply can then be extended to offended members of the public who would
by that stage be able to make an informed decision about whether the film is in fact offensive or not.
 

45 posted on 09/22/2001 9:05:27 AM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bull Man
Very important, Man. Thanks for finding this.
46 posted on 09/22/2001 9:13:10 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Excellent thread. Steve Emerson was much in demand 8 years back. But ignored recently as America went into a national security slumber. 

Clinton sold us out to China. Wall Street and the dot coms all booming and illegal aliens by the boatload. Who really cared. Life was good.

47 posted on 09/22/2001 9:14:00 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee,ALL

Here is the ignominious "Washington Report" an on-line apologist for the pan Arab Islamic Agenda. Gutless.. A number of pro-Palestinians on Free Republic have been posting propaganda from this site. BE WARNED. Here was their attack on this timely Documentary by Emerson (:
 

WASHINGTON REPORT - On Middle Eastern Affairs (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503020.htm)
 

Emerson's “Jihad in America”

                                       by Paul Findley

                   March 1995, pg. 20

                   The campaign to defame Islam in America is alive and robust.
                   As I watched Steven Emerson's hour-long production, "Jihad in
                   America," broadcast recently over national television, a sage
                   comment by an eminent Jew came to mind.

                   The late I.F. "Izzy" Stone, author, lecturer, commentator, historian
                   and for many years publisher of a weekly newsletter, once told
                   me, "Jews never had it so good as they've had it in the United
                   States." But, discussing their concern about Israel's position in
                   the Mideast, he cautioned, "They are afraid about the future.
                   They feel they are at war, and many of them feel they have to fight
                   and keep fighting." He added, "When people are at war it is
                   normal for civil liberties to suffer."

                   When I interviewed him, although in declining health and with
                   failing eyesight, he was still one of America's most respected
                   journalists, a hero to academics.

                   "Israel," he said, peering through the thick lenses of his
                   eyeglasses, "is on the wrong course. This period is the blackest
                   in the history of the Jewish people. Arabs need to be dealt with
                   as human beings."

                   If alive today, Stone would have cited Emerson's television
                   production as wartime propaganda. Because many Israelis see
                   Islam as an enemy, Emerson seems constrained to see Islam as
                   his own enemy.

                   One of Emerson's techniques is casting the word jihad in the
                   worst possible light. Emerson fails to note that in common Arab
                   usage jihad means struggle, not military onslaught. Literally,
                   jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a basic
                   Islamic concept that covers, at one extreme, struggles against
                   evil inclinations within oneself and, at the other, stuggling on the
                   battlefield if absolutely necessary for self-defense. Acts of
                   individual, group or state terrorism are alien to Islam.

                   Jihad can involve military action only when legitimate states use
                   force to defend the weak, protect society or establish justice. But
                   Emerson presents it only as violent, explosive, indiscriminate
                   carnage. This sets it apart from campaigns familiar to Americans
                   that are entirely nonviolent like "wars" on poverty and illiteracy, a
                   usage much like the use of "jihad" by Muslims.

                   The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point
                   Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic
                   empire," but offers no proof whatever. At another he warns that
                   the single, isolated bombing of the World Trade Center in New
                   York City is a certain forerunner of terrible acts of destructive
                   violence nationwide.

                   He puts a false interpretation on a few emotional scenes
                   videotaped at programs to raise funds to finance Muslim
                   struggles in Afghanistan. Without any proof he presents them as
                   sinister, subversive schemes to finance "Islamic terrorism" here
                   "on American soil."

                   The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), based in
                   Washington, DC, concludes: "From beginning to end, 'Jihad in
                   America' and its producer, Steven Emerson, offered nothing but
                   distorted snippets of fiery rhetoric, unsupported allegations and
                   spurious juxtapositions to build a case against the Muslim
                   community in America.

                   Acts of individual, group or state terrorism
                   are alien to Islam.

                   "The film was portrayed as factual and educational, while it
                   contained many factual errors. The most obvious error was
                   defining jihad as 'holy war.' We see this documentary as just one
                   aspect of a recent trend toward anti-Islamic 'McCarthyism' by the
                   media. In terms of potential hate crimes, it is now 'open season'
                   on Muslims in America."

                   Emerson's recurring theme is that big trouble is brewing here
                   because of the "radicalism of Islam" and the clandestine
                   methods he attributes to it. He warns of "Islamic extremists
                   committed to jihad in America." The only evidence he offers to
                   support this forecast, according to CAIR's word-by-word
                   examination of the transcript, consists of sound bites--brief
                   cuttings from filmed coverage of meetings--in which U.S.
                   Muslims were being urged to help finance Islamic struggles, but,
                   contrary to Emerson's portrayal, the struggles were in other parts
                   of the world, not in America.

