In an attempt to understand the events of that day, the immediate comparison was to Pearl Harbor., the starting point of America’s entry into the conflict which defined the 20th century. 9/11 had much to compare itself with Pearl Harbor after all. Both from the surprise nature of the attack, to the number of casualties, and the sheer rarity of an attack upon the American homeland. Perhaps the comparison also drew hope of a united America dealing an overwhelming and certain defeat to a determined foe. And perhaps it brought to mind the apocryphal quote from Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, that to attack America was, “to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

As the American people learned more about the foes that struck us that day, it became clearer that this was not a 20th century conflict. It was, simultaneously something both new and ancient. In western minds it conjured up images of a bold new threat. The risk was seen as one of asymmetrical warfare against shadowy transnational groups. But in the minds of our enemy there was nothing new about 9/11. This was ancient warfare, reborn. 9/11 was a razzia, a raid, into the heart of Dar-Al-Harb, the abode of war, the lands of the infidel. This was the same jihad in pursuit of the same age-old goal. They sought to impose a global Caliphate and the ultimate domination of Islam in the world. As the 9/11 Commission report made clear at the time, there was no method of modern statecraft which might appease this enemy. “[A]l Qaeda’s answer [to the question of what American could do to avoid such attacks] was, “America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture…”

As America became more familiar with this enemy ideology, they realized that it was not merely the held belief of a few hijackers, or even a few thousand terrorists spread across camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thanks to billions in petro-dollars provided by Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia, it was the curriculum for generations of young men educated in madrassas from Indonesia to east Africa. It could even be found within Europe and the United States itself. Its adherents were inculcated in the belief in the righteousness of Jihad, in the status of non-Muslims as infidels and oppressors who must be fought. Among those brought up to believe America and the West were their mortal enemies, were citizens of nations that America thought to be friends and allies. The 9/11 investigation revealed the extensive role played by our so-called allies in financing this jihad war against the West. These facts were revealed to the American public despite the millions of oil dollars the Gulf nations were spending with America’s largest public relations and lobbying firms to convince the American people otherwise.

Even as the depth of the problem became more easily understood by the average American, American leaders were at pains to limit the public’s exposure to certain realities about the nature of the challenge before us. The phrase “the religion of peace,” has been used so often by politicians that it has come to be regarded as a mostly risible and ironic phrase. “Thereligionofpeace.com” for instance, is a website that tracks attacks by terrorists committed in the name of Islam since September 11, 2001, at a current count of 17,710 world-wide. But both the Bush and Obama administrations insisted that any question of the role of religious doctrine or ideology or how widely such ideology might be held, was a dangerous distraction and that outreach to Muslim communities at home and abroad would be the center-piece of the resistance to Al Qaeda, not understanding and countering the enemy’s doctrine.

However in 2004, in the basement of Ismail Elbarasse, were discovered the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The same Muslim Brotherhood whose principle ideologue, Sayyid Qutb, was featured in the 9/11 Commission’s explanation of Osama Bin Laden’s origins and intentions. The documents found there would later be used as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, perhaps the most important terrorism finance trial ever to take place, where several Muslim Brothers were indicted, and convicted of funding Hamas. The documents entered into evidence, and stipulated to by the defense, illustrated to the public a decades’ long “civilization-jihadist” program against the West, to be waged by the Brotherhood. As part of this campaign, the Brotherhood had created numerous front-groups. Now they were marked as unindicted co-conspirators for terrorism, in a federal court.

In the years since 9/11, it was these unindicted co-conspirators that had been sought out by the government as sensitivity trainers, and outreach partners for their anti-terrorism efforts. Even after 2004, despite the government’s knowledge, the Brotherhood remained responsible for certifying the chaplains of America’s prisons, and her military, and remained a close partner for reaching out to Muslim communities. A loud outcry from concerned citizens groups and a few astute lawmakers led to a few of these M.B. organizations being excluded. But federal departments soon were opening up new associations with other Muslim Brotherhood groups — which ironically were also were listed as unindicted co-conspirators for supporting terror organizations.

