Taking the Jihad Temperature - A Gathering Storm Special Series – DISINFORMATION Part 3

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he will jump out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will not notice the rise in temperature and will eventually boil. 

The Islamists are boiling our frog and though this blog and hundreds like it record almost daily the rise in the Jihad temperature, unless we see how far and fast the temperature has risen, we will not know how far along our boiling has progressed. 

So, the Gathering Storm will be posting only once a week but these weekly posts will take the Jihadist temperature by looking back at news and events over the last two years. Over the next several weeks in the areas of intimidation, infiltration, disinformation and those appeasers and apologists who either knowingly or unknowingly advance the Jihad agenda, the Gathering Storm will show how far our frog has been boiled. 

By seeing the boiling water around us, we can see how far the boiling has progressed. 

The good news is that we are noticing that the water is getting warmer. There is a glimmer of awareness here - a glimmer of hope there. But we have a long way to go. 

Here’s this week’s look back at the rising Jihad temperature of DISINFORMATION !! And remember – this is just a sampling of Jihadist Disinformation. More to follow.

Islam and Democracy Double Speak

I love to see Muslim scholars go through intellectual contortions trying to make Islam compatible with democracy. Try and follow the logic from Dr Pervaiz Nazir, a senior research fellow at the Centre for International Studies, University of Cambridge, during a lecture on ‘The Rise of Political Religion and its Implications for Democracy’ at the Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology (SZABIST).

Right from the start, Dr. Nazir sets the argument. Muslims are victims.

A scholar of Pakistani origin, Dr Nazir said that western nations should improve their perception of Islam instead of enforcing western ideals on Muslim countries. He said the west developed its economy and governing system in a particular setting due to which the Muslim polity suffered. He urged the world to keep past differences in mind while handing down judgment on a democratic system, prevalent in the Islamic world.

Let' see. First, loosely translated – Keep in mind all the terrible things you have done to my culture through history then we can have a reasoned discussion in the present. And second - a democratic system, prevalent in the Islamic world?!

What democratic system? Did I miss something?

He also said that modernity, secularism and democracy could be incorporated into religion instead of casting religion aside to adopt them.

I guess he’s never heard of the separation of church and state. But of course Islam is the perfect solution to both the obedience to Allah and a governmental system. Islam holds that political life can only function properly within the context of Islamic law. To such believers, since God's law is universally true and beneficial to all people, any state law or action opposed to God's law would be harmful to the citizens, and displeasing to God. Many Muslims consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God's law.

He said that religion was a separate entity and should not be mixed with politics, but he agreed to the audience’s suggestion that Islam could not be separated from modern politics.

Huh?! I’m confused. Relgion is a seperate entity from government but Islam can not be sperarted from politics?

This shows that those who hold a fundamental view of their religion befuddles the mind and blinds them to the inconsistencies of their logic.

OK, Dr. Nazir. Which is it? Should Islam be separated from the role of government or not? You’re argument is as clear as mud.

Muslims Dishearten By Attempts to Free Them Seek New Sources of Hope

When I read this news item from Montreal Muslims sent in to me by Michael, I nearly tossed my cookies. This is such a load of horse hockey that it defies belief and shows the lack of any attempts at advancing the Islamic culture and stands as an example of why that civilization never advanced beyond the 13^th century.

DAMASCUS–For prominent Syrian career woman Luna Rajab, the moment of truth came last Ramadan at an evening social gathering of friends and colleagues. Steeling herself to express outwardly what she had felt inside for many years, the 34-year-old architect stepped forward to reveal a decision that would earn the dismay of many of those closest to her, her mother and grandmother included.

Rajab's favourite motto had always been "say it with actions, not with words." And on this night, she said it all by covering her hair with that most Islamic of accessories – the hijab. Never before had she worn the head scarf. Never before had anyone in her social circle, or even her own family. Today, she won't take it off. Rajab's hijab is here to stay.

She knows the decision to wear hijab placed her out of step with many in her circle. But taken in the context of the larger Arab world, she says, it is her friends who are out of step. Which is okay by her. Rajab does not believe in forcing anyone on the question of hijab. In a free world, it is a personal choice, she says. Yet Rajab takes comfort in the fact that by just about any standard one might care to apply, Islam is on the rise again in the Middle East.

And why?

Lebanese sociologist Abdo Kahi describes the drift toward Islamic identity as anything but ideological. "Ideology has logic, but the return to Islam is happening as an idea without logic. It is happening by default, without discussion, as a matter of the heart. What all human beings share is the universal desire for hope, security, justice, values – and one day perhaps, real democracy.

