Saturday, June 30, 2012
Egyptian President to expose FBI in 1993 WTC bombing?
Egypt's new President Mohammed Morsi doesn't believe the official story of 9/11.
And he apparently also doubts the official story of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
According to ABC News, President Morsi recently said:
""I see banners for Omar Abdel Rahman's family, and for prisoners arrested according to martial rulings and detainees from the beginning of the revolution...It is my duty to make every effort, and I will beginning tomorrow, to secure their release, among them Omar Abdel Rahman."
Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called "blind Sheikh," was the patsy-in-chief set up to take the blame for the mobbed-up New York FBI office's bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. (The FBI also orchestrated the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, according to convicted bomber Terry Nichols.)
Even the New York Times, which led the cover-up of both World Trade Center bombings, cited tapes proving that FBI informant Emad Salem, who created and led the 1993 bombing plot, repeatedly discussed with his FBI handlers the fact that the FBI was responsible for the bombing:
"Do you deny," Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, "your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?" Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it. -NY Times
Many if not all of the Muslims who were falsely convicted of the FBI's act of terrorism were obviously innocent. Would Mohammed Salameh really have tried to get his $400 deposit back on the van used in the bombing if he had known about the plot? "Mohammed A. Salameh had returned three times to a Ryder Truck Rental dealer in Jersey City requesting a refund of the $400 cash deposit he had placed on a yellow Ford Econoline van." -Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993 Growing Evidence Points to Role of FBI Operative By Ralph Schoenman (published in Prevailing Winds Magazine, Number 3, 1993)
Lynn Stewart, the lawyer for the innocent Muslims framed for the FBI's act of terrorism, was herself convicted on trumped-up charges in retaliation for her efforts to expose the FBI's terrorism and frame-up of her clients.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Egypt's new president "doubts al-Qaeda role in 9/11"
Top Egyptian presidential candidate doubts al Qaeda role in 9/11
by Ben Birnbaum, The Washington Times
![]() |
| Mohamed Morsi |
“The U.S. administration has never presented any evidences on the identity of those who committed that incident,” longtime Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi is quoted as saying in a 2007 posting on Ikhwanweb, the Islamist group’s official English website.
“The Muslim Brotherhood and others demanded a transparent trial with clear evidence and to have court rulings,” he said after the sixth anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. “We confirm that this isn’t a defense to those who committed these actions, but we only seek the truth.”
Mr. Morsi last week won the most votes in the first round of Egypt’s presidential election, and he is heavily favored to win a runoff this month against secular former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik.
He is not the only candidate to have floated conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks: Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh - a former Brotherhood figure who finished fourth in last week’s race - said last year that he believed 9/11 was “part of a conspiracy.”
Mr. Morsi’s remarks underscore the challenges the U.S. likely will face in a Brotherhood-dominated Egypt. The group’s Freedom and Justice Party won 47 percent of the seats in Egypt’s parliamentary elections and is expected to play a dominant role in crafting a new constitution.
A call for proof
While condemning the 9/11 attack “regardless of its doer,” Mr. Morsi lambasted the U.S. response to them, calling the Bush administration “the world’s terrorism leader” and accusing it of getting “in line with Israeli occupation forces in aggression, injustice, encroaching lands and raping women.”
According to the Brotherhood website’s characterization of his 9/11 remarks, Mr. Morsi said the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq “due to the U.S. administration claims that the doers of the 11 September attacks [were] Muslims, without proving such a thing until now.”
In 2008, Mr. Morsi called on the U.S. to provide “scientific” proof for its account of events.
“We have officially demanded a fair trial for 9/11 suspects and the issuance of a detailed scientific report about the attacks, but the U.S. administration did not respond till now,” Mr. Morsi told Ikhwanweb.
“This requires a huge scientific conference that is devoted to analyzing what caused the attack against a massive structure like the two WTC towers,” he said, referring to the World Trade Center. “Should this happen, we will stand firmly against whoever committed this horrific crime against innocent civilians.”
However, Osama bin Laden, the late al Qaeda leader, admitted his terror group’s involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks in a videotaped message in October 2004... (read complete story)
(False! Bin Laden repeatedly denied responsibility for 9/11, deplored the attacks, called them un-Islamic, and blamed "some people with their own agenda" and "American Jews" for the attacks in repeated statements before his death in December, 2001.)
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
9/11 ‘truther’ leading Egyptian presidential race
![]() |
| Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh |
The Washington Times
9/11 ‘truther’ leading Egyptian presidential race
By Ben Birnbaum
An Islamist who believes that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States were an American conspiracy is the front-runner in Egypt’s presidential race, a new poll shows.
Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, formerly a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, led the field of 13 candidates with 32 percent of the vote in a survey released Monday by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.
Mr. Abolfotoh expressed his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an interview last year with Egypt scholar Eric Trager.
Mr. Trager, now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, quoted Mr. Abolfotoh as saying:
“It was too big an operation …. They didn’t bring this crime before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it’s part of a conspiracy.”
Egyptians will vote Wednesday and Thursday in their first presidential election since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak last year. If none of the candidates wins a majority, the two top vote-getters will compete in a runoff next month.
A ‘liberal Islamist’?