Since the arrival into office of the Obama administration, this matter of Muslim Brotherhood subversion, once worrisome, have now reached levels of the deepest concern. Administration officials now openly praise the brotherhood as a “largely secular” organization and have squashed future prosecutions against the Muslim Brotherhood and its support for terrorism.

Where once the 9/11 commission openly discussed Islamic history and Bin’ Laden’s ideological motivations, now there is only “violent extremism,” a shapeless meaninglessly vague threat. Where once some complained that the denotation “the War on Terror” was too vague and ill-suited, now there are only “overseas contingency operations” aimed at preventing “man-caused disasters.” These bland characterizations have not stuck with the American public however. Today, more than ever, the American people understand the depth of the threat from the theocratic political doctrine, Sharia, which unites Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and others that pose a threat to the American way of life.

The only way to judge the status of our struggle, is to ask whether Al Qaeda and those who share their beliefs, are closer, or further from their goals? We must say in fairness that they are closer. Secular regimes across the Middle East are in turmoil, and may yet be replaced by Islamic governments. Western academic elites proudly and publicly declare that the very totalitarian law which Al Qaeda and the Brotherhood would impose is neither threatening nor undemocratic. In western countries free expression about the nature of Islam, and those who commit terrorism in its name has been sharply curtailed. In the United States of America, cartoonists are censored, even sent into hiding, because they have violated some Islamic stricture against so-called blasphemy. What’s worse, the government has now partnered with the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (formerly Islamic Conference) and Muslim countries to institute global speech codes aiming to brand any critical statements, even those made by apostates or reformers of Islam, to be hate speech and therefore illegal.

Ten years after, we are not a sleeping giant anymore. The public is more awake now, certainly more aware now, of what is happening then it has ever been. We see far more clearly than we did that day in September. But yet we find that despite the awakening of the American people, the organs of our national power do not respond, do not take the appropriate action, despite the warnings. We are a giant suffering under a local anesthetic. A potent mixture of infiltration, subversion, and cowardly political correctness saps our national will. In whatever ways this conflict differs from modern wars of the past century, until America restores its “terrible resolve”, we remain no closer to resolution of this great conflict of the 21st century.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works in today’s politicized world of homeland security and defense.

Take for instance the case of Abdel Rahman al-Amoudi. Al-Amoudi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (M.B.), and was identified as such in the Holy Land Foundation trial documents. He was the founder of the American Muslim Council, an Islamic advisor to the Clinton White House, a Democratic and Republican fundraiser and a State Department lecturer.  As an advisor to the Department of Defense, the Muslim Brotherhood through the organization he founded was given the responsibility for training our Muslim military chaplains. Al-Amoudi donated $20,000 dollars to help conservative activist Grover Norquist establish the Islamic Institute. In addition, Al-Amoudi worked with Sami-al-Arian, another M.B. member, to get then Presidential Candidate George W. Bush to commit to ending the use of secret intelligence evidence at deportation proceedings.

Then, in 2003  the lights came on.

Al-Amoudi was arrested in 2003 at Heathrow Airport with hundreds of thousands of dollars provided by Libyan President Moammar Qaddafi. He was caught on audiotape calling for acts of terrorism and claiming to support the terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas. In court, he pled guilty to financing terrorism (including funding Al Qaeda) and of conspiring with Libya to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince (they failed). The court sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

In another dramatic 2003 arrest, Sami al-Arian was also caught and charged. He pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to assist the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a specially designated global terrorist.

In 2007, federal prosecutors filed charges against the Holy Land Foundation, a Texas based Muslim charity and front for the terror group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. During the trial, prosecutors released hundreds of pages of documents; the entire archives of the North American Muslim Brotherhood. It included the lists of names and phone numbers of Brotherhood members in the U.S. There were organizational charts and a full strategic memorandum calling for a “Civilization-Jihad process,” in addition to plans for a “Grand Jihad” to sabotage America from within. Documents listed member organizations, including some of the most influential Muslim organizations in America, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  After an initial mistrial, the Federal government won its case in late November 2008.

