Mobilizing the Muslim community for false flag awareness

Support "Mobilize Muslims Against False Flag Operations"

Muslims are the biggest victims of false flag operations. According to the Jewish Australian physician Gideon Polya, an expert on preventable mortality:

"About 60 Americans have been killed by terrorists in America since the US Government’s 9-11 false flag atrocity that killed 3,000 mostly American people (one would hope that the governments of non-American victims of 9-11 would conduct their own expert inquiries into this atrocity – indeed failure to do so is evidence of depraved indifference).  In stark contrast, 32 million Muslims have been killed by violence (5 million) or through deprivation (27 million) in the subsequent Zionist-promoted US War on Muslims (aka the US War on Terror)." (source)

Here at Muslims for 9/11 truth we support the long list of notable Muslims who have followed the tradition of the prophets and spoken truths that are often unpopular and unwelcome. Among those who have spoken truth to power:

Anisa Abd el Fattah, Muhammad Abdullah, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nafeez Ahmed, Taha Jabir Alalwani, MD Alam, M. Atta (father of the real Mohamed Atta not the Hebrew-speaking imposter), Anwar al-Awlaki, Ghayur Ayub, Omar al-Bashir, Mirza Aslam Beg, Osama Bin Laden, Naveed Butt, Ahmet Davutoglu, A.K. "Khalil" Dewdney, Yusuf Estes, Louis Farrakhan, Karin Friedemann, Melih Gokcek, Gen. Hamid Gul, Zaid Hamid, Mohammed Heikal,  Terry Holdbrooks, Imran Hosein, Zahir Ibrahim, "Col. Imam," Jamat-e-Islami, Mujahid Kamran, Hamid Karzai, Kaasem Khaleel, Asif M. Khan, Faiz Khan,  Iftekar Khan, Gen. Muhammad Khilf, Mohammad Kowsari, Ramzi Mamdouh,  Enver Masud, Kamron Memon, Mahathir Mohamad, Saman Mohammadi, Mohamed Morsi, Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis, Feroze Mithiborwala, Heidar Moslehi, Zabihullah Mujahid, Ali Muhammed al-Mujawar, Imam Musa, Riyad Nadwi, Mohammad Naseem, Crown Prince Nayef, Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Muammar Qaddafi, Yusuf al-Qaradawi,  Yvonne Ridley, William Rodriguez, Farouk Shami, Katib al-Shammari, Noha al-Sharnoubi\, Aafia Siddiqui, Salah Soltan, Abdul-Baki Todashev, the Tsarnaev family, Salam al-Marayati, Anab Whitehouse, Moeen Yaseen, Harun Yahyah, Khalid Yasin, Syed Zaidi, Asif Ali Zardari...

...not to mention the rising generation of Russian Muslims, the Egyptian people, 99% of British Muslims, the majority of Muslims in several Middle Eastern countries, the Lok Janshakti Party of 
India, the people of Yemen, 97% of Pakistani Muslims, and 60% of American Muslims...

No wonder the FBI had to shut down key Muslim websites in the days leading up to 9/11, to make sure the victims of the coming false flag could not speak out.

The War on Islam must end. Truth persists, falsehood perishes. The time to act is now.

96% of British Muslims reject official story of 9/11

By Graeme MacQueen

Global Research, December 29, 2016

A recent poll reveals that a maximum of 4% of British Muslims believe the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks. This is one of the strongest rejections of that story ever recorded. The sponsors of the poll have done their best to link these poll results to extremism and terrorism, but the data offer no support for this interpretation.  

The poll was released as both a set of data and an interpretative report on December 2, 2016. [1] The sponsor of the poll was British think tank, Policy Exchange, which had the polling company ICM carry out the survey. Policy Exchange, regarded as a highly influential institution, is known for its relationship to the Conservative Party. The current Chair of its Board of Trustees is well known neo-conservative, David Frum. Policy Exchange has been described by a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain as an “anti-Muslim organization,” a useful observation for readers puzzled by the think tank’s interpretation of the poll.

The question in the poll that most directly addresses the events of September 11, 2001 is: “Who do you think was responsible for 9/11?” Five possible responses are listed, with results as follows (Report, p. 75; data set, p. 802):

Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists	4%
Jews	7%
The American Government	31%
Other	6%
Don’t know	52%

The belief that Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks is an essential component of belief in the official narrative of 9/11. If only 4% regard Al-Qaeda as responsible, then no more than 4% accept the official narrative.

The authors of the interpretive report on the poll (among whom, sadly, is Labour MP, Khalid Mahmood) attempt to make British Muslim respondents look isolated and peculiar for their views on 9/11. But, of course, Muslim populations have been critical of the official account of 9/11 for years.

In 2008 WorldPublicOpinion.org polled over 16,000 people in 17 countries, five of which had a majority Muslim population. Of the total Muslim population represented in the survey (399.6 million people in 2008), only 21.2% assigned guilt to Al-Qaeda. [2]

In 2011 the Pew Research Group surveyed eight Muslim populations. Of the total Muslim population represented (588.2 million in 2011), 17% assigned guilt to Arabs (see endnote 2).

In short, a very modest percentage of Muslims around the world has accepted the official story. Knowing this makes the recent results for British Muslims look less peculiar. It is true, however, that these recent results show an even greater scepticism than usual among Muslims, and this is fascinating given the location of this Muslim population in the midst of a country where both government and mainstream media routinely recite the official story.

