Steve Emerson (NBC/MSNBC terrorism analyst and author and head of the Investigative Project).
A quick edu on Mr. Emerson Apparently he has made quite a few enemies in the past, and I did feel a little uncomfortable about being in the same room as someone who is so well sought after by many.  He brought about many important points in-front  of a very politically diversified crowd of a few dozen VIP types:

- If the war in Iraq had never happened and if the U.S. lent no support to Israel (amongst other issues of U.S. "policy") the extremist muslims would still be waging a "fatwa" on the Western world, regardless.

- If even one of the 9/11 suicide bombers had entered the U.S. via the Mexican border, there would be no present border problem.

- There have been zero reports of moderate muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts.

- Political Correctness will be the down-fall of our country, Europe is already finished.

- There have been ZERO reports of "chatter" amongst the terrorist webs in the past 4 months, indicating there is reason to believe an attack(s) are soon to be dealt to U.S. soil.  Apparently, certain U.S. . gov agencies are " quite petrified about what is in the works".  The feds are not equipped to deal with the WOT.

- Profiling does work, it is a crime fighting tool.

- Whether you are Democrat, Republican, Christian or Jew-- YOU ARE ON THEIR DEATH LIST

Amongst many other points discussed, a very interesting evening indeed.  His most important point was that if people in the U.S. don't wake up again and remember 9/11, funding will eventually go away and the WOT will be lost for good.  Mr Emerson believes a major information campaign needs to be launched to bring every G*d fearing American citizen onto the playing field  to win this war.  

Lastly, it was amusing (to say the least) to listen to a couple of the comments made by known libs.  "he's an alarmist, I wish I never heard what I just heard", etc.




   

Alarmist?  Lady, if you're not alarmed after what's happened over the last 4 years, YOU'RE the one with the problem.

I would have liked to have attended that lecture.

while not doing it as much or as loudly as they should, muslim groups have condemned the violence

Quoted: - There have been zero reports of moderate muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts.

Not to nit-pick, but just last week, a prominent group of Muslim scholars publically condemned terrorism:

We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam. It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

I'll bet that was one heck of an evening. About ten years ago, I attended what amounted to a two hour, off the cuff lecture on terrorism, given by Richard Marcinko. The single point I left that lecture with was that our country is not paying enough attention to the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism.  

Quoted: Quoted: - There have been zero reports of moderate muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts. Not to nit-pick, but just last week, a prominent group of Muslim scholars publically condemned terrorism: We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam. It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

I would be more impressed if it had seemed genuinely spontaneous a loooong time ago. And...

from www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml

One of Mohammed's daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying, except in these three situations:

For reconciliation among people.
In war.
Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.

The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. "The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife."

The principle of Al-Takeyya

The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.

Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
Renounce belief in Allah.
Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
Utter insincere oaths.

The implications of the principle of Al-Takeyya

Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.

In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.

The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam's image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.

An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers

In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.

Quoted: Not to nit-pick, but just last week, a prominent group of Muslim scholars publically condemned terrorism:

And they wasted no time doing it either! Four years after the fact, after they've now begun to see Iraqi children being blown to pieces, a tiny minority of Muslims has decided to speak out. What courage!

Quoted: while not doing it as much or as loudly as they should, muslim groups have condemned the violence

Yes a sad few have come out to publicly comdemn acts of terror only.  They all seem to support the Jihad.

1968, Bobby Kennedy assination
1972, at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and murdered
1979, the US embassy in Iran attacked
1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut Lebanon is bombed
1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair
1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was killed
1988, Pan Am Flight 103 bombed
1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time
1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed
9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of civilians were killed.

The above is by no means a all inclusive list.  There was the problems with Libya, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen, the US Military base that was bombed in Saudi Arabia, all the beheadings and bombings/kidnappings that have dropped out of our conciesness over the years.

Am I the only one who has seen the Eugene Armstrong beheading video or any of the other Jihad recruiting highlights?

You know we have gone out of our way to avoid referring to our current conflict as a Holy War but this particular point seems to be lost on the the Muslim Community.  The Middle East and the Muslim Extremist in particular seem to have been a great source of instability over the last six decades or so.

One would think that if the rest of the Muslim Community were so apposed to this behavior they would be a bit more vocal.

I've read his books, dead on right and scary too.

Quoted: I would be more impressed if it had seemed genuinely spontaneous a loooong time ago. And... from www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml

OK, I think I got it now...

1. There have been zero reports of moderate Muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts, and
2. Any of these zero reports of moderate Muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts shouldn't be believed anyway, because Muslims are allowed to lie.

Quoted: Quoted: - There have been zero reports of moderate muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts. Not to nit-pick, but just last week, a prominent group of Muslim scholars publically condemned terrorism: We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam. It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

Under closer investigation, that publication is BS.  Three of the signers of that document are unindicted co-conspirators in terrorist cases.  They also chose not to publish a version of the document in Arabic, so it was addressed only to English-speaking people, and the message would effectively not go outside our borders and reach the people it needed to reach.  It was a PR move.

Quoted: Quoted: - There have been zero reports of moderate muslims speaking out against the actions of their extremist counterparts. Not to nit-pick, but just last week, a prominent group of Muslim scholars publically condemned terrorism: We clearly and strongly state (that) all acts of terrorism targeting civilians are 'haram' (forbidden) in Islam. It is 'haram' for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence, and it is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

What exactly it their definition of "civilian"?