Adding Daniel Pipes input to this discussion:

Title of the story sums it up neatly here:
Lion's Den: Jihadi undercuts president
By DANIEL PIPES
06/29/2010 22:28

The Times Square bomber flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy.

The jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism.

Shahzad’s statements stand out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining.

Consider a few examples:
• Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

• Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.

• Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court: “I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”

• Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car, and issued a series of jihadi rants against the US, later experienced a change of heart, announced he was “very sorry” for the crimes and asked for release so he could “reestablish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.

THESE EFFORTS fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle.

Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11’s would-be 20th hijacker, came close: His court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then pleading guilty to all charges.

Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt.

On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully and informatively described his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.

The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all 10 counts of his indictment: “Why do you want to plead guilty?” A reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in jail for long years. He replied forthrightly: I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times forward because – until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] US, and I plead guilty to that.”

Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: “I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “we Muslims are one community.”

Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because “one has to understand where I’m coming from, because... I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

WHEN CEDARBAUM pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May 1 were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: “Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”

His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government, but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocent.

However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to express his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”

Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non- Muslims and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies.

The writer (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

FULL STORY:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columni...aspx?id=179923

Mountains vs Molehills?
 

Interesting, though perhaps there is a more practical explanation. If I am interpreting Mr. Pipes correctly, in contrast to the examples of the individuals who facing punishment reverted to the universal criminal excuses of, insanity, self defense, and remorse (for being caught), Shahzad's cold responses are ample evidence of the dangers of Islamism. None of these people mentioned have the "moral stamina" Kaplan refers to in soldiers who fight other armed men, can you expect cowards who prey on unarmed civilians to accept the punishment for their crimes with dedicated resolve?

If you need an example of dedicated "moral stamina" for a cause, think of the late Admiral James Stockdale who underwent years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton and actually bashed his own face in with a stool so the North Vietnamese didn't dare put him in front of a camera for propaganda purposes against the USA. That is a man, that is a warrior, that is a dedicated dangerous combatant who walked the walk.

In contrast Shahzad was either poorly trained or lost his nerve, the Obama administration should be taken to task, but for fostering a climate of incompetence in which this "Kramer-esque bomber" almost flew away unscathed. IMHO, Mr. Pipes is giving Shahzad far too much credit, when a far simpler excuse will suffice. Shahzad knows you don't get caught trying to blow up Times Square without a lifetime in prison. So he is trying to cover his @ss, literally, his testimony described as "jaw dropping" is actually pre-emptively "soap dropping", since a "stone cold killer" in the pen is less likely to get a rude surprise when he drops the soap in the shower than a bumbling Jihadi bomber...

Al Qaeda is now crooning about their failed attempts, we need to keep the pressure on them so they can't recover.

Bump

:munchin

:D

Nice.


:lifter

No, they did it cause they were 'losers' like their Uncle said....now that IS dangerous.
If all the losers I know start setting off pressure cookers we are in for a real cook out.

Well, I don't think WE are at war with Islam...I think THEY are at war with us...

They started it...I hope we finish it...:confused:

Amen, Bro :lifter

Well, we need a POTUS who doesn't kiss muslim ass every chance he gets.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

You are so right but we all know that is regretfully and to the detriment of our nation a few years off.

Does the use of armed drones over the protests of governments and civilians in Islamic countries constitute ass kissing?

"In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaed," news story of 29 May 2012.

"In Swat Valley, U.S. drone strikes radicalizing a new generation," news story of 15 April 2013.

2012 Pew polling data that includes findings on impact of use of drones on how Muslim countries view the 44th president.

Does apologizing for and rationalizing Obama's actions make you a lib?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cazkUx0AVHU

Dusty, attempting to paint those who don't agree with every point of view you have in monolithic and dispariging terms ("lib" "RINO") is not going to change the fact that some Muslims find the man's policies, if not also the man, odious.

This administration has done everything it can to help us NOT DEFINE THE ENEMY.
The enemy is Islam and those that practice it as it is written.....many Muslims cherry pick and do not practice real Islam, they are not the enemy....those that study Islam and understand its concepts are the real enemy.....radical Islam is simply a redundancy.
We have fired military personel that gave fact based classes on Islam because it was not PC.
The attack at Ft. Hood was 'work place violence'.
Obama was born and raised Muslim and it goes against his grain, he may be Christian now, but he will not believe, or allow his admin. to identify Islamists as the real threat.
I applaud the drone program, but that does not give this admin a pass on playing stupid as to the real threat.
Take the time to study the 'Sira'...life of Mohammed...and the 'Hadith' the sunna of Mohammed and finally then the Quran (the Quran alone is only about 30% of Islamic doctrine)....then you will understand how a 19 year old kid raised here can be so easily turned into a mass murderer.
It is all in black/white.
Islam.

You evidently didn't watch the vid in the link.