The 61-year-old Mr. Abolfotoh, who left the Brotherhood last year, has been dubbed a “liberal Islamist” by some reporters partly because he said he believes that a Christian should be able to run for president - a view that put him at odds with the Brotherhood’s leadership.
In a recent Egyptian television interview, Mr. Abolfotoh qualified that position. He said that, while parties are free to nominate whomever they want, Egypt “cannot have a president who does not have an Islamist orientation.”
The Washington Institute’s Mr. Trager said that “the notion that Abolfotoh is some kind of progressive is farcical.”
“He is a longtime Muslim Brother, a founder of the Islamist student movements of the 1970s, and somebody who still calls for implementing the Shariah,” he said. “His falling out with the Brotherhood was over differences regarding strategy and internal administration, not ideology.”
Mr. Abolfotoh has been endorsed by al-Gama’a al-Islamiya, a jihadist group the State Department designated as a terrorist organization.
“Given that he was endorsed by a terrorist organization and has called the peace treaty with Israel a national-security threat, it is highly unlikely that Egypt’s foreign-policy will remain friendly to U.S. interests if he’s elected,” Mr. Trager added.
Mr. Abolfotoh’s candidacy has seen several lucky breaks lately.
First was the disqualification last month of hardline preacher Hazem Abu Ismail from the race. The Salafist Nour Party, which had backed Mr. Abu Ismail, later threw its support to Mr. Abolfotoh.
In addition, the disqualification of the initial Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Khairat al-Shater, and his replacement with a less charismatic candidate, Mohammed Mursi, has caused a swing of Muslim Brotherhood support to Mr. Abolfotoh. Mr. Mursi, 60, was favored by only 8 percent of those polled in the May 4-10 Brookings survey of 773 Egyptian voters.
Closest rival
Mr. Abolfotoh’s closest rival in the presidential race appears to be Amr Moussa, a secular former foreign minister and Arab League chief. Mr. Moussa, 76, drew 28 percent support in the survey.
Mr. Moussa has repeatedly said that Egypt cannot afford “an experiment” in Islamist democracy, while Mr. Abolfotoh has blasted Mr. Moussa and another leading candidate, former Air Force commander Ahmed Shafiq, for their ties to the fallen regime. Mr. Shafiq, 70, received 14 percent support in the poll.
Mr. Abolfotoh and Mr. Moussa squared off recently in a four-hour televised debate that featured several sharp exchanges.
At one point, Mr. Abolfotoh called Israel “an enemy” and pressed Mr. Moussa to do the same. Mr. Moussa demurred, saying that Egypt’s next president should “not push it along with slogans towards a confrontation we may not be ready for.”
The winner of the election will have a large effect on the direction of the revolution that toppled Mr. Mubarak. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences in particular for the country’s besieged Christian minority, for Egyptian-Israeli relations and for the role of religion in public life.
Islamists so far have capitalized on the disorganization of liberal parties, winning two-thirds of the vote in the parliamentary elections.
The Brookings poll also shows that 66 percent of Egyptians support making Islamic law the basis of Egyptian law. But, in response to another question, 83 percent of Egyptians said they prefer applying Shariah in “spirit,” adapted to modern times.
Asked to pick a model for Egypt among six Muslim countries - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Malaysia, Morocco, and Tunisia - 54 percent of those surveyed chose Turkey and 32 percent chose Saudi Arabia.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also emerged as a favorite in the poll, with 63 percent of Egyptians naming him as the non-Egyptian world leader they admire most.
“Abolfotoh has said that he wants to be the Erdogan of Egypt, and I think that U.S. relations with Turkey may be a good example of what we could expect,” noted Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle East Democracy.
“Turkey remains an important ally with whom the U.S. cooperates on a variety of shared interests. But on the surface, there is more tension between the two due to Erdogan’s inflammatory populist rhetoric and positions.”
Saturday, March 24, 2012
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/
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
American Muslim leader Imam Musa of As-Sabiqun speaks out for 9/11 truth
Imam Abdul Alim Musa of as-Sabiqun is one of the very few American Muslim leaders with the integrity to follow the Quranic injunction "keep the faith, work for justice, cling steadfastly to truth, and patiently persist." (And one of the few whose views are in line with the Muslim majority, both in the US and worldwide.)Imam Musa will appear on Truth Jihad Radio (hosted by Kevin Barrett of Muslims for 9/11 Truth) today, 1/18/2011, 3 to 5 pm Central.
Watch him school Hannity on 9/11 truth among other things.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
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 mediaCan 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.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki: Murdered for telling the truth about false-flag terror?
Though never charged with any crime, al-Awlaki, an innocent US citizen and a gifted scholar, was murdered by terrorists posing as US government operatives. (We know they're terrorists, not the government, because by definition the US government is constrained to follow the Constitution; so if they kill US citizens without trial, they're not the government any more.)
Then al-Awlaki's equally innocent child was also murdered.
The cowardly terrorist scum who murder people with predator drones have got to be the sorriest excuses for human beings that ever existed.
Anwar al-Awlaki, a hero and a martyr, was supposedly killed for insisting that Muslims, like all other peoples, have the right to defend themselves against aggression.
But was that the real reason he was killed? Or could it be that he was murdered in part because he exposed the widespread use of false-flag terror by US forces?


