OBAMA’S POST-FOLEY FRAUD ABOUT SHARIAH

isil-journalistBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.:

President Barack Obama found time between golf rounds Thursday to condemn the beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in the Levant or ISIL) and to assure the American people that he was all about protecting them against similar fates.

Unfortunately, aside from the President’s welcome condolences to the Foley family, the rest of his remarks amounted to serial misrepresentations about this latest act of terrorist violence at the hands of shariah-adherent jihadists. Such conduct can only assure that more of us will die at their hands.

For example, Mr. Obama declared: “No faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Actually, the authoritative Islamic doctrine (or ideology) known as shariah explicitly calls for violent jihad to force infidels to submit to Islam and, as the Koran puts it, “to make them feel subdued.”

The President sought to reinforce the notion that, because ISIL’s “victims are overwhelmingly Muslim,” the group’s terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, practically from Islam’s inception, innumerable Muslims have been massacred by their co-religionists over such matters as Sunni-Shia differences concerning fine points of theology or insufficient conformity with shariah.

Mr. Obama also asserted that the Islamic State’s “ideology is bankrupt.” Calling that ideology bankrupt at a moment when it is palpably on the march from North and sub-Saharan Africa to the Far East and Latin America bespeaks a contempt for the intelligence of the American people. It is approximately as delusional and misleading as Obama’s previous, electioneering claim that one of shariah’s other jihadist franchises, al Qaeda, is “on the path to defeat.”

In short, President Obama’s comments marking the decapitation of James Foley are but the latest in a series of instances of national security fraud on his part. Intentional or not, they have the effect of engendering a false sense of security at home, even as they embolden our jihadist and other enemies – who are ever-alert to weakness, lack of seriousness, or irresolution on America’s part.

A particularly unsettling example of those qualities was evident in the President’s closing assurance that “we will be vigilant… and relentless” in protecting the American people. Actually, at the moment he is being clueless, disingenuous, and ineffectual in doing so. And that puts us all at risk.

White House Changing Its Tune On ISIS – The Kelly File

Published on Aug 23, 2014 by UNIVERSAL

 

ISIS Communicating With Mexican Cartel – Islamic Extremism On The Rise:

 

Also see:

Obama’s America Is September 10th America

Barack ObamaNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

Our barbaric jihadist enemies – the ones President Obama repeatedly assured us he had “decimated” and put on “the path to defeat” – are now stronger than ever. Not stronger than they have been in years, or decades – stronger than ever. They have seized a country-size swath of territory (and growing). They have just beheaded an American journalist – which is the sort of thing they do as a matter of routine but has obviously, and finally, gotten our attention.

Not to worry, though: The Obama Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation. I’m sure ISIS is quaking.

The Obama administration has spent six years miniaturizing the global jihad as a series of non-ideological, unconnected groups of “violent extremists,” pursuing parochial political objectives through acts of “workplace violence.” The enemy kills our ambassador to Libya, a palpable act of war, and the administration pretends it’s about a video. The enemy decapitates an American because he’s an American, and the administration announces the opening of a criminal investigation. The enemy bombs and beheads, we subpoena and indict.

The title of this post, “Obama’s America Is September 10th America” is not a random description of the now. It’s the title of a column I wrote six years ago … when then-candidate Obama was promising policies that would, inevitably, lead to an increasingly imperiled America – a provocatively weak America that regarded our enemies as mere defendants, just as we did before 9/11 … when our enemies responded by attacking us again and again.

The column was prompted by then-Senator Obama’s remarks during an astounding 2008 campaign speech:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the [Bush] administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.” So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

As I noted at the time, this was “a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism.” The vast majority of terrorists responsible for attacks against us had not been “brought to justice.” In fact, the major terrorists who orchestrated strikes against us – Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to name just a few – remained at large for a decade or more despite being under indictment. From foreign safe havens far removed from the writ of American courts and the authority of American law-enforcement, they continued choreographing terrorist attacks against the United States. To the extent top jihadists were “neutralized,” it was because our armed forces killed or captured them. We had no chance of suppressing the enemy by relying on American judicial processes.

Here was my conclusion in mid-2008:

The fact is that we used the criminal justice system as our principal enforcement approach, the approach Obama intends to reinstate, for eight years — from the bombing of the World Trade Center until the shocking destruction of that complex on 9/11. During that timeframe, while the enemy was growing stronger and attacking more audaciously, we managed to prosecute successfully less than three dozen terrorists (29 to be precise). And with a handful of exceptions, they were the lowest ranking of players.

When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the criminal-justice system “works” against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top concern: due process [for the terrorists.]. And on that score, he’s quite right: We’ve shown we can conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials, appeals, and habeas corpus.

As a national-security strategy, however, and as a means of carrying out our government’s first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure.

A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. Most of what is needed never happens in a courtroom. It happens in military operations against terrorist strongholds; intelligence operations in which jihadists get assassinated — without trial; intelligence collections in which we cozy up to despicable informants since only they can tell us what we need to know; and aggressive treasury actions to trace terror funds.

That is how you stop the homeland from being attacked, which is what we have done for the last seven years. And it is that from which Obama wants to move away.

Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th.

Admittedly, that was before Obama empowered the virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood; made Islamic supremacists key administration advisors; blinded our national security agents by purging Islamic-supremacist ideology from training materials; colluded with Islamic-supremacist countries to restrict American free speech rights; tried to give civilian trials to enemy-combatant terrorists responsible for mass-murdering Americans; imported enemy-combatant jihadists for civilian trials despite congressional proscriptions; waged an unauthorized war in Libya that enabled our enemies to kill American officials and besiege North Africa and the Middle East; negotiated with Iran-backed terrorists in trading jihadist leaders for the remains of British casualties; negotiated with Taliban terrorists in trading jihadist commanders for a deserter; assured Iran’s acquisition of nuclear arms; issued visas to terrorist operatives for consultations on American foreign policy; sided with Hamas during its latest war of aggression against Israel; and declined to acknowledge that the jihadist mass-murder of 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.