And whose fault is it that democracy has not come to the Middle East? Why America, of course.

Arab thinkers lost faith. (Arab thinkers? Thinking people turn to logic to solve problems - not faith.) What some describe as the "democracy hypocrisy" was laid bare one year ago with the surprise election of Hamas in Western-backed elections in the Palestinian territories. Those who actually covered the campaign saw the Palestinian electorate embrace a deftly played Hamas election platform built as a war on corruption without so much as a mention of the word Israel.

What a crock! Not so much a mention of the word Israel? It’s in their charter? They want Israel destroyed.

"The Bush administration sees all Islamists as radicals and all radicals as terrorists and thus they all need to be eliminated. (No. Not all Islamists are terrorists. Most the majority of Islamists use the non-violent media, litigation, demographic, economic, and institutional jihads and the implementation of Shaira law to advance Islamism.) But this attempt to corner Hamas – clearly has backfired," said Ahmad Moussalli, a political scientist at the American University of Beirut. "It sent a message to the entire Arab world that the promise of democracy is false. And it handed a gift to political Islam by keeping it outside the halls of power, thereby giving them an even greater aura of sanctity."

Let me give you the 411, Montreal Muslims, about democracy. Just because you have a democrcy doesn’t guarantee a policy of human rights and individual freedom. Democracies can vote in a dictatorship just as well as a tyrant can establish it. Read up on Hitler. He was voted into office by the German people then through lawful means at his disposal, grabbed power and made himself Fuehrer.

So, since the ‘democracy conspiracy’ failed in the Middle East, it’s time to turn back the clock to a nicer, gentler time of the 13^th century.

"Arab Muslims today see the George Bush project of democracy in the Middle East crashing to a halt," said Kahi. "The only results they can see are McDonald's, Madonna and bombs. There is nothing real in it for them. The only place left to turn is Islam."

Blanket rejection also feeds radicalism, said Moussalli, as the pole of political Islam wavers between moderation and radicalism. "The more venues are closed, the more moderates get forced to the margins. The radicals are a much smaller force than the moderates, but without a political future some people will resort to military activities to change what they consider to be an evil reality."

So on the one hand moderates are forced to the margin but accept Hamas as an example of ‘democracy’. Moderate Muslims would rather sit back and watch their countries just fold under the tyranny of Islamo-fascism by choosing the hajib instead of the Ann Taylor suit.

"There are only two ways for the West to contend with this. Either give a comparatively moderate Islamic group like the Muslim Brotherhood a chance to live up to their promises by having a chance to govern. Or conversely, they can undermine the Muslim Brotherhood by actually forcing the ruling governments in the Arab world to clean up their act by fighting corruption, governing properly and actually offering some freedoms to their people."

The first option is insane. The Muslim Brotherhood is responsible for advancing the Islamist agenda throughout the world. The second option will not work until we are off the oil-tit of the Arab states. As long as those theocratic dictatorships have us over a barrel we’ll have little luck putting them over one.

If moderate Muslims don’t want to see their region slide into the hands of the likes of Iran then they should learn a word that has been very useful in the Western world when it comes to establishing freedom.

Revolution.

Muslim Clerics Issue Fatwa Against Endangering Lives

The Islamic world is faced with so many challenges to their culture that they are too numerous to mention. And since Islam is a decentralized religion - meaning its head of the ummah or nation of Muslims, the clerics or imans (anyone who wants to say he’s a cleric) take on the role of authority through the issuances of fatwas (which a Muslim may or may not choose to follow).

Is it any wonder then that such a disorganized faith that feels threatened by the non-Muslim world should not be concerned with issuing fatwas against those that would harm the reputation of the faithful and ‘highjack’ their religion?

Shouldn’t there be a plethora of fatwas spewing from Muslim clerics mouth against terrorism, suicide bombers, the killing of women and children, the degradation of women, etc. etc. etc?

Nope. Here’s the priority of Muslim clerics in Dubia of UAE.

Muslim preachers across Dubai’s mosques will soon start delivering sermons about the dangers of reckless driving and Islam’s strict stance on the issue. The sermons will be aimed at teaching Muslims about how Islam discourages dangerous activities such as careless driving and how over spending on traffic fines is not Islamic.

