Friday, June 17, 2005

The Second Wave of Al Qaeda

The following is excerpted from John Gibson's June 3, 2005 interview with Dr. Walid Phares, senior fellow with The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies:
"...Al Qaeda, in general terms, has shown the first wave with the 9/11 attacks, the bombers that came from overseas trying to bring down targets in the United States. What we see right now is the beginning of what I call already and many of my colleagues call second wave, meaning U.S. citizens who have not shown in the past a signal that they were part of any radical movement or show, and very well integrated in their societies. I think this is the most important thing. They protect themselves with the society, with the fact that they are good citizens and have not shown any sign before. The terrorist strategy, Al Qaeda, the jihadist strategy and it's on Internet -- it's not so difficult to find it -- is to find people who actually will be patient enough not to get involved in a variety of activities, get the education, do the connections, travel, meet with Al Qaeda, but then will trigger one-time mission. These are long-term terrorists...the second wave.They could be either Arab-American, Muslim American, converts allied to the jihadists....[T]hey are people who fit perfectly the normal U.S. citizen, meaning they send their kids to school. They do have probably arguments with their neighbors, but they're good neighbors, meaning not somebody who would come to Florida or New York and hide and then suddenly strike. These are people who are known in their society, in their communities."

The events of 9/11 were well-coordinated attacks, with clear ties to terrorist movements in the Middle East. If Dr. Phares is correct, however, the next series of attacks will come from within our own borders and will be perpetrated by "good citizens." (Why does that phrase ring familiar? Could it be because it is the mantra of CAIR and of various leftist organizations?)

It is way past time to deal with American Islamist organizations, particularly mosques, Saudi-owned schools, and centers for Islamic studies. These places are hotbeds of Islamist rhetoric and activism, and should not be allowed to operate under the protection of American freedoms. The recent arrests in California and in Florida are likely just a small inroad into the anarchism which is afoot, and law enforcement, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, needs to have at its disposal all possible anti-terrorism tools, including the Patriot Act, now under bipartisan attack within our Congress.

Remember our vigilance as individual citizens in the months following 9/11? How many attacks did our vigilance prevent? Where is that vigilance now? As our Founding Fathers warned, maintaining freedom requires constant vigilance. This period of relative calm could well be masking the gathering of more attacks.


At 6/18/2005 9:01 AM, Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Hear, hear!

We certainly need to go on the offensive. This will mean demanding policies that will upset some - but we can't hold back from trying our utmost just because there will be opposition from the left and a few on the right.

Solid leadership doesn't shy away from a fight. I think our current administration is well-meaning but too timid. I sense they don't want to demand reforms that they believe will not pass. I think that's a mistake. Let the obstructionists show their color.

We know, of course, that Bush will be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't (you said this on Social Sense, I believe). That's why I think there's little downside to stepping up the demands for tougher domestic measure - the borders, entry from Islamic countries, monitoring Islamic groups, profiling Muslims ... ask for it all and point to the obstructionists with the warning that they are compomising our security.

I believe if we demand it, the adminstration will respond. They need to know the people are behind them - so, oddly enough, we may have to get in front and create popular support. I think we can make a difference if we do it right.

At 6/18/2005 9:10 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Yes, we must demand strong leadership and a reality check!

Are you familiar with any of John McWhorter's writings about racial profiling? McWhorter, a black linguist at UCLA Berkeley, does not write about the Islamist threat--not as far as I know--but he has discussed the foolishness of calling investigative tools 'racial profiling.' Whoever is committing the crimes needs to be investigated--regardless of race. The same principle applies to Muslims, and anything less is indeed compromising our security.

At 6/18/2005 10:41 PM, Blogger Jason Pappas said...

Yes, I've seen McWhorter talk on various matters related to race and he sheds much light on the topic. I don't remember him talking about the miss-named "profiling" issue but he's right.

Every facts helps to narrow down the investigation; it's just a rational approach to dealing with the evidence as it appears. And let's also remember that an investigation is not punishment.

At 6/19/2005 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One danger that I see is that local law enforcement officials are standing back "waiting" for the feds to do their jobs for them. When local police may not even apprehend a subject as an illegal alien, something is serious out of balance. For example, the Sheriff in Lodi said in an interview that he's never seen any problems within the Muslim community. That may be true enough, but did he even look?

Now I'm sure that some people would say that "looking" for crime is profiling, or violation of civil rights. If that is true, why do we send people "under cover" in drug sting operations? I understand how difficult it must be to infiltrate the Middle Eastern web, especially since Americans are not known for their interest in learning other languages. I also understand that local communities are not willing to fund additional manpower or to train them in "foreign languages." No one said the WOT would be cheap, and no one likes to pay higher taxes.

BUT . . . someone needs to fish, or cut bait.

Another FANTASTIC article, AOW.

At 6/19/2005 5:05 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

I am less optomistic then ever before. PC is abound and it will be the noose around our neck. People need to wake up and start to look around.

9-11 is real as is WTC 93 as I was there people are asleep at the wheel.

At 6/19/2005 7:02 PM, Blogger Esther said...

GREAT post, AOW and great comments here too. We are definitely asleep at the wheel. The administration needs to get much tougher and screw PC-ness. We are war. We need to start acting like it.

At 6/19/2005 7:18 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mustang and Esther,
I have great respect for Dr. Phares. His web site @ is an excellent source of information.

At 6/20/2005 8:30 AM, Blogger Timothy Birdnow said...