The interpreters of the recent poll support their aim of making British Muslims look peculiar by contrasting their responses to those of a control group included in the ICM survey. This group of about 2000 UK citizens, intended to represent the British population as whole, responded to the above question as follows (Report, p. 76; data set, final page):

Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists	71%
Jews	1%
The American Government	10%
Other	2%
Don’t know	16%

The contrast between 71% and 4% fingering “Al-Qaeda/Muslim terrorists” is, indeed, dramatic. But what Policy Exchange does not tell us is that, if British Muslims are not representative of world opinion, neither is this control group.

The 2008 17-country survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org indicated that only 39% of the total population represented in the survey (2543.2 million people in 2008) said that Al-Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. These results contrast sharply with ICM’s control group. They also let us know that in 2008 a maximum of 39% of the surveyed population, which I believe to have been representative of the population of the world as a whole, supported the official narrative of 9/11 (see endnote 2).

Determined to make British Muslims look not only peculiar but dangerous, Policy Exchange has even engaged in practices that are clearly deceptive in its poll and in its discussion of the poll results.

Anti-Semitism

The authors of the poll report say that some Muslim respondents, within the focus groups held in various locations in the UK, repeated the erroneous claim that no Jews died in the Twin Towers. The authors comment that this is an example of a “belief in conspiracies rooted in anti-Semitic tropes” and they explain that this claim is meant to be a sign that Jews “had foreknowledge of the attack–and were therefore implicated in the crime” (Report, p. 77)

The attempt to criminalize 9/11 dissent, in the UK and elsewhere, has depended in large part on the idea that everyone who questions the official narrative of 9/11 says “the Jews did it.” This allows 9/11 dissent to be regarded as a form of anti-Semitism and attacked by states with all relevant legal apparatus. The notion that 9/11 dissenters are racists plays into the criminalization effort much better, for example, than the notion that 9/11 dissenters are troubled by violations of the laws of physics in the official narrative.

The authors are correct when they say that the claim that no Jews died in the Towers is false. But they do not attempt to quantify this result. How many Muslims referred to this claim? In the only relevant part of the survey that is quantified respondents chose the US government as responsible for the attacks far more often than they chose “Jews.”

And what, precisely, does “Jews” mean in this poll? This option is one of five offered to respondents. Muslims did not choose the wording of this option: the designers of the poll did. To whom is the term pointing? The state of Israel? A group of high-ranking neo-conservative state officials in the US? Jewish teenagers in Montreal? We are not told.

The 2008 poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org asked an open-ended question (“Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”) and established its categories on the basis of responses given. It ended up with a category called “Israel.” This option has the virtue of clarity–it also has the virtue of plausibility, given the evidence of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. [3] But perhaps “Jews” is useful for Policy Exchange precisely because it is not clear? Its generality and vagueness are useful for making the charge of anti-Semitism. Our suspicions about Policy Exchange’s motives are strengthened when we find that the Policy Exchange interpreters use the expression “the Jews” repeatedly in their discussion of poll results. That is, they say 7% of British Muslims blame the 9/11 events on “the Jews” (Report, pp. 9, 75, 77, 86). In this way they imply that the blame is cast on all Jews, on Jews as a collectivity. This is straight misrepresentation. The question in the poll says nothing about “the Jews.”

Conspiracy theory and extremism

In the poll British Muslims were asked this question (data set, p. 767):

From time to time we all come across so-called ‘conspiracy theories,’ which supposedly explain events in a different way to commonly held beliefs. You may have seen or heard about conspiracy theories about, for example, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.

(Further sub-questions then ask about other aspects of belief in “conspiracy theories.”)

Now, the so-called War on Terror utilizes several powerful and slippery terms. “Conspiracy theory” and “extremism” are two of them. Both of these terms are used in the poll, yet neither of them is defined. This shows the extent to which the poll violates basic principles of public polling and veers into propaganda and entrapment.

About the only things clear in the above question are that “conspiracy theories,” whatever they may be, are bad; that extremism, whatever it may be, is also bad; and that conspiracy theories may be connected to extremism. So it is not surprising that many respondents chose to steer clear of these menacing notions: 40% agreed with the statement that extremists dupe Muslims into conspiracy theories.

How frustrated the Policy Exchange interpreters must have been when, having achieved this result, they found that their most despised “conspiracy theory,” the one about 9/11, was strongly supported by respondents! Unwilling to consider the possibility that many Muslims support the claim of US government responsibility because they think it is the hypothesis best supported by evidence, and determined to draw links between 9/11 dissent and “extremism,” the Policy Exchange authors say (Report, p. 80):

In considering the importance of this apparent readiness to see the world through a lens of conspiracy, it is worth noting how far these theories cast Muslims as the victims of nefarious intrigue. This is crucial given the extent to which radical Islamist groups feed on narratives that place a sense of Muslim victimhood at their core. Groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS portray the world as divided between Islam and ‘unbelievers’, with ‘the West’ held up as the primary manifestation of the latter. In that context, they insist that Muslims face an existential threat from the West, which demands a response – and it is this narrative, which is used to justify acts of violence and terrorism across the globe.

The argument seems to go like this: Muslim terrorist groups undertake violent acts because they think Muslims are under deadly assault from the West; the belief that Muslims are under assault is not rational but is an example of victim mentality and political paranoia; the delusional 9/11 “conspiracy theory” supports this irrational belief that Muslims are under assault from the West; therefore, the 9/11 conspiracy theory supports violence and terrorism.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the international political scene has been dominated since 9/11 by a series of extremely violent assaults by the United States and its allies on Muslim countries. Muslims killed, wounded and left homeless are in the millions. Moreover, we know perfectly well that those attacked have been “the victims of nefarious intrigue.” Is Policy Exchange really unaware of the Downing Street memo, for example, which shows high-level members of the British government, including the Prime Minister, meeting to make a secret plan to support what they acknowledge is an illegal assault on Iraq?

