Americans should pay attention to the likely murder of special prosecutor Alberto Nisman in Argentina. There is more to the case than the investigation of a 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85. The evidence leads to the involvement of Iran in jihadist attacks then and now.
The Buenos Aires terror attack in 1994 looked like a small preview of New York City in 2001.
Claudia Rosett appeared on Fox News on Thursday to explain the background of Nisman’s findings, with a warning about how Iran’s terror network extends to the United States today.
CLAUDIA ROSETT: One of his warnings was that they infiltrate using agents sent as taxi drivers, as students, as diplomats, as businessmen, and they operate under those covers for years, but they are ready when Iran decides to execute an attack. And the New York City Police Department former head of intelligence testified in 2013 to Congress that they have found Iranian diplomats conducting what looked like hostile reconnaissance surveillance on New York City on more than half a dozen occasions over the past 12 years, including subway tracks, train tracks at Grand Central, the Wall Street heliport.
In other words, Alberto Nisman’s warning was not only a case about a long ago bombing in Argentina; it was a warning about terror attacks in the making today.
Keep this goal in mind as the Obama administration bends over backwards to get a nuclear treaty deal with Iran, which is a dangerous appeasement of a tireless enemy. Recent satellite photos have been reported showing new Iranian missiles capable of sending a warhead “far beyond Europe” yet Obama thinks the mullahs can be trusted not to nuke us when they are able.
In Rosett’s detailed Forbes article on Tuesday, she quoted Nisman’s explanation of how Iranians were sent essentially as sleeper agents to Argentina, told to blend in as ordinary immigrants until a time when they were needed to “export the Islamic revolution.”
Beyond puzzling over the circumstances, is there any response the U.S. can make to the sudden death this past weekend of Argentine special prosecutor Alberto Nisman?
Nisman spent the past decade seeking justice for the victims of the 1994 terrorist bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center, which killed 85 people and wounded many more. Nisman compiled a massive case, accusing Iran and its Lebanese terrorist affiliate, Hezbollah, of the attack. He indicted a member of Hezbollah and a number of former high-ranking Iranians officials. And he found himself increasingly at cross-purposes with the machinations of Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner.
Last week, Nisman filed a criminal complaint almost 300 pages long, accusing Kirchner, her foreign minister Hector Timerman, and a number of others, of orchestrating a cover-up of Iran’s responsibility for the 1994 attack. A summary of the complaint, sent out last week by Nisman’s office, accused Kirchner of secretly cutting a deal with Iran to concoct a story that would exonerate Iran and its fugitives from the 1994 bombing, thus opening the way for Argentina to trade grain for Iranian oil, at the cost of “sacrificing a lengthy and legitimate quest for justice.”
Nisman was due to testify Monday to Argentina’s Congress about his allegations. He never made it. On the eve of his testimony, the 51-year-old Nisman was found dead in his Buenos Aires apartment, shot in the head.
Argentine officials swiftly declared that Nisman’s death looked like suicide. There’s plenty of skepticism about that. But with the case under Argentine jurisdiction, there may be little that Americans watching from afar can do. It is telling, perhaps, that even when Nisman was alive, the U.S. couldn’t do much on his behalf. In 2013, U.S. lawmakers invited Nisman to come to Washington, to testify about his findings at a House hearing on “Threat to the Homeland: Iran’s extending influence in the Western Hemishere.” Nisman wanted to go testify. But Argentina’s chief public prosecutor denied him permission, on grounds that it had nothing to do with the mission of the Argentine attorney general’s office.
At the hearing, panel chairman Rep. Jeff Duncan expressed his regret that Nisman could not come. Duncan noted that based on information that omitted Nisman’s findings, the State Department had recently reported that Iranian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean was “waning.” Duncan added: “In stark contrast to the State Department’s assessment, Nisman’s investigation revealed that Iran has infiltrated for decades large regions of Latin America through the establishment of clandestine intelligence stations and is ready to exploit its position to ‘execute terrorist attacks when the Iranian regime decides to do so.’ “
What America can do — and should do — is pay much closer heed to Nisman’s urgent warnings. For years, while laboring at an investigation that amassed more than a million pages of documents, he sounded the alarm over Iranian terror networks which he found extended way beyond Argentina — and in some cases all the way to the U.S. Continue reading this article
The recent guilty verdict in the trial of a convicted terrorist bomber for immigration fraud is another reminder of how inept the feds are at barring the entrance of dangerous people into America. Numerous war criminals have been admitted to this country because of plain sloppy investigation of immigrants’ backgrounds by an unconcerned bureaucracy.
