Moussaoui and 9/11 terrorist attacks: a summary (UPDATED)

From MSNBC:

Confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui said Thursday it made his day to hear accounts of Americans’ suffering from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and he would like to see similar attacks “every day.”

Taking the witness stand for the second time in his death-penalty trial Thursday, Moussaoui mocked a Navy sailor who wept on the stand as she described the death of two of her subordinates.

“I think it was disgusting for a military person” to cry, Moussaoui said of the testimony of Navy Lt. Nancy McKeown. “She is military, she should expect people at war with her to want to kill her.”

Asked if he was happy to hear her sobbing, he said, “Make my day.”

Moussaoui said he had “no regret, no remorse” about the 9/11 attacks. Asked by prosecutor Rob Spencer if he would like to see it happen again, Moussaoui responded: “Every day until we get you.”

[…] Moussaoui told jurors that Islam requires Muslims to be the world’s superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Koran searching for verses to support his assertions. One he cited requires non-Muslim nations to pay a tribute to Muslim countries.

“We have to be the superpower. You have to be subdued. We have to be above you,” Moussaoui said. “Because Americans, you are the superpower, you want to eradicate us.”

At one point, defense lawyer Gerald Zerkin asked Moussaoui if he thought he was helping his case when he testified earlier that he planned to pilot a plane into the White House on Sept. 11.

“I was putting my trust in God, so from an Islamic point of view, yes,” Moussaoui responded, acknowledging that non-Muslims might view his testimony as harmful to his case.

At several points during his afternoon testimony, Moussaoui acknowledged that he has lied when it has suited his interests throughout the course of his four-year case.

Well, I am astonished to read then people who say that the Western countries are the culprits. He is very clear when he says that non-Muslims must be subdued.There are only two alternatives: resist or just tell Sharia is a very good thing and support them.

Another "astounding" thing is that he completely says that "we are at war", something a lot of people are not taking into account. And that they should be a superpower. NoisyRoom.Net refers to Koram 9:29, where it says:

Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued. —Koran 9:29

But he also said that he was the man to hijack the 5th plane (from Always on Watch, read in completely, has more information about other jihadists in America):

Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane and fly it into the White House as part of the attack that unfolded Sept. 11, 2001.

"Moussaoui’s testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom….

"Before Moussaoui took the stand, his lawyers made a last attempt to stop him from testifying, but failed. Defense attorney Gerald Zerkin argued that his client would not be a competent witness because he has contempt for the court, only recognizes Islamic law and therefore ‘the affirmation he undertakes would be meaningless.’…"

Steven Emerson, on the contrary says there is no evidence of these claims. There are no proofs that he had actually any acquaintance with the hijackers, only with Ramzi Bin Alshibh or the financial mastermind, he is contradicting himself with the first confession he made and that there is no evidence of anyone else taking part in the plot. So, it looks like that, as Michelle Malkin says, that he is "a martyr wannabee".

this testimony may be the firmest evidence the 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent hopes for martyrdom through execution

and

FBI agent James Fitzgerald said Moussaoui told him — in a jailhouse meeting the defendant requested — that he did not want to die behind bars and it was "different to die in a battle … than in a jail on a toilet." Moussaoui dropped this bid after he learned that he had an absolute right to testify in his own defense.

Secular Blasphemy writes about this same thing and concludes:

Moussaoui is attempting suicide by court. Does he deserve to die? Undoubtedly. Should the court sentence him to death to fulfill a request from a crazy fanatic? I don’t think so. It is a very flimsy case, and a strange one.

And also The Counterterrorist blog: it states basically the same::

Asked if receiving the death penalty is "dying shaheed [as a martyr]," Moussaoui replied in his broken English: "It depends if you have, if you have fought to the best of your ability. It can depend on your intention. The same action can have two very different result. . . . So for us a shaheed mean martyr at war. And you do not aim to be a shaheed. You fight, and if you meant to come, you come. You don’t decide, OK I’m going to be a shaheed. . . . Even if you don’t die shaheed, if you pray five times a day and you are truthful to God, you go to heaven."

The recordings,heard in the process, according to this post,  have been good as people have been able to remember what happened. Atlas Shrugs has the last words that were spoken in the Flight 93:

Well, I think it’s pretty clear. One curious thing is that they are saying it in English, not in Arabic (Allah Akbar). That was because most of the people on board were English-speaking, and it was the only manner to make themselves understood by people who were killed and their corpses vanished into thin air or reduced to this.

From a post of Andy Cochran we can download the recordings. You can read a part of them at LGF and in RightWing NutHouse, where it looks like some passengers made their way into the cockpit and actually injured a terrorist.