And if the belief that Muslims are under attack is a true belief, what is irrational or immoral about saying that this demands a response from Muslims? There is no reason the response need be violent, and British Muslims clearly do not want it to be violent. The survey actually shows that British Muslims are less sympathetic to terrorism and political violence than the control group representing the general population (Report, p. 8). In other words, this 2016 poll shows that British Muslims reject both terrorism and the official story of 9/11 and see no contradiction in this double rejection.

The real goals of Policy Exchange and those in the British government that the think tank supports begin to become clear when we ponder the wording employed in the conspiracy theory question:

Conspiracy theories are started by extremists trying to dupe Muslims into support for their views.

Who are these extremists? The question implies they are not Muslims. Are they members of the 9/11 truth movement? Given that 9/11 dissent is the only “conspiracy theory” given prominence in this poll, who else could be meant?

If it seems absurd that this non-violent social movement should be called “extremist,” we must remember that for some years now the criminalization of 9/11 dissent has been a goal of high-level actors in the British government. Many of us living outside the UK first became aware of this when we listened to then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s speech to the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2014. In that speech he referred with a show of indignation to the claims “that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged.” He said that these ideas were connected to “extremism” and that his government intended to take on all forms of extremism, including “non-violent extremism.”

Mr. Cameron continued to pursue this theme after his UN speech. In a July 2015 speech on extremism in Birmingham, for example, he repeated his 9/11 and 7/7 examples and said that in taking on extremism the government would need to “take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories.” He reiterated his determination to “tackle both parts of the creed – the non-violent and violent.”

The decision to target “non-violent extremism” had, in fact, already been British government strategy for some years, having been made part of the controversial “Prevent” strategy for countering terrorism. But Cameron was intent on integrating “conspiracy theories” into this target.

There is little doubt that Policy Exchange, which openly supports the Prevent strategy in its discussion of the recent poll (Report, p. 10), wishes both to keep British Muslims on a tight leash and to discredit the global 9/11 truth movement.

Yet, in the face of these aims, the poll responses stubbornly remain. They indicate that British Muslims are aware of major empirical claims made by the 9/11 truth movement (see focus group quotations, Report, p. 76) and they also indicate that respondents distrust mainstream media (Report, pp. 80 ff.).

Here is an interpretation of the poll that is at odds with the Policy Exchange interpretation: the official narrative of 9/11, which has been a minority position among the world’s people for years, is in increasing trouble, fed by growing scepticism toward mainstream media, increasing influence from the movement for 9/11 dissent, and a courageous willingness– demonstrated in this poll by British Muslims–to think independently of Western mainstream ideologues and propagandists.

Notes

[1] “What Muslims Want:” A survey of British Muslims by ICM on behalf of Policy Exchange. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.  

Unsettled Belonging: A survey of Britain’s Muslim communities. London: Policy Exchange, Dec. 2, 2016.

[2] All figures relating to the 2008 and 2011 polls have been arrived at by using data from the polls themselves in combination with country population data for 2008 and 2011 from the Population Reference Bureau.

[3] Examples of Israeli foreknowledge are referenced on pp. 151-153 of my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy (Clarity Press, 2014). Another well-known example is the warning received two hours in advance of the attacks by employees of the Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo. See “Odigo says workers were warned of attack,” Haaretz, Sept. 26, 2001; “Odigo clarifies attack messages,” Haaretz, Sept. 28, 2001; “Instant messages to Israel warned of WTC attack,” Washington Post, Sept. 27, 2001; “Agents following suspects’ lengthy electronic trail–web of connections used to plan attack,” Washington Post, Oct. 4, 2001.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Graeme MacQueen, Global Research, 2016

Talking To The Invisible Chair of 9/11 Truth

Saman Mohammadi is one of the most eloquent Muslim voices of 9/11 truth. Here is the latest from his "Truth Excavator" blog.

Talking To The Invisible Chair of 9/11 Truth

"I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important.  It is that, you, we -- we own this country. We -- we own it.  It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours. And  -- so -- they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years.  It is the same old deal.  But I just think it is important that you realize that you're the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you're libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go. Okay, just remember that.  And I'm speaking out for everybody out there." - Clint Eastwood, from his speech at the 2012 Republican National Convention.

The reaction to Clint Eastwood's speech at the RNC has been mainly negative. But I have a different and more positive view of the speech.

In an era of prepared and polished speeches given by emotionally pulverized politicians it is refreshing to see a man on the biggest national stage in America speak from his heart. It is a rare sight. We never get to hear honest speeches in the house of illusions that is Western politics. 

There is nothing like an honest speech from the heart, regardless of how it is delivered. People say Eastwood's rugged speech was hard to watch. Really? Why is it hard to watch a patriot give a real speech from the heart? It's much more painful to watch fake men like Obama and Romney give fake but polished speeches about absolute bullshit. Obama gives nothing but empty platitudes so an empty chair suits him perfectly. Emptiness is the essence of his heart and soul.

Eastwood reminded all Americans, no matter their party loyalties, that politicians are employees who are there to perform a public service, and who must be questioned, not worshiped. He also introduced an important concept into the collective psyche: Invisible Obama. 

On the biggest questions, issues, and controversies of the day, President Obama and the entire Western political class has been invisible. They are invisible on the issue of 9/11 truth; Indefinite detention of political dissidents; Transnational banking fraud, and so many other political scandals. They might as well not be there. They are not leaders of a grand civilization but political pimps of a dying one.