The case is hardly a confidence builder for the idea that the government could responsibly handle an amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners that would still protect public safety.
Anyway, today’s criminal terrorist alien is Rasmieh Odeh (pictured), a Palestinian who was imprisoned in Israel for a bombing that killed two students in 1969. Israel released her from incarceration in a prisoner swap with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, not because she was thought to be rehabilitated. Odeh was convicted in Detroit for omitting her criminal terrorist record when she applied to enter the United States.
A Detroit jury today found a Palestinian immigrant guilty of not disclosing that she had been convicted in a 1969 Israel bombing when she was applying for U.S. citizenship.
Rasmieh Odeh, 67, was accused by prosecutors of being a terrorist who killed Israelis in 1969 and then lied about it when trying to become a U.S. citizen. Odeh used to live in Michigan and is now in Chicago, where she works for the Arab American Action Network. She was not charged with any terrorism crime, but with immigration violations.
Odeh could face up to ten years in prison for her conviction and be stripped of her U.S. citizenship. After the verdict, Odeh said outside the courthouse: “We have to bring the justice together..I’m strong & I ask all of you to be strong…We are the strongest people, not the government…We are stronger.”
In a statement, her supporters called today’s verdict “a travesty of justice,” saying that Odeh did “not get a full and fair trial.”
The Rasmea Defense Committee claimed that “the immigration charge was nothing but a pretext to attack this icon of the Palestine liberation movement.”
They said Odeh’s attorneys will appeal the decision.
But a jury agreed today with federal prosecutors who said that Odeh checked “no” on immigration and citizenship forms she filled out in Detroit when asked whether she had ever been convicted of a crime. Odeh concedes that she was convicted in Israel, but maintains that she was forced to confess after being tortured. She also claims that she thought the questions on the forms referred only to convictions in the U.S.
The trial has drawn national attention, with up to 100 protesters rallying outside the courthouse every day last week and today. Rallies also have been held in Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Odeh, associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, is being supported by a network of pro-Palestinian groups, which have launched online campaigns on Twitter and Facebook to bring attention to her cause. The group that she works for is part of the Dearborn-based National Network for Arab American Communities. Continue reading this article
It’s not exactly news that young Somali men are trooping over to Islam territory to kill infidels and other Muslims not deemed sufficiently pure by the jihadists with guns. Starting around 2007, a couple dozen Somalis returned to their homeland to pursue jihad. In 2008, Shirwa Ahmed, an immigrant who graduated from Minneapolis’ Roosevelt High School, became the first suicide bomber from the US in Somalia when he blew up dozens in Mogadishu.
Styles change however, and now the cool killers are the ISIS bunch that performs Islamic beheading ultraviolence and then broadcasts it online using social media.
Below, American journalist James Foley was beheaded in August and the video was seen around the world, to the delight of Allah’s gangsters and aspiring psycho-killers.
Anyway, jihad investigator Eric Stakelbeck paid a recent visit to Minneapolis to see how the local Somali urge to kill infidels is playing out. Increasing numbers of Somalis are leaving town to join ISIS so it’s clear that efforts of authorities to dissuade them have not been successful.
MINNEAPOLIS — Islamic State has engaged in a reign of terror across the Middle East, raping, pillaging, and beheading its way to a new caliphate.
Now a growing number of U.S. citizens are leaving America to join the brutal ISIS army. These recruits are being radicalized on U.S. soil and they may eventually return home.
It’s hard to imagine America’s heartland as a breeding ground for terrorism. Yet when news emerged that two U.S. citizens had been killed in Syria fighting alongside ISIS, the path led back to, of all places, Minnesota.
The two men were part of a growing number of young Muslims from Minneapolis and St. Paul who have answered the call of jihad (“holy” war).
At least a dozen young Muslims from the Twin Cities area have left their homes to travel to the Middle East and join ISIS. Some of them worshipped at the al-Farooq Mosque in a quiet suburb of Minneapolis.
An Egyptian-American man allegedly recruited young Somali Muslims from the mosque and helped send them to Syria.
Mosque officials say they banned Amir Meshal earlier this year when they learned he was preaching jihad. The suspected terror recruiter remains at large.
