Slashdot Mirror

Twitter is being run by the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations led by Qatar's US-Islamic World Forum and Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's business partners Suhail Rizvi and Jim Berk. Remember when Saudi Arabia arrested Alwaleed bin Talal and cut off relations with Qatar, before General McMaster fired and replaced Trump's entire national security council and then Alwaleed was released and things returned to normal? Ever wonder what that was about?

They were supported by the Rockefeller-aligned MacArthur Foundation who have staff on the boards of Wikipedia and the New York Times.

And hey look, it's the White House announcing a "global research and action network focused on youth-oriented hate speech online" run by the same exact people and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. But hey, it's not the government censoring you online, it's just the President of the United States whose college expenses happen to have been paid by one Alwaleed bin Talal, and his Homeland Security staff, and a front for al-Qaeda. No big deal!

These websites also want to ban conspiracy theories. I wonder why?

You all may joke, but I'd wager something really nefarious happened at Google and this is the warrant canary.

Google was caught two years ago working with al-Qaeda to censor the Internet. Their team of al-Qaeda operatives includes Shahed Amanullah, Wajahat Ali, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Randi Harper...

all working at the direction of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and Prime Minister David Cameron. The same people run the Home Office too.

As for how this happened, do you really need to ask?

Who decides what gets published and what gets buried?

That would be the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations, also known the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. Your tweets will be moderated by the likes of Dalia Mogahed and Generation Obama national co-chair Jeremy Goldberg. If you don't like it you can try appealing to the board of directors which includes Omar Kordestani, Marjorie Scardino, Model View Culture promoter Peter Fenton, and a board member of Chelsea Clinton's employer InterActiveCorp, David Rosenblatt.

MPAC dossier, page 9

Its July 1999 issue featured Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden on its cover, with a headline "The Spirit of Jihad." Inside, bin Laden was identified as a "freedom fighter and philanthropist."

After 9/11 made Osama too much of an embarrassment, they did portray him as a villain.. as a puppet controlled by Dick Cheney or working with The Jews.

What's the relevence? This is the group that runs Twitter, Reddit, Wikipedia, Mozilla, Metafilter, BoingBoing, etc, as part of a federally funded Internet censorship program called "Viral Peace" that is run out of the Berkman Center at Harvard University. Gamergate happened when they rolled out the censorship machine two years early to cover up a racketeering scandal. (It was supposed to be a secret weapon against Hillary's opponents in the 2016 election.) The autistic gamers have spent three years finding out what happened, and the signs pointed back to the feds protecting a censorship bureau run by Islamists.

MPAC was placed there by Lisa Monaco. Yes, the Department of Homeland Security put Islamists in charge of censoring the Internet. No one in the MSM considers this a scandal but everyone wants to talk about Russia buying ads on Facebook.

Now take a look at who is often accused of being "alt-right" and "white supremacist." Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Ben Shapiro, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Cathy Young, Phyllis Chesler, Melanie Phillips, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Milo Yiannopoulos, Bill Maher, Julian Assange, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, David Auerbach, and then there are a few open Nazi LARPers like Richard Spencer that they point at to justify censoring the rest. Many of the people who are accused of being "alt-right" are not White Supremacists. They are anti-terrorist, or they are aligned with Hillary Clinton's political opponents, or they just got in the way of the censors. Take a hint, if the Zionist Organization of America or the Jerusalem Post honors somebody then they are probably not a Nazi.

Actually, it is the Muslim Brotherhood who are infiltrating. They already dictate what can and can't be said in FBI/CIA/DoD and all US Government training manuals - since the US doesn't want to cause "offense" to people whose stated goal to destroy the US using its "own miserable hand" (yeah, madness to let the enemies of liberty dictate your training!). Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't need to infiltrate the security agencies, since it is already setting policy in the White House:
Citattions:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates (reporting from an *Egyptian* source)
Huma Abedin is a Muslim Brotherhood "princess" and Hilliary Clinton's closest advisor
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/more-secrets-from-huma-abedin/
http://culturaljihad.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/strange-bedfellows-white-house-and-muslim-brotherhood/

Ever wonder why the US acted as the "Al Qaeda Air Force" in Libya, and is about to do the same in Syria? It's because of the "Red/Green Alliance". The alliance between the International Socialists (including the US Democrat Party) and the Muslim Brotherhood/Islamists (note: Hamas and Al Qaeda are descendent organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood).