But then, nothing happened.

The exposed agents of Grand Jihad did not run for cover when the lights came on. With a few exceptions, their American government contacts did not cut them off or treat them as pariahs even though they had been thoroughly tainted with terrorist associations, with plots for sedition against the United States and to establish a global caliphate. Secondary prosecutions that had been planned were suddenly scuttled to avoid political embarrassment. Major news organizations continued to call on the members of known Muslim Brotherhood organizations to get their opinion on all things Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood still provides the FBI with Muslim outreach and the DOD is still provided with Muslim Chaplains through ISNA.

Even more astounding, last week the Department of Justice filed papers to cut short al-Amoudi’s 23 year sentence. Why? Since the documents are under seal, we do not know. The judge in the case canceled a hearing scheduled for last Friday, deciding instead to make the determination based solely on already filed paperwork. In order to get a shortened sentence, the filing would require that al-Amoudi had already provided substantial assistance to the prosecutor’s office.  But it’s difficult to say what such assistance could have consisted of.  With the revelations available in the Holy Land Foundation documents, and considering that Al-Amoudi has been in prison for the past nine years, it’s questionable what cooperation he might have been able to provide at this juncture which would motivate prosecutors to release him.

This raises the very serious question of whether his release may not be political. This is especially true as the Obama administration in recent months has expressed increased acceptance of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, including Secretary Hiliary Clinton’s assurance earlier this month that the U.S. now “welcomes dialogue” with the Brotherhood.

If al-Amoudi is indeed released, it would represent a tremendous success for the Brotherhood. They will have successfully survived the aftermath of al-Amoudi’s arrest and the revelations of the Holy Land Foundation trial. Their operation to penetrate and influence the United States will have been so successful that they will have quashed the proposed secondary prosecutions expected from the Holy Land Foundation and also extricated a major M.B. organizer from prison — despite his crimes. This will certainly embolden them to attempt to free others, including Sami al-Arian, who has long been a cause célèbre for the M.B. and their fellow travelers on the radical left. With the Obama administration having now legitimized the Muslim Brotherhood as acceptable partners abroad, it has made them acceptable partners domestically as well — their call for “Grand Jihad” notwithstanding.

What can be done?

As President Ronald Reagan once reportedly said, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

If our intelligence and security agencies and the media refuse to see the danger and will not make Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated persons and organizations persona non grata, then the American people will be forced to do it for them. When television news shows and newspapers give face time or column space to M.B. fronts like CAIR, these TV networks and newspapers must hear from their audience.  Legislators willing to hold hearings and draw attention to the danger of the Muslim Brotherhood should be publically praised, as for instance Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who this week has announced a third set of hearings on Muslim radicalization in the U.S.  Those who hold hands with M.B. fronts however, and defend them, must have it known that their disdain for American security will be made an issue when they face election challenges. We must then keep the pressure on our legislators to insure that they also hold the unelected bureaucrats accountable.

Unfortunately, in dealing with “influence” operations of the size and scope of the one being run by the Muslim Brotherhood, there is no easy answer. When exposed, their response is not to flee, but to counter-accuse, to manipulate, and burrow deeper and to use our American process against itself.

We must also double our efforts and know that there will never be a silver bullet for the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization-Jihad” or for radical Islam in general. It forces us to always remain vigilant. Perhaps this administration will succeed in freeing al-Amoudi, but we must not allow such a setback to keep us from identifying, exposing, and arresting the next al-Amoudi.

Now that mystery has been solved. It appears that secondary prosecutions against Muslim Brotherhood members, including CAIR national founder Omar Ahmad were planned, but scuttled after intervention from political appointees from the Obama Administration, according to Department of Justice whistleblowers speaking to investigative reporter Patrick Poole:

It was always the plan to initially go after the [Holy Land Foundation] leaders first and then go after the rest of the accomplices in a second round of prosecutions…There’s a mountain of evidence against all of these groups that was never introduced during the Holy Land trial and it is damning…But from a political perspective there was absolutely no way that the prosecutions could move forward. That’s why this decision came from the top down. These individuals who were going to be prosecuted are still this administration’s interfaith allies… It’s kind of hard to prosecute someone on “material support for terrorism” when you have pictures of them getting handed awards from DOJ and FBI leaders for their supposed counter-terror efforts.

