Know Your Enemy: A Primer on Islamic Jihad

how-to-fight-isisNational Review, by Steve King, July 25, 2015:

Islamic jihad has declared war on the United States and all of Western civilization. ISIS has announced its intention to dominate the world and fly its black flag from the White House in continuation of a 1,400-year-old war against us “infidels.”

In the first 100 years after the death of Mohammed (a.d. 632)`, Islamic jihad conquered most of the known world except Western Europe. Christian forces blocked the first century of Islamic conquest at the very bloody Battle of Tours on October 10, 732. Islamic jihad continued to threaten the very existence of Christianity throughout the next millennium. October 7, 1571, marked the destruction of Islamic jihad’s massive fleet by the Holy League fleet in the Aegean Sea.

More than a century later, Islamic jihad, having conquered the Middle East and most of Eastern Europe, had surrounded and besieged the crown jewel of Western Christendom, Vienna. If Vienna fell to Islam, all of Western Europe would be likely to follow. After a two-month siege of Vienna, relief forces from Poland and Germany arrived.

The battle for relief of Vienna began on September 11, 1683, and ended with the rout of the Islamic forces the following day. On September 11, 1697, Prince Eugene caught and routed a large Islamic army and delivered a decisive blow at the Battle of Zenta.

In keeping with the September 11 theme, the British established a mandate for Palestine on September 11, 1922, and at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, eleven Israeli athletes were killed on September 11. Millions of Islamists remember the humiliations of September and seek to humiliate the “Great Satan,” the United States. Thus the attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

Islamic jihad can be defeated, and it can be done in less time than it took to defeat the USSR in the Cold War. Our strategy, however, must be tailored to the times and circumstances.

Islamic jihad is our enemy. It has declared war on us and will kill us anywhere it can. No American is safe anywhere in the world until this suicidal ideology is defeated. It is not impossible to defeat an ideology. Within a span of half a century, Western civilization has defeated at least four ideologies. Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese imperialism all went down literally in flames in the face of a superior culture. Next in line was the far more stubborn Russian Communism, which struggled through 45 years of cold war before succumbing to liberty and free enterprise. Islamic jihad can be defeated, and it can be done in less time than it took to defeat the USSR in the Cold War. Our strategy, however, must be tailored to the times and circumstances.

CYBER WARFARE: Islamists are not innovative but do have a history of borrowing technology and deploying it against their enemies. ISIS, for example, is using the Internet to inspire, recruit, and direct terrorists around the world. We have the capabilities to scramble their communications and cause them to doubt the sources of instructions. It’s time to launch cyber warfare against them both offensively and defensively and to do so worldwide. They will stop using the Internet only when they no longer trust the communications network. With a smart cyber-warfare system, we can watch them close down their most important recruiting tool.

FINANCIAL WARFARE: If all its resources could be shut off, ISIS would atrophy. The U.S. has a powerful global financial reach, giving us the capability of cutting off almost all funds flowing to ISIS. We need to shut off the flow of exported oil from the ISIS regions and shut off payments going to them. Banks that deal in transactions with Islamic jihad or with their suppliers can be singled out to be the target of special disincentives that raise the transaction costs well above the financial benefit of doing business with jihadists.

EDUCATION: The next and most difficult task is to shut down the elements of their educational system that teach Islamic jihad. Millions of young boys are indoctrinated daily with the ideology of Islamic jihad. The madrassas are a breeding ground for violent jihad and serve to identify and recruit the most zealous. Countering this indoctrination will require a worldwide effort and may well be endless, but it is necessary to make the attempt, because reduction in the teaching of intergenerational hatred is the foundation for a peaceful future.

HUMINT: Human intelligence remains limited in the Islamic world. The Western world had not engaged fully with the Middle East to the extent that our intelligence sources were ready-made or fully developed. Our humint began to change after September 11, 2001, as Americans saw the need to expand our network. We are still making progress, but this administration has demonstrated an unwillingness to gather strategic information. If we are to have success in defeating Islamic jihad, our intelligence community must expand significantly. It is essential to the principle of nosce hostem(know your enemy), which will require time, resources, commitment, and, most of all, leadership.

STRATEGIC ALLIANCES: Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia all have demonstrated a willingness to fight Islamic jihad. Our relationships with these countries have been badly damaged. The U.S. foreign-policy establishment clumsily found a way to be on the wrong side of each Arab Spring event, demonstrating an astonishingly dogmatic fidelity to the Muslim Brotherhood. Our credibility in the region has been badly damaged. Nonetheless, these countries are poised to take on a good share of the fight. First, our relationship with each will need to be restored. Then a strategy will need to be developed with them at the table.

EGYPT: Egypt is key to ultimate global success against Islamic jihad. Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the world’s premier center of Islamic theology. It is where Obama gave his speech to the Muslim world in 2009, and where Egyptian president al-Sisi delivered his own address to the Muslim world. Sisi made clear his opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, to the imposition of sharia law, and to Islamic jihad. Sisi is positioned to become the modern-day Ataturk, someone who will bridge the gap between East and West. The United States needs to embrace Sisi and coordinate a strategy of diplomacy coupled with the right balance of kinetic activity.