Daily Pundit quotes Moussaoui saying:

Among his most startling statements, Moussaoui said Army Lt. Col. John Thurman’s harrowing account of escaping the burning Pentagon left him with "regret that he didn’t die."

And then writes:

Do you America-hating, Islamist-loving (mostly) lefty anti-warriors see any exemptions for yourselves coming from this animal? Are you so stupid you think his views are unique? There are probably millions who feel exactly as he does[…]. It’s not a diplomatic problem, and it’s not a legal problem. The problem is that a whole lot of barbarian Islamic fundamentalist savages want to kill you in the worst possible way. Do you think that by kissing him and his pals, they will take you off his murder list? You’re not going to be able to sympathize that away, or discuss it away, or fellowship it away, or kumbaya it away. He and his friends aren’t going to respond to reason because they are, by definition, insanely murderous religious nutcases. They are absolutely certain that God has told them to slaughter you, and if they do so in large numbers, they increase their chances of being rewared with a special place in murderer’s heaven.

Carlos the Jackal has been fined for hate speech in France (from The Belmont Club):

A Paris court fined the terrorist known as "Carlos the Jackal” more than $6,000 Tuesday for saying in a French television interview that terror attacks sometimes were "necessary." The 56-year-old Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was convicted of defending terrorism. The court did not convict him for expressing pleasure that "the Great Satan" – the United States – suffered the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those comments were his personal reaction. Prosecutors asked for a fine four times larger than the $6,110 penalty imposed. But the judges said they did not see the need for a higher fine because Ramirez’s comments referred to the past and aimed to justify his own actions. Ramirez, dressed in a red shirt and blue blazer, kissed the hand of his partner and lawyer, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, during the judgment.

Krishna has also written about this topic.

Pastorius writes "sometimes you have to love your enemies". I read in this post that Moussaoui said during the trial:

that he is convinced President Bush will free him before the end of his term and that he will return to London.

but

He also argued that he could not get a fair trial so close to the Pentagon and he criticized U.S. support for Israel.

He cannot get a fair trial … because he is so close to the Pentagon, but President Busg is going to pardon him. Well, this man has a wonderful logic. The reason he thinks he will be pardoned is (from Powerline blog):

Asked what his defence theory would be, Moussaoui came up with the scenario in which Americans fighting abroad might be taken hostage, saying that his freedom could be negotiated in exchange. “This could work on even the most revengeful juror,” Moussaoui said.

 Captain’s Quarters Blog does the MSM job and proves a translation is accurate about the implication of Saddam Hussein in terrorists activities againts US. Gindy refers to the words of one of the hijackers: "We have a bomb on board". Hyscience, Instapundit, The Jawa Report and Powerline blog also have written about it. Solomonia quotes First Presbyterian Rev. Gretchen Graf saying:

One year ago today, 19 young men on a mission profoundly changed our lives and the life of our nation. This was an act of faith and courage, a carefully planned statement against what they saw as the evils of a corrupt and oppressive nation. They were willing to give their lives so that the world would see their outrage.

The Jawa Report informs that the death a policeman has been attributed to 9/11 dust cloud.

UPDATE: Reading Spanish Blog Cyberterrorismo y e-jihad, I learn another contradiction in Moussaoui’s testimony. While he is obviously intending to convert himself into a "Jihadi martyr",

El abogado defensor Gerald Zerkin preguntó a su cliente si creía que la defensa estaba involucrada en una conspiración para asesinarlo. El acusado contestó que sufría un desinterés por parte de sus abogados que rayaba en lo "criminal".

The defendant Gerald Zerkin asked his client if he believed that the defense was conspiring to murder him. He answered that he suffered from a "lack of interest", pointing as culprits to his own lawyers, that was nearly "criminal".

So the question is: does he really want to be killed or not? Is someone ordering / asking him to?

Tags: Moussaoui, terrorism, USA, 9/11, Bush

Powered by Qumana

Advertisement

Taheri-Azar states the reasons for the attack

In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.

I did intend to use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at the present, most likely due to my foreign nationality.

[…] I do not wish to pursue my career as a student any further because I have no desire to amass the impermanent and temporary fame and material wealth this world has to offer. However I made the decision to continue my studies and to graduate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so that the world will know that Allah’s servants are very intelligent.

[…]In the Qur’an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.

[…]I have chosen the particular location on the University campus as my target since I know there is a high likelihood that I will kill several people before being killed myself or jailed and sent to prison if Allah wills. Allah’s commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah’s commandments must be obeyed.
Excerpts from Taheri-Azar’s letters to the police.

HT: A Deeper Look. Read Krishna’s post, it’s worth it.

Related posts: The Lonely Terrorist, The brit-dhimmies,

Technorati Tags: Taheri-Azar, Chapell Hill University, terrorism, Jihad,

powered by performancing firefox

Did UBS help the Mullahs’ nuclear ambitions?