The response from the Obama Administration has been to point out that secondary prosecutions also did not take place under the Bush administration which is true. But as Poole’s source makes clear, that decision came because of the  original mistrial verdict obtained in the first HLF trial. The guilty verdict in the retrial was not returned until November 24, 2008, and sentences were not handed down until May of 2009. Needless to say, November 25^th to January 20^th, 2009 is not much time to prepare prosecutions against numerous individuals in a complicated terror finance trial.

Of course the M.B. infiltration into the U.S. government is a problem that started well before the Obama Administration. This point was raised by administration officials in the press and it is absolutely true. The Muslim Brotherhood began its operations in the United States with the founding of the Muslim’s Student’s Association (MSA) in 1963. Brotherhood organizations became involved with terrorism and law enforcement sensitivity issues under President Clinton, and M.B. members participated in interfaith and counter-terrorism “out-reach” under President George W. Bush. As Poole’s source notes:

Let’s not forget that during the Clinton administration we had one of al-Qaeda’s top operatives in America — Abdurahman Alamoudi — organizing iftar dinners at the White House! He is the same person who stood beside President Bush right after 9/11…Then we had [CAIR Executive Director] Nihad Awad advising Al Gore’s aviation security commission back in the late 90s. We said absolutely nothing even though we had him on our wiretaps five years before at a major Hamas meeting in Philadelphia. Nobody from DOJ or the FBI said a goddamn word because CAIR was advising every single federal agency dealing with terrorism at the time.

There has been no administration, Republican or Democrat, which has acted responsibly on the issue of the M.B.  But the issue has gotten substantially worse under the Obama administrations for two reasons. The first, is simply time. As relationships and appointments made by previous administrations have matured, it has advanced Muslim Brotherhood members to high levels, and made Federal agencies wholly reliant on M.B. sources for outreach and knowledge about Islam and the Islamic community under the Obama Administration.

But, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, the second reason the situation has gotten progressively worse, is due to an explicit Obama policy of active engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood  that began after President Obama’s Cairo speech, and continues to this day.  Again, according to the DOJ whistleblowers:

Obama-administration officials have airbrushed the Muslim Brotherhood, portraying fundamentalist radicals who seek to vanquish the West as “largely secular moderates” with whom our government should be working cooperatively. The President invited the Brotherhood to his Cairo speech, even though at the time it was a banned organization in Egypt — and even though only a few months earlier the HLF trial proved the existence of a Muslim Brotherhood plot to actively instigate sabotage in America while promoting Hamas’s mission to destroy Israel.

Those who have opposed the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood have found themselves under attack and slandered by the Brotherhood’s lobby and fellow travelers. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was politically brutalized by accusations, led by CAIR and other M.B. fronts, after his hearings on Muslim-American radicalization. Political allies of the present Administration, including members of King’s own committee joined in, attempting to paint genuine concerns for American national security as “Islamophobia,” even though all of those testifying to radicalization problems were themselves Muslims. One witness, Mr. Melvin Bledsoe, even lost his son to radical Islam, when Carlos Bledsoe, aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire on a recruiting station in Arkansas, killing one service member and wounding another. Despite these attacks, Rep. Peter King has continued to fight the good fight, publicly submitting a letter to the Department of Justice asking questions about the failure to prosecute M.B. members.  CAIR pounced on Rep. King’s letter, calling it retaliation for its opposition to his recent hearings on radicalization in the American Muslim community.

With Rep. King’s weight added to the questions regarding the circumstances, Attorney General Eric Holder was forced to come out and issue a statement almost a week after the initial story broke. Holder attempted to describe the refusal to prosecute as being made by, “career folks looking at the evidence,” a claim almost immediately retracted and clarified by DOJ spokesmen, who admitted that the decision makers were indeed political appointees.