In his speech, Eastwood addressed an invisible President Obama on an empty chair. It worked well with the audience, but not with the viewers at home. It was a gutsy move, though. And if you think it is hard to carry on a make-believe conversation with an invisible Obama, it's much harder to talk to the real Obama in person. From what I've read, Obama is not "mentally there." He is not open, and that is not a good leadership quality, especially when your country is in a crisis.

In this article, I've taken Eastwood's approach of speaking to an invisible man on an empty chair and applied it to 9/11 truth. Imagine if "9/11 truth" was an invisible chair of truth in a room full of invisible lies, legends, fantasy, and falsehoods. What follows is my dialogue with this invisible chair.

II. Lifting The Cloak of Invisibility: Talking To The Invisible Chair of 9/11 Truth

Excavator: Invisible 9/11 truth, who sits on your golden throne? How can an individual who is on the stage of life and the journey of self-discovery carry on a conversation with you? And why are you rejected by the spellbound audience as unreal and invisible? Are they right? Am I speaking to a non-entity? Are the rumours of your existence just crazy rumours or are you real?

Invisible 9/11 Truth Chair [ITC]: Oh, I'm real alright. But to answer your question in more depth, it depends on who you ask in the audience. Some doubt my existence and call you crazy for pointing me out in the room. And there are some others such as enlightened sufis who consider me an empty truth on an invisible chair. They pay me no mind. They know I exist, but I mean nothing to them because they view me as an inferior form of truth. So they treat me as invisible because they have their eye on a higher truth.

Excavator: A higher truth? Interesting. So you are a lesser truth compared to other invisible, greater truths? If so, then what is your relationship to them? Do your foot stools open or block the gateway of the visible world to a richer reality? And do your foot stools open the door of death in the mind? If so, why? Why not move away from the entrance and let the door close shut in our house of reality? Even if it is a constructed reality, why ruin the intellectual infrastructure of a perfectly good house? Why let in the wind of death into the quiet rooms of the sleeping guests?

Is this house of reality not good enough for you? Does it stink with lies? But what house doesn't stink with lies on this plane of existence? And is not the sweet smell of lies better than the rotten smell of death? Why replace the sweet smell with the rotten smell? You are just a chair. You can stand the smell of death. But what about those who sit on you? They were lying on the floor of legends and lies with content and calm before they awoke and saw you in the corner of the room. You expect them to stop lying down with bliss in their hearts and sit up straight on a cold, wooden chair, frozen with terror?

ITC: I cannot speak for the souls who choose to sit on me over another chair, whether invisible or not, and whether in this or that house. They are free to come and go as they please. As for the charge that my poor little foot stools jam the doorway to the outside world and bring in the wind and smell of death into the house, all I can say is what kind of house do you want to live in? A house that is filled with illusions and stops the terror of death at the door? If a house of illusions, shadows, and moral corruption is good enough for you then be my guest.

Or do you want to live in a house that takes as its foundations all the facts of existence and life? Which house is the healthier house? The wind of death will enter your little house any way because there is no escaping this wind. You can either welcome this wind as a guest or it will knock down the foundations of your false house with the velocity that only the force of nature is capable of.

Excavator: Enough talk of death. Let's change the subject. What if newly awakened souls realize that you are only a small chair of truth with only a smattering of gold covering? What if they look into the distance and see there is a bigger chair in the house down the street? Which chair should the soul sit on? What do you advise a soul to do in this situation? 

Should those who walk on the path of self-discovery in the night sit on you at the end of their painful journey at the break of dawn? Or are you too cold and hard for their tired legs, souls, and arms? Why shouldn't they sit on a chair that is soft and has rainbow coloring? If it gives them joy and relief, then why not sit on the chair where the sun's radiant light shines upon it rather than a chair that stands in the bitter shade?

ITC: Every soul has its own preference. I am not an envious chair. I do not ask to be sat on. I represent life to one soul and death to another. Some souls choose the shadow of death in place of the sun of life for their own reasons. Some see no sun in this life but only the shadow of death. Of course, it is easy to mistake the two. For instance, in a room coloured by falsehoods and deceptions one loses sight of what's real; of what's the light and what's the shadow. But I cannot decide for the soul. It depends on its own sense of perception, intelligence, judgment, and other factors. Some souls do not like the air and quality of real chairs so they mark them as invisible, as they did with me at first.

Excavator: What do you make of the charge that you are a conspiracy chair?

ITC: That is a funny charge against me. Before I was the invisible chair. I was not to be even considered. I was not in the room. I was non-existent. But the force  of reality imposed itself, forcing the half-awake audience and its spiritual managers to at least recognize that I exist. 

It is a funny charge because I can't be both an invisible chair and a conspiracy chair. I am a visible chair of truth. Since my accusers have conceded on the point of my existence, they must take me seriously. But they don't. I'm pushed to the side of the room. They say only the fringe lunatics gather around me. But is truth fringe? Is justice fringe? Is God fringe? Is the global movement for world peace and universal brotherhood fringe? How can I be fringe when souls the world over discover me and stand by me? I am the furthest thing from a conspiracy chair and a fringe chair.

Excavator: Okay. You're not a conspiracy chair. That has been established. I want to move on. Where do you stand in the hierarchy of the invisible world of chairs? Are you the only invisible chair of truth? And what about the visible world? Is the visible electric chair on death row your cousin? Is the visible chair of torture your cellmate in the invisible prison? 

ITC: I am sorry but I cannot assist you in the journey to the invisible world of chairs or show you the way. I have said too much already. I cannot answer your questions. They are for you to discover at your own pace. It takes regular spiritual exercises to reach the level of understanding that you seem to be aiming for.