KURDISTAN: The Kurds are loyal allies. At our encouragement, they rose up against Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm. They are likely the largest ethnic group in the world without a country. Millions of Kurds live in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. They have for years demonstrated their willingness to defend themselves. We should directly arm the Kurds with all the weapons and supplies they can use and send our special forces to them on the ground. The Kurds will not go into Baghdad or Damascus because they have no civilian population base there to support them. They will push ISIS out of Iraq, with the help of many Sunni Iraqis, and they will provide one jaw of the vise that will crush ISIS. An independent Kurdistan is likely to be the result. A perpetual ally replacing the ISIS caliphate would be strategically priceless.

SYRIA: Assad must go. Syria’s terror-fomenting alliance with Iran will breed ever more violence in the Mideast until a pro-Western government replaces the regime. However, Assad has a certain utility until ISIS is destroyed in Syria. He becomes the other jaw of the vise that, with the Kurds as the other, will crush ISIS. When that day comes, the U.S. may have a commander-in-chief who thinks strategically.

We are dealing with the complexities of a long and difficult history of conflict. Religious friction has been at the heart of conflicts in this region since the time of Mohammed. The conflict between Shia and Sunni is complex enough without the overlay of the history of conflict with Christianity.

Russian-sponsored regimes must be defeated. The wealth of and need for oil fuels the fight. Anti-Semitism, with notable exceptions, dominates the region of the Middle East. We are in an increasingly global conflict as jihadists use Western technology and exploit cultural vulnerabilities to invade through peaceful migration, recruit through the Internet, indoctrinate through their mosques and madrassas, and radicalize and direct Islamic jihad.

We can defeat this ideology because we are a superior civilization. We have the ability to reason, develop new technology, grow our economy, and control the events described above. Islamic jihad has no real capacity to compete. History is on our side. Culture is on our side. Economics are on our side. Military capability is on our side. We lack only a strategy and the will.

— Steve King, of Iowa’s fourth congressional district, is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

DHS: Calling Islamic Terrorism ‘Islamic’ Offends Muslims

sddefaultInvestors Business Daily, July 27, 2015:

PC: After a Muslim terrorist gunned down unarmed Marines in Tennessee, the head of Homeland Security revealed a policy to downplay any Islamic role in such terror. The feds are now blindfolding each other on the threat.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson refuses to call Islamic terror “Islamic,” arguing it’s “critical” to refrain from the label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.

In jaw-dropping remarks Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum, Johnson said the government will call such attacks “violent extremism” over “Islamic terrorism” out of respect for the Muslim community.

The policy explains why the U.S. prosecutor and lead FBI investigator in the Chattanooga case still insist on calling Mohammad Abdulazeez a “homegrown violent extremist,” though he blogged about his religious motivations for the attack, and he and his family attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson says that dismissing the religious dimension of the widening homegrown Islamic terror threat is part of a strategy to gain the “cooperation” of the Muslim community. He says that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere.”

Even the moderator was dumbfounded: “Isn’t government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?” “I could not disagree more,” Johnson retorted, arguing that Islam “is about peace.”

Earth to Johnson: You already are “nowhere.” The FBI director warns that he can’t keep up with all the homegrown Muslim terrorism cases cropping up now in all 50 states. Chattanooga is just the latest tragic example of the FBI and DHS missing plots in the pipeline.

And what fruit has pandering to local Muslim leaders produced? U.S. Attorney Bill Killian helped dedicate Abdulazeez’s mosque at its grand opening in 2012, even befriended its leader. Did Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga president Bassam Issa tip him off about Abdulazeez’s radicalization? Did he stop him from driving down the street and opening fire on two military sites?

An internal PowerPoint document shows that mosque leaders were busy invoking the names of radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders to raise money for the mosque, leaders like Sheikh Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill U.S. soldiers.

Instead of investigating the mosque and its leaders, the feds have stepped up their groveling.

The notion that Muslim leaders are helping us is totally bogus. In one Islamic State hot spot, Minneapolis, the local Muslim leaders are “cooperating” by demanding that the FBI release jailed IS terrorist suspects. In Boston, congregants of a mosque attended by the Boston marathon bombers are “cooperating” by holding fundraisers and rallies for convicted al-Qaida- and IS-tied terrorists.

Johnson, like his boss, are delusional: Their strategy of “winning hearts and minds” already has failed. So now it’s up to state and local authorities to take this fight from the feds and put down this growing insurgency themselves. They can start by passing a law that allows authorities to press legal action not just against terrorists but also any of their supporters in the Muslim community.

A Tennessee senator frustrated over the slow pace of the federal investigation in Chattanooga introduced a bill that passed implementing Andy’s Law, named after Pvt. Andrew Long, the Little Rock Army recruiter murdered by terrorist Abdulhakim Muhammad.

Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas have also passed the anti-terror law, and North Carolina is on the verge of doing so. Letting victims of terrorism seek damages from individuals and organizations that provide material support to terrorists will go a long way to filling the investigative void left by PC-paralyzed Washington.

The Guantanamo Non-Answer That Says a Whole Lot

gitmo2Center for Security Policy, by Ben Lerner, July 28, 2015:

Over the weekend, Lisa Monaco, Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, announced some details of the plan that the White House is presently crafting to shut down detainee/interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay.

