Second American jihadi, Samir Khan, taken out with al Awlaki

And we were critical of U.S. officials who let Khan out of the country. Sigh. via Ex-Charlotte man killed in U.S. attack in Yemen,

Samir Khan, who left his northeast Charlotte home for Yemen and became editor of an al Qaida-linked web magazine, was among the militants reported killed Friday in a U.S. air strike in Yemen.

Yemen’s Defense Ministry announced that Khan, 25, was killed in the same strike that claimed Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American militant. Al-Awlaki, 40, was considered one of the top figures in the terrorist group’s network.

Khan spent his early years in New York but moved to Charlotte with his family in 2004.

He attended CPCC and wrote a militant blog while a student there. That blog, titled “Inshallahshaheed,” or “a martyr soon if God wills,” was the first of several blogs he edited while living with his parents in northeast Charlotte.

National Public Radio reported a year ago that the FBI was preparing to bring terrorist charges against Khan, although FBI officials in the Charlotte area said they could not comment on the reports.

After moving to Yemen, apparently two or three years ago, he began producing “Inspire,” an English-language magazine for al Qaida. At the time, Khan wrote that he “pledged to wage jihad for the rest of our lives.”

The magazine included articles on how to conduct terrorist attacks in the United States. The most recent edition of the magazine focused on the U.S. media.

U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick has used Khan as an example of the reason she is pushing for tougher anti-terrorism laws in the United States.

U.S. military officials told the Associated Press on Friday that they believe Khan was in the convoy carrying al-Awlaki. That convoy was attacked by the same U.S. Joint Special Operations Command unit that killed Osama bin Laden earlier this year.

Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, told the Observer last year that Khan’s views were widely rejected in the local Muslim community. Hough said Khan was not allowed to speak at any of the major mosques.

Hough also told the Observer that Muslim community leaders, including Khan’s father, met with Khan in late 2007 and early 2008 in an unsuccessful effort to steer him away from supporting terrorism.

“Our counseling didn’t look like it made that great of an impact,” Hough said.

To be a fly on the wall during those impact-less “counseling” sessions.

31 thoughts on “Second American jihadi, Samir Khan, taken out with al Awlaki

    • By the same logic at what point will he have his own opposition taken out? The Left have been setting the stage by referring to Tea Party as terrorists, traitors, the real jihadists, etc? How about the Oath Keepers, Minutemen, etc?

      • Yes, and the left is going to use a term like “American-born terrorist” or just plain “American terrorist” for scum like Awlaki and Khan without linking their actions to the Qurap or Islam…so the dhimmi media can again lump together any American extremist (i.e. pro-life people, tea party people, gun rights groups, etc.) to the jihadis.

        On a side note, maybe the “Inspire” magazine will be renamed “Expired”

        • yet we bring non-American Muslim terror suspects from overseas back to the US for tax payer funded trials and incarceration?? shouldn’t it be the other way around – even if they are traitors?

          • Do you think it is proper to try them in a military tribunal that is basically the same kind of kangaroo court they would try a Christian in for refusing to renounce his faith? I am a Constitutionalist, and there is no such thing in law as an “enemy combatant” liable for trial by military tribunal for crimes against American personnel or materiel. If he is a civilian and commits a crime, he should be tried in a criminal court according to due process of law. If he is an enemy soldier of a foreign nation, he is subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention. If he is an enemy soldier of a foreign nation and commits war crimes, then he must be tried by the international court for war crimes.

            Military tribunals have no authority over civilians of any country. To try these twerps by a military tribunal makes us no better than they are, which means they are succeeding in their mission.

          • “Do you think it is proper to try them in a military tribunal that is basically the same kind of kangaroo court they would try a Christian in for refusing to renounce his faith? ”

            To answer your question, YES!

          • Oh and you may equate a military tribunal with a “kangaroo court” to suit your own purposes but most do not consider military tribunals to be “kangaroo courts.

          • If your answer to my question is YES, then you are no better than they are.

            Military tribunals are not kangaroo courts — when they are trying individuals at Court Martial accused of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires the defendant be an active duty member of our military. And I have to say that in that province they have my utmost respect (or at least the full tribunal does, not the individual untrained twerp conducting a summary). But when a military tribunal usurps the role of a civilian criminal court, it is by definition a “kangaroo court.”

          • Well then I guess I’m no better than they are and you are thee authority on what is and isn’t a kangaroo court. Feel better now?

          • Never felt particularly bad. I rarely do when I am arguing in favor of a culture of liberty in which everyone is willing to fight for everyone else’s liberty — which is the only way they will ever have it for themselves. Thank you for finishing up, anyway.

  1. Pingback: Al-Awlaki Killed in Predator Strike—All’s Fair in Love and War « Cynical Synapse

  2. Note that the Islamic Center of Charlotte (N.C.) and its Muslim members widely reject Khan’s and Al-Awlaki’s radical views and prohibited him from speaking at any of the local mosques. An indication that there are some Muslims standing up against the radicals of Islam.

    • That’s a stretch – Khan was active for many years in North Carolina. Did his father or anyone so concerned at the mosque ever report him to the authorities? Where are all the op eds and blog posts against Khan and al Awlaki? Any fatwas against them?

      Also note that standing up to the so-called “radicals” does nothing to change the Islamic texts that call for and justify jihad against non-Muslims.

      • Of course not. But we’ve been calling for non-radical Muslims to oppose the radicals, and when they do, do you think it is proper to accuse them of faking it? The non-radical Muslims can’t change the text of the Qu’ran, now can they? All they can do is choose to live their religion in a more civilized manner. Do you want to challenge their sincerity on the grounds that they are not doing something it is impossible for them to do?

        • It’s not impossible – but if you hold Muslims to a lower standard, don’t expect much. CAIR/ISNA/MSA/MAS all claim to oppose the radicals too – do you take them at their word? Is this mosque part of the ISNA/NAIC Saudi-funded network? Who is behind it? Who do they bring in to speak? Who funds it? Let’s not be naive and believe everything Muslims say after the fact – even though the news they didn’t want him in the mosque is several years old already.

          Besides, calling the FBI doesn’t require changing anything.

          • I don’t believe everything OR anything Muslims say before OR after the fact — but when their action validates their words, I will tentatively give them the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarily. All I am suggesting in this thread, and most of the other threads on this site, is that we not give up our own honor and principles just because we are dealing with people who don’t have any.

          • My ego is fine, thank you. If I have offended you by continuing the debate beyond the first salvo, please accept my apologies and realize that I have been fighting organized attempts to convince people they should waive their liberties (and everyhone elses) in exchange for either the illusion of safety or the feelgood of domination for thirty years. The specific organizations to which I refer have a structured tactical playbook they follow assiduously, and it has two hard and fast rules: The first is that truth is defined as that which advances the agenda; all else is irrelevant, and the second is they keep on with their derision and insults, changing their names, their locations, their affiliations, etc., to give the impression they are a much larger group than they actually are. I have found one battle tactic that works: I stand toe-to-toe with them and slug it out, pointing out the obvious repetitive failures of their agenda, and never give up and never go away until they evaporate back into the woodwork from whence they came. I am not suggesting you are a member of that faction, though I suspect that like most people, you are a victim of their lies and propaganda. Again, my apologies if you are offended, but now perhaps you understand why I (almost) never allow a final argument to remain unchallenged. You may not understand the larger picture, but this issue is a whole lot bigger than fighting off Sharia Law. If people don’t wake up and starft supporting a culture of liberty by defending EVERYONE’S right to be free and responsible for their freedom, we are going to lose our free country and with it, the last best hope of mankind.

  3. Don – that action: reporting the bad guys to the FBI like a normal citizen should… their lack of principles as you call it permits them to lie – and who better to lie to then the media (see CAIR as prime example)

    By the way, a little background on the Muslim who you are so quick to give the benefit of the doubt:

    Jibril Hough, a Methodist convert to Islam and president of the IPPA of North Carolina and spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, recently criticized Representative Sue Myrick’s [R-NC] 10 point counter terrorism plan, “Wake Up America” stating that, “It is nothing more than new McCarthyism or Myrickism. As Muslims we have become expendable by politicians seeking political gain.”

    And who is the IPPA?

    The IPPA homepage statement reads in part:

    “We, the Islamic Political Party of America (IPPA) acknowledge ALLAH as the Sovereign Creator of the universe, who has entrusted to humanity the right and responsibility to rule over the affairs of the world. We solemnly declare that the foundation of our political positions and moving principles of our political activity is our full submission to the will of ALLAH and acknowledgement that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah is the Last Messenger of ALLAH (pbuh) and we find in him the best of conduct for the affairs of mankind. We hereby appeal to ALLAH for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and his protection as we work to restore and preserve this Nation as a government of the People, by the People, and for the People…”

    Though in existence 5 months before 9/11 the party is now launching a website with the provocative image of an Islamic flag next to the U.S. Capitol building.

    • My apologies for the delay in reply — I failed to check the box requesting notification of follow-up comments, and just now noticed your response.

      First, I would like you to compare that statement of faith with the Baptist statement of faith on their website, or the Catholic statement of faith on theirs, etc. While I certainly disagree with their religious tenets, I don’t find the statement you quote that different than similar statements of belief of other religions. I do note that the quote does not suggest that infidels should be killed or enslaved as does the Qu’ran, but then the Christian statements of faith don’t generally talk about Moses directing that 300 people be put to the sword, either.

      I suggest to you that practically every Christian denomination in the country tries, to a greater or lesser degree, to establish a theocracy as the style of government we have in this country, so I don’t think flying an Islamic flag next to a picture of the White House is that much different. I oppose theocracies on general principles, regardless of who is backing them.

      And lastly, maybe I missed something, but I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to “reporting the bad guy to the FBI as a good citizen should”. The article mentions the FBI preparing to bring charges against him, but I don’t think I ever referred to that.

      • It’s hard to follow the comment threads in WordPress as they only go to a certain # of responses.

        You said: “An indication that there are some Muslims standing up against the radicals of Islam.”

        We can only speculate but maybe they didn’t want him around for their own preservation, not because they are standing up to jihadists. Maybe they did contact the Feds. Maybe they are well aware that mosques could be infiltrated. The mosque spokesman aligns with other US Islamists.

        Don’t really care what Moses said/did centuries ago but feel free to debate/argue with other commenter’s on it. This site is about sharia/jihad not comparative religion. Muslims wage jihad today, as they have for centuries, as Muhammad did, and as Allah commanded.

        Justify that any way you want and good luck trusting Jibril Hough.

        • You are missing the point. I don’t “trust” Jibril Hough. But in the absence of evidence that he or his organization are actually doing otherwise than he says — actual evidence, hard or even circumstantial — it is improper and counterproductive to accuse him of insincerity. The fact that the Qu’ran authorizes his insincerity does not, by itself, prove that he is insincere. I have known Muslims who were non-radical. Maybe they regarded themselves as “devout” because they followed the rituals, and maybe they really weren’t devout because they weren’t radical (you have to admit Christians delude themselves too), but they never gave me any reason to distrust them.

          When it comes to that, how many people do you know whose word is their bond? I personally know of darned few, and I know a lot more Christians than I know Muslims.

  4. If every jihadi considers himself a “soldier of Allah” and the imams and mullahs of the Middle East promote attacks on civilians and military installations/personnel in the West, and call for the annihilation of Israel, we DO have a war on our hands. But since there is no standing “army” as such, then the Geneva convention does not apply.

    They have us between a rock and a hard place, and they will continue what they are doing with the help of lax immigration laws until they get the message that they may receive swift and certain punishment at a time of our choosing.

  5. My Postal Mail Reply to the White House concerning this:

    October 14, 2011
    Page 1 of 1

    Hello Mr. President, Staff and Administration:
    Re: Our Government’s apology to the Family of Samir Khan (Articles attached)

    I can imagine, that if these were the 20th Century WW2 War years (when I was born), and Obama was in charge, Obama, Hillary, the US State Department and the DOJ would be (in my personal opinion) apologizing to the Nazis, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the Dictators, et. al, for how “Bad” and “Evil” America was to have the audacity to dare to defend itself and our Allies from aggression (and Freedom and Democracy would have lost).

    Unfortunate, that we now have a 21st Century President, Barack Hussein Obama, whom (again in my personal opinion) apparently sympathizes with Terrorists, is Socialist leaning, Apologist, and is dissatisfied with his own Country so much, that he is willing to undermine and destroy it from within, using his “new founded power” of the Oval Office.

    Best Regards,

    William Lucas Harvey, Jr. (Age 67)

    • Good letter. Not that the First Narcissist-in-Chief gives a flying frisbee what you or anyone else thinks. One quibble, based purely on informed opinion: The man is not “Socialist leaning.” He’s a flaming Marxist, to the extent that a borderline psychotic narcissist is capable of adhering or caring about the parameters of any particular political ideology. That being said, he’d just as soon adhere to fascism, Nazi-ism, Trotsky-ism, Leninism or any other -ism so long as it conveys to him the ability to compel abject adulation from the masses below his station in life.

      Mark my words, and you can write this down in your diary for future reference: The pathology of a borderline psychotic narcissist trickster con-man like Obama is to con the masses into worshipping him while lying through his teeth to them. The thrill, the excitement, is to push the lie to the point of being obvious and beyond, while maintaining the con. But when such a man has the enormous political power of the presidency, and the con fails — the people find out they’ve been had, and they rebel — that’s when the narcissist psyche turns ugly, and he will compel adulation by whatever forcible means are available. We are in for one hell of a ride, and it won’t be very long now.

  6. Pingback: Oregon Christmas bomber wrote for jihadi magazine « Creeping Sharia

If sharia keeps spreading, you will not only be silenced by the media and big technology, you will be jailed - or worse. Speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.