The Swiss bank UBS has become the latest casualty of raging "Iran fever" (¿? Sounds a little bit ironic and despective, doesn't it?) on Capitol Hill after key congressmen stepped up allegations that it had helped finance the Mullahs' nuclear ambitions in breach of US sanctions, and that it had once banked for Osama Bin Laden. Dana Rohrabacher, the chairman of a congressional inquiry into off-shore banking and terrorism, is mulling further hearings to determine whether UBS endangered world security by helping Iran through the illegal transfer of $440m (£253m) in US bank-notes in the 1990s.

"Iran at that time was facing a credit crunch. If the US was trying to restrict Iran's flow of income, but UBS was working to supplement it through loans and credits, then it seems to me the bank was working directly against the interests of the country that acted as one of the most important sources of business," he said in congressional hearings.

"Worse, UBS transferred US banknotes to Iran in violation of the very programme they were entrusted to run," he said.

Top Al-Qaeda member detained in Canada

TORONTO – An alleged terrorist — with links to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden — has been arrested in the GTA while trying to flee the country, Sun Media immigration sources say. In one of the most significant terrorism arrests in Canada since 9/11, a man believed to be a captain of the Pakistani extremist organization Mujahedin-E-Lashkar-E-Tayyba, or LET, which is funded by Osama bin Laden and has direct ties to al-Qaida, was arrested March 16 by Canadian border service officers in Newmarket….

Ontario immigration sources say 40-year-old Raja Ghulam Mustafa, a Pakistani national who went by the last name Murtaza, was arrested outside his home with a packed suitcase and a significant amount of cash on him….

In 1997, Mustafa was arrested in the U.S. but was released on a peace bond after he filed a claim for refugee status. (Hein? He was released after he filed a claim for refugee status! This must be a joke… Well,  no joke I 'm afraid: US, back in 1997, released someone who was a terrorist because he claimed for refugee status. How on earth someone like him can be a refugee? Ask Clinton, he was the US President in those days.)

PHONY NAME

During that time, officials said he fled to Canada under a phony name. He was eventually able to secure refugee status here.

Mustafa moved to Newmarket to live with his brother-in-law Syed Maqsood Aly, a fugitive wanted in the U.S. for drug trafficking and fraud, according to sources.

Magnificent: a terrorist and a drug dealer living in the same house… And are… brothers! Reality goes beyong the writers' imagination…

Cuba and the Muslims’ extremists

As always the totalitarians have a lot more in common that what we realize at first hand (Granma -says):

CUBAN Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque spoke during the ministerial segment of the 18th ordinary session of the Arab League Summit in Khartoum, Sudan with the participation of the 22 countries that make up that organization.

The Cuban minister reaffirmed Cuba’s unwavering solidarity with the just causes of the Arab nations, and in particular, its firm support for the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people to attain their inalienable right to self-determination, the establishment of a sovereign and independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the unconditional return of all of the Arab territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

Enclaves to practise Islam in the West

And this happens, when an Afghan is surely condemned to death beacuse of his conversion to Christianity and in Argelia a new law has been issued to condemn to prison and to fine the people who intend to convert a Muslim (that is, anyone that speaks about other religions -mainly Christianism-) and is obliging them to only practise their religion in appointed places. Well, as I said before: reciprocity is a NEED to protect this kind of people in countries where there is no freedom of religion, no matter who says the contrary.

The Islamist Challenge to the U.S. Constitution – Middle East Quarterly – Spring 2006

