You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
Aussie al-Qaeda supporter sez his group is growing
2004-06-06
A Melbourne Muslim cleric once accused of having terrorist links has been drawn into a bitter struggle in the Muslim community over his group’s growing influence. Jordanian-born Sheikh Mohammed Omran last week dismissed criticism of the $2.65 million purchase by his organisation of a Sydney mosque to accommodate its increasing following. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, imam of Sydney’s Lakemba Mosque, told the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat that despite claims by a group associated with Sheikh Omran that the mosque could be bought by Jews or Buddhists, "no Jewish group is trying to buy the property and they are spreading the rumour just to stir emotions and blackmail the faithful into giving support".
You mean there's something the ev-v-v-v-il Zionists didn't buy?
Sheikh Omran heads the Brunswick-based Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah group. He was one of two Australians cited by Australian Federal Police late last year over alleged connections with an al-Qaeda cell in Spain. He has strongly denied that he was an al-Qaeda operative and said there was no evidence it functioned in Australia. The other man named by federal police at the time, Bilal Khazal, was last week charged with inciting terrorism through a book and website that allegedly encourages war against non-believers. Sheikh Omran said he could not confirm whether Khazal and other alleged terrorists Willie Brigitte, Saleh Jamal, Faheem Khalid Lodhi and Izhar-ul-Haque, had attended his organisation’s Haldon Street prayer hall, in the west Sydney suburb of Lakemba. But he said the hall, which has reportedly been under surveillance by security services, was a public building and it would have been unlawful to bar anyone from it. Sheikh Omran warned authorities against exaggerating the threat of terrorism in Australia and called for increased national security without creating a "threatened and scared" Australian community.
Better to have them fat and complacent. The element of surprise, y'know...
He said it was hard to believe that authorities had been unaware at the time that Jordanian-born Saleh Jamal, 29, - recently charged in Lebanon with belonging to a terrorist organisation and planning terrorist attacks - had fled on a false passport after skipping bail over a shooting at a Sydney police station. Sheikh Omran defended Bilal Khazal. "On the internet there are people to teach you how to make TNT or to make viruses for the computer; how to make every evil thing. Why don’t we stop them and take them as terrorists?"
We do, right about the time they connect the blue wire to the post.
He disputed allegations about Pakistani Izhar-ul-Haque, the University of NSW student who allegedly trained for three weeks with Lashkar-e-Taiba.
"Lies! All lies!"
Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah was founded in the late 1980s. Sheikh Omran attributed its popularity to "saying the truth". "God created us to love the truth," said the cleric, who claimed it represented 70 per cent of Australia’s nearly 300,000-strong Muslim community. Sheikh Omran said the group struggled to accommodate increasing numbers at the Haldon Street hall. He said his was the most influential Islamic organisation in Australia, had international links with 12 nationalities represented on its council and the following of Melbourne’s biggest mosques. "We have followers, believers, worldwide, not (just) Australia-wide... We are a drop in the ocean of the Islamic movement."
That's precisely the problem.
The group’s 2170-square-metre al-Azhar Mosque in Belmore is close to the largest mosque in Sydney at Lakemba, run by Sheikh Hilali. But Sheikh Omran said it was not a threat to that congregation and his organisation was not seeking to replace Sheikh Hilali. "Well, if we want to do that, we don’t buy a mosque," Sheikh Omran said. "We take their mosque. So it’s more easy for us to spend half that amount to move them out and take the mosque. We don’t have that intention in our heart at all."
"We don't buy it, we take it." I have no trouble believing him.
A group called the Belmore Islamic Centre, part of his organisation, has allegedly tried to raise millions of dollars in Saudi Arabia to expand its operations in Sydney after paying the deposit on the $2.65 million property deal. Sheikh Omran said the money was being raised in Australia and was not a lot. "What is $2 million or $3 million for a community like a Sydney or a Lakemba community or the Islamic community?" He was not directly involved in the purchase, he said. "I have nothing to do with these matters except supporting and aiding as much as I can." He confirmed that contracts were due to be exchanged at the end of next month and said the mosque could reopen soon after. He was unaware of claims that the Belmore group had told rich Saudis if they could not raise the money by the end of June the mosque could be bought by Jews or Buddhists, he said.
Nice scam, too.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#15  TANSTAFL

WTFU?
Free Huey! Free Mumia! Free Willie Horton!

Please more talk about driving into the sea.
Posted by: Shamu   2004-06-06 6:17:24 PM  

#14  In the long term, we need to squeeze more efficiency from existing petroleum supplies and to develop alternative forms of energy that the whole world can use. This strengthens Japan and emerging nations. Concentrations of energy supply in the hands of psychopaths is not an option. This will reqire the efforts of our best minds. Thought the energy issue is becoming a crisis, I also look at it as a challenge and an opportunity. I do not see the innovative future of US energy being solved by the Dems or Republicans. The people will have to lead in this one. The Dems and Republicans have sold their collective souls out long ago.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-06 3:59:08 PM  

#13  gee, if there's no living Saudis, we'd be within rights to take ownership, right?
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-06 3:33:47 PM  

#12  Which would be easier- to move us away from the oil- or to move the Saudis away from the oil? See .com for more details.
Posted by: Grunter   2004-06-06 2:10:27 PM  

#11  Clean coal burning fuel cell.

From a comment by Jos Bleau at FuturePundit:
Direct carbon conversion fuel cells are likely the best way to double powerplant efficiency.
"The reaction yields 80 percent of the carbon–oxygen combustion energy as electricity. It provides up to 1 kilowatt of power per square meter of cell surface area—a rate sufficiently high for practical applications. Yet no burning of the carbon takes place.
"“What if we could nearly double the energy conversion efficiency of fossil fuels in electric power generation over the conversion efficiency of today’s coal-fired power plants—which is about 40 percent—and thereby cut the carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt almost in half?” asks lead researcher John Cooper, scientific capability leader for electrochemistry and corrosion in Lawrence Livermore’s Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate. “And what if we could produce a pure carbon dioxide byproduct for sequestration or industrial use at no additional cost of separation while avoiding the air pollution problems associated with combustion?”
And there's no advantages to large scale operations so powerplants could be much closer to users, cutting distribution/transmission costs while making the whole system much more robust.
More here:
http://www-cms.llnl.gov/s-t/carbon_con.html
Posted by: Anonymous5032   2004-06-06 2:04:48 PM  

#10  You are so right AP! Rule #1 of thermodynamics is TANSTAFL, Rule #2 says you cannot even break even, and Rule #3 says there ain't no other game in town!

We simply cannot put up enough solar and wind generation to make a decent dent in our huge demand. Their inefficincies and maldistributions would requre even more losses in gigantic energy storage systems.

The only local and short to med term sources are our huge coal supply, the Canuck tarsands, and good old North American uranium. Let's get digging!
Posted by: Craig   2004-06-06 1:35:23 PM  

#9  The problem with alternative energy is that the original energy conversion to get the fuel is expensive. The energy from oil came from the sun millions of years ago. It is in effect a solar energy account that we are drawing from now. To get the hydrogen and oxygen separated from water requires electrolysis, which takes energy from somewhere. TANSTAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. I learned that in 7th grade.

Steve DenBeste has an excellent essay on the magnitude of the problem. He discusses the problem of converting just 1% of daily US energy consumption to alternative sources.

www.denbeste.nu
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-06 12:40:57 PM  

#8  Raptor is right that we can run fuel cells off water, BUT first the hydro has to be seperated from the water, and this is an energy intensive activity ( more than you get from the hydro in the fuel cell) only way to produce the terrawats we would need is more nuke plants ( or lean how to dig REALLY deep holes)
Posted by: dcreeper   2004-06-06 12:05:51 PM  

#7  Sorry Raptor, but you clearly have no idea how a fuel cell works. A fuel cell works by taking a substance(s) that can be converted into other substances and yield (electrical) energy in the process. An example is hydrogen combined with oxygen to create water and yielding energy.

Fuel cells do not solve the 'where does the energy come from in the first place' problem' and as I have pointed out before they in fact make the problem a lot worse, by requiring substantially more energy inputs. SDB has a good (if somewhat long) post today on this topic.
Posted by: Phil B   2004-06-06 10:06:26 AM  

#6  Theoretically(techologically not feasable,yet)fuel cells can operate on water.
A fuel cell generates electricity by seperating hydrogen fron oxygen,then recombing.With ehaust emisions consisting of water vapor.
The reason gasaline or diseal is preferred for fuel cells now is because of the higher hydrogen content and ease of seperation.I was watching Tactical to Practical(History Channel,hosted by Hunter Elis former FA-18 pilot)The U.S.Army has a couple of fuel cell prototype vehicles up and running.Germany has a couple of subs that operate on fuel cell tech.
Posted by: Raptor   2004-06-06 9:46:32 AM  

#5  peace and love to you phil. Let's just step away from the oil. If it disappeared tomorrow we'd find a way to heat our homes and move our people within a year.

All's I'm saying is let's put our money where it really counts: fuel cells; nuclear; trash conversion; water wheels...what difference does it make? Let's just move away from the oil and let the Saudi princes eat cake.
Posted by: B   2004-06-06 8:16:47 AM  

#4  And what energy source do you propose for the fuel cells? Because most of what I have read assumes the energy magically appears. Otherwise I agree with your sentiment, and the only current technically feasible answer is nuclear power.
Posted by: Phil B   2004-06-06 8:03:26 AM  

#3  part of his organisation, has allegedly tried to raise millions of dollars in Saudi Arabia to expand its operations in Sydney

In honor of Ronnie - I can only say two words... Fuel Cells, baby. Fuel cells. Ronnie ended the cold war by building a bigger and better military that ultimately bankrupted the funding of the Communist war machine. We can bankrupt the funding of militant Islam and it's madrassas by building fuel cells.
Posted by: B   2004-06-06 7:23:30 AM  

#2  Bet you the 2.6 mil is coming from Soddi and other such Mohammedan holes.
Posted by: Anonymous5072   2004-06-06 7:05:46 AM  

#1  Sheik Omran is also a close personal friend of Abu Qatada, which tells you everything you need to know about him.
Posted by: Paul Moloney   2004-06-06 2:04:38 AM  

00:00