Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

(Charlotte Observer) — An official from the U.S. State Department has called the Charlotte family of al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan to offer the government’s condolences on his death in a U.S. drone attack last week in Yemen, according to a family spokesman.

“They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences,” Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan’s father, Zafar.

The phone call came a day after the family released a statement through Hough that condemned the “assassination” of their 25-year-old son — a U.S. citizen — and said they were “appalled” that they had not heard from the U.S. government to discuss their son’s remains or answer questions about why Khan was not afforded due process.

On Friday, State Department spokesman Harry Edwards confirmed to the Observer that the call had been made, but said “privacy issues” kept him from offering details.
Hough said the Thursday conversation lasted a few minutes.

“It wasn’t just ‘I’m sorry’ and hang-up,” said Hough, who added that the phone call included no discussion of the status or condition of Khan’s remains.

(NY Post) — The 9/11 imam Anwar al-Awlaki may be dead, but his old mosque is still open for business and remains a dangerous breeding ground for terrorists — and it’s right in the president’s back yard.

Nothing much has changed since 2002, when Awlaki voluntarily left the pulpit of the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in the Washington suburbs of Falls Church, Va.

It maintains the same radical leaders who hired him, and the same owners — even the same fax number that investigators believe 9/11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh used to send instructions to Awlaki and key hijackers he aided there. An unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, moreover, still leads prayers there.

In 2001, while Awlaki was preparing the hijackers for their martyrdom operation, Abdul-Malik raised the banner of Palestinian jihad, saying it’s within Islamic law to “blow up bridges” and other infrastructure. “You can do all forms of sabotage,” he said at a US conference held by a Hamas front group, while cautioning against killing “innocent” people.

Three years later, a founding mosque member was arrested for allegedly casing the Chesapeake Bay bridge for possible attack. Ismail Elbarasse was released on $1 million bond after Dar Al-Hijrah leaders put up their homes as collateral.

After Awlaki fled the country, Abdul-Malik told me in an interview he saw nothing wrong with Awlaki’s sermons encouraging Muslims to become martyrs.

Bronco wrote:I'm shocked... Al-Awlaki’s Old Virginia Mosque Still Preaching Violence…

(NY Post) — The 9/11 imam Anwar al-Awlaki may be dead, but his old mosque is still open for business and remains a dangerous breeding ground for terrorists — and it’s right in the president’s back yard.

Nothing much has changed since 2002, when Awlaki voluntarily left the pulpit of the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in the Washington suburbs of Falls Church, Va.

It maintains the same radical leaders who hired him, and the same owners — even the same fax number that investigators believe 9/11 planner Ramzi Binalshibh used to send instructions to Awlaki and key hijackers he aided there. An unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, moreover, still leads prayers there.

In 2001, while Awlaki was preparing the hijackers for their martyrdom operation, Abdul-Malik raised the banner of Palestinian jihad, saying it’s within Islamic law to “blow up bridges” and other infrastructure. “You can do all forms of sabotage,” he said at a US conference held by a Hamas front group, while cautioning against killing “innocent” people.

Three years later, a founding mosque member was arrested for allegedly casing the Chesapeake Bay bridge for possible attack. Ismail Elbarasse was released on $1 million bond after Dar Al-Hijrah leaders put up their homes as collateral.

After Awlaki fled the country, Abdul-Malik told me in an interview he saw nothing wrong with Awlaki’s sermons encouraging Muslims to become martyrs.

Bronco wrote:The 9-11 Commission knew
He was mentioned repeatedly in their report as having assisted the 9-11 hijackers

kalm wrote:

Bronco wrote:The 9-11 Commission knew
He was mentioned repeatedly in their report as having assisted the 9-11 hijackers

Link? I don't remember that but could be wrong. If he was such a threat, how did he outlast Bin Laden? Was he a part of the deck of cards?

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Link? I don't remember that but could be wrong. If he was such a threat, how did he outlast Bin Laden? Was he a part of the deck of cards?

I recall, there were two other failed attempts which were made public.

Kalm, I'm curious...are you defending Alwaki because you genuinely believe the killing was unjust, or felt he should have been subject to due process, or just being a good dogma-donk?

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
I recall, there were two other failed attempts which were made public.

Kalm, I'm curious...are you defending Alwaki because you genuinely believe the killing was unjust, or felt he should have been subject to due process, or just being a good dogma-donk?

kalm wrote:

kalm wrote:

Not defending Alwaki at all. I have a clue that he was a bad guy and probably deserved his fate. But we have a system that requires that evidence be submitted within a legal framework. In other words I think the court of public opinion and what the government says to be true are not enough.

I'm defending our system.

I thought lib's were the ones who were supposed to respond emotionally to things.

BlueHen86 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Not defending Alwaki at all. I have a clue that he was a bad guy and probably deserved his fate. But we have a system that requires that evidence be submitted within a legal framework. In other words I think the court of public opinion and what the government says to be true are not enough.

I'm defending our system.

I thought lib's were the ones who were supposed to respond emotionally to things.

