Friday, September 7, 2007


IF anyone needs confirmation our collees ae being sued as part of a subversive movement to help al Qaeda attack the US, this report from Steve Emersons Investigative Project should remove all doubts:

Transcri0pt below:

BILL HEMMER: The author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us is Steve Emerson, terrorism analyst, with me now. Sir, welcome back here.

How much do you know about this group? How lethal are they?

STEVE EMERSON: Well, the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU) is an offshoot of the group that you just mentioned, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). This group, in particular, that the Germans are looking for seems to be almost a brand new group – it’s been in existence, but it really hasn’t carried out that many operations in the West; it has been more active in Pakistan.

HEMMER: Steve, what could they have done with these chemicals?

EMERSON: Well, considering that these chemicals were 100 times more powerful than the bomb that blew up the July 5, 05 – July 7, 05 attacks in the London subways, these could have been absolutely devastating. They were designed to carry out maximum damage if they were implanted in suicide car bombs at Ramstein Air Force Base, at clubs, at restaurants, or even at Frankfurt Airport – it could have destroyed major aircraft, it could have destroyed large parts of the Air Base, it could have killed hundreds of people. They knew what they were doing because they had obtained military-type detonators that could have easily detonated the hydrogen peroxide once it was mixed with another chemical.

HEMMER: Well, the Germans are saying they were motivated to kill as many Americans as they could, specifically at the airport – at the Ramstein Air Base where at least 45,000 Americans make a living and live there as well.

Do the Germans have any idea how deep rooted this cell might be in its own country – how many terrorists might be there living?

EMERSON: I think that they do not know. They say there are as many as 900 radical Islamic terrorists living in Germany today that are under investigation. Those are the ones that they do know. But this one – this particular cell, of which they arrested 3, had as many as 10 other members that they have not identified publicly yet – of which some of whom are in Germany , some of whom are not.

HEMMER: Now Steve, we have seen in the past where these news reports are kept quiet until all the people have been surrounded and arrested.

Did the Germans go public with this too soon, knowing that at least 5, or maybe 10, are still out there?

EMERSON: You know, that’s a good question. My suspicion is that GSG-9, which is the group – the German anti-terrorist group – moved because they feared they were getting close to actually detonating the bombs and they might have feared that there were others involved, of which they did not identify, that could have been useful to the plot, in which case they would have lost control. So I think they took it to the maximum point possible without jeopardizing the security of Ramstein or Frankfurt Airport.

HEMMER: Steve Emerson, thank you for your time – live in Tel Aviv today.

September 6, 2007


click here to watch the video or copy and paste the following link into your web browser:

TAMRON HALL: Steve Emerson is a terrorism expert. He joins us now to talk more about this.

Thanks for joining us, Steve.


HALL: Well, you know, as we consider the recent threats against Americans, can people at home feel secure?

EMERSON: I think on the homeland they can feel secure. I mean, look, there's no guarantee that a terrorist attack won't occur but considering the fact that we've gone six years without an attack and that virtually every single potential attack has been averted through FBI infiltration of the cells operating in the United States, it means the FBI is still batting a thousand – and I give them a lot of credit for that.

And I think there are other mistakes that have been made – obviously we're going to talk about the new GAO report, but I think in general the American public can feel a lot more secure than they did, let's say, even three years ago.

HALL: It’s interesting, yesterday Michael Chertoff, the head, of course, of the Homeland Security, said we are safer in this post 9/11 era. It would seem a difficult question to answer, but do you believe that that is true?

EMERSON: We're safer but we're not safe. And this comes in a contradictory development – sort of a paradox. As new homegrown radical Islamic cells develop – we saw what happened in Copenhagen just five days ago, what happened in Germany yesterday, and, of course, what happened at Fort Dix and a JFK plot just about a month ago. So, there are definite cells that are developing in the United States still trying to carry out jihad. I know the FBI is onto other potential cells. Of course they can't talk about it, but they have managed to infiltrate them and that's a great thing.

HALL: And of course, people at home know that this is a different time – if you go to the airport, you know that the instant that you walk through the door. Do you feel the agencies – from the FBI, the CIA, and even to air travel – have taken the necessary measures needed to fight terrorism?

EMERSON: You know, it's hard to say because, you know, if there's overly cautious efforts to do secondary inspections at the airports, people complain about that. On the other hand, if you are too lax and you go through too easily, you might feel good about it going through it very fast, but it doesn't really [UI] well for tight security.

Airports continue to be the number one area for targets – either the airports themselves, and we saw JFK, Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, and of course we've seen other efforts at airports around the world. So those continue to be the – one of the number one target attacks by terrorists.

HALL: Well, I've got to ask you also, with the incident that happened in Germany, many people every year when 9/11 approaches worry that, you know, the jihadists out there and those who want to harm Americans look at 9/11 as an inspiration date. You know, let's make something happen on that date. I would imagine security in and around 9/11 is the highest. But do you think that it's still like – I don’t want to use the word Holy Grail, but for lack of a better description, that it’s the Holy Grail for many of these jihadists?

EMERSON: I think that it has become a challenge for them to basically pierce the veil of security that the West has claimed it has been able to create after 9/11 in protecting airports and protecting airliners from being hijacked or being used as suicide bombs. So I think that date does pose a challenge for jihadists. Not necessarily would it be al Qaeda, but it would be al Qaeda-inspired terrorists who say, “aha, let's see if we can really try to strike fear in the hearts of the infidels on the very day that we did it six years ago.”

HALL: Well Steve, you mentioned earlier the reports that are coming out and some of the information that shows that maybe we're not as far along as we need to be – particularly the GAO report outlined some of the problems that still exist prior to 9/11 and that exist right now. What most concerns you out of this report, particularly the GAO report?

EMERSON: Well, I have not read the report. I've only read the stories that have come out about the report, so I want to basically admit that I'm speaking only about the facts that have been reported. And it suggests that only half – less than half of the 178 objectives have been met, which means that we're batting less than .500.

Now, the question really is, what about the reality of those objectives? Are those real objectives? Are they necessary objectives? You know, one of the criticisms I had of the 9/11 Report was that they set these standards to be met that obviously, I think, were irrelevant to the real cause of fighting terrorism. They didn't really – I don't think they met reality standards. And I think, possibly, we have the same problem here.
You're always going to have bureaucratic standards that cannot be met. This is an agency, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, that meshed together 22 different agencies with 220,000 people with very different cultures and bureaucratic standards, and to try to get them to mingle and talk to one another is almost an impossible task. It's been done somewhat, but not done enough.

HALL: Alright, Steve, thank you so much for joining us with your insights.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim

At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.

Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.

The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.

Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates – those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.

There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.

This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.

Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.

I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.


Original post