We’ve Only Just Begun
On Wednesday, November 28, Derrick Shareef pled guilty in U.S. District Court in Chicago on federal charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. I’ve discussed the Shareef case before on this website, most notably here, here, and here.
In the past, I’ve suggested the Shareef case was only the tip of the iceberg, and that those who thought it was inconsequential were missing the bigger picture, some of which I’ve examined in the pages of Chronicles (and which I’ve examined in greater depth in the January 2008 issue, which goes to press on Wednesday). Now, however, the pieces are beginning to be revealed publicly, and--surprise, surprise--the predictions I’ve made are being confirmed.
At the same time that Shareef was pleading guilty in Chicago, an evidentiary hearing was taking place in federal court in New Haven, Connecticut, in the case of Hassan Abujihaad, which I’ve also discussed on this site. At the hearing, it was revealed that the FBI informant who was responsible for Shareef’s arrest used information gathered from Shareef to help break open the Abujihaad case. And the investigation into Abujihaad’s case is providing the evidence that will allow for the extradition of Babar Ahmad (whom I’ve also discussed on this website), the proprietor of a jihadist website. It’s also exposing the breadth of the jihadist network that Ahmad was involved with, which extends from the United States into Europe and the Middle East.
Oddly enough, the only publication that got this right from the start--and the only one that saw the significance of the Shareef arrest last year on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception--was Chronicles.
And there’s more to come--a lot more. Keep your eyes on Chronicles and on this website, because we’re going to provide coverage of these cases that you simply won’t read anywhere else.
Britain | Immigration | Islam | Terrorism | The Media
Comments
What’s strange is that it needs pointing out that just because the “neocons” and the Mohammedans are enemies of each other that “we” (whoever “we” are...) should ignore the threats either of the two are to “us” (damn, I hate using those collectivist pronouns).
I am of the opinion that Mohammedism be made illegal, practitioners be forced into exile and barred from entering North America - this includes our neighbors to the north and south, Canada and Mexico. This might take a war between Canada and the US, but in the long run it would be much more safe than allowing the Mohammedans in Canada or invading far away countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Scott, Michael Savage and Glen Beck would be proud of
you. Ever dare talk about restricting Jewish
immigration to the US? Certainly you are mad, raving
lunatic. I hope you end up working for Fox News.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@N Willis:
“Certainly you are mad, raving lunatic.”
There’s a non sequitur. Because, in an article about a particular series of cases of attempted Muslim terrorism, I didn’t mention restricting Jewish immigration to the United States, I’m a “mad, raving lunatic.” I guess, Mr. Willis, I must be, since clearly you’re the definition of sanity, and I can’t, for the life of me, follow your argument.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.