The move follows a fatwa (religious decree) issued recently by the Grand Mufti of Dubai Dr. Ahmad Abdul Aziz Al Haddad declaring reckless driving haram (an unislamic act) because it endangers life.

Speeding endangers lives. A fatwa is needed to stop such a hideous affront against Allah. But blowing up women and children and other innocent civilians in the name of their god takes a back seat to traffic fines.

Did You Know There Are Two Kinds of Terrorism? A British Islamist Says So.

Recently, Syrian-born British Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri, debated the Meaning of Jihad on New TV as reported by MEMRI.

It seems we infidels are grossly mistaken about the concept of terrorism – the killing of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah. We poor deluded infidels seem to believe that there is only one kind of terrorism.

But Surprise! There are really two! But a rose by any other name will still stink the same.

Mr. Bakri starts out with the usual blather.

Interviewer: "In an interview with [the London daily] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on October 10, 2005, you described the people who carried out the 9/11 operation as 'magnificent.' You said that Sheikh Osama bin Laden revived the neglected duty of jihad, and that Allah will reward him for this."

Sheikh Omar Bakri: "Yes. The duty of jihad - and in this case, I'm referring to defensive jihad - had been neglected by the Islamic nation for a long time, because of the arrogance and injustice or America and its allies against the Islamic nation, and because of their support of Israel, and what we see now in the region is the best proof of this. The 9/11 operations were a response to great acts of aggression by America - its attacks on Afghanistan, on Iraq, on Sudan, not to mention the historic Crusades from long ago, and so on."

[…]

"They were magnificent, even though they were terrorists. The fact that they carried out a terrorist act does not prevent us from calling them 'magnificent,' because this is what religious scholars call 'commendable terrorism.'"

Interviewer: "You are saying that they waged jihad."

Sheikh Omar Bakri: "That's because we have two kinds of terrorism - commendable terrorism and reprehensible terrorism. Reprehensible terrorism is an attack on women, children, the peaceful, and the innocent."

Interviewer: "So how do you explain the 9/11 operations, in which innocent people were killed, while a Koranic verse says: 'Whoever slays a soul, it is as though he slew all men.'"

Sheikh Omar Bakri: "Yes, but that verse refers to killing in general.’Do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except when required by justice.' In other words, a Muslim carry out certain religious duties, so when he attacks the enemy attacked on its own land, some innocent people might consequently die, but they are not killed intentionally. This happened in the Bani Al-Nazir raid, and in many other raids in the days of the Prophet Muhammad. When they violated the agreement with him, the Prophet said: 'We conspired against them, and harmed their women and children.'

Interviewer: "But, to a certain extent, you are justifying the killing of innocent people."

Sheikh Omar Bakri: "Killing innocent people is forbidden in Islam. But who is innocent - that is another question."

And that’s the rub. Are there really any innocent infidels?

View the entire clip here.

The Secret Lexicon of Terrorism

Yesterday I wrote a post about Syrian-born British Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri who educated us infidels on the two types of terrorism. Well it seems the EU has entered the fray to teach us poor misguided Kafirs who should be called terrorists.

The EU, mired in their continued semantic contortions of trying to label a dangerous threat to their Union without offending those posing the threat, have taken a page out of the Democrat controlled House Armed Services Committee that decreed the war on terror is now the ‘The-War-That-Must-Not-Be-Named’.

“The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers ‘non-offensive’ phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks. Banned terms are said to include ‘Jihad’, ‘Islamic’ or ‘fundamentalist’.”

And what’s the new PC correct phrase the EU is to use denying the threat of Islam-Fascism? The words ‘Islamic Terrorist’ would apparently be replaced with ‘Terrorists-who-abusively-invoke-Islam’. What the hell’s next? Calling terrorists ‘The-terrorist-formally-known-as-Prince’?

Last year, [the Brussels Journal website] reported about the EU’s attempts to control language and introducing a ‘B vocabulary.’ As Orwell wrote: “The B vocabulary consist[s] of words which [have] been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only [have] in every case a political implication, but [are] intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.”

It’s now Eurospeak and the Europeans are getting quite proficient at it much to their ultimate demise.

“Conservative MEP Syed Kamall hit out at the lexicon. ‘It is this kind of political correctness and secrecy that creates resentment among both the mainstream in Europe and in Islam,’ he said. Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism. ‘This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality,’ he said. ‘The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam’.”

The Lexicon is being kept secret from journalists. It appears the EU not only wants to restrict freedom of speech but to restrict information on the restrictions it imposes.