The work done by reporter Patrick Poole, and the courage of his sources in coming forward is extraordinary, but it will all be in vain if there are no political changes. The time has long passed when politicians, legislators, national security and law enforcement officials should be allowed to maintain contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and their front organizations without penalty.

While Frank Gaffney, whose Center for Security Policy’s report “Shariah: The Threat to America,” detailed information about the Muslim Brotherhood and its infiltration efforts, has labeled these failures to disassociate from the M.B., “Misprision of a Treason” a federal felony.   At the very least, there must be political and career consequences for those who associate with the Muslim Brotherhood and their fronts.

To do this requires an informed American public unwilling to accept the excuse that “The former administration also did it too!” The American public must demand that legislators use their powers of oversight and subpoena, to drag these Brotherhood agents of influence, and those who knowingly cooperate with them, into the light. Until then we will continue to see officials covering up for and standing together with the Muslim Brotherhood, and against the interests and security of America.

This new form of terrorism is in keeping with the Saudi rigidly biased, tightly controlled state press, which is designed to deflect attention away from the lack of domestic development of an educational infrastructure for their people, lack of advancement in the field of democracy, and horrific human rights abuses by magnifying the evils of Jews and  of Christians, of Israel, and of  the United States.

A major maniacal player in the battle over our first amendment rights has just recently departed from the scene.  On Sunday, August 21^st, perhaps the greatest global inhibitors of freedom of speech and of a free press, Saudi billionaire, Khalid Bin Mahfouz passed away in his home in Jidda.

Sheik Mahfouz amassed a huge fortune of petro dollars worth approximately 3.35 billion dollars. His meteoric rise of massive wealth was based on our addiction to Saudi fuel and the Sheik’s thirty percent share of the Saudi Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Bank of Credit and Commerce International is a bank which had been shut down in 1991 amidst charges of money laundering and financial fraud. He had been forced to pay a fine of 225 million dollars. His financial operations have been accused of funneling money to Al Qaeda and other terrorist operations.

One of the ways that Mahfouz used this massive oil wealth was by shopping around the globe for a court system where the burden of proof is on the defendant. He was shopping for a judicial system which would make it easy to sue any author, scholar, journalist or publisher, who had the temerity to tell the truth about, “our (so called) allies in the war on terrorism,” as the Saudis have often been conveniently referred to, by members of various administrations, republican and democrat, alike, who have made a Faustian bargain for an unfettered supply of cheap Saudi oil. Mahfouz’ target was anyone who dared to tell the truth regarding the not very insignificant role the Saudis have played  in either the spreading of that particularly radical form of Islam, Wahhabaism,  through funding Islamic mosques and schools throughout the world, and the Saudi’s rather direct link to worldwide terrorism.

In England one is guilty, before being proven innocent.  Mahfouz therefore chose Britain, where the libel laws favor the plaintiff, in which to play his highly expensive, litigious games.

Rachel Ehrenfeld, an internationally recognized Israeli-American anti-terrorism expert and member of EMET’s Board of Advisors, was the sole author, to date, who has possessed sufficient courage to fight back. In her 2005 book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It”, Rachel was able to draw upon government documents that directly identified Sheik Mahfouz as a leading financier of terrorism.  These documents traced the money trail directly back to Mahfouz, who had erected a Saudi banking system, which as far back as 1996 had been identified by French, British and American intelligence as having had been used for the benefit of none other than Osama Bin Laden.

Bin Mahfouz also established a bogus “charitable foundation” entitled, “Muwafaq”, (Blessed Relief), which Dr. Ehrenfeld definitively established in her book through government documents, had been a front organization for funding money to Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Makhtab al-Khadimet.

Although the book was published in the United States and not in England, Sheik Mahfouz ordered 23 copies of the book through Amazon.com, to be delivered to Britain.  The English court accepted jurisdiction of the case on those rather shaky grounds. Because Rachel had neither the money to fly to England or to hire expensive legal counsel, nor the desire to appear in court, Sheik Mahfouz won in a default judgment against Dr. Ehrenfeld in 2005. She was ordered to destroy all copies of her book and to pay out $230,000.

