Bomb Doctors Sign of Radicalism's Reach

What would you think if, while conversing with an Iraqi Sunni sheikh at a meeting of sheikhs attempting to broker “peace” in Iraq, he began spewing a litany of anti-American rhetoric, warned you that militants would expand their operations to include direct attacks on Britain and America, and further warned you that “those who cure you will kill you?” Would that last phrase stand out in your mind? What would you conclude that the sheikh meant by his comment about “those who cure?”

You don’t have to be an intelligence specialist or counterterrorism expert to take the sheikh’s warning at face value and put two and two together, but apparently British Anglican cleric Canon Andrew White had difficulty seeing the proverbial forest for the trees. Instead of reporting the verbatim warning to the British Foreign Office in April, when the disturbing conversation occurred, White left out the statement “those who cure you will kill you,” and merely told authorities of the anti-American rhetoric at the meeting, warning in generic terms only that militants were going to target America and Britain directly.

White has received recognition from coalition forces in Iraq for his work among Iraqis and attempts to reconcile the various religious factions there. He was no stranger to radical ideology, having witnessed its brutality firsthand, and that is why it was stunning that he did not recognize the sheikh’s comments as a reference to doctors. White deserves standard kudos for reporting what little he did report to the British Foreign Office at the time, but unfortunately it took failed car bombings in London and Glasgow last week, and the subsequent arrests of 8 doctors, medical students, and laboratory technicians in Britain for it to dawn on White what the sheikh’s warning actually meant and to go public with his “discovery.” There is no question that had White shared the sheikh’s precise phrase with government authorities in April, British intelligence would have begun immediately to inquire with its informants about doctors or others in the medical profession and may very well have detected the London-Glasgow plot before its unsuccessfully execution last week.

The UK Telegraph reported today that the post-attack investigation has revealed that a group of 45 Muslim doctors may have participated in an extremist Internet chat room as long as three years ago in which they threatened to use car bombs to attack targets in the United States. One can only imagine how deeply British or American intelligence/counterterrorism agencies might have penetrated, or how closely they could have monitored such a group of doctors had they known of its existence as early as April of this year, when White first received an explicit warning about “those who cure.”

Yesterday I asked my wife, an astute thinker in her own right but who had not heard any coverage of White’s restored memory, to imagine what she would conclude if an anti-American Islamic sheikh told her “those who cure you will kill you.” She replied that not only would she immediately think of doctors, but that her concern would focus not on car bombs but rather on chemical/biological attacks that could be launched quietly through unsuspecting patients by doctors with access to biological and radiological materials. She was thinking of pandemics or radiation poisonings caused by doctors in whom Americans (or the British) would have placed their implicit trust for routine treatment, a much more frightening prospect than propane tank car bombs. Considering the large number of Muslim doctors in the United States, particularly in the Washington, DC area, it is possible that patients may reconsider their choice of doctor with the revelations of willing terrorists among the ranks of Muslim medical personnel in the west.

American and British Muslim physicians and medical staff may chafe at the suspicion and patient cancellations that are sure to come on the heels of current investigations into the London-Glasgow terror doctors. They may consider it unfair and unwarranted, but moderate Muslims, including respected physicians and other successful Muslim professionals, need to purge their own ranks of extremists like the eight medical personnel arrested since Friday’s initial botched bombing. Radio personality Fred Grandy posed a timely question to Muslims during the “Grandy and Andy Morning Show” today: “Where is the anti-Bin Laden? Where is the anti-al Zawahiri?” He explained that the world is mesmerized by each new videotaped statement by Bin Laden, but there is no corresponding moderate Muslim leader to issue rebuttals to Bin Laden or condemn his rhetoric and offer a better alternative for impressionable Muslims throughout the world.