Restrictions upon restrictions upon restrictions. Keep thinking down to a minimum. Don’t think. Don’t question. Hide your head in the sand. Bow to another culture until yours no longer exists and until this old saying will finally apply to Europe.

They couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.

What is particularly concerning is the way that the British authorities have responded to the story.

What, pray do they mean by this: “Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid ‘providing context’ for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences. ‘We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding,’ said one.”

With logic like that, is it any wonder such a lexicon is obediently accepted?

Games Muslims Play

Taqiyya literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." It is also used as a disinformation tactic to confuse or bamboozle kafirs or non-believers.

It’s not beyond non-Muslim dhimmis to use the tactic as well. These practitioners of dhimmitude, or what have come to be known as Islam’s useful idiots, can be found today on the far left, many democrats, some republicans, and the bureaucracy of the European Union is filled them.

A site called Reflections even tries to compare Christianity with militant Islam.

Trying to get to the truth when having discussions with Muslims many times is an exercise in Taqiyya or when confronted with Islam’s past and current behavior, when the useful idiots mouth platitudes and misinformation that was fed to them by Muslims practicing Taqiyya.

A blog called The Light posted an interesting article of how Muslims use Taqiyya to deceive non-believers into believing that Islam as a rapidly growing religion of peace. The article is rather long and well supported with research and makes some very interesting observations. I’ll cover some of the most important points.

“If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”

Simply put, because it’s wrong to kill people, regardless of what Islam may or may not teach. Decent Muslims are that way because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts rather than to the details of Muhammad’s religion. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only religion that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks….while screaming praises to Allah?

“Other religions kill, too.”

Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence. Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems? Because they don’t. Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God…Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001.

“Muhammad never killed anyone.”

In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention). By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either. Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad’s case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.

“Just like the Bible, the Qur’an also says ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’”
(Qur’an, Verse 5:32)

Many Westerners prefer to believe that all religion is either equally bad or equally good, and eagerly devour anything that seems to support this preconception. The myth usually works to Islam’s advantage as well, since it either raises it to the level of others, or brings the others down to it. To compete with Western religion, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which is the closest thing they have to the Old Testament command of ‘Thou shalt not kill.”

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would.

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn’t a command to Muslims after all. It’s a recounting of a rule that was handed down to the Jews. It isn’t an admonition against killing. It’s an indictment against Jews for violating God’s law. “Any one” doesn’t mean “anyone,” but rather “any one” of the Jews.

“The words, ‘Holy War’, aren’t in the Qur’an.”

In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur’an contained the words, “Holy War.” So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as “Criminal Minds.” Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur’an, but that the word, “Jihad” must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean “Holy War” (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).

So what’s the catch?

Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn’t talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, “Holy War.”

And what about “Jihad?” Well, this doesn’t count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn’t mean ‘holy war’ (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad’s time, nor in ours). “Jihad” is like the word “fight,” which can be used in a benign sense (as in, “I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack”).

“Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion”

How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn’t this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?... Islam is not “growing faster” than other religions because “people are accepting it,” but rather because the birthrate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of accomplishment.

Of the so-called “converts” from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who have no faith to convert from – regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and non-Muslim Third World, where all religions are allowed to compete equally, such people (who experience a spiritual awakening) are much more likely to turn to Christianity than to Islam.

…..the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has. But when a religion has to be supported by double standards and death threats, there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.

Read the entire article. Good ammunition to use when confronted with Taqiyya.

This is Islamist Arrogance!

The parsing of words is very important when dealing with ideas. And when dealing with the subtle tactics of Islamists is no exception. Take a recent innocuous quote from Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

The remark was made at a gathering of ambassadors of foreign countries at the Foreign Ministry's Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS). He also stated the usual line that the OIC “oppose(s) justification of fundamentalism and extremism. We are against all extremist ideologies, not only in the region, but all over the world and are willing to condemn it," he said. The OIC secretary general underlined that Muslims should not be accused of fundamentalism and extremism, given that some of them have been drawn to such thinking and measures in response to the extremism of others.

The same ol’ same ol’. So what’s the solution?

He said that it is time for the West to reach an understanding with Islam.

Read that again.

“It’s time for the West to reach an understanding with Islam”. Look how that quote was structured. Why isn’t it time for Islam to reach an understanding with the West? His quote implies that the West is the one that is wrong and must adapt to Islam. Mr. Ihsanoglu either knew what he was saying or his unconscious enculturation revealed his true belief.

