Faisal Shahzad, Jihadi , Explains Terrorism by Dr. Daniel Pipes
June 25, 2010
Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.
Shahzad's forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:
These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11's would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into "not guilty") and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.
Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum's many inquisitive questions ("And where was the bomb?" "What did you do with the gun?") offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt. On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully, and informatively answered about his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.
The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all ten counts of his indictment, "Why do you want to plead guilty?" a reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in for long years in jail. He replied:
Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks," adding that "We Muslims are one community." Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and "injure people or kill people" because "one has to understand where I'm coming from, because … I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier."
When Cedarbaum pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May first were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: "Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same." His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocents.
However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad's willingness to name his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as "overseas contingency operations" and "man-caused disasters."
Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies. Ignoring this fact will not make it disappear.