Principal Product of Minnesota: Jihad

Last night we reported on the peripatetic mujahideen of Calgary. Today we focus on another North American hotbed of jihad, this one a little to the south and a thousand miles to the east of Calgary. Since Minneapolis is the headquarters for the Minnesota jihad, it’s no surprise that many of the participants are Somalis.

Below is the latest newsletter from the Minneapolis chapter of ACT! for America.

Dear Minnesotans,

“The FBI says more Somali travelers have left Minnesota, possibly to fight against the regime of President Bashar Assad in Syria. Investigators believe those who left Minnesota were motivated by radical ideology, not nationalism.” (h/t Denise) Watch the video cliip and read more: FBI: Somalis leaving Minnesota to fight in Syria — KMSP-TV

Westerners flocking to join jihadist groups in Syria are a growing concern for Western intelligence agencies — and U.S. intelligence officials in particular.

National security officials worry about what happens when these people return home from the battlefield.

This raises our concern that radicalized individuals with extremist contacts and battlefield experience could return to their home countries to commit violence or participate in al-Qaida-directed plots aimed at Western targets outside of Syria,” Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NTC), told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March.

John Rossomando, Investigative Project on Terrorism

According to the sister of one of the missing men, Mohamed Nur,

“ … one day he told us that there is a sheik who took him to another mosque in Minnesota and that was the time when our brother has completely changed.” Which mosque was that? Does anyone know? Does anyone care? Is the FBI looking into what is being taught at that mosque, and at the possibility that Abdi Mohamed Nur was influenced more than his sister knows by what he learned of the Qur’an at the mosque in Carmelo? Or are such inquiries “Islamophobic”?

Robert Spencer

Warm regards,

Debbie Anderson
ACT! for America
Minneapolis Chapter Coordinator

For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

23 thoughts on “Principal Product of Minnesota: Jihad

  1. Isn’t this wonderful! Western “democracies” opened their door to muslim jihadis: provide them welfare money to eat well, get strong muscles and wage jigad against kuffar. Isn’t democracy the perfect system?

  2. The mantra across the board is:

    “National security officials worry about what happens when these people return home from the battlefield.”

    The problem was in full flower before the “American” or “Frenchman,” etc. packs sock one in his suitcase for the Turkish training camps. But the FBI wants to pretend that but for that Syrian combat experience our sweet Abdul would be a loyal American and an exemplary citizen (xempcit).

    When Imam Obama leaves office, perhaps then we can have internal security policies that treat islam for what if is — a theocratic political system that enforces obedience and adherence by murder.

    That’s current, operative doctrine enforced worldwide among the Ummahnauts. Why are people who self-identify as muslims but who don’t publicly file an affidavit that the koran’s teachings on apostasy are false and evil teachings not deported as supporters of a criminal enterprise?

    Remember that part about the Constitution’s not being a suicide pact. Break the backs of the imams!

  3. “When Imam Obama leaves office, perhaps then we can have internal security policies that treat islam for what it is ”

    Anything Imam Obama started, established, initiated, appointed, . . . for the benefit and promotion of Islam to take root in America and the west will stay in place. Any vice of any kind that has emerged because democracy gave rise to it has stayed and has grown and multiplied. We thought that in a democracy policies and decisions are examined by wise people, by the media, to see the consequences, and results, then to undo, unravel, cancel, those harmful ones in the light of their bad or good results. Even this axiom can’t be comprehended by the western politicians. What is the congress for? To examine what the executive Imam Obama decides. But the congress does not do anything. Approves what Grand Imam Obama does or stays silent. It does not matter how many times or what you say to your “representative”. He is there to get his salary no to do what’s right for you. Do you imagine that the next president will be able or willing to kick out and clean the W House from vermin (aka muslim brothherhood). Can you remember any policy made for the benefit of non-muslims in the west over the last 50 years? In Britain Muslims hate Christianity, so preaching Christianity is hate crime because muslims are offended. Is there hope for the western Jews and Christians?

  4. As much as I dislike Assad, I hope that he is victorious and kills as many of these jihadis as possible. I am also frightened by the fact that Obama brought our country into this conflict and on the side of the global jihad. Not only is Obama waging jihad in Syria, he is also arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now you see the true face of the monster in our White House.

    • And all the information was there to see before the election in 2008. All one had to do was look beyond this media creation to find out what the real Obama was like.

    • I believe he is going to use those released Taliban against his most hated of enemy…a CHRISTIAN, NON-COMMIE RUSSIA with its dislike of immoral homosexuality and having lots of gold, silver, oil, gas, titanium and forests as big as the whole of Europe.

  5. Murad, I just finushed Siegel’s _Revolt Against the Masses_. It’s a brilliant distillation of Utopian and liberal (virulent) thinking, which may be summarized by an arrogant faith in intelligence and technical knowledge as applicable to everything, contempt for anything traditional or ancient (law), utter disdain for the middle class (death by station wagon and backyard BBQ), and an admirable ability to tolerate a little bloodshed — or even the occasional necessary (but gentle and humane) execution in furtherance of the common good.

    The elites’ maddening unwillingness to defend their own nation and people is thus easy to understand. They simply see nothing around them worth defending. The depth of their disdain for the past, their fellow citizens, or traditional morality (ignorant, repressive, anti-sex) must be understood and kept constantly in mind.

    Thus, the great divide in the West. You think you are dealing with fellow citizens but you aren’t. They have rejected the past and therefore the foundation of the civil society. A certain ironic, detached hipness that springs from beung in the know, well, that is to be sought after. Homo boobiens, dear boy. Wretched refuse, one knows, but amusing after a fashion.

    • Oh my, Colonel…you just mentioned my book of the season. Someone sent it to me and I haven’t high-lighted/underlined a book as I did “Revolt” since college days.

      The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class

      Would you like to do a review of the book??

      Here’s Professor Siegel talking about his book at a Manhattan Institute dinner – his opportunity to plug this work:

      It’s fascinating. I haven’t felt so intellectually alive (watching the video) since I was in college. At the end of his Q&A period, when he gets to NYC’s fate under the communist mayor, he’s quite insightful about the future of the city. And funny, in a gallows-humor kind of way. [with his NYC accent and the poor audio, Europeans might find him difficult to understand. But maybe not.]

      Wish I could audit his classes at St Francis College. What a joy that would be.

      Your summation of his ideas is succinct. Again, would you be willing to elaborate in a post-cum-review?? I’d be willing to mirror what you write. It is vital that people in the US understand “the great divide” between liberals and everyone else. It’s akin to the class divide in England, but more pernicious because the libs want to destroy the middle class, especially the business class…In that, they are aping their European betters, who have always looked down on the merchant classes, or those who earn their bread by the sweat of their business brow. So…so common…

      Until now, I hadn’t realized how very deeply American intellectuals in the early 20th century drew from so many now long-discredited Europeans. And how their ideas fundamentally poisoned U.S. “liberals” – who aren’t liberal at all. As Victor Davis Hanson called them the other day: “The New Regressives”.

      I recommend that piece at Pajamas. VDH differentiates between/among several kinds of thinking and rhetoric in ways I haven’t thought about recently.

      Today’s liberalism is about as liberal as the Hellenistic world was Hellenic — a glossy veneer over a rotten core.

      In the old days, liberalism was about the means to an end, not the end itself. Since the days of Socrates, liberalism enshrined free inquiry, guided by inductive thinking and empirical use of data. Its enemies were not necessary[ily] organized religion — some of the Church fathers sought to find their salvation through the means of neo-Platonic cosmology and Aristotelian logic — or government or traditional custom and practice, but rather deductive thinking anywhere it was found.

      Yet today liberalism itself is deductive. It has descended into a constructed end that requires any means necessary to achieve it. Take any hot-button liberal issue: censorship, abortion, global warming, affirmative action, or illegal immigration. Note the liberal reaction.


      Yes, indeed. All the public portals – media, academe, etc. – are controlled by the new Inquisitor Class. The cardinals who whisper in Obama’s ear have neither the understanding of history or the wisdom gained thereby. It’s all about political expediency. One crisis after another until the electorate is numbed into ignoring both the man in office and the little men behind the screen pulling his strings.

      I wonder if the stats on The Drudge Report are dropping just because of the induced PTSD among the voters.

      • It GREATLY concerns me that the Amazon book description dismisses Aldous Huxley as a ‘frightened foppish character.’ Aldous Huxley wrote ‘Brave New World’ which is an absolute masterpiece. I first read Brave New World when Parade Magazine in the Sunday paper revealed that its readers had voted ‘Brave New World’ as the most influential book that they had ever read, so I concluded that I must read it to be an educated person.

        From Wikipedia:

        Brave New World is a novel written in 1931 by Aldous Huxley and published in 1932. Set in London of AD 2540 (632 A.F.—”After Ford”—in the book), the novel anticipates developments in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation, and classical conditioning that combine to profoundly change society. Huxley answered this book with a reassessment in an essay, Brave New World Revisited (1958), and with Island (1962), his final novel.

        In 1999, the Modern Library ranked Brave New World fifth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.[1] In 2003, Robert McCrum writing for The Observer listed Brave New World number 53 in “the top 100 greatest novels of all time”,[2] and the novel was listed at number 87 on the BBC’s survey The Big Read.

        …seeing America firsthand, and from reading the ideas and plans of one of its foremost citizens [Henry Ford], Huxley was spurred to write Brave New World with America in mind.

        Social critic Neil Postman contrasted the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:

        “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Postman added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”

        Note from Egghead: Now carefully consider the purpose behind 24-7 porn channels, smart phones with ever present video games, and legalized drugs and prostitution.

        • Read “Brave New World” in my teens, Egghead, and found it as shocking as “1984”, but I must take issue with your final comment: a) I see no reason to assume that the workings of the free market constitute a conspiracy, and b) making prostitution and drugs illegal makes them more dangerous, and creates criminal networks to supply them. Prohibition of alcohol in the US was equally unworkable.

          • Hi Mark,

            Good to hear from you. 🙂

            1) I see NO reason to assume that we have the workings of a free market.

            2) Making prostitution and drugs legal introduces incredible problems for children. Legalized prostitution leads directly to increased child prostitution. Legalized drugs leads to increased use of hard core drugs by children with marijuana being a gateway drug to hard core drugs.

            In addition, legalized drugs enable people to participate in VERY unsavory and destructive activities in middle class neighborhoods without non-drug users having any legal or practical recourse to escape those unsavory activities. When your neighbor smokes pot and it comes through the walls into your apartment where your babies and/or children sleep, good luck getting that to stop without laws against drug use.

            Where drugs have been legalized, non-drug users are finding that community events are overrun by marijuana smoke that makes it impossible for non-drug users to feel comfortable to attend formerly family friendly events.

            Where drugs have been legalized, DUI (driving under the influence) cases are fast increasing – with an additional problem that it is difficult to prosecute DUI cases against marijuana use because there is NO way to effectively measure marijuana intoxication (info from American Family Radio).


            * Read the comment by Sine FourEx


          • Thanks for your replies, Egghead, and the links, which I read.

            I don’t think we’re going to agree on this. If you’re right and the market isn’t free, then given one, the supply of porn, video games, prostitution and drugs would be even more plentiful (if that’s possible in the first two cases!)

            My point about Prohibition is that our governments have failed to learn from history, so it’s repeating itself. The UK and Scottish governments have been making noises about tackling anti-social behaviour by (mostly) young drunks by increasing the price of alcohol. This is like tackling speeding by making motor fuel more expensive. There are laws about being “drunk and disorderly” in public, but they’re not properly enforced, so there’s insufficient deterrent.

            So with drugs: the Latin American governments want the US to reduce the demand for the product whose supply so damages their countries, but short of the kind of brutal measures at which even a dictatorship might balk (and even then, I suspect, with limited success), the only rational solution is to legalise, control and tax. Parents who leave marijuana products in reach of children are negligent, and should be dealt with accordingly. I note that early figures indicate that crime in Colorado has decreased since legalisation.