But I still think it holds up fairly well.

ISIS, HAMAS, AND THE SURGING THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAMISM

hamas-flag-soldier-Reuters (3)Breitbart, by NOAH BECK:

The beheading of U.S. journalist James Foley has raised concerns in the West about Islamist threats. But Israel has been facing this specter for decades and – given Israel’s proximity to the Islamist threat – the Jewish state is the West’s canary in the coal mine. But Gaza seems to be the Western blind spot, even though the Hamas-ISIS parallels are glaringly obvious.

Since beheadings are the current media focus, and ISIS has beheaded infants, it’s worth noting that Hamas praised the 2011 Itamar murders, which involved the decapitation of a baby. Islamist beheadings should surprise no one, given that they’ve been happening for much of (and despite) modernity – perhaps because “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited…to legitimize beheadings,” according to this study.

While there have been no reported Hamas beheadings of journalists, the similarities between Hamas and ISIS are more important than their differences.

Both would like to establish a Caliphate. Hamas Interior Minister declared as much in this 2013 speech. Both gain and keep power through savagery and fear. Hamas rose to power in Gaza thanks to its violent, 2007 coup, and recently planned a second putsch (in the West Bank). Hamas famously threw its political opponents off rooftops.

Like ISIS, Hamas uses clinics, schools, mosques, and charities to gain legitimacy, and inculcates children with the values of jihadi terror. A Vice documentary exposed how ISIS indoctrinates children for war, but Hamas has been doing so for years, educating children to worship death and using child soldiers.

Hamas’ use of human shields has been widely documented (and proven very effective in turning public opinion against Israel by exponentially increasing Gazan civilian casualties). ISIS used 500 Yazidi captives and 39 abducted Indians as human shields.

ISIS is known for its expulsion of Christians from Mosul and its genocidal murder of Yazidis and Christians who refuse to convert to Islam or pay the jizyah, and Hamas would undoubtedly behave the same way if Israeli Jews didn’t have the protection of a superior military, and if Hamas didn’t depend on international donations to Gaza that might dry up after a wholesale slaughter of the tiny Christian community there. But even with these checks on Hamas’ brutality, Hamas regularly practices and preaches religious hatred. For years, Hamas has attacked Christians, including defiling Christian graves, abducting and murdering Christians, and more recently using a Gazan church to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas preaches hateful incitement against Jews, has desecrated Jewish holy sites, and has murdered hundreds of Jews in terrorist attacks.

ISIS uses Sharia to justify its barbaric treatment of women. Also enamored with Sharia, Hamas treats women as second-class citizens and endorses honor killings.

Hamas advocates the death penalty for homosexuals, and (like ISIS) lets Islamic morality police govern economic activity and punishes crime with lashings, amputations, and executions. There have been no broadcast beheadings of homosexuals by ISIS yet, but such horrors can’t be far off, given that ISIS fighters include gay-hating Westerners.

Hamas condemned the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and ISIS aspires to surpass him.

Yet, astonishingly, President Obama and liberals have continually called for restraint when Israel’s military has confronted Hamas (after Hamas’ countless attacks against Israeli civilians) and Obama has pressed Israel to negotiate with Hamas (as if the U.S. would ever negotiate with ISIS). Worse still, the Obama administration tried to advance Hamas’ negotiating position and recently pressured Israel into letting Hamas keep its military capabilities. Given the opportunity to obliterate ISIS’ terrorist infrastructure, would the U.S. ever spare any part of it?

Even more troubling – in terms of the perils involved – is Obama’s feckless strategy towards the Iranian regime, which is the world’s chief sponsor of Islamist terrorism (including by Hamas and Hezbollah). Like so many Islamist terrorist organizations, Iran executes homosexualsmistreats womenpersecutes religious minorities; employs barbaric, Sharia-law punishments (like amputation and stoning); and brutalizes political dissenters (among myriad other human rights violations). But unlike the terrorist organizations, Iran could theoretically acquire a nuclear capability in under two months. Imagine an Islamist state, which openly supports Islamist terrorists, possessing nukes. Alarmingly, Obama’s approach and over-eagerness to negotiate any deal he can get, have signaled weakness in a region that respects only strength and have improved Iran’s nuclear position.

Islamist groups like Hamas, ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram all seek the destruction of Western values and civilization. The West ignores this fact at its peril, and should therefore support Israel’s war against Hamas, as the U.S. has rightly (albeit tardily and minimally) supported the Kurds in their fight against ISIS.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a doomsday thriller about the Iranian nuclear threat and current geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

Report Details Hamas’ Responsibility for Destruction of Gaza Strip

Free Beacon, By Adam Kredo:

A declassified intelligence report released by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) this week showed Hamas terrorists have been firing rockets at Israel from heavily populated civilian areas, including churches, United Nations facilities, Red Cross stations, hospitals, schools, children’s playgrounds, and a number of other areas.

The report, which was declassified by the IDF earlier this week, includes previously unreleased statistics and military surveillance videos showing Hamas launching missiles from many of these civilian locations, which constitutes a war crime.

New evidence is presented that Hamas used several United Nations schools run by the Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) as a base from which to fire rockets and mortars.

The revelation is likely to prompt further scrutiny of UNRWA’s activities during the most recent conflict, including the discovery of multiple rocket stashes that were later returned by UNRWA to Hamas.

At least 1,600 of the 3,600 rockets fired since July 8 at Israel by Hamas originated from civilian strongholds, according to the declassified report.

This included: Three rockets fired from churches, four from Red Cross stations, 10 from amusement parks, 20 from first aid stations, 30 from U.N. facilities, 41 from hospitals, 50 from children’s playgrounds, 85 from medial clinics, 248 from schools, 331 from mosques, and 818 from areas such as graveyards and power plants.

new-declassified-report-exposes-hamas-human-shield-policy-3-638

The IDF maintained that Hamas is chiefly responsible for the destruction of civilian areas in the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas’ tactics flagrantly violate international law and the most basic moral precepts,” the IDF stated in the report. “Given these tactics, the ultimate responsibility for the damage done to civilians as well as the civilian infrastructure of Gaza lies with Hamas.”

The report included video footage and surveillance photos of Hamas erecting rocket launchers at a U.N. facility and hotel where journalists were residing. Militants can be seen in the footage building the rocket launcher beneath a blue tent outside of the hotel.

Additional aerial satellite imagery released in the report shows that at least one rocket launcher was erected in a U.N.-operated elementary school for girls in Beit Lahiya.

Other rocket launchers were shown to have been set-up at UNRWA’s Shahada Al-Manar elementary school for boys, from which at least 11 mortars were fired on Aug. 2, according to satellite imagery.

Another rocket launching site was discovered at an UNRWA distribution center and health center in Gaza, according to video showing Hamas terrorists firing the rockets form the facility, which is located in a residential neighborhood.

Multiple other images show scores of rocket launchers and combat posts placed in densely populated areas throughout Gaza in what the IDF refers to as a “terror fortress.”

Hamas also has been discovered to have fired rockets from inside the El’ Ahzar Islamic College in Gaza, as well as the Abu Nur School, according to IDF military footage included in the report

“Another one, another one from the school, launching from the school,” an IDF soldier can be heard saying in the footage. “I see the rocket launcher. Three more rocket[s] launched.”

“It looks like the rocket launchers are inside the school,” adds another soldier.

Hamas additionally stored rocket stockpiles and established military headquarters at mosques.

Several of these mosques and civilian homes located nearby were used to conceal the entrances to Hamas’ sophisticated network of underground tunnels, many of which have been destroyed by the IDF in the past weeks.

On July 30, Hamas began firing rockets from a Red Cross ambulance station, according to the report.

Rocket launchers also were found to have been strategically placed around the Wafa Hospital in Gaza.

IDF footage also shows Hamas militants using an ambulance as a getaway vehicle after firing rockets from a house.

Also see:

Hamas Wages “Collaborator” Execution Spree Following Attack on Leadership

by IPT News:

1054Hamas killed at least 18 Palestinians, including two women, Friday that it suspected of collaborating with Israel, the Jerusalem Post reports. That number is expected to grow.

Eleven suspected collaborators were murdered at a Gaza police station and then Hamas terrorists proceeded to kill seven more Palestinians in a public execution, according to witnesses and an official Hamas website. The victims were shot in front of a crowd of worshipers outside a mosque after prayers.

A Palestinian Facebook page showed a picture of people outside the Gaza City waiting for more public executions. Amnesty International issued a statement calling on Hamas to stop the killings, which Director of Research and Crisis Response Anne Fitzgerald described as “even more shocking by the fact that the victims were sentenced to death after trials which, if they happened at all, were summary and grossly unfair.”

This escalation in arrests and quick executions comes in the wake of Israel’s targeted assassination of three senior Hamas commanders. Israel’s successful intelligence infiltration that enabled the targeted killings has spread fear and mistrust among Hamas’ ruling circle. Israel also is preparing for an increase in retaliatory terrorist attacks.

Hamas rockets injured three people in an Ashdod synagogue Friday, and killed a 4-year-old boy in Sha’ar Hanegev.

Hamas also arrested over 150 of its members who will be interrogated over “security leaks,” the Post‘s Khaled Abu Toameh reported on Twitter, citing Arabic news site Albawaba.

Hamas has executed many other Palestinians during the Gaza conflict and arrested a number of women, on suspicion of working with Israel.

ISIS a Jewish Plot? Propaganda and Islamic Jihad

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
August 22, 2014

I1052t took her more than nine years of working in the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, but Yasmina Haifi finally uncovered the secret truth about the Islamic State: It isn’t Islamic at all. Actually, it’s a Jewish plot.

Yes, really: that terrorist group formerly known as ISIS, responsible for acts of genocide in Iraq, for the beheading of American journalist James Foley, and for the murder of countless women and children in their war to establish a new Islamic Caliphate, Haifi revealed in a recent post on Twitter, is in fact a “preconceived idea from Zionists deliberately to make Islam look bad.”

And IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is not a Muslim terrorist, either. He’s an agent of Mossad.

This, of course, is pure conspiracy theory, ranking in egregiousness somewhere between the blood libel and the theory that Jews are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. And yet, astoundingly, Haifi is not alone in her belief: numerous Islamic and Islamist websites claimNSA whistleblower Edward Snowden possesses documents proving the US, Israel, and the UK conspired to create ISIS in order to preserve the Jewish state.

And that is good enough for Haifi. Although she was dismissed from her post at the ministry immediately following her statement, she maintained in a subsequent radio interview, “I’ve read articles about it. There is plenty of evidence linking Israel and ISIS.”

This must come as surprising – and surely disappointing – “news” to any number of Muslims, including the leader of Holland’s own Muslim Unity Party (Partij van de Eenheid), Abdoe Khoulani, who earlier this summer announced his support for the terrorist group, posting on Facebook: “Long Live ISIS and inshaa-Allah on to Baghdad to take on all that riffraff there.”

And how, too, to explain the all-Muslim pro-ISIS rallies in Amsterdam, The Hague, in Paris and elsewhere across Europe? How to explain that those same ISIS supporters march the streets performing Nazi salutes and chanting “Death to Jews”?

The combination of events – first, the anti-Semitism expressed by IS supporters and, then, the anti-Semitism by calling IS itself a Jewish plot – is more than simply dizzying. It is treacherous. And it can lead only to the creation of more widespread Jew hate, and thorough confusion among politicians, security agencies, and the police.

That, in fact, is the situation already being played out in The Hague, where Mayor Josias van Aartsen’s response to pro-IS demonstrators who called for “All Jews to the gas” and threatened the execution of Jews and infidels worldwide, was to do absolutely nothing. Indeed, even after Dutch Parliament leaders demanded he cut short his vacation and return home to handle the issue, he defended his previous decision to remain on holiday in France during the unrest: “There was no chaos, no anarchy,” he said. “I saw no point in bowing down to this.”

Yet notably, many Muslims in The Hague – particularly those living in the neighborhood of the pro-IS marches – see it differently. Said one 34-year-old, identified only as Brahim, to a reporter for Dutch daily Telegraaf, “They need to get out of our [neighborhood] – or heads with beards are gonna roll.”

Locals Kurds also voiced complaints. “I fled Iraq 14 years ago,” one told the Telegraaf. Now I’m in Holland, and I have to deal with the same fundamentalists. No one protects me. The Netherlands has to crack down hard, before things get entirely out of hand.” Agreed Brahim: “Pick them up and lock them away, would you, please?”

And yet it doesn’t happen. The Josias van Aartsens of the West continue to wave off the threat of radicalized Muslims in European cities, American villages, the provinces of Canada. Think, for instance, of former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who felt Sharia tribunals would “unify “Europe and former Attorney General Marion Boyd, who advocated involving Sharia law in Canadian family courts. Such examples bring to mind the wise words of former British Home Office Minister Mike O’Brien, who 14 years agoobserved that “multicultural sensitivity is not an excuse for moral blindness.”

Except “moral blindness” is only a beginning. That “chaos” did not erupt in The Hague on July 26 is not the point. The worst violence, the most devastating abuse, does not spontaneously blast its way out of the blue. It begins with words, and with the ideologies that well-placed words create. Those words can be as simple as “kill Jews” or as complex as “Jews created the terrorist group ISIS, which beheads Muslim men and slaughters and enslaves women and children.”

And as Brahim observed, during the demonstrations in The Hague, even toddlers “got a flag shoved in their hands, and cried allahu akbar” in support of IS – words, too, that drive the hate and brutal atrocities that define the Islamic State.

If we can no longer remain morally blind to the actions of the IS and its supporters, wherever they may live, then we can no longer, either, remain deaf to the words that, in their arsenal of hate and violence, form perhaps the most powerful weapons of their jihad.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands

Documentary – Meeting ISIL (PressTV goes deep inside the terrorist group)

Published on Aug 21, 2014 by PressTV News Videos:

To learn who these people are, what they are fighting for, and who funds them, PRESS TV goes deep into their camps and brings you face to face interviews and exclusive footage. Many of those who were initially infatuated by the group’s promise of justice seem to be horrified and utterly disillusioned today.

(Press TV (stylised PRESSTV) is a 24-hour English language news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). The IRIB is state-owned but independent of the Iranian government in its management, and its head is appointed directly by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.- wikipedia)

Also see:

Is CAIR Lying about a Rally for Hamas?

by Daniel Pipes
Gatestone Institute
August 22, 2014

A “Stop the Bloodshed in Gaza” rally in downtown Miami on July 20 featured aggressive Islamist chants typical of anti-Israel events. In English, the demonstrators yelled “We are Hamas!” and “We are Jihad!” (as can be seen and heard here). In Hebrew, a Hamas partisan screamed at an Israel-supporter, “Son of a bitch” and “Go to Hell!” and made an obscene arm gesture. In Arabic, the crowd chanted the infamous “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jew, Muhammad’s army will return” (a reference to a massacre of Jews under the auspices of Islam’s prophet in A.D. 629).

As I say, just a typical anti-Israel demonstration, and far from the worst. Typical – except that some of its sponsors desperately seek respectability.

In a July 23 report on the demonstration, investigative researcher Danielle Avel posted a scan of a glossy paper flier advertising the event, listing its seven sponsors:

American Muslim Association of North America (AMANA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Florida, Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Syrian American Council of South Florida (SAC), American Muslims for Emergency & Relief (AMER), and American Muslims Foundation.




The event’s Facebook page lists a coalition of eight organizations, some of which overlap with those on the flier:

Join us & spread the word! In coordination with our coalition: Al-Awda Coalition, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)-FL, POWIR, Broward Green Party, CAIR, National Lawyers Guild (South Florida), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) – FAU, and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) – FIU.



Two groups in particular, CAIR and ICNA, caught Avel’s eye because they aspire to invitations to the White House, appearances on network television and at leading universities, and other signs of public acceptance. What took place in Miami, she correctly noted, reveals their true extremism.

Six days later, on July 29, CAIR’s Florida chapter responded with a denial:

CAIR-Florida was not part of, did not plan, did not sponsor, did not participate in, and had absolutely nothing to do with the July 20 rally. If any document lists CAIR-Florida as a sponsor of the event, that listing was included without CAIR-Florida’s permission.



I doubt the veracity of this denial for several reasons.

  • CAIR’s mendacity is so widespread that I have an entire bibliography of my writings exposing the reasons not to trust it.
  • The flier, of which I have a copy, twice states that Sofian Zakkout organized the rally. Zakkout is so close to CAIR, he’s effectively a staff volunteer: he coordinates with it, is quoted by it, seeks helpfrom it, and is listed as a contact by it. (For more on Zakkout, see Avel’s exposé.) A year earlier, he listed CAIR’s Florida branch on another rally flier. It beggars the imagination that he would list CAIR without authorization.
  • The Facebook page still lists CAIR as a sponsor, two weeks after CAIR’s statement of denial.
  • Perhaps CAIR seeks to conceal the truth through semantics. Both the national organization (on the Facebook page) and the Florida chapter (on the flier) are listed as sponsors. The July 29 statement only denies permission from the latter, not the former. It is more than credible that CAIR nationalgave its permission to be listed as a sponsor while CAIR’s Florida chapter did not.

Given these facts, I disbelieve CAIR’s statement.

I do believe it sponsored the vile event in Miami; that its denial of that sponsorship is false; and that the despicable words at the Miami rally revealed the true face of CAIR.

CAIR must not be validated by invitations and appearances. It should be treated as a marginal and despised group like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam.

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

 

Also see:

1053

ISIS Never Wanted Ransom to Free Foley

2716020119CSP, By Fred Fleitz:

Did ISIS kill photojournalist James Foley because the United States refused to pay ransom to win his release?  I doubt it.

A 100 million euro ransom was not a serious demand.  ISIS knew the US was unlikely to violate its “no-ransom to terrorists” policy to free Foley and would view paying such an astronomical sum a dangerous and unacceptable precedent.

However, ISIS also knew the Obama administration has shown flexibility with its “no-ransom” and “never negotiate with terrorists” policies and might have agreed to a deal to free Foley through a third party with a smaller ransom.

For example, the Obama administration traded five Guantanamo inmates to free U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on May 31, 2014.  Oliver North claims a third country – possibly Qatar – also paid $5-6 million in ransom to free Bergdahl.  The Obama administration denied ransom was paid or that the prisoner swap constituted the U.S. negotiating with terrorists since Qatar did the negotiating and the United States has not designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  This was a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the world – the U.S. obviously negotiated a deal with terrorists to free Berghahl.

There was a similar situation in 2011 when Oman paid $1.5 million in bail to free three American hikers who had wandered into Iran.   The Obama administration made the dubious argument at the time that this didn’t amount to the US negotiating with a terrorist state because the US did not pay the bail.

ISIS knew the Obama administration would never agree to pay a 100 million euro ransom for one man, money that it would use for its campaign of terror.  To understand how outrageous this demand was, consider that according to the New York Times, about $125 million in ransom was paid by European states over the last 5 years to free 29 hostages held by al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the Middle East and north Africa.  The largest single ransom paid was $40 million to free four French nationals.

ISIS demanded a ransom it knew would never be paid because it never planned to release Foley and planned to use his execution to terrorize the region and encourage radicalized Islamists worldwide to join its fanatical cause.  Until President Obama approves a strategy of massive military force to destroy ISIS, it will continue to make gains on the ground, commit atrocities and is certain to attempt terrorist attacks against US interests worldwide, including against the US homeland.

 

Also see:

Clare Lopez: The Islamic State is Following the Example of Muhammad

844173151Center for Security Policy:

The Center’s Clare Lopez debates Mike Ghouse on Sean Hannity’s radio show on the Islamic State (IS), Islam, doctrinal basis for IS atrocities.

EXCLUSIVE: RALPH PETERS ON OBAMA’S REIGN OF ERROR AND HOW AMERICA LOST ITS WAY IN THE WAR AGAINST JIHAD

Cain-author-photos-009jpg

There is widespread confusion over the Obama administration’s seemingly contradictory policies due to a lack of understanding of how the left has gradually changed our military culture as well as Obama’s own particular ideologies formed by his life experiences. This is a very insightful analysis by Ralph Peters which, if understood, makes sense out of everything Obama has done-  CJR

Breitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Aug. 22, 2014:

Ralph Peters, the iconoclastic author and military strategist has been very vocal of late regarding US national security policy and the growth of the global jihadist movement. 

A former US Army intelligence officer, he is a prolific and very successful author of over thirty works of both fiction and non-fiction including Endless War: Middle-Eastern Islam vs. Western Civilization.  Breitbart’s national security editor Sebastian Gorka spoke to the author about the current threats to the Republic and what should be done about them. Here is the first part of the three-part interview.

BREITBART: Several years ago you wrote a short piece berating the lack of strategic thought by the American officer corps. Why is it that what seems to be the most powerful nation the world has ever seen actually doesn’t think or act strategically?

PETERS: Well, several things have happened and one hardly knows where to begin. There’s a certain correlation between the rise of civilian think-tanks and a decline in military thought. It was a curious thing because, the military of course– especially the Navy, but the Army as well, and in the postwar period for a brief time the Air Force– really dominated strategic thought.

As the think tanks gained power, the strangest phenomenon occurred where those in uniform unaccountably paid more heed to civilians with Ph.Ds than they did to experienced soldiers. And the trend grew stronger and stronger. The military always had a strain of anti-intellectualism that really grew stronger. There was ever less tolerance for eccentricity. I do not speak from personal experience, the military was great to me and I could have stayed in a lot longer, but generally speaking, and no pun intended, there was a greater push for uniformity, not just visually, but in terms of intelligence.

I also think, and it pains me to say this, that as broader opportunities opened up in our society for the best and brightest, fewer of the best and the brightest went into the military. You still got very good people in the officer corps but, for instance, in the 19th century and right into the 20th, there were just fewer opportunities. People went to West Point and the Naval Academy and got engineering degrees and they were often brilliant. They built America, they built the canals, they built the lighthouses, they laid out the highways, they mapped the country.