“There is an organization that makes this happen,” former sheriff Bob Fletcher told CBN News. “But usually there is one principal person that I call ‘the Guide’ that can take this person in this ideological state and guide them to Syria or wherever it might be.” Continue reading this article
Has any conservative talking head on Fox News ever suggested that Muslim immigration be halted? If so, I never saw it. By comparison, SunTV’s Michael Coren (who has lived in the Middle East) asked that politically incorrect question generally to the audience and directly to VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow.
The result was a discussion about multiculturalism, cultural disintegration and the intention of the elites to “elect (import) a new people” more to their liking.
Coren observed, “Many people are saying look at the countries of origin of potential immigrants. And if these countries are used to sharia law and Islamic triumphalism, maybe they can’t adapt to United States or Canada or Europe.”
Brimelow responded, “In the 1920’s the Americans imposed an immigration law that established a national origins system that discriminated in favor of people who came from the place most Americans had come. In 1960’s they decided it was very bad and discriminatory and they abolished it. What subsequent experience has shown is national origins actually do matter, in all kinds of ways, not just shooting soldiers, but also in academic performance and so on. People from different counties do differently… The interesting thing about this case is that the Muslim community in Canada has reached a critical mass where it actually refuses to assimilate… there’s a certain critical mass where you see reverse assimilation taking place.”
Here’s another recent item with Coren, interviewing security expert David Harris, where the focus is on how the police are reaching the limits of staff who can keep track of the hostile Muslims thought to be terror threats. Harris recommends immigration to Canada be reduced to a manageable few tens of thousands annually.
In 2010, Oregon-residing Mohamed Mohamud (a naturalized citizen born in Somalia) planned to mass murder Americans at a Portland Christmas tree-lighting ceremony where typically hundreds of families show up for the festivities. He rang his cell-phone twice, thinking a huge bomb would go off, but it was a fake set up by the FBI to take out the would-be killer.
Mohamud was sentenced on Wednesday to 30 years prison time, despite the fact that the prosecutor recommended 40 years.
Interestingly, the case began when his father contacted the FBI, as noted in the video below, about his concerns that his son was becoming drawn to jihad.
Mohamud (pictured) is quite a piece of work, having decided in high school that he didn’t like Americans and wanted to pursue jihad so he could kill lots of infidels. When a supposed confederate remarked that the Christmas event would include many children, Mohamud responded, “Yeah, I mean, that’s what I’m looking for.”
But now he’s all sorry, apologizing to the Muslim community for making them look bad.
In the early 1930s, Winston Churchill warned against the coming threat of Hitler, German re-armament and the Nazi party. Today’s prescient politician with an eye on future danger is a member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders, who has been alerting the West about hostile Islam for years.
One action that got Wilders in trouble (specifically a trial for committing free speech) was producing a 15-minute documentary film, Fitna, that matched verses from the Koran with acts of terror:
He recently reiterated his arguments against Muslim immigration to his colleagues:
Madam Speaker, actually I was expecting flowers from you. I am celebrating an anniversary these days. Exactly ten years and two days ago, I left a party whose name I cannot immediately remember. During these ten years and two days. I have been much criticized. Most importantly for always saying the same thing.
My critics are right. Indeed, my message had been the same during all these years. And today, I will repeat the same message about Islam again. For the umpteenth time. As I have been doing for ten years and two days.
I have been vilified for my film Fitna. And not just vilified, but even prosecuted. Madam Speaker, while not so many years ago, everyone refused to broadcast my film Fitna, we can today watch Fitna 2, 3, 4 and 5 daily on our television screens. It is not a clash of civilizations that is going on, but a clash between barbarism and civilization.
The Netherlands has become the victim of Islam because the political elite looked away. Here, in these room, they are all present, here and also in the Cabinet, all these people who looked away. Every warning was ignored.
As a result, also in our country today, Christians are being told: “We want to murder you all”. Jews receive death threats. Swastika flags at demonstrations, stones go through windows, molotov cocktails, Hitler salutes are being made, macabre black ISIS flags wave in the wind, we hear cries, such as “Fck the Talmud”, on the central square in Amsterdam.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, this Summer, Islam came to us.
In all naivety, Deputy Prime Minister Asscher states that there is an “urgent demand” from Muslims to “crack down” on this phenomenon. Last Friday, in its letter to Parliament, the Cabinet wrote that jihadists are hardly significant. They are called a “sect”, a “small” group.
This is what those who look away wish, these deniers of the painful truth for 10 years and two days, the ostrich brigade Rutte 2.
But the reality is different. According to a study, 73% of all Moroccans and Turks in the Netherlands are of the opinion that those who go to Syria to fight in the jihad are “heroes”. People whom they admire.
And this is not a new phenomenon. Thirteen years ago, 3,000 people died in the attacks of 9/11. We remember the images of burning people jumping from the twin towers. Then, also, three-quarters of the Muslims in the Netherlands condoned this atrocity. That is not a few Muslims, but hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Netherlands condoning terrorism and saying jihadists are heroes. I do not make this up. It has been investigated. It is a ticking time bomb. Continue reading this article
CBN’s terror analyst Erick Stakelbeck reminds us that the jihad juggernaut in the Middle East does not want to remain there. Allah’s gangsters still hope to return to America to finish the job they started in 9/11, as shown by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s remark to US troops when released from prison, “I’ll see you guys in New York.”
WASHINGTON — Before Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi became what many consider the world’s most powerful terrorist, he was in U.S. custody.
U.S. forces released Baghdadi from an Iraqi prison in 2009 after four years in captivity. His reported parting words to American troops? “I’ll see you guys in New York.”
Baghdadi now leads a terrorist army of some 10,000 jihadists, known variously as ISIS or the Islamic State, that has conquered vast amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria.
And his repeated threats to attack America have not gone unnoticed.
“You will have a hard time finding any senior U.S. counterterrorism or intelligence official who won’t say right now that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is the biggest threat that we’re facing at the moment,” said Matthew Levitt, director of the counterterrorism program at the Washington Institute.
Levitt, a former U.S. Treasury Department and FBI analyst, told CBN News the large influx of Western Muslims into ISIS’s ranks — from places like Britain, France, and Denmark — poses a unique danger.
According to some estimates, up to 3,000 Western Muslims have traveled to Syria to join the jihad.
“They are recruiting a very large number and attracting, really, a very large number of foreigners, including Americans,” Levitt told CBN News. “At least 100 or so have gone to fight, some with ISIS, some with Jabhat al Nusra in Syria.”
“And also Europeans,” he added, “and many of the Europeans that are being recruited are from European countries that have visa waiver programs with the United States.” Continue reading this article
However, a more peaceful Middle East may well lead to a jihad-riven Europe and America, because the fighters who came from the West will return to their countries of residence with advanced training in war and a desire to build the caliphate.
The Muslim soldiers see themselves as being on the march, successfully conquering territory for Allah, with little pushback from any western nations. When they return to Europe and America, many will continue to fight for Allah.
Most of the jihadists from Europe and America are immigrants who never assimilated to their new countries and their only loyalty is to Islam. It’s another brick in the wall of why Muslim immigration is a terrible policy for any nation that wants to stay free.
A report from CBN’s Dale Hurd calls attention to the danger posed by trained fighters who will return home with jihad in mind.
PARIS — In a video message, British jihadists in Syria can be seen trying to recruit more Muslim young men to come and join them.
One, holding a weapon, says, “This is a message to the brothers who have stayed behind…”
They have taken to social media to share an Islamic message with their friends back home: Even if you lead a sinful life, the Koran teaches that martyrdom is a ticket to heaven.
Grisly Instagram photos and videos sent to friends back home include bags and even truckloads of severed heads that fighters from Britain are collecting.
Another jihadist, wearing a hood, says, “Dear brothers, especially brothers and also sisters, in the land of jihad at the moment, with a Glock 19, yeah? Most of you playboy guys ain’t seen this yet. All I’ve come to do here is what’s prescribed to us as Muslim men. I also invite all over to the land of jihad. Allahu Akba!”
Then he fires his weapon into the night sky.
Coming Back Home Someday these jihadists are coming home. Some already have.
Mehdi Nemmouch, the French gunman who killed four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels, had a homemade flag of ISIS, the terrorists who have setup an Islamic state in Iraq, when he was arrested in May.
Nemmouch went to fight in Syria in 2012.
The French government knows it has many more like Nemmouch in France: Muslim radicals who went to Syria to fight in the civil war and are bring jihad back to Europe.
Muslims residing in the United States and in general are more distrusted as time goes by, because the case is rather substantial that Allah’s acolytes are not suitable residents for Western nations. As Dutch politician Geert Wilders has said, “Islam is the biggest threat to freedom today.”
(Reuters) – How Americans view Arabs and Muslims has gotten worse in recent years, with negative feelings strongest among Republicans and senior citizens, according to a poll released on Tuesday.
Only 27 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Muslims, down from 35 percent in 2010, according to the Zogby poll, commissioned by the non-profit Arab American Institute. Favorable attitudes toward Arabs dropped to 32 percent from 43 percent in 2010.
The poll also found that 42 percent of respondents believe an American Muslim’s religion would influence his or her decision making in an important government job. The same percentage believe it is justified for law enforcement to profile Arab Americans or American Muslims.
“For me, the biggest concern in the poll is not just that people don’t like us, but what not liking us translates to,” said Institute president Jim Zogby, who is of Lebanese descent. He said attitudes towards profiling and Arabs and Muslims in government posts “affect our ability to function as communities here.” Continue reading this article
From France, we learn that a follower of the Religion of Peace was arrested for plotting to blow up the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and a nuclear power plant. If successful, the attacks would have struck at icons of Western culture, as well as murdering many non-Muslim people.
The alleged perp was an Algerian butcher (!) residing in the south of France who was getting mass murder hints from his al Qaeda pals.
The case is yet another example that Muslims are a bad bet as immigrants — remember that 9/11 attack where the killers yelled Allahu Ackbar? Let’s just stop admitting Muslims into American communities before our luck runs out.
French authorities say they foiled an Islamic terrorist plot reportedly targeting the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and a nuclear power plant last year.
The revelation comes as the country unveiled new anti-terror rules which included a proposal to ban terror suspects from leaving the country if it is thought they intend to fight abroad, The Telegraph reported.
French authorities revealed they arrested a 29-year-old Algerian butcher living in southern France June 2013, after they found coded messages between him and a high-ranking Al Qaeda member discussing how “to conduct jihad in the place you are currently,” according to Le Parisien.
The suspect, identified in the newspaper report as Ali M, reportedly said he would target French landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, Louvre and “cultural events that take place in the south of France in which thousands of Christians gather for a month.” Continue reading this article
Member of the Dutch Parliament Geert Wilders (pictured) remains the rare elected official to speak out about the threat from Muslim immigration. He has paid a high price for his courage: not only does he need 24/7 security because of serious Islamic death threats, but he has also undergone two trials for hate speech in the Netherlands.
Wilders’ common-sense approach is that national security begins with keeping enemies out of your country. (Curiously, in our dangerous but politically correct world, that idea is considered controversial in some quarters, like the open borders bunch.)
The Wilders’ top-ten national security list includes ending diverse immigration from Islamic nations and encouraging “voluntary repatriation” of those already in the Netherlands. (Would candidate Mitt Romney have escaped criticism if he had used that phrase rather than “self-deportation”?)
Wilders focuses on specifics for the Netherlands, but the sensible recommendations would be a good program for all Western nations, many of which erroneously believe they can have both national security and liberal immigration.
Ten concrete measures to prevent Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands.
In several Western countries, the authorities are concerned about the security risk posed by young Muslim immigrants who went to Syria and Iraq to wage jihad and are now returning home. They are considered the most serious security risk in decades.
The risk is not just theoretical. Indeed, on May 24, Mehdi Nemmouche, a young Muslim with a French passport, went on a killing spree with a Kalashnikov assault rifle in the Jewish Museum in Brussels. He killed four people. Nemmouche had previously been in Syria, where he was trained in guerrilla warfare.
During the past three years, thousands of young Islamic immigrants from all Western countries, Europe, Australia, America and even Russia, have gone to fight in Syria, where they have committed the most horrible atrocities. Some of them were killed in action, while others have since returned home. They carry Western passports but they hate the West. They walk our streets as ticking time bombs, eager to cause as much havoc in our cities as they have caused in Syria.
The Dutch-Turkish jihadist Yilmaz (center), who was previously a soldier in the Dutch army, poses with fellow jihadists in Syria.
The West cannot just sit idly by and wait for the next terror attack to happen. We must protect ourselves. If we do not, the barbaric scenes that play today in Syria and Iraq will soon be repeated in our countries. Ordinary people are well aware of the urgency of the problem. Last week, I proposed ten concrete measures to prevent Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands. A poll showed that a large majority of the Dutch support the plan. Continue reading this article
In advance of the Boston Marathon run on Monday with police-state security measures following last year’s jihad bombings, local media sought to comfort local Muslims that they were not under suspicion in an article titled, “Inclusive spirit reassures Muslims after bombings” (linked below).