The arrested doctors in Britain illustrate an important truth of radical Islam: it is not limited in social or educational status and has quiet support even among those who are supposedly dedicated to preserving life. It has followers in every profession, in every walk of life. When doctors, well-educated and engaged in a lucrative profession, are willing to throw away years of training and achievement by risking detonating themselves along with hundreds of innocent British or American citizens, radical Islam demonstrates the expanse of its reach and indoctrinating power. In its appeal to base human impulse, radicalism is more compelling than reason.

In an interesting concluding paragraph to its report of cleric White’s hindsight, CNN unintentionally published a compelling argument for America to remain engaged in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries until Islamic terrorists are dealt an ultimately fatal blow. Whether it meant to or not, CNN supported President Bush’s premise that “we are fighting the terrorists over there so we won’t have to fight them here.” From CNN’s report:

According to officials, there has been long-standing concern that Iraq is a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists who have been testing tactics of urban warfare, which can then be used in Western nations.

Terrorism analyst Marco Vicenzino, the director of the Global Strategy Project, says the world could be seeing a shift in jihadist tactics.

Confident after wounding the United States and its allies in Iraq, jihadists "are determined to take their combat experience directly to the superpower and its allies at home and around the world," Vicenzino said.

If the jihadists are “confident” after wounding the U.S. in Iraq, then it stands to reason that America’s response to a wounding should not be retreat, withdrawal, or “redeployment,” as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and other prominent Democrats have euphemistically recommended. Rather than allow an emboldened enemy to be confident, grow stronger, and launch widespread attacks, the enemy must be defeated and discouraged from ever attempting to “wound” America again. If they are determined, we must be doubly so. If they are confident of eventual victory, we must deny them of achieving it by dealing them defeat and crushing their capacity to strike us. If radical Islam is a disease slowly consuming the world even through the assistance of professional healers, and moderate Islam will not treat the disease devouring its ranks, who then holds the cure?

Technorati Tags:
Muslim Doctors, London Car Bombs, Radical Islam, Terrorism, Fred Grandy, Canon Andrew White, Iraq War, Muslim Medical Students, Moderate Muslims, Jihad

Newt Gingrich on Jihad Web Sites: Meet the Press Part II

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, commented on the Global War on Terror, specifically the various surveillance tools used by our intelligence agencies to identify and track known and potential terrorists. The former Speaker used the example of the recent arrest of a home-grown Jihadist in Illinois to argue that free speech liberties should not include Jihadist web sites or material that encourages and provides instruction for killing Americans and other “infidels.” A portion of the exchange follows:

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.
MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech. So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.

Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.

While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:

1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”

2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one

3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.

We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.

Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.

Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois

4 Hand Grenades, 1 handgun and a Partridge . . .

Yesterday, the FBI thwarted a plot by an Illinois man to acquire 4 grenades and a handgun, and detonate the grenades on December 22nd in the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois. The 22 year old suspect, Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, claimed he wanted to conduct “violent jihad” during what he believed would be the busiest evening for Christmas shopping, as the 22nd would be the Friday of Christmas weekend. The date and target site were selected with the desire to inflict maximum casualties among shoppers. Shareef reportedly met with an undercover FBI agent in the mall parking lot and attempted to trade 2 stereo speakers for 4 grenades (which were of course inert) and a handgun.

It seems this self-proclaimed terrorist has not been monitoring the news lately, because he seems to have missed the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which should have pacified any terrorist who still believed our nation had the stomach to fight terrorists. Since the Iraq study group came to the laughable conclusion that we are creating terrorism by our presence in Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will stop plotting to kill Americans, their recommendation to tuck tail and flee Iraq in shame should have doused the flame of radical Islam roaring in Shareef. Apparently radical Islam did not get the congratulatory memo from the ISG granting victory to the terrorists, since they are still fomenting terrorist acts against America despite our obvious move toward a withdrawal. Will leaving Iraq end the radical Islamic desire to kill Americans? Of course not. Shareef is living proof of this fact.