Excavator: Fair enough. I'll ask you more specific questions. Many of the people who sit on you are described as "truthers." What do you think of them? And who else sits on you? Do you expect a president of the US empire to sit on you? Is not his ass of lies too big for you? He will break you down to pieces, will he not? And what about God? Is he the pilot and are you the chair in the cockpit?

ITC: God is too big for me. And he is not a sitter. As for the "truthers," they know I exist because they can see and feel me. They cannot be persuaded that I am invisible and unreal by the managers of public thoughts and perceptions. They are not crazy because I am not the chair for the mentally handicapped.

Excavator: One final question. What did you think about Clint Eastwood's fictional encounter with an invisible Obama represented by an empty chair at the RNC?

ITC: It was a neat dramatic invention by a master director through which Obama's empty soul was revealed to the American people on a big stage.

Excavator: Okay. Thank you for your time.

Hard-hitting 9/11 truth in Press TV's report on Orange County "spy on Muslims" case

[Note: This Press TV video includes hard-hitting 9/11 truth statements by Muslims for 9/11 Truth co-founder Kevin Barrett, echoed by Imam Musa] 

US government tramples on citizens’ constitutional rights: Analyst

A federal judge in the US has rejected a lawsuit filed against the country’s administration over spying by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on Muslims in Orange County, California.

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney made the decision on Tuesday, claiming that if the suit proceeds, it may disclose ‘sensitive government data.’

The move came in response to a lawsuit filed last year when FBI sent an undercover informant, named Craig Monteilh, to the mosques of Orange County. Muslims say the agency has violated their civil liberties.

Following the ruling, the non-profit American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California and the US-based organization of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which had lodged the compliant on behalf of three Orange County Muslims, said they would appeal the judge’s decision.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Abdul Alim Musa, the Imam of Masjid al-Islam, from Washington, to further discuss the issue.

The program also offers the opinions of two other guests: Richard Becker, with A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, from San Francisco, and Dr. Kevin Barrett, with the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, from Madison. The following is a rough transcription of the interview with Abdul Alim Musa.

Press TV: Let’s look at and zoom in on that new racial profiling because it seems like not a new story but occurring time and again. I’d like to ask you this, Abdul Ali Musa, why is it that it keeps continuing?

Maybe you can shed light on this if you have personal experience of it yourself. I know that in some examples, Muslims, persons of religious faith of Islam, going through, for example, airports in the United States get looked at in a different light.

Musa: [In the Name of God - Most Beneficent; Most Merciful] First of all, I would like to say that on the situation of Orange County, I’ve spoken there several times at the University of Irvine. The imam at the masjid in Irvine that was there a few years ago, Imam Sadullah Khan from South Africa, we have been personal friends for decades.

What I found there was not only infiltration of the masjid and the workings in Orange County from the low end but also the second in command of our organization, a notorious saboteur and infiltrator, we used to call him Amir Abdul Malik Ali, it seems as though he worked in perfect cooperation with Israeli agents and American institutions to arrange situations in Orange County especially at the university.

This person was based in Oakland but would go to Orange County or go to Irvine at least once or twice a week for several years.

It seems as though they would arrange situations that would justify the government infiltrating. They have to have a pretext or a reason, like our brother said earlier about 9/11 and all of these government arranged processes. The same thing happened in Orange County.

Why is it a repeat in our history? Anyone in America that wants to do good, the race doesn’t matter: if you are Philip Berrigan, if you’re Martin Luther King or if you’re Malcolm X, it didn’t matter.

If you want to make a better world or institute a new program improving the condition of humanity, the government has a set pattern to come out and crush you anyway it can.

We go back to the Judge [Robert] Bork days when he was trying to get in the Supreme Court, over 25 years ago when the government lost a case against the Palestinian Nine -- they called them the Palestinian Nine, they were not all Palestinians - in the mid 1980s, the government lost its case. It was thrown out because the government used illegal means to acquire information, and it was thrown out.

That was the beginning of this stage for the renewal of the changing or the arrange for the changing of the laws of the United States and what we call a constitutional dictatorship to the point that now we are targeted killings, we have Anwar al-Awlaki and his son droned to death, we have drones in Pakistan, we have drones all over the Muslim world killing people without any due process, without any justification and without any explanation.

Now, the laws inside the United States, the Constitution, have been removed from society. Technically, the Bill of Rights doesn’t exist. This is why the government now feels free to say we can’t disclose any of the illegal doings that we do because it’s a state secret.

Well, everything that they do is a state secret but they feel free to trample on our so-called constitutional rights and guarantees.

We believe this is an arranged process. We believe that there are three main - when we talk about terror, we talk about the American government militarily around the world, the Israeli government with the media, the Israeli affiliates throughout the world and their operatives that control the media, the books and everything else that feed us a diet of disbelief.

Then we have Saudi Arabia. When you hear about al-Qaeda, when you hear about Taliban, when you hear about all of these disjointed Muslims killing other Muslims, then you’re talking about Saudi Arabia.

Remember, when you tied a triangle of terror together, you have American military, Israeli or Zionist media, and then you have the Saudi Arabians which help arrange things.

In 9/11, they said most of them were Saudi Arabians. So, if they were from Saudi Arabia, why didn’t they invade Saudi Arabia instead of invading Afghanistan?

Press TV: Imam Musa, since our guest there in San Francisco talked about the Occupy movement, we had news last week that came out that the US government has through their security apparatus raided some homes of Occupy protesters in certain states and actually retrieved some of the documents there including, perhaps, documents stored in their computers.