The Saudis, and particularly bin Mahfouz, have made a favorite sport out of exploiting the British court system and rendering expensive suits against any author who dares to speak out against them. Even the venerable Cambridge University Press, established in the year 1200, cowered in 2007 and agreed to turn to pulp

Not being one to mess with, Rachel and her full 5’2″ frame fought back, and fought back hard. First she lobbied for and successfully passed “Rachel’s law” in New York State.  The New York law says that no foreign libel law judgment can be enforced in New York, protecting New York publishers and writers. Similar laws were passed in Illinois, Florida and California, where it is pending signature by the governor.

In the United States Senate, the Free Speech Protection Act 2009 is pending, sponsored by  Senator Arlen Specter,(democrat, Pennsylvania)  Senator Joseph Liberman, (independent, Connecticut),  Senator  Chuck Schumer,  (democrat, New York)   and Wyden. This bill would protect our sacred constitutional freedoms of freedom of the press and freedom of speech from being assaulted by other enablers, financers and defenders of global Islamic terrorism.

As Rachel Ehrenfeld has said, “The death of Khalid bin Mahfouz means absolutely nothing in the fight for the protection of free speech. His son, Abdurrahman Ben Mahfouz” was a part of the law suits and is heir-apparent to this sort of Saudi legal blackmail. It is ironic that England, the mother of the Magna Carter, John Locke and John Stuart Mill, and its rich intellectual tradition as the birthplace of Western liberty has provided the judicial theater for this egregious Saudi assault on American freedom speech.

Please attend our event on September 10^th at the Congressional Auditorium where you will have the opportunity to hear Dr. Ehrenfeld directly and other courageous warriors in the battle to tell the truth against the far-reaching grip of the Saudi Royal Family.

Buford George Peterson is charged with making false statements on a Small Business Administration loan application to hide the fact that a Specially Designated Global Terrorist held a substantial stake in Ptech. The Quincy, Mass.-based company made computer software for management systems.

Among Ptech’s customers were the FBI, IRS, Federal Aviation Administration, the departments of Education, Veterans Affairs, Energy and Agriculture, The U.S. Air Force and Naval Air Systems Command and NATO.

Ironically, the loan application described in the indictment was for money the government made available after the 9/11 attacks to help businesses recover.

Peterson was arrested after getting off a plane at New York’s JFK airport. Peterson has been living in South Korea. Fellow defendant Oussama Ziade – Ptech’s former chief executive, left the U.S. in 2005 and remains at large.

The government filed its motion to dismiss making two arguments. One, Mr. Murray, as a former combat Marine, practicing Catholic, and tax payer, did not have standing to even bring this lawsuit. Two, even if he did have standing, the government acted in buying AIG without any intent to promote or become involved in religious questions.

The Court spent much of its opinion reciting the law on the narrow exception to the no-tax-payer-standing rule. That exception is triggered in a claim of a violation of the Establishment Clause and when there is a specific legislative grant for spending that implicates the First Amendment. The Court carefully reviewed all of the relevant case law and found the argument made by Messrs. Yerushalmi and Muise in their brief persuasive.

For more you can also check out David Yerushalmi’s online presentation on the legal exposure companies doing Sharia Compliant Business have.

U.S. officials recently concluded that the Afghan Taliban may receive as much money from foreign donors as it does from opium sales, potentially hindering the Obama administration’s strategy to rehabilitate Afghanistan by stopping the country’s drug trade.

Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said in a recent interview that the Taliban has three main sources of funding: drug revenue; payments from legitimate businesses that are secretly owned by the armed group or that pay it kickbacks; and donations from foreign charitable foundations and individuals.

“You have funds generated locally, funds that come in from the outside, and funds that come from the illegal narcotics business,” he said. “It’s a hotly debated topic as to which is the most significant and it may be that they are all roughly around the same level.”