                   Emerson deserts the truth in his zeal to misrepresent Islam as a
                   barbaric, underground movement. For example, he leaves the
                   impression that he was able to gain access to secret video
                   tapes of clandestine meetings. In truth, almost all of the videos
                   from which he clipped have been available routinely to the public.
                   They were taken at public, not secret, meetings attended by
                   locally elected mayors and other public officials, including, on
                   one occasion, a representative of the Federal Bureau of
                   Investigation.

                   Emerson tries to give Islam an unjustified ugly, gruesome
                   appearance by quoting an Islamic militant as follows: "Allah's
                   religion, may He be praised, must offer skulls, must offer martyrs.
                   Blood must flow. There must be widows, there must be orphans.
                   Hands and limbs must be cut..." This suggests to viewers a
                   dreadful jihad in America. An examination of the entire video
                   makes clear that the speaker, a recruiter for volunteers to help
                   the Afghans, referred only to Afghanistan and the awful price
                   Muslims there have been paying. Had Emerson explained that
                   Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, viewers would have
                   avoided the false impression that the Muslim God is different
                   from the Christian God.

                   In two brief interludes of the program, Emerson said only a few
                   Muslims are terrorists, but this caveat was so fleeting it would
                   register only with viewers who watched intently. These gestures
                   to peace-loving U.S. Muslims were quickly obliterated. At one
                   point Emerson declared, "Our investigation has uncovered more
                   than 30 groups that fund radical Islamic activities and operate
                   under tax-exempt status."

                   By failing to identify the 30 groups, Emerson has put all Muslim
                   charitable organizations under a cloud of suspicion.

                   No Link to Terrorism

                   To his credit, a few days after the presentation, Ambassador
                   Philip Wilcox, coordinator of the Office of Counter-Terrrism of the
                   U.S. Department of State, declared: "There is no link between
                   Islam and violence and terrorism. That is a canard which we want
                   to dismiss at the outset. Nor is there a worldwide Islamic network
                   somehow waging jihad against the West. This is a concept that's
                   brooded about sometimes, and there is virtually no intelligence
                   information to suggest that such a network exists."

                   In a commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jack Shaheen,
                   professor emeritus at Southern Illinois University, calls the
                   Emerson program "perilous television, pandering to stereotypes
                   that feed collective hatreds. The program's poisonous images
                   encourage Americans to believe that all Muslims in the United
                   States and their charitable and academic organizations are
                   laundering money for a holy war in the Mideast. As a
                   result...some peace-loving Muslims who genuinely respect the
                   United States will likely be victimized by vicious slurs or hate
                   crimes."

                   Former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL) is chairman of the
                   Council for the National Interest.









 

48 posted on 09/22/2001 9:15:10 AM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dennisw, Travis McGee
" The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic empire," but offers no proof whatever. At another he warns that the single, isolated bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City is a certain forerunner of terrible acts of destructive violence nationwide.

Article above on criticism of Emerson's documentary. Something else hey? Maybe Findley and the Washington Report ought to be Freeped with this paragraph.

49 posted on 09/22/2001 9:21:01 AM PDT by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
 

 

 

 

What the apologists for Islam were saying 6 years ago








Emerson's “Jihad in America”
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0395/9503020.htm

by Paul Findley

March 1995, pg. 20

The campaign to defame Islam in America is alive and robust. As I watched Steven Emerson's hour-long production, "Jihad in America," broadcast recently over national television, a sage comment by an eminent Jew came to mind.

The late I.F. "Izzy" Stone, author, lecturer, commentator, historian and for many years publisher of a weekly newsletter, once told me, "Jews never had it so good as they've had it in the United States." But, discussing their concern about Israel's position in the Mideast, he cautioned, "They are afraid about the future. They feel they are at war, and many of them feel they have to fight and keep fighting." He added, "When people are at war it is normal for civil liberties to suffer."

When I interviewed him, although in declining health and with failing eyesight, he was still one of America's most respected journalists, a hero to academics.

"Israel," he said, peering through the thick lenses of his eyeglasses, "is on the wrong course. This period is the blackest in the history of the Jewish people. Arabs need to be dealt with as human beings."

If alive today, Stone would have cited Emerson's television production as wartime propaganda. Because many Israelis see Islam as an enemy, Emerson seems constrained to see Islam as his own enemy.