It is not "paranoia" if they really are out to get you. It is not paranoia if the policy of the US has been consistent in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of popular secular democratic uprisings (think the Iranian "Green Revolution" in 2009 where Obama held off commenting until it was crushed; and now the White House and Ambassador Patterson are actively trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood re-instated in Egypt against the popular will).

This is *on topic* as it is describing the general background setting in Snowden's comments about arttempted CIA penetration is being made. I can supply any references you need for any of my statements. I also think people who are concerned about infiltration of the CIA etc should realise they have already been neutered by political correctness. Stephen Coughlin and the Center for Security Policy have several excellent videos where they show the difference in words used between the 9/11 Commission Report and the report into the Fort Hood shooting by Major Nadal Hussein (who is a self-declared jihadi but everyone keeps calling "workplace violence" in the worst outbreak of Marxist Political Correct self-delusion in recent memory).

The intelligence failure are not about not having sufficient technology. It is a failure of will. There is an ideology that has driven over 21500 fatal attacks around the globe and is tearing up the Middle East (citation: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/). Yet, the US Government has *banned* any mention of that ideology and association of it with the terrorism it so clearly spawns (citation: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/robert-spencer/obama-adminstration-bans-the-truth-about-islam-and-jihad/). The FBI, CIA, DoD, NSA are all *prohibited* from mentioning certain words to do with this ideology due to Government policy (where the Government has been infiltrated by the very organizations that promote such terrorism) [citation: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates%5D

The Orwellian nature of this ideology and its political associates has gotten so bad that I cannot even say its name on Slashdot - because to mention that ideology invites a flurry of downmods. No matter how many citations or indisputable facts one provides.

That is why the NSA will fail to provide timely information. Friendly countries can provide all the tips in the world (as the Russians did a number of times with the Boston Bombers: citation http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/russia-repeatedly-warned-us-about-muslim-boston-bomber/) by the US intelligence agencies will discard this information. This represents a failure of will on the part of the US intelligence services (driven by their political masters).

ps. this is *on topic*, so p!ss off with your downmods (those that suppport terrorism).

I did nothing, so thanks for the sarcasm. I merely provided links to research done by someone else (which it appears you failed to read). I would also suggest you go an look at "The Muslim Brotherhood in America"
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
by Frank Gaffney (who was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence under Reagan, and founder of the Center for Security Policy).

I also suggest you take a look at the Investigative Project on Terrorism's research about the Brotherhood penetration in the White House (which explains why the White House reacts so virulently to calls for investigation - the Obama Administration sees the MB as moderate and agrees with their aims, although the events in the Middle East have forced them to wake up to reality, instead of their deluded dreams of the MB as compatible with Western-style democracy):
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates

So, you can be sarcastic if you want. You'd get further if you could refute the references I have provided - but I think you'll find the assertion I made about Huma Abedin is true. The reason she passed a background check is that they don't consider Muslim Brotherhood affiliation as a threat these days (which is insane, but that's the current Democratic party for you).

Israel used to be mostly ignored by the US until 1970 when Israel help save the King of Jordan from being overthrown by Palestinian terrorists. The US concluded that the Israelis were trustworthy allies and an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the region - which the US could use to further their interests (particularly against Soviet influence in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East). The US needed Israel more than the other way around (since before this the Israelis mostly got arms from the French and Russians-via-Czechoslovakia).

The loss of Israel would be very bad for US self-interest - which is why the US does what it does. Conspiracy theory fruitcakes always start frothing that the Jews control the White House this is utterly false. The Jews and Israelis have influence in the US, but are among many influences. The White House today is instead heavily infiltrated by racist Jew-hating Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, refer: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates. I'm digressing here because of all the bullshit spun about that the White House is controlled by Jews - this is false, ever since George W Bush it is the jew-haters that have excessive influence in the State Department and White House.

Note that the jihadi Arabs like the *Egyptian* Yasser Arafat caused murder and instability in Israel, Gaza[then illegally occupied by Egypt], Judea/Samaria/West Bank [then illegally occupied by Jordan]), Jordan proper, Lebanon, and globally (Munich, Pan Am, Achilles Lauro murder etc). Israel is a bulwark against these guys and it suits the US to do the heavy lifting. The Israelis also tend to take out nuclear weapons programmes, like Iraq, Syria and soon-to-strike Iran when it would be more politically difficult for the US.