Now, while we still have very good quality people in the military, it’s actually very difficult to have a sophisticated conversation with our generals, our flag officers. Our senior military can talk about the military itself and about professional sports, but it’s really rare to find one who is well read in the way that, for instance, obviously Patton was well read or many 19th century military figures, or even Marshall.  We’ve turned out a range of narrow military specialists, of technicians, rather than broad thinkers. Certainly you need technicians, there’s no question about that, especially in the ‘technical services’, the Navy and the Air Force.  I divide it between the Navy and the Air Force, where people support machines, and the Army and the Marines where machines support people as another parenthetical.

The rise of the think-tanks, the decline in the intellectual level of the officer corps, side by side, and then the officer corps got lazy. They were amazingly willing by the 1970s– and even before that, by the 1960s– to abdicate responsibility for their strategic thought to civilians. Now the non-military have a great deal to contribute to strategic thought, but when it comes to how to structure, organize, develop, train, and wield the military, one would think you would want at least military veterans in the lead. So we had all sorts of cockamamie theories come down the road.

BREITBART: Has this abdication of strategic thought by the senior military been compounded in the last 13 years since 9/11? Has there been a politicization of the officer corps as well as growing intellectual laziness?

PETERS: Yes, absolutely.

At the top levels, of course all presidents want a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs with whom they can feel comfortable. But beginning with the Rumsfeld ‘reign of terror’ and continuing into the Obama ‘reign of error,’ you see this utter politicization of the top ranks. Politicization, feminization, stress on political correctness, seeking out yes men. Rumsfeld was really, really terrible in the sense that he always wanted generals who were dumber than him. He wanted to know he was smarter than the generals in the room, and he made sure he was. Rumsfeld was brilliant at managing senior generals.

For instance, with poor Pete Schoomaker, a well-meaning and good solider, Rumsfeld gave him a couple little areas to play with as Chief of Staff of the Army. Then Rumsfeld did what he wanted.  And certainly the SecDef is senior to the service secretaries and Chairman, but a good SecDef (and a good president) would want intellectually capable men and women of integrity who not only could, but would, be willing to challenge him behind closed doors. And the sense I get is that under Rumsfeld, and now under Obama, they don’t want anybody challenging them, not at all.

There was a key turning point which came with the Neocons pushing so hard for the Iraq war that they essentially shut the military voices out. So we had a war that was designed by people who had never served in uniform. Rumsfeld, who was sort of a fringe Neocon and had briefly served in uniform, actually refused to allow the military to plan for an occupation following the invasion. (For evidence of this startling fact see the Dov Zakheim’s biography A Vulcan’s Tale. Zakheim was the Pentagon Comptroller during the Second Gulf War. Ed.) This obstruction was really at the behest of the Neocons at the top of national security in the Bush administration because they knew if the military planned for an occupation, the troop numbers would be so high that Congress would never approve it.

Their focus was strictly on getting their war without understanding basic things– such as, when you take down a country’s government, you’re going to be there for at least a few months– so Rumsfeld personally cut MP brigades from the troop deployment list. When we got to Baghdad, what did we need? We needed MP brigades.

By late 2002, early 2003, the military’s advice was not desired, not even tolerated. So that was a crucial turning point where unelected officials and civilians with no military experience designed a war. The one thing the military can do well, one of the things, is to plan and plan. And they forbade them to plan, the option of planning– not the option, the duty– of planning. And when you’re going to a war you can hope for the best, but you absolutely plan for the worse. As a nation, we didn’t.

BREITBART: But now we don’t have the Neocons, so let’s talk about what’s going on with regards to the firestorm around the world today. What do you respond to those who say one of the big problems is that now we not only have a political elite that has no military experience, but a leadership which really isn’t interested in foreign affairs or the military, with at the top a Commander-in-Chief who is a product of the insular political machine that is Chicago?

PETERS: Well, yes, certainly they came to office with zero interest in international affairs except for a few pet projects and with the naiveté to believe that the president, President Obama, through sheer charm and force of personality, could change the world.

The Cairo Speech is classic evidence. The new political elite came with a very negative view of the United States, very much formed by the likes of Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, that entire milieu. So as you heard in speech after speech from the President, America wasn’t the solution. The United States of America was the problem, or at least part of the problem.

This is a group that is very uncomfortable with the idea of American leadership, made up of people inculcated with the belief that all cultures are equal – except that we may be less equal than others – and that there’s a virtue in all developing cultures, or underdeveloped cultures. This is combined with an utter lack of appreciation of the brutality that exists in most of the rest of the world.

Additionally elements of the President’s personal biography clouded his judgment terribly: the fact that he always claimed how well he knew Islam, that he lived in Indonesia, in Java, a few years and attended school there. But Islam is at its absolutely most benign in Indonesia, except for the odd case of Aceh, on the extreme western tip of Java, which has been Arab-influenced since the Middle Ages. I’ve been there, I’ve done a research project there, and compared to Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, or Iran, it’s completely different. In a nation of 225-230 million Muslims, you had a few hundred terrorists.  Just run the numbers, we’ve had more native-born terrorists in the United States if you include White Supremacists, etc.

So those that make up the administration were distinctly unequipped for this role. They didn’t understand history, didn’t understand foreign affairs. They came to office with a very strong domestic agenda and that’s what they wanted to concentrate on. They regarded foreign affairs as a nuisance—something that, well, you just have to deal with sometimes. And also, they came to the office with a very strong, not just anti-militarist, but anti-military bias.