            With prostitution as with drugs; legalise, register and regulate. This will make it safer for the women involved, especially as it will eliminate the pimps who are their greatest threat (far more are murdered by pimps than customers, and pimps often try to hook them on drugs to make them more dependent). Properly organised brothels will have bodyguards in case of customers who do turn nasty. And of course there would be little chance of children being involved, and trafficked women would be spotted and helped. Child prostitution only exists because paedophiles do, but that’s maybe a subject for another day.

            I agree that parts of Huxley’s dystopia are upon us, even if we part company over there being a conscious conspiracy, but suspect (hope?) that the pendulum of self-indulgence will swing back, with or without a religious revival; naturally I’d prefer without, as many of the devout, and not only Muslims, are only too keen to restrict the freedoms which are currently carried to excess.

            One good thing about “Brave New World”- the recreational drug soma, which shortened life but kept people in top mental and physical condition till the end. At 66, this sounds like a good idea, except I might have dropped off the twig already!

          • Hi Mark,

            I have a favor to ask you: Try to disprove yourself on the topics of legalized prostitution and legalized drugs.

            Seriously: Thoroughly research the topics and actively try to disprove yourself.


    • Haven’t read it Colonel, but while “traditional” morality has some noble qualities, eg respect for the family (which even Malcolm X endorsed), you’re surely not suggesting that being ignorant, repressive and anti-sex are virtues?

  6. Thanks for your last comment, Egghead, but I think it’s for you to disprove my propositions.

    Legalising all drugs would reduce deaths of users by guaranteeing strength and purity. Legalising prostitution would clear the streets of kerb crawlers harassing ordinary women, and make the “oldest profession” safer for its practitioners.

    In both cases, organised crime would be largely removed from the picture.

    • Counter argument # 1: England’s unhappy experience with legalizing heroin. Didn’t last long:

      Counter argument # 2: Germany’s experience with legalized prostitution:

      Socialists are always so sure there is a law to cure every sin. ‘T’ain’t so. Legalizing immorality is a magnet for criminals.

      Back to the drawing board. Just build a better law, see? You can overcome human nature just like *that*.

      Please…Develop your discernment muscle…it is going to atrophy if you don’t.

      BTW, that was a VERY brief google search. A little more robust research would give you the deadly details.

      • Thanks for the sources, Dymphna!

        From your source, this passage was truly terrible to read:

        “As German law recognizes prostitution as a legitimate employment choice, some women are forced into prostitution when they are unemployed. Under the German law, any unemployed women under the age of 55 are required to take a job available on the national listings if they have been out of job more than a year. Otherwise, their unemployment benefit will be taken away from them. In 2005, a government agency threatened a qualified information technologist to take away her unemployment benefit if she refused to take a job as a prostitute in a legalized brothel. Working at a legalized brothel and selling her bodies therefore became another employment option that she has explore before facing the suspension of her benefits.”

    • BTW, do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?

      Are you trying mightily to remove the stain of racism from your mind even as brown people tell you it can’t be done no matter how earnest your intentions?

      Do you believe bullying can be eradicated by adult intervention?

      Do you think religion is the cause of much suffering and the world would be a better place if we could but remove it?

      Do you think dialogue will work if we really, really apply it in hostile situations?

      Do you think all weapons should be outlawed?

      You just might be one of those people Lenin called “useful”.

      • Hi Dymphna,

        My ineptitude with computers is legendary, even among my family and friends who love me. I’ve twice tried to reply to your points above, over several hours, and twice accidentally deleted my responses. This is in no way related to the red wine I’ve put away (!) since the friends who were due to come around tomorrow cried off. If you’re still interested, I’ll try to give you a more considered (and sober) response tomorrow.

          • You’re gracious as always, Dymphna.

            Regarding legalisation of drugs and prostitution, and your links, it’s apparent that this has been less than successful (though the Germans’ efforts with prostitution in particular seem to have been spectacularly inept). I’m still not convinced that the current situation isn’t worse, with the huge criminal enterprises supplying these “needs” and the violence and intimidation involved: look at northern Mexico, Colombia or Afghanistan. And proper control of the drugs market would make heroin as cheap as cigarettes (my own addiction, and even when unemployed I could feed my habit without stealing or attacking people, despite the high taxes on tobacco in the UK).