The US 'aid' programme to the Israelis also benefits the US more than the Israelis. US tax dollars are used to pay US companies for equipment the Israelis use (including regional supplies and munitions the US intend to call on, if ever in a pinch).

The relationship between Israel and the US works for both parties. It turns out that the US receives far far more benefit from this than most in the US realize (and certainly much more benefits than the anti-Israeli left-leaning media would have you believe). I hope that gives some explanation as to why Israel gets so much attention from the US after the 1970's (replying to the parent AC's true statement by way of explanation).

The following is already in action. All materials associating "islam" and "terrorism" in the same breath have been purged from the US Government. The DoD, CIA and FBI cannot call jihadi terrorism for what it is. The Fort Hood shootings are thus swept under the carpet as "workplace violence" with an unknown cause - despite Major Nidal Hussein's business card describing him as "Soldier of Allah" and the fact as he was murdering he went around screaming "Allahu Akhbar". It is *you* that is living under a delusion as to what is happening and how the Obama Administration and media are suppressing what is going on (no surprise, the Admistration is thoroughly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB say so themselves: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates).

d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

Do you understand that the intent of 16/18 restrict Free Speech of all UN member countries? what constitutes intolerance? under Sharia "slander" is anything a Muslim doesn't want you to hear - no matter how truthful it is. Therefore any member of the 57 nation OIC can claim intolerance for speaking the (awful) truth about Islam. That is why the US opposed the draft resolutions - it was only incompetent Hiliary Clinton who let this through (no wonder, her chief assistant is the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Huma Abedin: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/08/12/Huma-Abedin-s-Ties-to-Muslim-Brotherhood-May-Be-Even-Deeper-Than-Rep-Bachmann-Suspected et al.)

Let's also not forget the fact that at its heart 16/18 is against the US First Amendment.

You are delusional.

False. You are in denial. You have zero facts and don't understand the subtleties and intent of documents unless they are written at a childish level for you. Be coddled in your delusion - hopefully the Islamicists won't place a pressure cooker IED next to where you are standing while you defend their immoral and barbaric actions - you idiot.

1. Fox News is probably already in the process of finding a way to blame Barack Obama.

Assuming this was a jihadi attack then the Obama Administration is to blame. It has purged all association between Islamic jihad and terrorism from the Department of Defence, FBI, CIA etc. No wonder, The Administration is *thoroughly* penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood (as even the Egyptians attest to: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates)

It turns out that Fox appears to be telling the truth about the threat of jihad in the US. The Left and Leftist media have done a very very good job of keeping you in the Matrix so that you don't see what is going on. Hence, this attack is a surprise, as was the attack in Benghazi (which has been covered up by Obama - notice that not one of the 30+ survivors have been permitted to speak - because it would ruin the pro-Islamicist agenda of the Obama Administration).

Wake up global citizens. Islam is making war on you, *every day*. Their motivation for this is the Qur'an, hadiths and sira. Nothing the US or Israel has done or will do will change this. Islam is determined to make you submit to their political system. This is a fight to the death between the 21st Century and the medieval Islamicists. Appeasement won't work.

Man, this has me conflicted. A bunch of crazy Christians fighting with a bunch of crazy Muslims! I can't stand either of them.

Yes, they are both crazy. However, in this case the Christians are right and the Muslims are wrong, as I will discuss ...

Did those Christians really have to walk in there and be annoying?

No, but they have the Constitutional First Amendment right to do so. They were not promoting hate speech, and the charges laid against them were fabricated (as they prove - which meant the cops should be dismissed for gross misconduct). Only an authoritarian would even question their right to do what they did. No one questions the right of Muslims to speak freely in their dawa efforts at christian venues, yet it is an arrestable offense for a christian to do the same? in the USA? The correct answer to your question (as defined by the First Amendment and subsequent challenges) is "yes, it is always permissible for someone to speak freely, even if someone finds the speech offensive". What is not permitted is hate speech for immediate incitement to violence. This is clearly not the case. Hence, you should be very troubled that the police in Dearborn are implementing Sharia-compliant speech restrictions, that the mainstream media are indulging in politically correct and Sharia-compliant self-censorship, and that the current US Administration has a policy of censoring the manuals used by the Department of Defence and the FBI where someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar!" and slaughters 13 US service personnel on a US base cannot be called a jihadi. Here is Stephen Coughlin's analysis on how the US is slowly being neutered in opposing jihadis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey-TRpkUiPI
Why is that neutering happening, because the White House is full of Muslim Brotherhood affliates:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Why aren't you being told this?