Why have they gone this far? Do they think the problem will be resolved in this form and manner when the bigger picture that the Occupy movement is preaching is not something that’s being addressed? -At least that’s the feeling that the Occupy movement has.

Musa: We can clearly see -- again, I am here in Washington D.C. and our original office, masjid and center is in Oakland, California. Oakland, California, has been one of the centers of the Occupy movement.

When I went down to visit several times, I could see clearly that they had already arranged many saboteurs, many infiltrators, many people to cause trouble and make it look like this totally non-violent movement was involved in violence, dope smoking.

In Dallas and other places, they sent homeless people and drug addicts and everything to press on the movement and join the movement; and it justifies the police again in cracking down.

As our brother said earlier, this system, automatically, I don’t know why we have to repeat it so much, it automatically goes into the mode of oppression.

If you take issues like Imam Luqman who was assassinated three years ago in Detroit, it was a setup, it was arranged, and was a clear assassination; whether it’s the masjid in New York, whether it’s our centers in Washington D.C., in Oakland.

There was a report this month, the August edition of Horizon, this is a national Islamic magazine, and they did research and they came up with a number: they feel there have been over 500,000 interviews by the Federal government since 9/11 of Muslims - just one point - 15,000 agents... 

Whistleblower Kevin Ryan: Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11

Chemist Kevin Ryan was fired from his job at Underwriters Labs in 2004 for blowing the whistle on UL's participation in the cover-up of the explosive demolition of the three World Trade Center Skyscrapers. He has continued to expose the 9/11 inside job through research, publications, and talks. He recently spoke alongside Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to an audience of more than 2000 people at the Nation of Islam's Saviour's Day event in Chicago.


Muslims did not attack the U.S. on 9/11

by Kevin Ryan

Since September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated a number of wars in Muslim countries. These wars, which would be more correctly called massacres, have resulted in the deaths of countless innocent Muslims. In some cases, attempts have been made to present these aggressions in the guise of humanitarian efforts to promote democracy. But the limited public support for U.S. military action around the world goes back to the U.S. government claim that Muslims were responsible for 9/11. This claim is untrue and it is past time for people to recognize that fact. . .

Read rest of the article at: http://digwithin.net/2012/03/17/muslims-did-not-attack-the-u-s-on-911/

Can American Muslims Talk About 9/11?

Terrific article here by Kamron Memon of Muslims for a Safe America. I'll be inviting Kamron on my radio show.
-KB

Muslim opinion silenced by the Zionist-dominated media

Can American Muslims Talk About 9/11?

10 Sep, 2011 Debates About Domestic Security, Debates About Foreign Policy, Debates About Religion And Identity

While many Americans of various faiths have opposed the U.S. government’s domestic and international “War on Terror,” American Muslims who have expressed their criticisms and doubts about these policies have often had their loyalty questioned.

Many Americans wonder why a large number of American Muslims oppose monitoring mosques and Muslim charities, phone wiretapping and airport profiling. Is it because American Muslims are unwilling to tolerate any personal inconvenience or intrusion on their privacy, even if it makes the country safer? Is it because American Muslims sympathize with terrorists, and they don’t want terror plots disrupted?

And many Americans wonder why many American Muslims opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Is it because American Muslims put the safety of their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq over the safety of their fellow Americans here at home? Is it because American Muslims want al-Qaeda to have bases it can use to strike America again?

It’s true that American Muslims care about their privacy and about Muslims overseas. But it’s also true that they don’t want to see America attacked, because America has given them freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the opportunity to make a living and take care of their families. In addition, the safety of American Muslims is intertwined with the safety of their American neighbors; American Muslims don’t want their families and friends to be blown up, which would happen if there are future attacks in the US. Furthermore, they don’t want to be victims of a backlash (discrimination, hate crimes, and restrictions on civil liberties), which would certainly follow future attacks in the US.

So why do so many American Muslims oppose U.S. government policies described as preventive measures against attacks on the US by perpretators portrayed as Muslims?

It’s simple. Many Muslims in America don’t believe that any Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center study found that 60 percent of Muslims in America are not convinced that Arabs were involved in 9/11; 40 percent do believe Arabs were involved. Pew confirmed the findings of a poll, conducted on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, at the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual convention, which found that 62 percent of American Muslims are not convinced that Muslims were involved in 9/11; 38 percent do believe Muslims were involved. A 2002 Hamilton College/Zogby International poll of Muslims (citizens and non-citizens) living in America found that 66% are not convinced that Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks; 34% said Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The poll at the ISNA convention also showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that al-Qaeda is a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America. (And the poll showed that most American Muslims are unconvinced that Muslims committed the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London.)

Many also believe that alleged plots discovered since 9/11 were set-ups by government informants, entrapping Muslims who posed no real threat to America. For example, skeptical Muslims cite the case of Shahawar Matin Siraj, who was found guilty of conspiring to blow up a NY subway station. Siraj claimed that he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Osama Eldawoody, who was being paid by the NYPD. Siraj said the informant suggested the plot and incited him to act by showing him pictures of Muslims overseas being mistreated and by saying he had received a fatwa allowing Muslims to kill American troops. Wary Muslims also cite the case of Hamid Hayat, who was convicted of providing material support to terrorists by attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan. Hayat claimed he was entrapped by a Muslim informant, Naseem Khan, who was being paid by the federal government. The informant encouraged Hayat to talk about fighting America, encouraged Hayat to attend a terrorist training camp, and cursed at Hayat when Hayat said he hadn’t yet attended the camp.