The ISG also declared that settling the eternal war between Israel and its neighbors will end terrorism. Oh! I thought ending terrorism required something challenging, but if all it takes is ending the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, then we should have that wrapped up before Christmas, right James Baker? To the members of the ISG, if our tremendous military could not eliminate the “insurgents,” why should anyone believe the Iraqi military and police forces will succeed in protecting and preserving this newly established democratically elected government? We rushed to push Sadaam out of Kuwait because he was supplanting an existing government, not even a democracy. Now in Iraq, millions braved suicide bombers and IEDs and snipers to vote and establish a democracy, and you recommend leaving this fledgling government to protect itself because things are tough there? Sadly, the ISG proved that countless years of experience (who knew Sandra Day O’Connor was a military and counter-terrorism expert?) do not automatically produce wisdom to match.

What is surprising is that despite all of the political thriller books, television programs, and movies depicting small cells of terrorists in the USA carrying out acts like the one planned by Shareef, none have occurred. Yet. Israel has borne the brunt of shopping mall and restaurant bombings, largely due to its proximity to its enemies. We have been fortunate to avoid such widespread, small-scale attacks. Yet during our period of good fortune, our enemies have made deep inroads into American culture and have become experts in using our personal liberties to conceal their true intentions. The question no one wants to think about, the nightmare for the intelligence and law enforcement communities is “how many Talib Shareefs are there among us?” The chilling follow-up question is “can we catch them all before they strike?” As anyone in the intelligence or law enforcement field will admit, the answer is no. We cannot be right 100% of the time, and the resources are simply not sufficient (nor is the public willing) to secure all potential targets. One need only look at the public paranoia (encouraged by the MSM) over surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to know we will eventually be defeated from within, not from without. No global power will land on our shores and conquer us. We will fold from within, as we have been doing since Vietnam and continue to do at an ever increasing rate in the War on Terror.

This raises a critical issue that receives insufficient attention. Since terrorism is a product of ideology, can we really wage war on it? Our military and intelligence personnel have discovered that killing “insurgents” does not serve as a sufficient deterrent when fighting an enemy that views martyrdom and suicide bombing as a path to eternal glory. They will never openly confront our far superior military on any battlefield, but will continue to strike with small scale but lethal tactics until they frustrate their mighty opponent in Iraq and convince the American public (with ample and gleeful assistance from the MSM) that the fight is not worth it (which has already been accomplished). Perhaps we have all forgotten that whether or not the Iraq Conflict is a cornerstone in the larger War on Terror, the name of the military operation there was, and remains, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name is not “Operation Iraqi Freedom Unless it Becomes Difficult or Grave.” Iraqi Freedom. How long is too long to fight to preserve freedom?

Complicating the matter is the fact that conversion of young Islamic radicals to a Jihad-ready ideology is occurring at an alarming rate in America. The home grown terrorist poses enormous investigative and prosecutorial nightmares in a society based on individual liberties. The FBI and other agencies are relatively proficient at tracking persons with known terrorist ties who visit the US. However, as the Shareef mall grenade plot demonstrates, attacks planned by home grown terrorists usually are discovered only when an informant (a friend, neighbor, or family member) reports them to law enforcement. Many assassins and attackers in the planning stages cannot help but boast of what they intend to do. It is an often irrepressible human urge. Islamic radicals, if they discuss their planned attacks, will not boast to “infidels” but to others of their faith and, they hope, sympathetic brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the key to winning the War on Terror. Muslims need to demonstrate that they truly belong to a religion of peace by policing their communities and yes, informing on those with ties to radical factions espousing violence. Until this happens regularly and as a matter of course in predominantly Muslim communities, the potential for attacks like Shareef’s will only increase.

An eternal debt of gratitude is owed to the friend who contacted the FBI in time to prevent a Christmas tragedy in Illinois.

FBI CSAG Iraq Jihad James Baker War On Terror Iraq Study Group radical Islam