Don't vote for Hiliary Clinton in 2016 if you value your liberty and Constitutional rights. Besides her vanity and incompetence she he chief assistant is Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Huma Abedin:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-dark-muslim-brotherhood-world-of-huma-abedin-2/

As Voltaire said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.". Political correctness is a python that is the enemy of Free Speech. Over time it constricts and progressively censors what you may or may not say. PC now prohibits criticism of Islam in much official US discourse and will eventually affect private discourse too (unless something is done to halt the Leftist politically correct and Islamist Sharia agenda which restricts Free Speech so their totalitarian goals cannot be opposed by Free Men):
Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-horowitz-and-robert-spencer/islamophobia-thought-crime-of-the-totalitarian-future-4/

Wait... was this public property or private?

Public, dude. You cannot exercise any Free Speech rights in Dearborn if a Muslim doesn't want to hear it - and the (Muslim) cops will enforce this by trumping up charges (which video testimony clearly show is false), and then alter their statements numerous times once they realize video shows they are lying. Is Dearborn the future you want for America? to be a controlled citizen (called a "dhimmi") in your own country?

You are saying that the movie they are trying to supress is true? News to me...

Yes, the "Innocence of Muslims" movie has crap production values but it is more accurate to the Islamic texts than most Hollywood movies are to even recent historical events. The reason that Hollywood doesn't get its facts straight is the same reason news reports with a bias and your elites lied to you about the assault on the embassy in Benghazi and have don't their damnedest to keep you from hearing more about it or thinking about it (the media covered with lots of distractions at the time). The reason is because Hollywood, the US mainstream media and the current Administration all have a "Narrative" about Islam and what is going on in the World and they are trying very hard to suppress any facts, evidence or speakers that go against that Narrative.

You see, the Leftist narrative is that Muslims commit jihad against the West are forced into extreme measures because they are poor, downtrodden, poorly educated etc. That fits in with the Leftists notions of "huddled masses" they they must fight to free. The reality is that the jihadis that attack the West are usually better educated, monied and privileged than their peers. What is driving them is Islam. The media's narrative is that these are "extremists". In on sense it is true, most Muslims are good people and do not do jihad (thank the FSM), but on the other hand this is a complete lie - the interpretation that the jihadis are taking is not extreme in any way, it is the *mainstream* interpretation of Islam that all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, the Sunni school and people like Osama bin Laden all agree on. All faithful Muslims agree that jihad is a duty of every devout Muslim, it is just that most don't practice it (often they simply send money to the more vigorous guys).

This sounds bizarre when you first hear it. But it turns out this is the truth about Islam (so please, don't shoot the messenger, me for telling the truth). What is interesting is not that Islamists are obfuscating their anti-liberty aims, but that the political Left and academia are aiding and abetting them. They use character assassination to try and silence anyone telling the truth (eg. see the recent book documenting this: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jamie-glazov/bullies-how-the-lefts-culture-of-fear-and-intimidation-silences-america/). Isn't it interesting how news and spin is being used to generate a perception that counters the reality of the facts?

I do have one positive thing to say about the Obama Administration. After the disaster in Benghazi (although why have none of the 30 survivors been able to speak freely?) I think the Administration has started to realise that the Muslim Brotherhood advisors in the White House have been giving bad advice and as a result the US has been harming liberty rather than helping it. I think the Administration finally realise that they can't be nice to jihadis (eg. like the ones they were arming in Libya, before they slipped the leash of the US) and expect a measure of control. The Administration has woken up and now opposes arming the Syrian Opposition in Syria. While the US still wants Assad out (he's a bad tyrant) they will not provide dangerous heavy weaponry any more (some of it has already ended up in the hands of the Al Nusra outfits; which are basically Al Qaeda).

So you must ask yourself, irrespective of your political views, why aren't my elected representatives and mainstream media telling me this? Why are they *actively* suppressing the truth: eg.

ps: don't believe the Muslim Brotherhood are influencing the White House? Here's my evidence:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates

Now Senator M

Thanks for your post. I don't know if you know the content of Obama's speech in Cairo, or his actions in reserving place in the front row for the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood, but his actions were a clear sell-out of ally Mubarak. It was disgusting. The US had many other options than simply installing Islamists in power. They could have assisted in a transition and promoted secular democratic forces (which instigated the revolution and the Brotherhood now suppress). So I disagree with your conclusion. The US could have done a much better job.