The Hill reports:

…There are currently 116 detainees at the facility, and under the new plan some of them would be moved to the U.S.

Monaco said the plan was to transport the 52 detainees deemed eligible for transfer to countries with appropriate security arrangements.

According to Monaco, those who are deemed “too dangerous to release” would be subject to periodic review boards for transfer eligibility. In 10 instances, 13 review boards have already resulted in individuals being moved to the so-called “transfer bucket.”

“So we are going to whittle down this group to what I refer to as the ‘irreducible minimum’ who would have to be brought here,” Monaco said.

“That group, who either can’t be prosecuted, or are too dangerous to release, we are going to continue to evaluate their status.”

Under the law of war, Monaco said, those remaining after review would be transferred to U.S. military prisons or supermax security prisons, and be subjected either to prosecution in military commissions or Article III courts…

The White House is crafting this plan ostensibly in response to Sen. John McCain’s inclusion of provisions in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that require the Obama administration to submit a Gitmo closure plan to Congress for approval.  By contrast, the House does not open the door for Gitmo’s closure as the Senate does, and instead tightens existing restrictions on the transfer of Gitmo detainees.  The NDAA is presently undergoing conference negotiations, and it remains unclear whether McCain’s provisions on this subject will survive that process.

But the fate of these provisions in Congress may not matter.

The Hill observes further:

…When asked if the president would take executive action to transfer detainees to the U.S. if Congress did not work with the administration, Monaco twice avoided a direct answer, drawing a stir from the crowd…

It’s easy to see why Monaco is ducking such questions.  Look at the Obama administration’s record when it comes to working with Congress, and acting within the parameters of our constitutional system, on national security matters.

The Obama administration already previously cut Congress out of the loop in a high-profile Gitmo detainee release — there were no consultations with Congress regarding the transfer of five senior Taliban detainees held there in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, despite a clear statutory requirement that Congress receive thirty days notice of such transfers.  More recently, the administration took its ill-conceived Iran deal to the United Nations Security Council for a vote, before Congress has a chance to review it and vote to approve or disapprove, per the agreement hammered out in the Corker-Cardin legislation that Obama himself signed into law.

And who could forget Obama’s amnesty end-run around Congress and immigration laws in November of 2014, showing total disregard for Congress’s fundamental role in determining who gets admitted to the United States?

Make no mistake, President Obama is in full legacy mode – and one piece of his legacy may well be that he ran over Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the American people on his way to facilitating the release of some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.

Exit question: If 52 of these remaining detainees are perfectly good-to-go for transfer to other countries, why aren’t other countries jumping at the chance to take them in and help President Obama put that nasty George W. Bush-era stain of Gitmo to bed?  Could it be because of stuff like what happened in Belgium just last Friday?:

Belgium has arrested two former detainees of Guantanamo prison on charges of terrorism, saying the men are suspected of seeking recruits to fight in Syria, the federal prosecutor’s office said on Friday.

“The two men, who were held at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval base in Cuba between 2001 and 2005, were under police surveillance and were arrested in the early hours of Thursday in the Belgian city of Antwerp along with three others.

“”They were in a car, we believe waiting to commit a robbery,” said Jean-Pascal Thoreau, a spokesman for Belgium’s federal prosecutor…

The Lost Pilgrims of the Islamic State

A youth uses binoculars to look at Turkish army tanks holding positions, near the border with Syria, in the outskirts of the village of Elbeyi, east of the town of Kilis, in southeastern Turkey, Thursday, July 23, 2015.

A youth uses binoculars to look at Turkish army tanks holding positions, near the border with Syria, in the outskirts of the village of Elbeyi, east of the town of Kilis, in southeastern Turkey, Thursday, July 23, 2015.

Defense One, by Simon Cottee, July 26, 2015:

Like past pilgrimages to China and the Soviet Union, the migration of Westerners to the Islamic State group points to the tragic intersection of estrangement and utopian hope.

In Political Pilgrims, the sociologist Paul Hollander exposes and excoriates the mentality of a certain kind of Western intellectual, who, such is the depth of his estrangement or alienation from his own society, is predisposed to extend sympathy to virtually any opposing political system.

The book is about the travels of 20th-century Western intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, and how these political travelers were able to find in such repressive countries a model of “the good society” in which they could invest their brightest hopes. Hollander documents in relentless and mortifying detail how this utopian impulse, driven by a deep discontent with their own societies, led them to deny or excuse the myriad moral defects of the places they visited.

But the significance of Political Pilgrims extends far beyond its immediate subject matter, and its insights may help to illuminate the mentality of that most recent and disconcerting set of pilgrims: namely, the Western migrants to the Islamic State, whose estrangement from their own societies can prime them to idealize the so-called Islamic State and overlook or justify its terrible human-rights abuses.

It is estimated that around 4,000 people have left their homes in the West to migrate to ISIS. Many have become jihadist fighters in the apparent hope of achieving martyrdom. A significant number—over 550 women—seem to have gone to become mothers and raise the next generation of jihadist “lions.” Some have left to put their medical expertise to use, and others to help in whatever capacity they can. Their motives are as mixed as their backgrounds. Indeed, the striking fact about these new pilgrims is that they don’t fit any single profile. They represent a broad spectrum of humanity, from former rappers and gangbangers to grandparents and gifted students.

