Pakistan

9/11, Cordoba House, Faisal Shahzad, Freedom Radio, Ground Zero, Islamic terrorists, Pakistan, Taliban

Freedom Radio, 8 PM EDT SUN: Diana West, Tim Brown on GZ mosque; Bill Roggio on Shahzad, Taliban

by  • 

Join Pat, aka Honest Conservative, 8 PM EDT Sunday evening, for the May 16 edition of Freedom Radio.

Update: Here is Tim Brown’s interview from Sunday evening:

Retired FDNY firefighter and 9/11 survivor Tim Brown of theBravest.com joins us to discuss the plan to build a sharia-complaint ‘Cordoba House’ within sight of where 19 followers of sharia law slammed Flights AA 11 and UAL 175 into the Twin Towers.

We’ll discuss with Diana West her latest column on TownHall.com, ‘Do We Deserve a Mosque at Ground Zero?’

The second attack on the World Trade Center is coming. It will stand 13 stories high, cost $100 million dollars and include a mosque. Known as Cordoba House — the name echoing an early caliphate that, of course, subjugated non-Muslims — it will be located two blocks away from where our magnificent towers crashed and burned, easy wafting distance for the Islamic call to prayer.
…
Maybe we deserve such a mosque at Ground Zero. It will serve as the perfect monument to post-9/11 America, a shining reproach to a nation that long ago capitulated through loss, or worse, absence of will. Not that it will be widely seen that way. Aside from the torment and seething of survivors, both family and professional family of the 9/11 dead, aside from blog noise and tabloid venting, the phony narrative of Cordoba House as a kind of healing outreach center — pure deception — appears ready for chiseling into stone. And that’s not because Cordoba’s flimflamming Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf obfuscates everything negative about Islam (jihad, for instance), and promotes everything antithetical to Western liberty (Sharia), often with jarring Western references. (“To Muslim ears,” he writes, “Sharia law means … the conditions necessary for what Americans call the pursuit of happiness.”) That is, it’s not only the efforts of Imam Rauf that are the problem. It’s because nearly nine years after 9/11, we are still stupid enough to buy them.

Bill Roggio of the LongWarJournal.org received an email from the Taliban within 8 hours of the May 1 attempt by Faisal Shahzad to set off a car bomb in Times Square. On April 30, the day before the attempted attack, the Taliban put their web site online and uploaded a video of their taking credit. Bill will explain what happened next and detail the players at the Pakistan end of the plot.

Here is the show link. The call-in number is 646-478-5613.

— Tim Sumner
Producer, Freedom Radio
Co-founder, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

Afghanistan, al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Biden, India, jihadists, Pakistan, Taliban

WaPo tells Obama, ‘Taliban has gone from struggling for survival to aiming for control over both Afghanistan and Pakistan’

by  • 

This morning’s editorial, ‘The Taliban Threat,’ in the Washington Post, must have shocked Vice-President Joe Biden:

“I think the Taliban are, obviously, exceedingly bad people that have done awful things,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last week. “Their capability is somewhat different, [from al Qaeda] though, on that continuum of transnational threats.”

That analysis — which is being used by many who oppose sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan — made some sense in the first years after Sept. 11, 2001. Now it is badly out of date. Al-Qaeda, though still dangerous, has suffered serious reverses in the past several years, while the Taliban has gone from struggling for survival to aiming for control over both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Though it is not known to be planning attacks against the continental United States, success by the movement in toppling the government of either country would be a catastrophe for the interests of the United States and major allies such as India.

For years the United States has been trying to persuade Pakistan to fully confront the threat of the Taliban, even as its government and army dithered and wavered. Now that the army at last appears prepared to strike at the heart of the movement in Waziristan, the Obama administration is wavering — and considering a strategy that would give up the U.S. attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

After all, VP Biden only suggested that General McChrystal step up attacks in Pakistan on al Qaeda and add Mullah Omar’s shura council in Quetta to the target list, using drone strikes and ground troop raids.

The WaPo’s editors summarized it with this:

Adopting such a strategy would condemn American soldiers to fighting and dying without the chance of winning. But it would also cripple Pakistan’s fight against the jihadists. With the pressure off in Afghanistan, Taliban forces would have a refuge from offensives by Pakistani forces. And those in the Pakistani army and intelligence services who favor striking deals or even alliances with the extremists could once again gain ascendancy. After all, if the United States gives up trying to defeat the Taliban, can it really expect that Pakistan will go on fighting?

When the lights went on inside the chicken hawk house at the Washington Post, somebody was actually at home. An unholy alliance of violent Islamic jihadists — the Taliban, al Qaeda, and senior officials within Pakistan’s government — seek power in Pakistan and control of its 60 nuclear weapons.

Maybe tomorrow the WaPo’s editors will advise President Barack Obama to broker a four-way winning strategy between India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the United States to both end the dispute over Kasmir and destroy this threat to all nations.