One of Emerson's techniques is casting the word jihad in the worst possible light. Emerson fails to note that in common Arab usage jihad means struggle, not military onslaught. Literally, jihad means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a basic Islamic concept that covers, at one extreme, struggles against evil inclinations within oneself and, at the other, stuggling on the battlefield if absolutely necessary for self-defense. Acts of individual, group or state terrorism are alien to Islam.

Jihad can involve military action only when legitimate states use force to defend the weak, protect society or establish justice. But Emerson presents it only as violent, explosive, indiscriminate carnage. This sets it apart from campaigns familiar to Americans that are entirely nonviolent like "wars" on poverty and illiteracy, a usage much like the use of "jihad" by Muslims.

The film is replete with unsupported scare tactics. At one point Emerson declares that Muslims want to establish an "Islamic empire," but offers no proof whatever. At another he warns that the single, isolated bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City is a certain forerunner of terrible acts of destructive violence nationwide.

He puts a false interpretation on a few emotional scenes videotaped at programs to raise funds to finance Muslim struggles in Afghanistan. Without any proof he presents them as sinister, subversive schemes to finance "Islamic terrorism" here "on American soil."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), based in Washington, DC, concludes: "From beginning to end, 'Jihad in America' and its producer, Steven Emerson, offered nothing but distorted snippets of fiery rhetoric, unsupported allegations and spurious juxtapositions to build a case against the Muslim community in America.

Acts of individual, group or state terrorism are alien to Islam.

"The film was portrayed as factual and educational, while it contained many factual errors. The most obvious error was defining jihad as 'holy war.' We see this documentary as just one aspect of a recent trend toward anti-Islamic 'McCarthyism' by the media. In terms of potential hate crimes, it is now 'open season' on Muslims in America."

Emerson's recurring theme is that big trouble is brewing here because of the "radicalism of Islam" and the clandestine methods he attributes to it. He warns of "Islamic extremists committed to jihad in America." The only evidence he offers to support this forecast, according to CAIR's word-by-word examination of the transcript, consists of sound bites--brief cuttings from filmed coverage of meetings--in which U.S. Muslims were being urged to help finance Islamic struggles, but, contrary to Emerson's portrayal, the struggles were in other parts of the world, not in America.

Emerson deserts the truth in his zeal to misrepresent Islam as a barbaric, underground movement. For example, he leaves the impression that he was able to gain access to secret video tapes of clandestine meetings. In truth, almost all of the videos from which he clipped have been available routinely to the public. They were taken at public, not secret, meetings attended by locally elected mayors and other public officials, including, on one occasion, a representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Emerson tries to give Islam an unjustified ugly, gruesome appearance by quoting an Islamic militant as follows: "Allah's religion, may He be praised, must offer skulls, must offer martyrs. Blood must flow. There must be widows, there must be orphans. Hands and limbs must be cut..." This suggests to viewers a dreadful jihad in America. An examination of the entire video makes clear that the speaker, a recruiter for volunteers to help the Afghans, referred only to Afghanistan and the awful price Muslims there have been paying. Had Emerson explained that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God, viewers would have avoided the false impression that the Muslim God is different from the Christian God.

In two brief interludes of the program, Emerson said only a few Muslims are terrorists, but this caveat was so fleeting it would register only with viewers who watched intently. These gestures to peace-loving U.S. Muslims were quickly obliterated. At one point Emerson declared, "Our investigation has uncovered more than 30 groups that fund radical Islamic activities and operate under tax-exempt status."

By failing to identify the 30 groups, Emerson has put all Muslim charitable organizations under a cloud of suspicion.

No Link to Terrorism

To his credit, a few days after the presentation, Ambassador Philip Wilcox, coordinator of the Office of Counter-Terrrism of the U.S. Department of State, declared: "There is no link between Islam and violence and terrorism. That is a canard which we want to dismiss at the outset. Nor is there a worldwide Islamic network somehow waging jihad against the West. This is a concept that's brooded about sometimes, and there is virtually no intelligence information to suggest that such a network exists."

In a commentary in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jack Shaheen, professor emeritus at Southern Illinois University, calls the Emerson program "perilous television, pandering to stereotypes that feed collective hatreds. The program's poisonous images encourage Americans to believe that all Muslims in the United States and their charitable and academic organizations are laundering money for a holy war in the Mideast. As a result...some peace-loving Muslims who genuinely respect the United States will likely be victimized by vicious slurs or hate crimes."

Former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL) is chairman of the Council for the National Interest.

 


50 posted on 09/22/2001 9:26:34 AM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson