TexasCHLforum.com

Informant: Islamic Compounds in America are Training for Jihad
http://lawenforcementtoday.com/tag/hancock-ny/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider the source. Carry always.

MOA has established similar villages in nearly three-dozen locations nationwide, with other prominent camps found in Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, California and Tennessee
...............
Aziz provided this shocking information: MOA has created a secret jihadist army, similar to a guerilla-trained militia, that is ready to attack American citizens “at one word” from their leader, Sheikh Gilani.

One of the main purposes of the camps is to provide guerilla training for the young men—and in some cases the women—to be prepared for jihad. A videotape that I obtained exclusively shows MOA members being trained on the Hancock camp, shooting guns, pretending to attack with knives, practicing slitting throats, and strangling victims. This chilling video is proof that MOA compounds have been used to train Islamic terrorists for combat.

ETA: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/381953/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
35 terror training camps now operating inside U.S.

That's kind of scary stuff, but before I go off half cocked, I am considering the source. WND has the habit of hyperventilating some times. What's your gut tell you?

I'll be a little more concerned when Fox News starts talking about them.

FrontPageMag.com has been documenting this for over 5 years.

And I'm in training to protect myself and family, that's why I always carry ...

That was not a very well written article. It seemed more of a diatribe than anything else.

I notice that one of the compounds claimed on the map in the video is on the Texas coast......couldn't tell exactly where, but it looked like it might be near Houston. It would seem to me that if this stuff were going on here, people would have eventually twigged to it.

Also, we have a long tradition in this country of local "militias." I put that word in quotes because some of them are very well organized and well run, and they are deadly serious about what they do, and they actually provide an adjunct service to national security.....like those groups that patrol along the border for instance. But some of those "militia" groups are kind of an excuse for old guys fatter than than I am to wear camo and play army, while talking tough for the Discovery Channel cameras.

I'll throw one other thing out there, just for kicking around..... Because of righteous hostility toward the particularly toxic brand of militant islam that we see among terrorists and that has actually perpetrated terror here, other Muslims who are not so inclined might just start to feel ganged up on a bit. I know Christians who have banded together for mutual support in a sort of "semi-militia" way in the event of the Zombie Apocalypse (code for "whatever is coming down the pike"). Isn't it possible that some not-so-radical Muslims might start thinking that they need to band together for the same reasons and do the same thing, in the event that this country really turns on them because of the actions of their more radicalized coreligionists? The groups portrayed in this video do appear to be toxic, but I'm just trying to be fair here. After all, nobody blinks an eye at "prepper" groups that are NOT muslim in nature.

Makes me think of the Branch Davidians. The government didn't hesitate to take them out. I'll bet the publicity from that has them thinking twice about invading any compounds, no matter what the religion.

baldeagle wrote:Makes me think of the Branch Davidians. The government didn't hesitate to take them out. I'll bet the publicity from that has them thinking twice about invading any compounds, no matter what the religion.

Our current administration would be more likely to prosecute those who oppose the Jihadists.

rp_photo wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Makes me think of the Branch Davidians. The government didn't hesitate to take them out. I'll bet the publicity from that has them thinking twice about invading any compounds, no matter what the religion.

Our current administration would be more likely to prosecute those who oppose the Jihadists.

This^^^.

Anygunanywhere

I would guess that unless what they are doing is illegal then there is not much the gubberment can do. Now we the ppl can be a bit more proactive in making life uncomfortable for them, no I don't. mean attacking them but just general being a pain like photographing and publishing lic plates and faces of ppl that go there.

The Annoyed Man wrote:That's kind of scary stuff, but before I go off half cocked, I am considering the source. WND has the habit of hyperventilating some times. What's your gut tell you?

Sorry for the distraction with the WND link... That was intended just for filler.
The original link and quoted text are from Law Enforcement Today, to which I give more credence.

My gut has been telling me for several years that our porous border, our Bill of Rights, our feeble POTUS and our unwillingness to "see" this problem developing (media ignorance and citizen complicity) are a recipe for a disaster of this kind. I won't re-post any of the photos from the London killing this week, but that is where we're headed, I believe. Random (and not random) extremists rejoicing in our streets with our spilled blood on their hands. At least in TX that guy would have been ventilated a lot sooner. Small consolation.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I notice that one of the compounds claimed on the map in the video is on the Texas coast......couldn't tell exactly where, but it looked like it might be near Houston. It would seem to me that if this stuff were going on here, people would have eventually twigged to it.

Also, we have a long tradition in this country of local "militias." I put that word in quotes because some of them are very well organized and well run, and they are deadly serious about what they do, and they actually provide an adjunct service to national security.....like those groups that patrol along the border for instance. But some of those "militia" groups are kind of an excuse for old guys fatter than than I am to wear camo and play army, while talking tough for the Discovery Channel cameras.

I'll throw one other thing out there, just for kicking around..... Because of righteous hostility toward the particularly toxic brand of militant islam that we see among terrorists and that has actually perpetrated terror here, other Muslims who are not so inclined might just start to feel ganged up on a bit. I know Christians who have banded together for mutual support in a sort of "semi-militia" way in the event of the Zombie Apocalypse (code for "whatever is coming down the pike"). Isn't it possible that some not-so-radical Muslims might start thinking that they need to band together for the same reasons and do the same thing, in the event that this country really turns on them because of the actions of their more radicalized coreligionists? The groups portrayed in this video do appear to be toxic, but I'm just trying to be fair here. After all, nobody blinks an eye at "prepper" groups that are NOT muslim in nature.

Agreed, at least to some extent, TAM. Among my friends, which tend to run pretty conservative, most mentions of "preppers" are predicated either as an indicator of wasted paranoia, or even as jokes. I have to admit that a very long time ago now, before and during the Carter administration (if you can call it that) I became convinced that we were headed for a doomsday and did indeed become a "survivalist" but my commitment waned and although I am today "prepared" in a lot of ways, I don't keep a years supply of non-perishable food items and water in the basement anymore (which would be a trick in TX with no basement) nor do I have 15 gallons of gasoline for my generator in the garage.

I am concerned about this situation though. We are faced with a "religious" group in our country (a nation which was founded on principles of religious freedom) which wants to see that very religious freedom destroyed, and I see that as treason. How much more do we put up with in the name of our support for religious freedom before we finally start drawing a line?

Personally I hate seeing lines drawn, too many pitfalls and increments no matter where you put the line. And one of those not so radical ones who feels that the government has overstepped its bounds, could rightly point out "When in the course of human events . . . "

As my late grandmother used to say "We are in a Chinese Cow Farm . . . A Kwan Dairy" (She lived in China with my grandfather during the late 19 teens) and the triple entendre entertained her no end.

Preaching the overthrow of our government is illegal, although the very framers of it had just overthrown the previous government and surely included the capability to do so in the governing documents, and part of the reason was because of a lack of religious freedom, but it is doubtful that they ever anticipated a religion based on the overthrow of the government that protects its practice.

Remember the uproar about the mosque being built "next to" Ground Zero? What happened there?

I have read on various sites about these alleged camps.

jimlongley wrote:Preaching the overthrow of our government is illegal, although the very framers of it had just overthrown the previous government and surely included the capability to do so in the governing documents, and part of the reason was because of a lack of religious freedom, but it is doubtful that they ever anticipated a religion based on the overthrow of the government that protects its practice.

Remember the uproar about the mosque being built "next to" Ground Zero? What happened there?

I'm not sure that preaching the overthrow of the government actually is illegally any longer. It ought to be, but Congress repealed the Sedition Act in 1920, and Brandenburg v. Ohio held that:

government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action. Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), and Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Whitney v. California was a SCOTUS case upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society.

So, I'm not sure that preaching for the overthrow of the government is a criminal offense any longer. And frankly, I don't think it should be. Many of us here, while not directly advocating for such overthrow, do feel that it is approaching time to begin restoring our government to its constitutional roots, and that because the left will actively resist any such effort, it may some day lead to violence (i.e. all of the "what would you do if they came for your guns" threads we have on this forum). Under the old laws, that might have been considered seditious speech, but not today. OTH, under the old laws people weren't hassled about having a gun.

Regarding the "ground zero mosque," it is proceeding quietly along toward completion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51.