If Muslims weren’t involved in 9/11 or other plots, many American Muslims argue, there’s no need for the government to watch mosques, wiretap Muslim calls, or profile Muslims at airports. There’s no need for the government to torture alleged Muslim terrorists. And there was no need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pew study found that 74 percent of Muslims in America don’t believe America’s “War on Terror” is a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. The poll at the ISNA convention showed that 68 percent of American Muslims believe the American government is at war with the religion of Islam.

American Muslims hesitate to publicly discuss their views regarding what really happened on 9/11, because they fear being further isolated and marginalized; after all, mainstream media and political leaders tend to mock anyone who questions the official 9/11 story. American Muslims also fear the government will investigate them if they speak out. (Pew found most Muslims in America say life has become more difficult for their community since 9/11, and most believe the government singles out Muslims for scrutiny.)

In private discussions in mosques and Muslim homes, American Muslims often argue that no “real Muslim” would have carried out such attacks against civilians. Furthermore, they say, the 19 young Muslims accused of being the hijackers could not have pulled it off. They could not have snuck knives onto four planes, successfully hijacked four planes using just those knives, and then flown three of the planes — unchallenged by US air defenses — into three buildings including the military headquarters of the US. Many American Muslims believe someone else, someone better connected, hijacked the planes, or that the planes were crashed into buildings by remote control. They also believe the World Trade Center was ultimately brought down by explosives.

The poll at the ISNA convention showed that most American Muslims believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur. The poll also found American Muslims almost evenly divided about whether the US government actually organized the 9/11 attacks, and also about whether the tapes of Osama bin Laden — claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks — are real or fake.

Angered by the American government’s perceived political and religious hostility towards Islam and Muslims before and after 9/11, skeptical American Muslims believe the government allowed 9/11 (or orchestrated 9/11) to justify greater domestic control over Muslims and invasions of Muslim countries.

This belief that the US government framed Muslims on 9/11 in order to justify further oppression of Muslims (including shutting down major American Muslim charities which used to benefit the poor in the Muslim world, and high-profile prosecutions of Muslims like Captain James Yusuf Yee who was wrongly accused of spying), creates significant tension and depression in the American Muslim community at the grassroots.

While the general public has never been polled about whether Muslims were involved in the attacks, many Americans have questions about 9/11. A 2004 Zogby International poll showed that 49 percent of New York City residents (whose city was attacked on 9/11) and 49 percent of New York State residents believe the US government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and allowed the attacks to occur.

A 2006 Zogby International poll showed that 42 percent of Americans believe that the US government and the 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence about 9/11, and 45 percent of Americans want Congress to re-investigate the attacks and whether any US government officials allowed the attacks. Ironically, few American Muslims are actively involved in the growing, self-proclaimed “9/11 Truth Movement.”

A 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll showed that thirty-six percent of Americans believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

Does it matter that so many American Muslims, and other Americans, have such basic questions about such a significant event? Should the rest of the country care?

Our country generally marginalizes conspiracy theorists who reject the official story about any national tragedy, like the assassination of JFK.

So should America just write most American Muslims off as a bunch of kooks?

That would be risky.

After all, American Muslims are an important community when it comes to the “War on Terror.” Government officials often speak about the need for American Muslims to monitor their community and mosques for suspicious activity. And American Muslims can serve as an important bridge between America and the Muslim world, where anti-Americanism is growing. So it’s in America’s interest for American Muslims to feel like they are part of the American family, rather than outsiders.

But is there any common ground between American Muslims and other Americans on security issues? Is there any reason to think that American Muslims might be inclined to help protect America? Or are American Muslims innately hostile to America for religious and political reasons? Pew found that 61 percent of Muslims in America are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism in the US, and 76 percent are very concerned or somewhat concerned about the possible rise of Islamic extremism around the world. In addition, the poll at the ISNA convention found that the vast majority of American Muslims oppose attacks within the US, and they would report plots if they learned about them.

If these American Muslims had believed that some Muslims were involved in 9/11, and if they had believed that there are some Muslims who continue to pose a genuine threat to everyone in America (including a threat to American Muslims), they may have actively supported some domestic and international security efforts after 9/11.

To bridge the gap between American Muslims and other Americans, Muslim organizations (local mosques as well as national organizations) around the country can provide public forums encouraging American Muslims to openly discuss 9/11. Thus far, these organizations — concerned about political correctness and fearful of government investigations of those who take unpopular views — haven’t facilitated such discussions.

Why would American Muslim groups benefit from hosting such discussions? Depending on these Muslim organizations’ perspectives, such discussions would either help American Muslims understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11, or such discussions would help the rest of America understand the truth about what really happened on 9/11. Such discussions would also be good for the mental health of many American Muslims, who keep their tensions hidden.

Of course, fearful American Muslim organizations will not take these steps unless the mainstream media and political leaders permit a safe space for discussion about these issues without marginalizing doubters as “kooks” or investigating them. The mainstream needs to “legitimize” the discussion for it to occur.

So what would these discussions, facilitated by Muslim institutions, involve? The same thing that segments of the country have already been discussing since 9/11.

For one thing, American Muslims (like many other Americans) need a history lesson. Many American Muslims are not well informed about the history of al-Qaeda and various attacks and plots around the world before 9/11. They don’t know about statements issued by al-Qaeda listing its grievances regarding American foreign policy. Nor are they familiar with the violent history of “jihadis” like Ayman al-Zawahiri. Many American Muslims had never heard of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Ladin, or Zawahiri before 9/11. So it looked to many American Muslims like 9/11 came out of the blue, and it looked to many American Muslims like the US government had simply created a Muslim bogeyman. Second, American Muslims need forums where they can raise all their technical and logistical concerns about 9/11, and get their questions answered. How did fires high above the ground cause the massive World Trade Center Towers to collapse? Why was the hole in the Pentagon wall apparently so small, and why is there no clear video footage of a plane hitting the building? Why didn’t fighter jets intercept any of the hijacked planes? Of course, many Americans have been publicly discussing these issues since 9/11, but American Muslims and their institutions have stayed out of these public discussions thus far.