Here’s how to reach an understanding with the West Mr. Ihsanoglu. Those who believe in Islam and who live in the West must live under our laws and adapt to our cultural norms. – not theirs.

The Rewards of Defending Jihadists

Here’s what “being a friend of the Palestinian people” gets you in Gaza.

A little known Palestinian militant group announced on Sunday that it has executed BBC journalist Alan Johnston, who was abducted by masked gunmen in the Gaza Strip more than a month ago. According to fliers distributed in Gaza, Johnston was killed recently by a group calling itself "The Battalions of Jihad and Tawheed in Palestine," which is believed to be affiliated with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network.

The group promised to release a video of Johnston's execution in the coming days.

There has been no confirmation of Johnston’s death and we hope that for his and his family’s sake that the report from the Jihadist group is false.

The enormous irony of this is that so many of Alan Johnston's broadcasts from Gaza tended to apologize for Palestinian terrorism. His father's first public appeal to his captors on his behalf spoke of him as *a friend of the Palestinian people.* Most ironic of all, the NUJ, of which presumably Alan was a member, has just voted in a grandstanding display of gesture politics to boycott Iaraeli goods in support of a one-sided condemnation of Israel.

Given the BBC’s record of dhimmitude, maybe they will wise up and realize that media outlets that claim to be ‘neutral’ news agencies like them, the NYT, CNN and LA Times are not neutral in this war against this virulent Islamist ideology.

When All You Have Is A Hammer …

During my ‘quality time’ for contemplation this Sunday (synonym for on the potty), I was reading the latest issue of Time Magazine. (Reading Time Magazine and potty contemplation seem to fit nicely.) At any rate, I was taken aback by their recent article entitled “How to Prevent the Next Darfur”.

Whao!! I said to myself. Time Magazine has awakened to the Muslim threat in the Sudan? Do they have a formula for preventing Radical Muslims from killing thousands of non-Muslims in Darfur? Or perhaps they’ve discovered ways to make sure that the humanitarian aid sent to Darfur is not being stolen by the war lords? Or perhaps a way to make Muslims speak out and do something about the killing of women and children and the starvation of tens of thousands of Darfurians? I read the subtitle of the article with baited breath. Would the solution to future Darfurs be finally exposed by the liberal media?

You’re right. Of course not.

The way to prevent the next Darfur is… ready? Drum roll please…"STEP ONE: GET SERIOUS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE!"

That’s right folks. Not the civil war. Not radical Muslims attempting to purify the land of non-Muslims. Not the defeat of the war lords who control the countryside. Global warming is the culprit and the reason for the thousands of deaths in Darfur.

How simple. How intelligent. Why haven’t we thought of that before? After all global warming is responsible for many of our problems. The solution? For liberals who have their new hammer of global warming, every problem looks like a nail. Thus the solution to preventing future Darfurs.

And someday soon the Left will prove that global warming is responsible for highway deaths, AIDS, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity and aggression in household pets.

So, are you disgusted and appalled by the humanitarian crises in Darfur? Do your part to prevent another one. Turn down your thermostat. Switch to low energy and light bulbs. Pay your carbon credit indulgences – Oh! and don’t forget to use only one sheet of toilet paper after going to the bathroom.

I did my part for Darfur. I didn’t use toilet paper at all! I used the Time article. Have a great week.

Terrorism? What Terrorism?

This is the end result of a public education in America today. “Padilla Jurors: We’re Not So Sure 9/11 Was A Terrorist Attack.”

A significant number of potential jurors in the Jose Padilla terrorism support case say they aren’t sure who is responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, many because they don’t trust the news media or U.S. government pronouncements. “There are too many ifs, too many things going on,” one male juror said. “I don’t know the whole story.”

He doesn’t know the whole story? Has he been hiding under a rock the last 5 years? And this idiot probably has a voter registration card.

To be sure, most jurors without a Sept. 11 opinion are aware that the attacks have been blamed on terrorists of some sort. But many seem unwilling to believe the conclusion reached by the national Sept. 11 Commission and the Bush administration, widely reported by news media, that blames al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

OBL himself claimed responsibility for 9-11.

One female juror agreed that was a “general public consensus” but still held out skepticism.

If that’s what the general public believes then what is this country coming to?

Those are examples of the rising Jihad temperature of for this week. When seen in groups like this, the slow boil becomes obvious.

Next week a look back at the rising Jihad temperature of Islamist appeasement!!

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.