On the face of it, they share little in common with the rarefied intellectuals ofPolitical Pilgrims. Yet their estrangement from Western society and the force of their belief in an alternative system far superior to it, evidenced in interviews they have given and other forms of personal testimony, suggest that they share certain discontents and susceptibilities with the subjects of Hollander’s study.

Among the countless examples of folly cited by Hollander is Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s tome Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?, in which the Soviet penal system is praised for—wait for it—its progressive spirit. The second edition of this book, from which, as the historian Robert Conquest noted, “the question mark was triumphantly removed,” was published in 1937—“at precisely the time,” Conquest observed, that “the regime was in its worst phase of gloomy, all-embracing terror.”

How could the Webbs and others like them have gotten it so wrong? They were clearly foolish, but they were not stupid. Indeed, writes Hollander, many of the intellectuals in his survey were widely revered for their fierce intelligence and lively skepticism. Hollander contends instead that they wanted to be deceived about the failures and depredations of the societies they visited. And this, he theorizes, was in turn because, psychologically, they needed to believe in the existence of a perfect social system that not only exemplified their deepest ideals but also gave voice to their deepest misgivings about their own societies.

“Wishful thinking,” the sociologist Karl Mannheim wrote, “has always figured in human affairs. When the imagination finds no satisfaction in existing reality, it seeks refuge in wishfully constructed places and periods.” Hollander approvingly reproduces this quote in his introduction to Political Pilgrims, and one of the great merits of his book is the clarity and force with which it shows how desire can supersede and subvert critical thinking.

The recent migrations to ISIS, just like the political pilgrimages before them, are yet further testimony to the power of wishful thinking and how desire can trump reason.

Earlier this month, it was reported that a family of 12 from Luton, England—including, according to the BBC, “a baby and two grandparents”—had made the journey to Syria. It was the second family believed to have left the United Kingdom for the Islamic State since May. Was the family coerced or, as one relative has suggested, manipulated into going to Syria? Were they the victims of some collective psychosis? Not a chance, if a press release purportedly from the family is to be credited. The BBC acquired the statement from an individual claiming to be an Islamic State fighter, though the media organization could not verify its authenticity.

“None of us were forced against our will,” it said, describing a land “free from the corruption and oppression of man-made law … in which a Muslim doesn’t feel oppression when practicing their religion. In which a parent doesn’t feel the worry of losing their child to the immorality of society. In which the sick and elderly do not wait in agony, tolerating the partiality of race or social class.” It also derisively alluded to the “so-called freedom and democracy” of Western states.

The statement, as the scholar Shiraz Maher pointed out, clearly serves a propagandistic purpose, and it could well be a fabrication. But it also accurately reflects the sentiments expressed by other Western migrants who have made the journey to Syria, and who in their social-media postings have mocked the notion that they have been “brainwashed” into joining ISIS. Furthermore, it distills two intimately connected themes that are essential for understanding the mentality of the Western migrants: estrangement and utopian hope.

[I]SIS’s caliphate project, because it offers a bracing utopian alternative to Western secular society, speaks directly to those who feel their lives are worthless, spiritually corrupted, empty, boring, or devoid of purpose and significance, and who see no value in their own societies. It promises, in short, salvation and ultimate meaning through total commitment to a sacred cause. “I don’t think there’s anything better than living in the land of Khilafah,” or caliphate, said one British jihadist in a video, “Eid Greetings from the Land of the Khilafah,” released last summer by ISIS’s media arm. “You’re not living under oppression. … You’re not living under kuffar [unbelievers]. … We don’t need any democracy. … All we need is shariah.”

Similar themes come out strongly in a recent report on female Western migrants. Based on the social-media postings of self-identified migrants apparently within ISIS-controlled territory, the authors found that estrangement from Western society and anger at perceived injustices against Muslims worldwide, together with a strong sense of religious calling and an unwavering faith in the rectitude of the newly emerging caliphate, form the basis for why these women journey to ISIS.

From this, it is clear that their departures owe as much to perceived corruption and oppression at home as to a desire to see in the Islamic State a utopian society free of any such secular perversions. This may also explain how, despite all the evidence, Western migrants to the caliphate can ignore or discount the mountain of incriminating evidence against ISIS, and risk everything to join it.

In Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron just this week introduced a counterterrorism strategy as part of what he called “the struggle of our generation,” debate over ISIS and its recruitment methods has become unhelpfully polarized. On the one side are those, including British officials, who portrayISIS recruits as “vulnerable” or impressionable youth who, despite their murderous intentions or actions, are actually victimsOn the other side are those, often academics and human-rights activists, who similarly argue thatISIS recruits are victims, but of oppressive government policies and actions rather than sinister jihadist groomers. The problem with both lines of argument is that they deny the agency of those who join ISIS, and obscure the religious idealism that motivates them.

One of the biggest challenges associated with countermessaging efforts against ISIS is how to prompt would-be migrants to rethink their favorable perceptions about the group and its self-proclaimed state. This is less a problem of finding the “right” narrative than of reconfiguring individual human desire, because it is possible that, at some deep psychological level, would-be migrants to ISIS want to be deceived about its widely reported depredations. As Christina Nemr, a former U.S. counterterrorism advisor, recently observed, people “push ‘threatening information’ away in favor of information that confirms their own beliefs.”