Gen. Petraeus estimated that the Taliban raise a total of “hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars” each year from the three sources, and said the U.S. doesn’t have precise figures.

The Taliban have depended in part on foreign support for decades. In an interview last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said some Afghan militants could draw on “external funding channels” created in the 1980s for wealthy Muslims — with U.S. support — to funnel money to Islamic fighters battling the Soviet military. “It wouldn’t surprise me if those channels have remained open,” he said.

Those external funding channels, were one of the primary responsibilities of Osama Bin Laden, during the war against the Soviets, so hopefully it doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Like Hezbollah and many other terror groups, the Taliban’s funding structure is widely diversified. While counternarcotics operations are very important in defeating them in the AfPak theater, it’s a mistake to imagine that there is any one silver bullet when it comes to how to prevent them from funding their operation.

The talks this month reflected concerns here about a possible drop in international donor and investor confidence should the political alliance led by Hezbollah – considered a terrorist group by the United States and Israel – gain a majority for the first time. Many analysts believe that outcome is likely, though the race is considered too close to call.

Lebanon’s current governing majority, which has tried unsuccessfully to disarm Hezbollah, has depended on heavy financial support from the West and oil-rich Persian Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia. In Beirut last week, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said future American support to Lebanon, which includes military aid, would depend on the elections’ outcome.

European governments have not issued any such veiled threats, and Western leaders have recently shown a greater willingness to engage in political dialogue with Hezbollah’s patrons, Iran and Syria. Britain’s Foreign Office said in March that it would re-establish relations with Hezbollah’s political wing.

The European Union provides about $84 million a year to Lebanon, and the International Monetary Fund provides about $114 million, aid that will be coming up for reauthorization soon.

Perhaps ironically, this story came out the same day that the U.S Treasury department identified West African Hezbollah supporters as financial supporters of terrorism and took steps to block their assets. A positive step, but if the IMF does allow fund transfers to Lebanon when Hezbollah controls the purse strings, it will be very much a matter of closing the barn door when the cow is long gone.

“War is a continuation of politics by other means,”
- Carl von Clausewitz

“…All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest,”
-Simon and Garfunkel, “The Boxer”

In March of this year, the United Kingdom announced that it would reestablish ties with Hezbollah’s “political wing,” which it had only cut the year before. That move was followed by comparable reconciliation with Hamas, including allowing an April videoconference with Hamas “political” leader Khaled Mashaal (the video conference failed due to a technical glitch however.) Similarly, for several years, media sources and former officials in the United States have been laying the ground work for the supposed disconnect between these terrorist groups and their “political wings.” Take for instance coverage of President Jimmy Carter’s April and December meetings with Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal in Damascus. Khaled Mashaal is described as leader of Hamas’ “political wing.” A 2006 Times (UK) article described former U.S Ambassador Edward Peck calling Mashaal, “moderate in many senses,” Hamas leaders are granted softball interviews by such established papers as the New York Times.

For their part, both Hezbollah and Hamas themselves routinely deny that their military and political departments operate separately. In response to the British decision to reestablish ties with the “political” wing of Hezbollah while continuing to criminalize “the military” wing, Hezbollah’s number two man Naim Qassem disputed the claim that there were two separate Hezbollahs:

“All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership,” he said, “The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel.”

Hamas likewise has disputed the idea that there was a political wing which did not control its military forces,

“The political wing and the military wing do sometimes have different points of view, but we believe that at the end of the day the political wing will win the decision,” says Hamas veteran Sayyed Salem Abu Musameh in 2006,”Unlike other organizations, every member of Hamas’s military wing also has education in ideology and culture as well as the gun.”