I work as a property manager in St. Louis, Mo. A day before the attacks on 911 we had a middle eastern man leave his apartment; he gave no notice and did not try to get his security deposit back. He had lived there for at least a year, and the F.B.I. paid us a visit.

I live in Little Bosnia, in an area which used to be heavily German but is now the resettlement zone for Bosnians. I believe most of them are good people, but most of them are Moslem and I have my suspicions about that. My company employs many of them, and I know they were very angry when Saddam`s army collapsed so quickly, as well as when Saddam was caught. This gives one pause.

Thanks for visiting my site, and thanks for that great post!

At 6/20/2005 9:15 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Timothy Birdnow,
See the April 21 posting, "Neighbor or Terrorist?" @

I will be visiting your site on a regular basis.

At 6/20/2005 6:03 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Timothy -- YIKES!!!!!!

At 6/20/2005 6:45 PM, Blogger The Disgruntled Chemist said...

It is way past time to deal with American Islamist organizations, particularly mosques, Saudi-owned schools, and centers for Islamic studies. These places are hotbeds of Islamist rhetoric and activism, and should not be allowed to operate under the protection of American freedoms.

So are you saying that certain kinds of American citizens (and these people are citizens) do not deserve the protections guaranteed by the Constitution simply because they're Muslim?

Look, you could certainly try to turn America into a "no Islam allowed" country, as many Islamic countries have done with respect to Christianity. But why? Is it worth it to become like the enemy that we're fighting in order to win?

If we start tearing down the Constitutional protections of freedom of religion, assembly and speech, are we really America anymore? Or do we become a country that only likes you if you're the "right" religion? And is that really the path we want to go down?

Think about what you're advocating with the passage I've put in italics above. Think carefully about what happens to the America that you know and love if we start denying freedoms to certain classes of people. We were there once. We should know enough not to go back.

At 6/20/2005 7:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the Chemist:
AOW did not suggest doing away with any constitutional protections. However, if you think for a moment that Islamic mosques are flower gardens of love and understanding, centers where religious good feelings exist, and where Muslims reach out to others in the spirit of the Koran, you are seriously delusional.

I cannot speak of AOW, but I can tell you that I've earned the right to speak for myself. The right to religious preference is a constitutional guarantee; "religious choie" does NOT include inciting others to murder my fellow citizens; it does not include the right to use religious centers as arms storage warehouses. Have we found any of these things yet? I'm not sure one way or the other, but here is what I am sure of . . .

70% of the mosques in the USA are headed by Wahabbist clerics, funded by the government of Saudi Arabia, and the most radical among Islamic sects. All madrassah's in this country instruct Muslim students to beware of and remain aloof from the Infidel. I assume that means "fellow Americans."

Perhaps that's okay with you, Chemistry student, but it isn't okay with me, and more to the point, it is exactly the opposite from what we expect from those who come to our country.

Personally, I think it has been a tragic mistake to allow so many people into our country, but that's something that I cannot control. What I can control is what happens in my community, and you can believe that if I see questionable activities going on in local mosques, I will notify federal authorities as soon as possible.

I appreciate your kind and understanding attitude, but please be warned that when "they" take over, you'll be the first to go. You can bank on that.

At 6/20/2005 8:31 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

What I am advocating is a thorough investigation of Islamist organizations. First-Amendment rights do not extend to Islamists or to any others who espouse or commit treason (as in Al-Timimi, convicted of 10 charges)or to jihadist terrorists. To cite just a few interesting articles:
(Some of the above are blogs, but they have good citations in them)

BTW...As the recent arrests in Lodi show, some activists to which I refer are not American citizens. Others appear to hold dual citizenship, a concept which I fail to understand, especially since 9/11.

You asked, "So are you saying that certain kinds of American citizens (and these people are citizens) do not deserve the protections guaranteed by the Constitution simply because they're Muslim?"
My answer: No. Muslims are certainly guaranteed Constitutional rights. I believe that the definition of treason is also in the Constitution.

You mentioned freedom of religion. From my research, I believe that Islam is, first, a political ideology which advocates theocracy and establishment of a worldwide caliphate; the latter is a dictatorship and, hence, the antithesis of the American system of government. Furthermore, Islamist political ideology and faith are so entertwined that the two functions are inseparable, again the antithesis of the American system.

If any organization, Islamist or otherwise, is promoting those goals, that organization is operating outside the American system. Such an organization must not be allowed to exploit First Amendment freedoms, which are not a suicide pact. I personally am very suspicious of Saudi-owned institutions as Saudi is the home of Wahhabism, the underlying philosophy of Al-Qaeda.

What I would like to see America return to is September 10, 2001. That's an impossibility, I know.

To clarify..What I am saying is that certain ideologies are incompatible with democracy. There are any number of those ideologies, but to my mind, Islamism, as in Wahhabism, is the one which currently presents the greatest threat.

At 6/20/2005 9:45 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...


Unlike the others here I am familiar with your blog. You are a friend I respect but you arte Full of it.

You rail about every percieved gripe about Christianity but say squat about Islamic abuses. I am sorry Fox News doesn't rile me up
and homicide bombing is not a cultural variant.

You make every excuse for Nihlism
under Islam . Terrorism is Nihlism and Communism is Nihlism. Be as tough on the cult of Death WAHABISM
and Marx as you are on Falwell.

FYI Anti Zionism is the same as anti Semitism.Only Communists play
word games like that. This is a correction of the repeated passes you have granted thre REcidivist.


Post a Comment

<< Home