A classic example among many is their handling of the Private Bergdahl case. For five years since he walked off his post, I’ve been scratching my head and other body parts wondering why they were so intent on shielding this person, of covering for him when the evidence from the start was overwhelming that he deserted. Then you get all the way to the Rose Garden debacle with his parents, and just the other day, driving home from Fox, it hit me. It’s really very simple, flash of the obvious. The people in the administration understand, given their worldview, why someone would desert from the military. They just don’t understand why somebody would join the military. And if you look at their overall actions – and you know, I never blame a conspiracy for anything that can be explained by incompetence – but they really have tried to use the military as a tool of social engineering, essentially to neuter the military. And the generals and admirals have not resisted in any meaningful way. To circle back to what I argue about regarding the intellectual decline of the officer corps, about 30 years ago something bad happened, with the best intentions, something akin to the military equivalent of the Great Society.  You started getting these “official” reading lists.

BREITBART: Yes, I was about to ask you about things like “The Commandant’s Reading List” and so on.

PETERS: The problem with the idea that the head of a service annually mandates a list of books his officers should read is that you have all the officers reading the same books! So the range of knowledge, of intellectual depth, is narrowed down even further.

Added to that, you have this ongoing vogue for management books. Management is a subset of leadership, not the other way around, and the notion that the military can learn to fight wars by studying how Microsoft developed a given program is absolutely ludicrous. It’s not that we shouldn’t be willing to learn from all sources, but you have people narrowing the field down too much.  They’re reading about World War II, Vietnam, Korea, maybe the Civil War, but virtually nothing about deep history and past wars, nothing about other civilizations and cultures.  As a result we have created an often narrow-minded and insular officer corps, since the goal of the reading program was to get everyone on the same sheet of music and, unfortunately, they succeeded.

A good sign that I’ve seen, though, is a lot of mid-grade officers are now self-organizing. There are more and more informal groups being created, study groups at the War Colleges, for example. The students are organizing off campus or among themselves, the officers are trading ideas, because I think there’s a lot of frustration with the current leadership. We have a leadership that appears to lack moral courage and intellectually deficient Titans on the battlefield become mice when they get to Washington.  And right now since Jim Mattis retired (Marine General James “Mad Dog” Mattis USMC, former Commander US Central Command, Eds.), I’m not sure who’s sticking up for the grunts.

CONTINUED IN PART TWO

 

 

 

JIHADISM IS GROWING AGAIN NOT DYING

james-foley-brandishingBreitbart, by WARNER TODD HUSTON:

Despite Obama’s claim that we have al Qaeda on the run, attacks by al Qaeda and other global jihadis have taken a sharp swing upwards says Sebastian Gorka in a recent article and interview. ​As events in Iraq and Syria demonstrate, the US policy of focusing or organizations and individuals as opposed to the ideology of jihad has empowered our enemies.

​Dr. ​Gorka, ​the Major General Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, and National Security editor with Breitbart.com​, ​has just ​published a piece at The Journal of International Security Affairs in an effort to explain “Why Al-Qaeda Just Won’t Die,” and in the piece the evidence points to a resurgent global Jihad movement, not one being rolled back.

Gorka’s ​points to the fact that ​ ​the ​Director of National Intelligence James Clapper​, America’s highest intelligence officer ​told Congress that al Qaeda now has a base of operations in 12 nations across the world.

“By way of comparison,” Gorka writes, “in 2001, when we started the war against al-Qaeda, it had operations centers in just one country: Afghanistan.”

In a recent interview with radio host John Batchelor, Gorka pointed out the main misconception that the west has in this war against global jihad. It isn’t “just​” al Qaeda, it isn’t single leaders like bin Laden that we ​are ​fight ​ing​. It is, rather, an entrenched ideology.

“This isn’t about individuals nor is it about specific organizations. And this is the greatest failing–in fact the fallacy of the current administration’s analysis and strategic response. It’s not about a given group, it’s not about what they call A​l Qaeda ​S​enior ​L​eadership or ​just ​hunting down Aym​an​ al Zawahiri​. If you kill bin Laden, if you kil​l​ ​Zawahiri, ​that is utterly irrelevant because the enemy is the narrative, the ideology that drives these individuals, that​s what​ makes Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi so successful in recruiting fighters to capture most of Iraq.”

Gorka went on to explain why particular leaders or groups mean nothing ​by themselves ​in the long ​but why it is the ideas that matter more.​

“This is an age-old story,” Gorka continued, “it can be traced back to the dissolution of the Caliphate in 1924, the response less than five years later in the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and then through seminal events–the siege of Mecca in 1979, the invasion of Afghanistan [by the Russians] in the same year–and then key documents such as the​ ​f​atwa issued by bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam in 1979 that stated, because the Caliphate is no longer, because we have no imperial command or authority, every ​individual​ has to become a sole Jihadi–this concept of f​ard ‘ayn​–that Jihad is an individual and universal obligation ​.That​ is what the threat groups leverage.”

“It’s exactly what Sun Tzu said,” Gorka added, “war is not about destroying the units of the enemy, war is about destroying his strategy. And unfortunately, America hasn’t even begun to do so in the last 13 years.”

To sum up his​ ​​argument​, Gorka concluded ​ ​by saying​, “We have to address the ideological center of gravity of the enemy and the bottom line is​ that​ the permanent solution to the Jihadi threat will not be a kinetic one (i.e. battles and boots on the ground firefights), ​because ​you cannot kill you​r​ way out of this problem. Killing terrorists is great, but that will not provide the ultimate solution. You have to destroy the ideology that mobilizes them.”

This “misdiagnosis” of our enemy has allowed global Jihad to steal a march on us and grow, not shrink.

The president’s​ claims that he has put a dent in al Qaeda is simply wrong and we are fooling ourselves if we believe it.

Beheading as Symbolic Warfare

bn-450x251by Dawn Perlmutter:

The videotaped beheading of American journalist James Foley on Tuesday August 19th has shocked the American public even though there has been thousands of beheadings by Islamist jihadists around the world. Last week at the Annual International Association for Identification (Crime Scene) Conference I presented a three hour lecture titled Beheading Epidemic and it was not nearly enough time to cover the forensic and investigation aspects of this widespread global phenomenon.