Here's a link to an Egyptian source crowing about how they have Muslim Brotherhood members inside the White House: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
This should have been front page news around the World, but wasn't. Senator Bachmann called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the White House but was pooh-poohed, yet her points were real. You can find more information by googling Frank Gaffney's site http://www.muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
I also highly recommend any of Stephen Coughlin's excellent videos on YouTube outlining the Islamist doctrine. Note that the Obama Administration have done a complete purge of anyone giving analysis of the Islamist/OIC strategy (and Sharia legal basis for jihad) because it runs counter to their (leftist) narrative. eg. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
This is why the World is losing against the form of Islamism that matters, 'cultural jihad' (not the terrorism, but the progressive long-term islamicization of culture).

That should be enough references to get you started. Come back to me if you'd like more.

Are you Israeli? It's just a random guess but I notice from another post you made you are worried about Sharia Law in Europe. I always find the idea of that preposterous since we have far to long and established traditions of drinking alcohol as part of our culture. There is about a 0% chance of us all becoming teetotal, especially here in the UK where I come from.

That's a bit racist, don't you think? I'm a native New Zealander actually. I just happen to be paying attention to what is going on. Unfortunately formerly great news outfits in the UK like the BBC have now dropped neutral journalism and show a huge leftist bias in the articles they choose to publish (and more importantly, the news events they choose not to publish). I understand how people in the UK would miss the information that matters given the selection bias of your mainstream media. Were you aware that 87 Sharia courts now operate in Britian. One law for Muslims (in certain matters) and one for other Britons. Were you aware that most school canteens now only serve halal meat? It is funny you talk about the drinking culture, especially when videos like this "Muslim Patrol" are emerging with increasing regularity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw2w7ACogaY
Yes, it is just some idiots. The interesting thing is the police do nothing and the politicians do not comment that it is an unacceptable affront to Enlish liberties. The trend will continue downwill I'm afraid.

The only people in Europe who carp on about things like Sharia Law are morons like Geert Wilders who are just making it all up in order to try and get elected.

Wilders is an opportunist for sure. Doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. I suggest you take a megaphone and repeat the phrase "Europe will never have Sharia Law" and so so in Birmingham, Malmo or Marsailles. Take out life insurance and please make me the beneficiary. Even if you survive, how many politicians (except for Geert Wilders) do you think would stand up for your righ

Being "politically correct" is against Free Speech. That's why the Islamists push the politically correct buttons of Westerners to neutralize opposition - they don't want to you speak freely and criticize their genocidal and supremacist ideas. As long as you accept political correctness you will be afraid to offend Muslims. Speaking the truth always offends Muslims because they don't want the Free World to discover the truth about their evil ideology.

Because of political correctness the Obama Administration has a censor list that bans the Pentagon and FBI from using words like "Islamist", "jihadi", "terrorist" etc. Stephen Coughlin has an excellent series discussing this is detail on Youtube. He shows how the US is winning all the fights on the battlefield but completely losing the "information battlespace" (a situation analagous to Vietnam, except that now the leftist elites in Obama's Administration oppose the war while the citizens can see the necessity of destroying all Islamists no matter what their brand-name is). Here's an example of an eye-opening Stephen Coughlin video (a briefing he has given the Pentagon):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw

Although this should be no surprise. The Obama Administration has continued the Bush Administration's policy of outreach to muslims, and now has Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in positions of influence. See: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
and the ideologue Obama is informed but refuses to listen to warnings about the Brotherhood. The US Government is not acting in the strategic interest of the people!
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3877/opposition-leader-obama-administration-downplayed

Note that all Islamist groups have the same goals, they just believe in different means to achieve this goal. Therefore: Al Qaeda == Hamas == Hezbollah == Muslim Brotherhood == Salafis == Wahabbis == Boko Haram == Abu Sayyaf etc etc in ideological end-game goals. So when you hear Muslim Brotherhood you are correct in instantly translating that as "Al Qaeda" as they are ideologically end-goal equivalent.

As long you strive to be politically correct you will be against Free Speech. They are incompatible concepts. As long as the majority support political correctness (euphamistic and untruithful speech) over Free Speech (eg. telling the unvarnished truth) then the Islamist ideologues will win - and they are winning in the West (slowly changing the West to conform to their needs rather than the other way around) because those that are politically correct don't have the courage of their convictions to oppose Islamic supremacism.