            Legalising and regulating prostitution, if properly organised, would make it near-impossible for trafficked women or underage girls to work in the “official” market; anyone involved in the “unofficial” trade would be prosecuted and jailed/deported/helped as appropriate.

            Your second post sounds like an examination, if slightly tongue in cheek? Here goes…

            Global warming: human activity may have a marginal influence, but there are probably greater forces involved, over which we have no control.

            Racism: I don’t have to make an effort to treat all people with respect (unless they give me reason not to), as this is how I was raised. If people were, say, black or Jewish, this was just something interesting about them. My mother, of part Quaker heritage, seeing me with my stamp collection, commented: “Some albums are blue, some albums are green, but in Africa, all bums are black!”- the nearest thing to a racist joke I heard at home.

            Bullying: You’ve touched a (still) very raw nerve. At school (junior and senior), being slight and brighter than the average, I was often physically attacked, even off the premises, and sometimes hid in the building during breaks to avoid my tormentors, as the teachers were conspicuously absent when we were turned out into the playgrounds. My father tried to teach me to box, but I was just outraged that I wasn’t being protected by the adults who were responsible for me; in the outside world, I knew, if an adult attacked another adult, or a child not their own, they would be arrested, so why could boys around my own age attack me with impunity?

            In my teens, I remember my grandmother saying that one of my best characteristics was that I didn’t hold grudges. Mostly true (though I find myself becoming more resentful of those who let me down in adult life), but if you gave me the opportunity to inflict the same humiliation- not so much the physical pain- on the boys who bullied me, and the adults who allowed it to happen (now all dead, of course), I’d take it. Excuse long answer, but you did ask!

            Religion: how long have you got? Brief response: there are many Christians, for example, who display the noble attributes expected of them, but apart from those previously selfish people who convert and change their attitude to their fellows, who knows how many would have been kind and decent anyway, because they were brought up right? (If it’s not immodest, I’d include myself as an unbeliever). But there are also believers who exhibit intolerance and supremacist attitudes, not all of them Muslims.

            Humans, despite our intellect and learning, are products of our genetic heritage and environment, which means we have tribal instincts; if religion didn’t exist, we’d probably find other reasons to despise those who don’t belong to our particular group. So, without “copping out”, I don’t know whether religion has been good or bad for humanity.

            Dialogue: in really hostile situations, of course it’s futile. If I may extend the concept, Gandhi’s peaceful non-cooperation worked against the British because, apart from the stupid Amritsar massacre, our inherent decency (racist attitudes notwithstanding) presented us with an irreconcilable dilemma. Had India been run by the Nazis, Imperial Japan or Stalin, the outcome would have been much bloodier, though probably with the same result some decades later.

            Weapons: As I’m sure you’re aware, the UK is the odd man out among Western democracies. If I take a short bus journey to Westminster (Parliament, ministries, Downing Street, New Scotland Yard) I still get freaked out by the number of armed police, because they’re not the norm here. I suspect that arming most officers would up the ante for criminals.

            I understand that the US is different; many of your founders had good reason to distrust governments. Nevertheless, if I understand your Constitution correctly, the right to bear arms stemmed from the intention not to maintain a standing army, but a citizens’ militia, like Switzerland. Since you now have the world’s largest military (at least until overtaken by China), this justification is outdated. If you want to have a fresh appraisal and put it to the vote in a referendum, and the popular mandate favours retaining the right to carry guns, so be it; but if the decision goes the other way Americans, as good democrats, should accept the decision of the majority.

          • Hi Mark,

            Each state was supposed to govern itself and thus to maintain its own state militia comprised of men and women who were each ready to defend their families in a time when various parties (criminals, native Indians, other nations) might attack a family, city, or state at any time.

            The right to self-defense is imbued by GOD rather than a democratic – or cheat democratic – vote that is controlled and counted by politicians with their own personal teams of bodyguards and with their own financial stake in disarming the populace.

Comments are closed.