Good post. It is interesting that so many people have adopted an "anything goes" mentality for the war on terror. We're willing to throw the constitution out the window in the name of being "safe". But who are we safe from? How are we different fromt he terrorists if we're using drone attacks to kill people because we say they are the enemy?

I won't shed a tear from Alwaki, but the quickness with which some any people accepted the method of death is alarming. We all better hope we never end up on any list because our constitution won't protect us.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Good post. It is interesting that so many people have adopted an "anything goes" mentality for the war on terror. We're willing to throw the constitution out the window in the name of being "safe". But who are we safe from? How are we different fromt he terrorists if we're using drone attacks to kill people because we say they are the enemy?

I won't shed a tear from Alwaki, but the quickness with which some any people accepted the method of death is alarming. We all better hope we never end up on any list because our constitution won't protect us.

See, there's no real problem here, we can all learn from the Alwaki episode so that we too don't end up as unfortunately killed by the US. Don't advocate for the violent overthrow of the US, don't associate and mentor people who then go on to actually committ acts of terror against the US, and don't do all of this while hiding in the hinterlands of a known-terrorist haven, being helped in hiding by again, people known to have advocated and assisted in violent opposition to America. I know it's a real fine line to have to walk and most of us everyday come real close to hopping a flight to Yemen in order to promote and help in acts of terror, but you know, it's just going to have to be something we work at everyday to make sure we don't do. I just called my travel agent today and cancelled my Yemen holiday, so it is possible.

GannonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Good post. It is interesting that so many people have adopted an "anything goes" mentality for the war on terror. We're willing to throw the constitution out the window in the name of being "safe". But who are we safe from? How are we different fromt he terrorists if we're using drone attacks to kill people because we say they are the enemy?

I won't shed a tear from Alwaki, but the quickness with which some any people accepted the method of death is alarming. We all better hope we never end up on any list because our constitution won't protect us.

See, there's no real problem here, we can all learn from the Alwaki episode so that we too don't end up as unfortunately killed by the US. Don't advocate for the violent overthrow of the US, don't associate and mentor people who then go on to actually committ acts of terror against the US, and don't do all of this while hiding in the hinterlands of a known-terrorist haven, being helped in hiding by again, people known to have advocated and assisted in violent opposition to America. I know it's a real fine line to have to walk and most of us everyday come real close to hopping a flight to Yemen in order to promote and help in acts of terror, but you know, it's just going to have to be something we work at everyday to make sure we don't do. I just called my travel agent today and cancelled my Yemen holiday, so it is possible.

CID1990 wrote:The only way i can see a justification for this would be in some kind of "imminent threat" scenario, and the USG was acting in the same manner as a police officer in a deadly force situation. That would be the only argument that could possibly have any legitimacy, and it would still be weak.

travelinman67 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The only way i can see a justification for this would be in some kind of "imminent threat" scenario, and the USG was acting in the same manner as a police officer in a deadly force situation. That would be the only argument that could possibly have any legitimacy, and it would still be weak.

Bingo!

So... a U.S. citizen is conducting an ongoing capital offense criminal enterprise outside U.S. borders.

What difference does it make whether the "suspect" is locked inside a building within U.S. borders, holding a gun up to the head of a hostage, or sitting in a shack in Yemen, scheming the "imminent" death of any unwitting American who becomes a target of opportunity?

L.E. deploys apprehension methods whenever possible to prevent placing L.E. or civilians in harms way: Drugs, gases, snipers, etc...

How is that any different than a Drone (sniper)?

BlueHen86 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Bingo!

So... a U.S. citizen is conducting an ongoing capital offense criminal enterprise outside U.S. borders.

What difference does it make whether the "suspect" is locked inside a building within U.S. borders, holding a gun up to the head of a hostage, or sitting in a shack in Yemen, scheming the "imminent" death of any unwitting American who becomes a target of opportunity?

L.E. deploys apprehension methods whenever possible to prevent placing L.E. or civilians in harms way: Drugs, gases, snipers, etc...

How is that any different than a Drone (sniper)?

How do we know he was guilty? Because our government said so? Funny how so many people argue that Obama is a huge fuck up, but are convinced that he got this right.

How do we know that the government will stop there? Is there any guarantee that the next drone strike won't be on U.S. soil?

I'm not saying that killing Alwaki was necessarily wrong, but it seems like a lot of people are more than happy to blindly follow our leadership on this one.

travelinman67 wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
How do we know he was guilty? Because our government said so? Funny how so many people argue that Obama is a huge fuck up, but are convinced that he got this right.

How do we know that the government will stop there? Is there any guarantee that the next drone strike won't be on U.S. soil?

I'm not saying that killing Alwaki was necessarily wrong, but it seems like a lot of people are more than happy to blindly follow our leadership on this one.

A person need not be tried and found guilty for L.E. to take their life if the threat of harm to other's is imminent.

This isn't about Obama. The U.S. intelligence community made an assessment and determined that threat to be imminent.

DSUrocks07 wrote:"Fear will keep the systems in line, fear of this battlestation."

travelinman67 wrote:A person need not be tried and found guilty for L.E. to take their life if the threat of harm to other's is imminent.

This isn't about Obama. The U.S. intelligence community made an assessment and determined that threat to be imminent.