It is hard enough to sway those who have yet to make up their minds about ISIS— the so-called “fence-sitters.” But it is monumentally harder to sway those who, because of their idealism and estrangement from their own societies, want or need to see the best in ISIS

Simon Cottee is a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Kent. He is the author of the forthcoming book The Apostates: When Muslims Leave Islam.

Also see:

Domestic terrorism’s link to international terrorism

 

mohabdThe Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, July 25, 2015:

There is a serious problem the way we categorize terrorism in the post-9/11 world. The separation between domestic terrorism and international terrorism breaks down very rapidly–there is an international connection to all the past jihadist attacks in the West. My interview on the John Batchelor radio show (9 minutes) regarding the tragedy in Chattanooga, TN.

Click here to go to the audio.

Information about the Chattanooga Shooter is Disappearing from the Internet

Abdulazeez-delete-WMInsite Blog, by Rita Katz, July 23, 2015:

A week after Chattanooga shooter Mohammad Abdulazeez’s attack, very little is known about his motives, path to radicalization, and network of affiliations. Immediately after the attack, Islamic State (IS) fighters and supporters hailed Abdulazeez as a “soldier of the Islamic State,” but no official messages from IS claiming the attack have yet been made. This silence is noteworthy considering the case of the shooting in Garland, Texas: Not only did IS fighter Junaid Hussain bluntly indicate his connection to this attack, but in less than two days, IS officially announced the shooters to be “two soldiers from the soldiers of the Caliphate.”

So why all the confusion surrounding Abdulazeez?

Because he was prepared. Abdulazeez did what jihadists are asked to do prior to execution of their attacks: delete important information that could provide insight into their networks. Jihadi recruiters often advise prospects to “delete your social network accounts or stay inactive,” as well as “all the nasheed [Islamic chants], videos, pictures, messages” prior to their attacks or migration to jihad.

For this reason, some have claimed that Abdulazeez didn’t maintain a high profile on social media. However, Abdulazeez maintained accounts on various social media sites, including at least two on Facebook as well as others on WordPress, Photobucket, Daily Motion, YouTube, and other platforms.

Abdulazeez’s social media information purge has proven effective. Despite all these accounts belonging to him, almost nothing is known about him. Thus far, we know almost exclusively what Abdulazeez wanted us to know.

A blog left behind by Abdulazeez illustrated his calculated social media presence. Just three days before the shooting, he posted two entries foreshadowing his coming attack, stating that “life is short and bitter” and that Muslims should not let “the opportunity to submit to allah…pass you by.”

One of his Facebook accounts, under the name, “Mohammed AbduAzeez,” was taken down—most likely by him to prevent investigators and others from learning about his social life and connections. The second Facebook account, though not taken down, showed no posts.

Small traces of information remaining on these pages may still provide some valuable insights into Abdulazeez’s interests, though. His second Facebook account showed only one friend: a user who also claimed to live in Chattanooga, have originated from Syria’s Daraa governorate, and worked for the pro-rebel activist news organization, Shaam News Network (SNN).

Still, finding online discussions by him or about him is a challenge. Even others who appear to have known him continue to remove comments from their social media accounts. The day after the shooting, Mazzen Haj Ali, an alleged Palestinian in Nablus and Facebook friend of Abdulazeez’s father, shared a news video about the shooting and added a short eulogy in Arabic:

May Allah have mercy on you and grant you paradise.

and may Allah not forgive anyone who talks badly about you…

Muhammed Youseff AbdulAzeed Haj Ali

b2ap3_medium_FB-postThe post was liked 49 times, with dozen users also giving well wishes to Abdulazeez. One user wrote: “Whoever will talk badly about him is a Jew,” while another, also from Nablus, wrote:

By Allah, O Mazen, I became one of those people; I am intending to be Da’ish [IS] for their presence. May Allah protect [conceal – cover] it, and Allah is Higher and knows best than all the people.

Notable is that the user, Mazzen Ali Haj, shares the same last name as Abdulazeez’s uncle, Asaad Ibrahim Abdulazeez Haj Ali, who hosted Abdulazeez on his last visit to Jordan. The uncle had been detained by Jordanian authorities amid investigations.

However, this post—the first of any significance that I was able to find by his family and/or associates—was deleted 17 hours after it was made. Thus, yet another set of potentially informative comments and likes disappeared, creating another empty space to the puzzle. 

Read more

Also see:

 

Andy’s Law Sponsor in Tennessee Calls for Action in Wake of Jihadi Attack

chattanooga-usmc-jihad2Center for Security Policy, by Christopher Holton, July 22, 2015:

During the past legislative session, Representative Judd Matheny and Senator Bill Ketron of Tennessee authored important state-level counterterrorism legislation known as “Andy’s Law.”

Andy’s Law, which has also passed in Arkansas, Kansas and Louisiana, strengthens state-level terrorism and material support for terrorism statutes, arming state and local law enforcement with vital legal tools as they become the tip of the spear in the war against Jihad. Andy’s Law also creates a civil legal cause of action, empowering victims of terrorism to seek damages from individuals and organizations that provide material support to those who commit acts of terrorism.

Andy’s Law was inspired by the federal government’s reluctance to call acts of terrorism what they are and refusal to prosecute those who commit such acts under federal terrorism statutes. This was portrayed vividly in the movie, “Losing Our Sons.”

As this is being written, Andy’s Law has passed the House of Representatives in North Carolina and awaits action in the Senate Judiciary Committee I this week.

Representative Matheny of Tennessee issued a press release this week alerting Tennesseans to Andy’s Law. The text of that press release appears below:

7/18/15

For immediate release

From the Office of Tennessee State Representative Judd Matheny

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/house/members/h47.html

For business hours interview request (8am-5pm, M-F cst) please call 615-741-7448.

For an off hours interview request, please text 615-390-8314.

Enough is Enough

I extend my sincerest condolences to the families of our servicemen whose lives were taken in a horrific act of planned terrorism. Having served both in the military and as a law enforcement officer in Tennessee, I have a deep and abiding gratitude and respect for anyone who chooses to serve in uniform.

Acts of terrorism are intended to make us feel powerless to respond. Tennessee has again witnessed the reality that our state is not immune from these acts of cowardice.

We first learned this lesson in 2009 when Carlos Bledsoe, a Tennessee State University student from Memphis, shot and killed Pvt. Andrew Long at the Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting center. With further investigation, we learned that between his days as a student and the day he became a murderer, Carlos began attending meetings at the Nashville Islamic Center, changed his name to Abdulhakim Mohammed, and spent several months in Yemen, a known terrorist training location.

It is now clear that Carlos Bledsoe’s murderous actions were not a random act or as often excused, that of a “lone wolf”. In response to those findings and to possibly stop future Carlos Bledsoes, Senator Bill Ketron and I led the General Assembly in passing a law in 2011, enhancing the criminal punishment for acts of terrorism, including jihadi terrorism, by both the perpetrators and the supporters of the violence.

Earlier this year, we realized that more needed to be done. We passed another law, known familiarly as “Andy’s Law”, named for Pvt. Andrew Long, the soldier Carlos Bledsoe murdered. This new law addresses the very situation we are now facing in Chattanooga. While the jihadist responsible for the murders is dead and cannot be prosecuted, under this new law, all individuals and all organizations who recruited, assisted, incited, or in any way supported Mohammed Youssef Abdulazeez in his jihad, are subject to vastly more severe civil and criminal penalties on the state level.

Now is the time to put “Andy’s Law” into action to prosecute the planned and calculated violence in Chattanooga.

Jihadi terrorism is neither a random act nor a result of “lone wolf” perpetrators. We must use every option that we now have and those that we will devise in the future to protect ourselves from the simmering violence that is brewing in Tennessee’s communities.

Most of our state’s top leadership have skirted around the issues of security from terrorism in Tennessee. We can no longer ignore the security implications hidden in legal immigration issues, federal threats to free speech, refugee resettlement issues, indirect support of the Obama administration’s blind eye to burgeoning illegal immigrant traffic, and attempts to pass state laws equalizing rights and state benefits for illegal inhabitants in Tennessee to those of legal inhabitants.

Tomi Lahren & Former Navy SEAL & FBI Special Agent Call Out Radical Islam

TomiLahren

Published on Jul 21, 2015 by On Point with Tomi Lahren

From Chattanooga to the Middle East. Radical Islam is here. The question is, who has the guts to call it out. Former Navy SEAL and FBI Special Agent Jonathan Gilliam and I will.

http://www.oann.com/onpoint/

Deport the Abdulazeez Family

2A9869A800000578-3165270-Family_Muhammad_Youssef_Abdulazeez_back_row_in_the_orange_shirt_-a-43_1437145299056Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, July 22, 2015:

Before and after 9/11, the FBI took a hard look at Youssef Abdulazeez because he had apparently donated money to Hamas through a front group. He went on a watch list. He went off the watch list. The FBI forgot about him until his son, Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez, went on a Jihadist killing spree in Chattanooga.

Just like the Tsarnaev terrorists, the media is digging into the background of this dysfunctional Muslim family. We have learned that Youssef Abdulazeez liked to beat and rape his wife. He even wanted to get a second wife to rape and beat, as permitted “under Islamic law… in the parties’ native State of Palestine.” He also included some of his kids in his Koran-approved domestic abuse.

The family is issuing statements claiming that their son, like every Muslim terrorist ever, was suffering from “depression” and that Islam is a peaceful religion. But the father’s donations to Hamas and the rants about America, Israel and Europe on his family’s social media tell a very different story.

The only obvious conclusion from all this is that the Abdulazeez family, like the Tsarnaevs, should never have been allowed into this country. And after 9/11, they should not have been allowed to stay.

Their history of domestic abuse and terrorism is abnormal by American standards, but normal by Muslim ones. The Abdulazeez family’s native Jordan has unprecedentedly high levels of support for Al Qaeda and ISIS. Honor killings of women continue to have support from inside the political system.

Among Palestinian Muslims, like the Abdulazeez family, as many as 1 in 4 support ISIS.  Palestinians who are displaced in their Jordanian homeland tend to affiliate with Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood which supports their cause, much as they do in Gaza where Hamas is the local Muslim Brotherhood franchise. All that made Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez into an even bigger threat to Americans.