The caption of the article’s first photo: “Hamza Syed braced for an anti-Muslim backlash that never happened.”
Below, one explosion at last year’s Boston Marathon.
Despite the lack of lynch mobs or other backlash against Muslims after 9/11 and other Islamic attacks, the Allah bunch residing in America complains that their sensitive feelings are hurt by surveillance and other normal precautions to having a gaggle of potential enemies living in the country.
Why do Americans feel they have to “reassure” Muslims of goodwill? On the contrary, Muslims should be trying to convince Americans that they are not murderous religious fanatics. Allah’s gangsters have killed Americans on our own soil in the thousands, yet we are supposed to feel guilty for not trusting Muslims.
Some will fall under the swoon of Islamic teachings, and part of the modern jihad message is the alleged victimhood of Muslims worldwide, even though they are usually the perps. Here in America, CAIR urges Muslims to report the slightest affront as a hate crime, following the victim theme. In fact, FBI statistics for years show that Jews are five times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims, who are down the list.
The 2014 budget for the Department of Homeland Security was $49.7 billion. Remember that the DHS was organized as a response to the 9/11 attacks, even though hundreds of billions were already spent on the Pentagon which was supposed to protect America.
One could reasonably regard the $49.7 billion DHS budget as one cost of Muslim immigration. Are the felafels worth it? Why does America continue to allow Muslim immigration?
As for the article about adorable Muslims, brace for extensive silliness. My favorite (bad) remark is from a Muslim who apparently has not read the Koran and its 100+ exhortations to violence against infidels: “Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues.”
No, doofus, the jihadists are following their religion!
Sept. 11, 2001, ruptured 13-year-old Hamza Syed’s world. Being Muslim instantly became the only part of his identity that seemed to matter; kids at his school in Lynn besieged him with questions he could not answer. He had immigrated to the United States from Pakistan at age 3, but he no longer felt allowed to call himself American.
A year ago, after the Boston Marathon bombings, Syed braced himself for another anti-Muslim backlash. It never happened.
“I grew up being an outsider, feeling like an outsider, and there wasn’t any moment really after the Boston Marathon where I had that feeling of being an outsider again,” he said. “I grieved with everyone. . . . I could understand their feelings, and they could understand mine, without there being an asterisk next to it.”
On Monday, Syed expects to run the Boston Marathon for the first time, an act he sees as an expression of his love for his resilient city and for its embrace of diversity.
“That is what the Boston Marathon this year is really going to be about,” he said. “I want to say that I was there, that I took part in it.”
To be sure, there were isolated displays of Islamophobia in the aftermath of the Marathon bombings. A woman wearing a hijab was assaulted on a street in Malden. Strangers sent hateful e-mails to Boston’s mosques. Some Muslims feared being questioned by law enforcement or seethed over a tabloid’s portrayal of two innocent Massachusetts men as possibly connected to the bombings.
But the broader tableau showed a city that has become more welcoming of Muslims in the years since the 2001 attacks, many local Muslims said. The scale of the two tragedies was very different, but many Muslims said improved interfaith cooperation and increasingly diverse schools and workplaces contributed to a change in tone. It also seemed, they said, that their non-Muslim neighbors had grown more knowledgeable and less fearful in a dozen years of discussing terrorism, war, national security, and religious liberty in the public square.
“Now, when an act of terror occurs, people can see it for what it is: someone exploiting religion, someone with serious issues,” said Jalon Fowler, a 38-year-old Muslim who ran in last year’s Marathon and will compete again this year.
After the Marathon bombings, many Muslims said they felt reassured by gestures of support and concern from friends and coworkers, from local politicians and clergy of other faiths. Bostonians, they said, seemed to understand that most Muslims were as horrified at the violence on Boylston Street as everyone else was.
“There is never a silver lining to mass murder, or attempted mass murder,” said Imam William Suhaib Webb, spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, the city’s largest mosque. “But what we learned is, this is a really great city with incredibly sincere people.
“It was like, we’re together, we all anguish about what happened, and we are going to try to speak to the problem together.”
Mosque fears eased Greater Boston’s two most prominent mosques were inundated with press calls and television cameras after the bombings, especially the Islamic Society of Boston in Cambridge, where suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev occasionally worshipped.
Ismail Fenni, acting imam of the Cambridge mosque, tried to field reporters’ questions and to respond to the stunned congregation, few of whom had known the Tsarnaevs.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.