Terrorism experts likewise dispute the claims of distinction between “political” and “military” wings of Hezbollah and Hamas. Says Walid Phares, Director of the Future Terrorism Project about Hezbollah:

Its military organization responsible for terror operations is part of the Consultative Council (al majliss al Istisharee), which is Hizballah’s supreme command, along with, the organization’s legislators, Fatwa clerics, financial executives and political operatives. This “politbureau” of Hizballah oversees the military, security, doctrinal and political actions of the entire apparatus — there is no structural delineation. Furthermore, the Jihad Council, Hizballah’s War Department, which issues the orders for acts of terror, is headed by the Secretary General of the organization, Hassan Nasrallah and includes many of the organization’s ‘political leaders’…”

Hamas’ political operatives are equally involved in the command and control terrorist operations, says Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute:

Hamas leaders readily acknowledge the central role that the organization’s “political wing” plays in operational decision-making. For example, in May 2002, Hamas military commander Salah Shehada stated publicly that “the political apparatus is sovereign over the military apparatus, and a decision of the political [echelon] takes precedence over the decision of the military [echelon], without intervening in military operations.

If the distinction between “political” and “military” wings is a misleading one, why bother with claiming that there are wings at all? Terror finance expert Rachel Ehrenfeld says Hezbollah utilizes its political wing to orchestrate its “charities” on every inhabited continent, through donations, mosques and special events. Hezbollah also uses its political wing to engage in “social” projects , which are often praised in the foreign press, even as they are used as methods for recruiting the next generation of armed terrorists. Hamas, says Matthew Levitt, engages in similar behavior:

The charity committees, mosque classes, student unions, sport clubs, and other organizations run by Hamas all serve as places where Hamas activists recruit Palestinian youth for positions in the Hamas da’wa, for terrorist training courses in Syria or Iran, or for suicide and other terror attacks. Indeed, Hamas terror cells in the West Bank increasingly rely on Palestinians unaffiliated with the Qassam Brigades for logistical and operational support and even for leading suicide bombers to their targets.

These ubiquitous da’wa operations are allowed to serve as cover for terrorism work, and be used to distinguish Hamas and Hezbollah from the “bad terrorists” of Al Qaeda in the media, as former President Jimmy Carter attempted to do. But they are two sides of the same coin, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes of Hamas,

“The military and social activities, in fact, liberally cross-pollinate… Social welfare, in fact, is a recruitment valve for the military wing. Indeed, Hamas’s social activities include summer camps for children that are every bit as militaristic as al Qaeda’s more infamous proving grounds in the Afghan-Pakistani borderland.

As the current administration ramps up to provide some $900 million for the reconstruction of Gaza, and as the Lebanese June elections will soon be upon us, the question must not be, “are Hezbollah and Hamas’ ‘political’ wings acceptable partners for negotiations and interactions?” Because they are not and will never be legitimate partners. To invert Clausewitz, for Hamas and Hezbollah, politics is just a continuation of war by other means. Yet too many British and U.S officials hear what they want to hear, when it comes to Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead, they should have listened to the late Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yasin who said, “We cannot separate the wing from the body. If we do so, the body will not be able to fly.” And that’s neither a lie, nor jest.

It is just as ominous in the long term that the banks would apparently be willing to “work according to Iran’s banking law.” So in other words, Western banks operating in Islamic countries have to abide by Sharia Finance restrictions. And meanwhile, Western banks operating in Western countries likewise are increasingly accommodating Sharia Finance restrictions.

This is yet another manifestation of a stealth jihad phenomenon that is manifesting itself today in many areas besides finance: in Muslim countries, Muslims demand that Westerners conform to Islamic sensibilities, and likewise in Western countries, Muslims demand that Westerners conform to Islamic sensibilities. There is consistency, but no balance.

The most notorious example of accommodation to Islam is the increasing popularity of Sharia Finance, which Western banking institutions are rushing to offer to Muslims in the West even more quickly than they are rushing to open branches in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is actually an excellent synthesis of  the points raised in the articles I linked to earlier by Pipes and Phares, since it involves the increasing successfulness of non-violent jihad which Pipes talks about in his article, with the incremental approach to extending Sharia, which Phares sees as intricately a part of the Taliban game plan in Pakistan. For that reason, Shariah finance is dangerous, and would be even if there weren’t numerous examples of shariah financing being related to terrorism funding (and of course there ARE numerous examples).