Not only shouldn’t Mohammod Youssef Abdulazeez have been working at a nuclear power plant, he should never have been in this country. The Chattanooga massacre did not have to happen.

Palestinian Muslims are indoctrinated in terrorism to a degree exceeding even ordinary Muslims. Their immigrants, first and second generation, who have committed acts of terrorism, include Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood in support of the Taliban, Mohammed Salameh, Ahmed Ajaj and Nidal Ayyad who took part in the bombing of the World Trade Center and Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, who shot seven people on top of the Empire State Building.

Of the six deadliest Muslim terror attacks against Americans, half involved Palestinian Arabs.

Muslim immigration is already a bad risk. Palestinian Muslim immigration is a bad risk even by the standards of bad risks. Muslim terrorist attacks in America have been disproportionately carried out by Egyptians, Pakistanis, Saudis and Palestinians. The latter are disproportionately involved in terrorism despite being part of a small population because they are governed by PLO and Hamas terrorists.

The Palestinian Muslims are a fake nationality groomed to be terrorists; an artificial group invested with no other identity except terrorism, no history except bombings and no future except more bloodshed.

After Chattanooga we can either waste more time puzzling through the dysfunctional, and yet entirely normal relationships of the Abdulazeez family, or we can end further immigration by a group from a place where honor killings and terrorism are normative. The social, political and religious problems of the Abdulazeez family and the Tsarnaev family are not our problems. We foolishly made them our problem by taking them in. And it doesn’t take reforming the whole Muslim world to get rid of them.

Both the Tsarnaev and the Abdulazeez families may not have spent every waking moment plotting to kill Americans, but they distinctly disliked us. No matter how “ordinary” their sons seemed, how many parties they attended and, how many of their American friends saw nothing wrong with them, they were always ticking time bombs waiting for the right confluence of theology and anger to explode.

The people of Boston and Chattanooga unknowingly lived with these ticking time bombs. Ticking time bombs just like them are all around us; Muslim families with scowling fathers, timid mothers, a history of failed businesses, growing resentment toward the infidel, sons who drift through life despite good schools and numerous opportunities until they find their focus around the black flag of the Jihad.

Americans should not have to live with these ticking time bombs. We should not be spending a fortune on failed efforts to “deradicalize” people whose degree of radicalism we wouldn’t have to worry about if we weren’t wrongly allowing them into this country.

Also see:

UK PM Cameron Delivers Landmark Speech on Islamism

Islamist-extremism-Dave-HPClarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, July 20, 2015:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a landmark speech yesterday on Islamist extremism, naming, for the first time, the root cause behind international terrorism.

He told the audience at a school in Birmingham, “This is what we face – a radical ideology – that is not just subversive, but can seem exciting; one that has often sucked people in from non-violence to violence; one that is overpowering moderate voices within the debate and one which can gain traction because of issues of identity and failures of integration.”

This is the first time a Western leader has names Islamist extremism specifically as the problem and terrorism merely as a symptom of the ideology.

He said, “No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalization. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.”

These include groups like the Egypian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Nazi sympathizer Hassan al-Banna, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Pakistani-based Jamaat e-Islami, all of which peddle a softIslamism which shares the goals of groups like the Islamci State (ISIS) but differ in methodology.

In the USA, Muslim Brotherhood front groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) all play the part of non-violent extremist groups.

All of these organizations condemn the Islamic State, but as Cameron noted, so does Al-Qaeda. “We can’t let the bar sink to that level,” he stated. “Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organization cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

He attacked the false narrative that grievances are the root cause of Islamist extremism, correctly noting that “it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.”

Although he acknowledged that British and Western foreign policy isn’t perfect and that poverty in Muslim communities is an issue, he correctly highlighted that “We could deal with all these issues – and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism.”

The Prime Minister stated, “We must be clear. The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.”

Cameron also addressed the problem of integration of Muslim in the UK, which fuels Islamist extremism. “We have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds,” he said.

This is particularly acute in some Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets, where disgraced ex-mayor Lutfur Rahman operated, in the Prime Minister’s words, with “political corruption on an epic scale, with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century.”

But the Prime Minister broadened the scope of the government’s counter-extremism strategy to tackle all the interrelated issues that form a part and parcel of the Islamist ideology. He highlighted the pervasive anti-Semitism which runs through the Islamist ideology and called out people who only partially oppose Islamism.

He spoke about sharia law courts in the UK, the role of non-violent hate preachers like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, female genital mutilation, the Trojan Horse scandal (where Islamists conspired to take over British schools) and the child sex-abuse scandal in Rotherham (in which over 1,600 girls were systematically raped over a 10-year period by Pakistani grooming gangs).

He also called out the recalcitrance of authorities who have been slow to act to curb extremism due to fears of being called racist.

Cameron bluntly said, “This has got to stop.”

Critically, he said, “Simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work, because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. Now it is an exercise in futility to deny that.”

Importantly, he said that Islam is not the issue, rather, this extremist ideology which identifies itself as the only legitimate arbiter of Islam is the issue.

“Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism,” he stated.

