Is Denver mosque encouraging terrorism?

The head-scratching debate over the motives behind the Fort Hood murders started it.  Both media pundits and government officials said that we the people need to wait before jumping to any conclusions concerning Major Hasan's motives for allegedly murdering 13 of his military comrades and wounding scores of others.  The fact that Hasan was said to have shouted "Allah Akbar," just as the 9/11 hijackers and just about every recent terrorist who has had a chance to yell something before they committed their satanic acts, apparently proves nothing.  The jury, the government and media tell us, is still out.  The fact that Hasan had said that to him the Koran trumped the Constitution, again apparently proves nothing.  

On the other hand In attempting to tell us that once again Muslim extremists are urinating on our legs and the government and media are telling us it is raining, and apparently will continue to do so until through the combination of terrorism and government and media calls for us not to jump to conclusions, the result must be either yielding to the imposition of Sharia law or a cry of enough by the American people. Therefore questions are beginning to be asked.  The result of that may well be the thing the government and Islamic militants fear most.  That is that if the people decide that if the government is not going to protect them, and the media is going to lie to them about the threats they face, the American people, in whose DNA still runs the likes of Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, John Hancock and my own ancestor, Ethan Allen, may just decide to take matters into their own hands.

Both parts of this phenomenon were visible in The Denver Post, which seemed particularly conflicted.   One day they were printing Vincent Carroll's common sense argument that the government did not need to worry about a no-nothing anti-Islamic backlash based on the Fort Hood incident.  The following day  the Post reprinted the Miami Herald's Leonard Pitts exercise in insulting the American public while simultaneously putting his own stupidity on display masquerading as a column.  The column, of course, echoed what seems to be the government's official line and speculated that Hasan might simply have been a psychopath similar to Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, and, predictably mentioned Tim McVeigh, who invariably gets a mention any time a radical Muslim is tied to terrorism.  

Pitt's point, of course, was that no one can say why Hasan did what he did.  An infuriating article on Current stated that Hasan was just reacting to "discrimination" he had experienced in the military as a Muslim.   I suppose it was OK then.  

In going to ridiculous extremes in the name of political correctness, government officials and the media are failing in their larger duty.  That duty being to protect the American people at large from the very real threat from millions around the world who are prepared to act on the basis of a particular interpretation of Islam.  The government's overwhelming concern, it seems, is that people might act on their own in response to this threat, an infinitely lesser danger than the threat itself.  

That may change, however, if the American people conclude that the government is not protecting them out of political correctness.  Aside from a very few scattered incidents, the only major instance of Americans taking matters into their own hands in the face of this threat occurred aboard United Flight 93 on 9/11.  Many, including myself, have argued that the government has been slow and half-hearted in honoring these heroes.  Might it be that deep down they did not approve of what essentially was a vigilante action?

A major part of the problem is that terrorists thrive on this ambiguity.  To paraphrase Ho Chi Minh's field commander General Giap, terrorists are the fish and the Islamic masses are the sea.  Terrorists have already made perfectly clear that they feel entitled to lie and disguise their beliefs and motives to "infidels."  Why would non-Muslims expect that people who believe it is OK to kill them in cold blood, be truthful concerning, well, anything.  That common sense assessment makes government and media statements that the only way to assess Hasan's motives is to ask him when he recovers, laughable, if it were not so tragic.  

Yet since the government and their apologists in the media have told us we aren't allowed to assess Hasan's motives, doesn't that mean we are allowed to investigate further?  Indeed, some have and have found out things like the fact that Major Hasan attended the same northern Virginia Mosque as three of the 9/11 hijackers.  Additionally, they were all 'spiritually mentored' by a radical Islamic cleric who is now in hiding in Yemen and who has declared on the internet that Hasan is a hero.  

Hmmm.  If particular Mosques may be recruiting or at least encouraging terrorists, what about Denverite Najibullah Zazi, 24, the Colorado airport shuttle driver who has been accused of plotting a deadly terrorist attack and who confessed to training with al-Qaida.  Shouldn't we garner some information about what Mosque or Mosques he may have attended in Colorado and whether or not they may have influenced him towards terrorism?

Curiously, none of the major media of Denver have been even vaguely interested in the answer to this question. This is something that is apparently surprising to at least one of the Mosques he worshipped at, the Colorado Muslim Society Mosque, Colorado's largest, which is located at 2071 S. Parker Road (website http://www.denvermosque.org), who printed a statement regarding Zazi on the front page of their website.  Zazi, claims the website, was only "a rare visitor" the Mosque.  It does not state what other Mosques, if any Mr. Zazi, may have worshipped at.

The statement goes on to "condemn" acts of violence and terrorism against innocent lives, although it does not issue a blanket condemnation of violence or terrorism.  Those in the know may recall that bin Laden has issued a Fatwa against all Americans, none of who he considers innocent because they pay taxes to the US government.  

To be fair I requested an interview with a spokesman for the Colorado Muslim Society.  Unfortunately, however, my request has been ignored, at least, to date. Hopefully the publication of this article will cause them to reconsider.   Of course it was not going to be a softball interview.  For example I would want to know what they meant by Mr. Zazi being a "rare" visitor, if they could quantify that or tell me where else Mr. Zazi may have worshipped.  

Also, since his father has also been charged in the affair and was, no doubt, a huge influence on Zazi, was he a visitor to the Colorado Muslim Society (CMS)?  

I have read that 80% of US Mosques have a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the parent organizations of Al Qaida.   Is CMS in that group?

On their website they have a link to CAIR, which poses as a Muslim civil rights organization but which investigators have tied to the terrorist group Hamas.  I would want to know their position on all of that.

It has also been reported that a large number of the richer Mosques in the US were built with money from Saudi Arabia, which preaches a very anti-Western interpretation of Islam known as Wahabbism.  I wanted to know if they received Saudi money or embraced Wahabbism.

Before anyone decides to label me an Islamophobe, let me point out that I greatly admire a lot in Islam itself and America's Islamic friends, the best of which was the Northern Alliance leader Massoud, who was assassinated by Al Qaida just prior to 9/11.   Islam, like any other religion is subject to interpretation.  Fortunately, there are Muslims who interpret Islam moderately, the most informative group of which is Muslims against Sharia.  

That group gives a chart which lists the differences between radical and moderate Muslims and gave me the ideas for what would have been my next questions for Denver's Mosque.

Are you working for the imposition of Sharia law throughout the US and the world?

Do you consider non-Muslims infidels? etc.

Do you consider the Koran more important than the US Constitution? etc., etc.

I am not saying that the Denver Muslim Society should be compelled to provide me with an interview.  I am not saying that they feel they don't need to abide an infidel or that they have anything to hide from the people of Denver.  Still, the fact that these questions go unanswered (of course, there are many who wouldn't believe the answers in any event no matter how reassuring they might be), cannot be comforting to Colorado's non-Muslims.