The videotaped murder of James Foley demonstrates the evolution of beheading as a jihadist tactic made popular by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor group of the Islamic State Army. The similarities and differences are significant. James Foley’s execution involved the classic Al Qaeda forensic signature. Similar to the dozens of Iraqi and foreign hostages that were beheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq, James Foley had his hands cuffed behind his back, was kneeling in front of his captor and was dressed in the orange clothing symbolic of the type worn by detainees in U.S. prisons and Guantanamo Bay.

Al-Zarqawi’s videotaped ritual beheadings typically included a reading of offenses, confession, judgment, last words, execution, and a verbal statement of demands. The executioner was dressed in military type uniform consisting of black clothing, including ski mask covering his face and prominently displaying the murder weapon, his knife. The ritual pattern typically began with a statement from the executioner reciting the reason for the death sentence, which alluded to current political events, usually teeming with religious language justifying the violence, praise for Allah and often containing future threats. The victim then had the opportunity for last words; sometimes he confessed to being a spy or whatever the group had coerced him into confessing, or pleaded with the audience to acquiesce to the kidnappers’ demands and secure his release. At that point the head was cut off with a small knife by the leader, held in the air and then placed on the victim’s back.

Differences in the ISIS beheading video of James Foley include the high production value, outdoor scenic space and slick editing. Instead of an interior space decorated with terrorist group banners, it is a stark outdoor scene with just blue sky and desert as background placing all focus on the two men and the message to America. Instead of a flag hanging on the wall behind several terrorists, the ISIS black flag emblem is flying in the top left corner occasionally displaying the al-furqan media emblem underneath. Instead of nasheeds playing in the background, the quiet emphasizes both Foley’s scripted speech and the Jihadists threat to kill more Americans. Significantly the sound of screaming, the image of blood gushing out of the wound and the praising of Allah has been edited out. The only bloody graphic is a quick screen shot of the head placed on the center of the back of Foley’s body, proof of death and the classic Islamist Jihadist forensic signature. The impact of the film immediately cutting to and ending with the image of Steven Sotloff, another American journalist dressed in the same orange jumpsuit, the obvious next victim if President Obama does not meet their demands, is exceedingly powerful.

The most significant difference in the James Foley beheading video is the absence of religious language, particularly praising Allah during the execution. There should be no doubt that Allah was praised while cutting Foleys throat and that detail of the murder was deliberately edited out. Praising Allah ritualizes the murder and justifies the violence in the name of Islam. It is extremely atypical that the executioner and other participants during beheadings would not shout the phrase Allahu Akbar. The editing demonstrates that the focus of this propaganda video was political. The message to the American public was that Foleys death was not the result of Islamist ideology but that his death was the consequence of America getting involved in the war against ISIS. This message will most likely resonate with many Americans and illustrates the media savvy of ISIS.

Other than the ritual execution the most disturbing aspect of the murder is that the terrorist is speaking with a British accent. This high production beheading video served several purposes. One was to pressure the American public to stay out of Iraq and Syria and it also functions as a recruitment video for more Westerners to join ISIS. The British jihadist earned his stripes by murdering Foley and he will become a rock star among other radicalized Westerners.

Read more at Front Page

Voice of James Foley’s Executioner:

Published on Aug 20, 2014 by Pamela Geller

 

Also see:

Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi alliance

partners-300x191By Caroline Glick:

Hamas’s war with Israel is not a stand-alone event. It is happening in the context of the vast changes that are casting asunder old patterns of behavior and strategic understandings as actors in the region begin to reassess the threats they face.

Hamas was once funded by Saudi Arabia and enabled by Egypt. Now the regimes of these countries view it as part of a larger axis of Sunni jihad that threatens not only Israel, but them.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and its state sponsors Qatar and Turkey, are the key members of this alliance structure. Without their support Hamas would have gone down with the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt last summer. As it stands, all view Hamas’s war with Israel as a means of reinstating the Brotherhood to power in that country.

To achieve a Hamas victory, Turkey, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood are using Western support for Hamas against Israel. If the US and the EU are able to coerce Egypt and Israel to open their borders with Gaza, then the Western powers will hand the jihadist axis a strategic victory.

The implications of such a victory would be dire.

Hamas is ideologically indistinguishable from Islamic State. Like Islamic State, Hamas has developed mass slaughter and psychological terrorization as the primary tools in its military doctrine. If the US and the EU force Israel and Egypt to open Gaza’s borders, they will enable Hamas to achieve strategic and political stability in Gaza. As a consequence, a post-war Gaza will quickly become a local version of Islamic State-controlled Mosul.

In the first instance, such a development will render life in southern Israel too imperiled to sustain. The Western Negev, and perhaps Beersheba, Ashkelon and Ashdod, will become uninhabitable.

Then there is Judea and Samaria. If, as the US demands, Israel allows Gaza to reconnect with Judea and Samaria, in short order Hamas will dominate the areas. Militarily, the transfer of even a few of the thousands of rocket-propelled grenades Hamas has in Gaza will imperil military forces and civilians alike.

IDF armored vehicles and armored civilian buses will be blown to smithereens.

Whereas operating from Gaza, Hamas needed the assistance of the Obama administration and the Federal Aviation Administration to shut down Ben-Gurion Airport, from Judea and Samaria, all Hamas would require are a couple of hand-held mortars.

Jordan will also be directly threatened.

From Egypt’s perspective, a Hamas victory in the war with Israel that connects Gaza to Sinai will strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamic State and other allies. Such a development represents a critical threat to the regime.

And this brings us to Islamic State itself. It couldn’t have grown to its current monstrous proportions without the support of Qatar and Turkey.

Read more