First in Europe and now in the United States, Muslim groups have petitioned to establish enclaves in which they can uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law. While the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to religious freedom and the prohibition against a state religion, when it comes to the rights of religious enclaves to impose communal rules, the dividing line is more nebulous. Can U.S. enclaves, homeowner associations, and other groups enforce Islamic law?
Such questions are no longer theoretical. While Muslim organizations first established enclaves in Europe,[1] the trend is now crossing the Atlantic. Some Islamist community leaders in the United States are challenging the principles of assimilation and equality once central to the civil rights movement, seeking instead to live according to a separate but equal philosophy. The Gwynnoaks Muslim Residential Development group, for example, has established an informal enclave in Baltimore because, according to John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, “there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”[2]
Baltimore is not alone. In August 2004, a local planning commission in Little Rock, Arkansas, granted The Islamic Center for Human Excellence authorization to build an internal Islamic enclave to include a mosque, a school, and twenty-two homes.[3] While the imam, Aquil Hamidullah, says his goal is to create “a clean community, free of alcohol, drugs, and free of gangs,”[4] the implications for U.S. jurisprudence of this and other internal enclaves are greater: while the Little Rock enclave might prevent the sale of alcohol, can it punish possession and in what manner? Can it force all women, be they residents or visitors, to don Islamic hijab (headscarf)? Such enclaves raise the fundamental questions of when, how, and to what extent religious practice may supersede the U.S. Constitution.
The internal Muslim enclave proposed by the Islamic Center for Human Excellence in Arkansas represents a new direction for Islam in the United States. The group seeks to transform a loosely organized Muslim population into a tangible community presence. The group has foreign financial support: it falls under the umbrella of a much larger Islamic group, “Islam 4 the World,” an organization sponsored by Sharjah, one of the constituent emirates of the United Arab Emirates.[5] While the Islamic Center for Human Excellence has yet to articulate detailed plans for its Little Rock enclave, the group’s reliance on foreign funding is troublesome. Past investments by the United Arab Emirates’ rulers and institutions have promoted radical interpretations of Islam. [6]
The Islamic Center for Human Excellence may seek to segregate schools and offices by gender. The enclave might also exercise broad control upon commerce within its boundaries—provided the economic restrictions did not discriminate against out-of-state interests or create an undue burden upon interstate commerce. But most critically, the enclave could promulgate every internal law—from enforcing strict religious dress codes to banning alcohol possession and music; it could even enforce limits upon religious and political tolerance. Although such concepts are antithetical to a free society, U.S. democracy allows the internal enclave to function beyond the established boundaries of our constitutional framework. At the very least, the permissible parameters of an Islamist enclave are ill defined.
[…]As the Muslim community in the United States grows, an increasingly active Islamist lobby has submitted numerous white papers and amicus briefs to legislators and courts arguing for the religious right of Muslims to apply Shari‘a law, particularly in relation to family law disputes.[13] This looming jurisprudential conflict is significant for it raises issues about the rights of community members to marry outside the community, forced marriages, and the minimum age of brides, and whether wives and daughters may enjoy equal inheritance. In cases of non-family law, it raises the question about whether the testimony of women will be considered on par with that of men.
No previous enclave in U.S. history has ever been so vigorously protected by agents of group identity politics or so adamantly defended by legal watchdogs; nor has any previous religious enclave possessed the potency of more than one billion believers around the world. Islamic-only communities may also benefit from the largess provided by billions of petrol dollars to finance growth. The track record of Saudi and other wealthy Persian Gulf donations and charitable efforts are worrisome. There is a direct correlation between Saudi money received and the spread of intolerant practices. In 2004, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department froze the assets of Al-Haramein Foundation, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest nongovernmental organizations, because of its financial links to Al-Qaeda.[14] Additionally, American graduates of Saudi academies advance Wahhabist interpretations of Islam inside the U.S. prison system,[15] and Saudi-subsidized publications promote intolerance inside U.S. mosques.[16]

Go on reading here. It’s just the state in the State.

So it is not rare that American Muslims hate the US Troops. Or in Austria, from Agora, three Muslim soldiers did not salute Austrian flag, rather they just turn their backs to it (also treated by The Brussels Journal).

The 3 Moslem conscripts who refused to salute the flag were not disciplined, instead an Imam was summoned who issued a fatwa saying that it is allowed for Moslems to salute the Austrian flag. In response to the criticisms of Moslems in the army he says that there will alway be a few black sheep, but that their certificates are withdrawn if they are outed.

HT: Arturito.

What is the meaning of freedom of expression?

In the US the cartoons should not be published because they are an insult to the religion and you have to respect others. Yet, if someone displays a banner in which it can be read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" in a public school, and the banner is siezed, a Court has sentenced that is against his freedom of expresion, even if that banner is referring to smoking marijuana:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – An Alaska high school violated a student’s free speech rights by suspending him after he unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school, a federal court ruled on Friday.
Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, displayed the banner — which refers to smoking marijuana — in January 2002 to try to get on television as the Olympic torch relay was passing the school.
Principal Deborah Morse seized the banner and suspended the 18-year-old for 10 days, saying he had undermined the school’s educational mission and anti-drug stance.
Friday’s ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a decision by a federal court in Alaska that backed Frederick’s suspension and said his rights were not violated.
The appeals court said the banner was protected speech because it did not disrupt school activity and was displayed off school grounds during a non-curricular activity.
"Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court’s opinion.
The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights.

So, let me get this strait: if you just publish some cartoons that are only seen by people who are reading that paper -and when Jyllands-Posten published them, it was no great paper-, and that you have to pay for it,  you are inciting religion hatred and your freedom of expression should be disminished. But if you are displaying a banner in a public school which is in favour of smoking marijuana, when minors can see it, then you’re exercing your freedom of expression.

Hmm, I still do not see it, really.

Tags: freedom of expression, Jyllands-Posten

Powered by Qumana