Unlike political correctness, Free Speech is all about the rigths of people to say things we don't want to hear and we may find offensive. If people were only able to stay stuff we agree with we wouldn't need Free Speech laws anyway. The right to speak and offend others *is* the core of Free Speech. That's why political correctness is completely anti-Free Speech. If you support policical correctness (or worse, condemn those who are not politically correct) then you are an opponent of Free Speech.

Being "politically correct" is against Free Speech. That's why the Islamists push the politically correct buttons of Westerners to neutralize opposition - they don't want to you speak freely and criticize their genocidal and supremacist ideas. As long as you accept political correctness you will be afraid to offend Muslims. Speaking the truth always offends Muslims because they don't want the Free World to discover the truth about their evil ideology.

Because of political correctness the Obama Administration has a censor list that bans the Pentagon and FBI from using words like "Islamist", "jihadi", "terrorist" etc. Stephen Coughlin has an excellent series discussing this is detail on Youtube. He shows how the US is winning all the fights on the battlefield but completely losing the "information battlespace" (a situation analagous to Vietnam, except that now the leftist elites in Obama's Administration oppose the war while the citizens can see the necessity of destroying all Islamists no matter what their brand-name is). Here's an example of an eye-opening Stephen Coughlin video (a briefing he has given the Pentagon):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhZe7eZK4dw

Although this should be no surprise. The Obama Administration has continued the Bush Administration's policy of outreach to muslims, and now has Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in positions of influence. See: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates
and the ideologue Obama is informed but refuses to listen to warnings about the Brotherhood. The US Government is not acting in the strategic interest of the people!
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3877/opposition-leader-obama-administration-downplayed

Note that all Islamist groups have the same goals, they just believe in different means to achieve this goal. Therefore: Al Qaeda == Hamas == Hezbollah == Muslim Brotherhood == Salafis == Wahabbis == Boko Haram == Abu Sayyaf etc etc in ideological end-game goals. So when you hear Muslim Brotherhood you are correct in instantly translating that as "Al Qaeda" as they are ideologically end-goal equivalent.

As long you strive to be politically correct you will be against Free Speech. They are incompatible concepts. As long as the majority support political correctness (euphamistic and untruithful speech) over Free Speech (eg. telling the unvarnished truth) then the Islamist ideologues will win - and they are winning in the West (slowly changing the West to conform to their needs rather than the other way around) because those that are politically correct don't have the courage of their convictions to oppose Islamic supremacism.

Unlike political correctness, Free Speech is all about the rigths of people to say things we don't want to hear and we may find offensive. If people were only able to stay stuff we agree with we wouldn't need Free Speech laws anyway. The right to speak and offend others *is* the core of Free Speech. That's why political correctness is completely anti-Free Speech. If you support policical correctness (or worse, condemn those who are not politically correct) then you are an opponent of Free Speech.

Court doc. Seems all the phones were sold to them by an undercover agent as stolen goods. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1136.pdf

Yes, and you can read the original filing. The guy and his buddy bought thousands of stolen phones, and playstations, and laptops, that he knew were stolen from an undercover FBI guy over the course of few years. He and his pals are no angels. No heros. But then again, they could have posted a link to it. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1136.pdf

I'm upset that the americans are spying on us Canadians,

Oh, PLEASE! Do grow up.

Do you not think Canadians are doing the same?

With Canuckistan being the gateway of choice why wouldn't the US watch closely? Its not like Canadians are paying any attention to who they allow in or what organizations they give their blessing to.

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

Please link me to those polls. I want to see them.

It's all trivially googled, but there you go:

1 in 4 young American Muslims condone suicide bombings against civilians, at least sometimes.

13 per cent of young Muslims said they "admired" organisations such as Al Qaeda which are prepared to "fight the West" ... While only 17 per cent of over-55s said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, that increased to 37 per cent of those aged 16 to 24. ... If a Muslim converts to another religion, 36 per cent of 16-to-24-year-olds thought this should be punished by death.

In Morocco, just 26% of the public now say they have a lot or some confidence in bin Laden ... In Indonesia, the public is now about evenly split, with 35% saying they place at least some confidence in bin Laden ... In Pakistan, however, a narrow majority (51%) places some measure of confidence in bin Laden (by the way, there's a lot of other interesting related statistics, on many other aspects of this issue, by that link).

Enough?

Then also, some of it can be assessed indirectly, for example from what was uncovered in "Undercover Mosque" - keeping in mind that mosques involved in the controversy are some of UK's biggest.