Bringing these discussions into mosques and Muslim conventions will not erase all doubts. But it’s certainly much healthier for all doubts to be expressed openly rather than for them to be hidden, so that American Muslims can be exposed to various perspectives and new information. Regardless of how many minds are ultimately changed, American Muslims will feel more comfortable knowing their country is willing to hear them out. These discussions will be a useful outlet for letting out steam. And American Muslims may become more willing to go to bat for America, here and in the Muslim world.

And questions raised by American Muslims may encourage the country to further investigate nagging questions about 9/11, to help get the country on the same page.

Many other Americans may dislike the idea of letting unpopular American Muslims air their concerns about an issue as emotion-laden as 9/11. But it’s in America’s interest to bridge the gap between American Muslims and the rest of the country.

NOTE: Most Muslims living in the Muslim world are not convinced that Arabs were involved in the 9/11 attacks.
_____________________

KAMRAN MEMON, a Chicago-based civil rights lawyer, is the founder of Muslims For A Safe America. Muslims For A Safe America encourages honest and informed discussion about how to make Muslims and America safer. He can be reached at kamran@muslimsforasafeamerica.org

This article was originally published by Islamica Magazine in 2007.

"Ode to an Unfortunate Mass Murder" by Karin Friedemann

Ode to an Unfortunate Mass Murder
Karin Friedemann
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2011/09/ode-to-mass-murder.html

Originally, I was not planning on writing a 9/11 article. Why not treat 9/11 the way Americans treat Hiroshima Day? Nobody cares that the US incinerated an entire city in Japan, it was not just one building. Let's be fair. On 9/11, between 2,000 and 3,000 people perished according to varying reports. Only God knows if they were innocent or not. Some of them probably beat their wives or bought lottery tickets. Anyway they were non-combatants, who are protected in war by moral standards. I knew someone who was working in the banking industry in the World Trade Center. He was a Muslim. But I never understood why he would work at a bank, let alone at America's Ribaa Center. I feel horribly for his family. No matter who bombed the World Trade Center in New York, Allah willed it though. He willed all of those people killed, the same way He willed you to lose your wallet one day. Maybe you underestimated your Zakat. Maybe your reaction of alhamdulillah will protect your future losses and gains.

Nobody who ever met Osama bin Laden ever said a bad word about him. Therefore I am inclined to disbelieve ongoing news reports that he was connected to 9/11. Just before the Americans started bombing Afghanistan, the US told the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. The Taliban said if he had committed such a crime, they would be happy to hand him over since according to Islam, the targeting of non-combatants is illegal. What was the evidence that bin Laden had committed the crime, they asked? The US refused to answer. We just mass murdered thousands of starving people for no apparent reason. Same as Iraq. The US just decided that certain people shouldn't have food.

I'm sorry my fellow travelers, but that's just Satanic. An illiterate could see this. The Salafis held the American flag high totally clueless while Shias blamed the Salafis for 9/11, also waving the American flag. Hello? Can we just get something straight? Muslims don't fight like 9/11. The WTC attack was a made-for-TV event. It was seized by all the networks to promote an agenda. They said they knew who did it within 30 seconds of the first report and yet ten years later, they have not produced a shred of evidence. Muslims don't do one-time, glamorous, perfectly photographed at every angle events!

9/11 cannot be considered as part of any jihad right or wrong, for the simple reason that it was clearly a symbolic show of smoke and flames and not an act of an ongoing war. When Muslims fight a war, they don't mess around with one-time events. If there was an Islamic Jihad in America, people would be dying every day. If there was such thing as al-Qaeda declaring war on the US the way the Taliban declared war on the Soviet Union, five to six policemen would die a day. Civilians would rarely be targeted. But the death toll would be steady, small, and relentless. Not a week would go by when the Muslims didn't hurt you so deep by targeting your men in uniform on your own soil. Muslims fight to win.

If Muslims had declared war on the US and they had truly committed 9/11, don't you think they would have capitalized on that event? They would have followed that explosion with another explosion and another one after that, if they had that much money and power. Not. The Muslims' main claim to fame is the car bomb. How come there are no car bombs going off every few days in America like in most Muslim countries? How come I got some pizza at Sbarro's no problem? Why is Boston's World Trade Center still standing?

9/11 was not committed by any extremist Muslims on an anti-American Crusade. If they were, we'd have heard about follow up explosions on 9/12, 9/13, and every week including this week just like Palestine or Pakistan just between political parties. Look at every war involving Muslims. It just goes on and on and on with agonizing detail. One person at a time is targeted and the person who shot him may or may not get away unharmed. To say that 9/11 bears any characteristics of Islamic warfare is a JOKE. At no time in history have Muslims ever created one single successful attack staged for television that ruined a nation. They never ever got all TV stations to agree who did it within 30 seconds of their grandiose measure. This is absurdity! If the Muslims could do this, why are they not doing it every week? They would have their own station just for terrorizing skittish Americans with 9/11 footage around the clock. They don't.

9/11 was a mass murder for which no perpetrator has ever been convicted. No one has ever had a fair trial and answered our questions. It has never happened. There are people on Wall Street who know why.


Karin Friedemann is a Boston-based freelance writer.