Clarion Project has covered all of these issues in the past and long stressed the interconnected nature of the ideology, terrorisim, anti-Semitism, abuse of women and children and the like. We also advocate the same solution proposed by Cameron, who said, “We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.”

Clarion has conducted many interviews with Muslim (and non-Muslim) human rights activists who are fighting for reform in Muslim communities.

We have also covered the work of womens rights activists who are fighting for equal rights in Muslim communities worldwide. Our latest film, Honor Diaries, focussed on women’s rights activists from communities where honor violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are rampant.

We also catalogue progressive Muslim organizations whose work has a positive impact fighting for human rights and against the Islamist ideology.

Indeed, one of these groups, the Quilliam Foundation, was influential in the writing of the Prime Minister’s speech and has been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

Co-Founder of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz, himself formerly a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said of the speech, “The Prime Minister made a giant leap for UK counter-extremism.”

The speech is the precursor to the unveiling of the British government’s Counter-Extremism Policy in the autumn.

The implementation of the policies outlined in the speech can only advance the cause of human rights. Indeed, the speech represents a milestone in the fight against Islamist extremism.

Read the full text of the speech.

Also see:

New Developments in Chattanooga Terror Attack As Killer’s Family, Media Pushes ‘Loon Wolf’ Narrative

untitled-313PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 21, 2015:

On Sunday I reviewed the reported evidence here at PJ Media on what we knew about Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the killer who gunned down four Marines and one Navy sailor in Chattanooga last Thursday as both investigators and the media puzzled over his possible motive.

For many in the media, the motive remains elusive:

chattanooga mystery

And as our friends at the Washington Free Beacon have chronicled, this is a point that the media is at great pains to let you know.

But the killer’s family has given the media the narrative they’ve been searching for: Abdulazeez was mentally ill, depressed, drug addled, a troubled youth with financial debts.

This was pushed out yesterday by ABC News after the family presented the killer’s diary:

Four days after the shooting, the FBI has not found any connection to overseas terrorist groups, but Mohammod Abdulazeez’s diary says that as far back as 2013, he wrote about having suicidal thoughts and “becoming a martyr” after losing his job due to his drug use, both prescription and non-prescription drugs, the family representative said.

In a downward spiral, Abdulazeez would abuse sleeping pills, opioids, painkillers and marijuana, along with alcohol, the representative said.

Most recently, the 24-year-old was having problems dealing with a 12 hour overnight shift, and had to take sleeping pills, according to the representative. The young man was also thousands of dollars in debt and considering filing for bankruptcy.

Three months before the shooting, Abdulazeez was arrested on April 20 — a day celebrated annually by marijuana users — and charged with drunk driving. The arresting officer noted a smell of marijuana in the car.

But wait a second. Did they just say that going back to 2013, he wrote about “becoming a martyr,” which ABC News quickly translates into him having “suicidal thoughts”?

Well, that’s one way to spin it, I guess.

They also quickly leap over this important point:

The gunman who killed five American troops in a Chattanooga shooting spree last week did online research for militant Islamist “guidance” on committing violence that he may have believed would wipe away in the afterlife his sins on earth including drug and alcohol abuse, an arrest and a lost job, officials said on Monday.

The Internet searches were discovered on electronic devices such as his smartphone analyzed over the weekend by the FBI Lab in Quantico, Virginia, several counter-terrorism officials confirmed to ABC News.

So since 2013 he had written about “becoming a martyr,” and also he had conducted online research for Islamic “guidance” for committing violence.

But it wasn’t just any “guidance” he sought, but the teachings of Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who the U.S. killed in a drone strike in September 2011, the New York Timesreports:

The authorities who were examining Mr. Abdulazeez’s computer found that he had viewed material connected to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was killed in Yemen by an American drone strike in 2011, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

And yet that tidbit was also buried by the New York Times underneath the family’s claims of mental illness, clinical depression, drug use, financial problems, etc.

It is important to note that the only source for these claims are the killer’s family. And many are quick to buy the narrative they’re peddling:

#loonwolf

Reuters also reports that in addition to trips that Abdulazeez had recently taken to both Jordan and Yemen, he had also made a mysterious trip to Qatar:

The man suspected of killing five members of the U.S. military in Tennessee last week was in Qatar at least once during a 2014 trip to the Middle East, according to two U.S. government sources who said reasons for the stopover were still unknown.

U.S. investigators are trying to piece together Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez’s travels to the region to see if he was radicalized by a militant group such as Islamic State. But they have no evidence he was in contact with militant groups or individuals.

On a seven-month trip to visit family in Jordan, it is uncertain how long he may have spent in the Qatari capital, a political crossroads in the region. Qatar is home to jihadist supporters as well as a U.S. air base…

Abdulazeez returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene, according to two friends who had known him since elementary school.

Abdulazeez went to the Middle East in 2010 and visited several countries, one of his friends told Reuters. He then went to Jordan in 2014 to work for his uncle, and lived with his uncle and his grandparents there, he said. Both friends spoke with Reuters on condition they not be named because they feared a backlash.

The killer’s family assured ABC News that his trip had nothing to do with his radicalization:

A seven-month trip to Jordan last year was an effort to “get him away from bad influences in the U.S.,” not part of a path to radicalization, the family told agents.

And yet his friends told a different story about his change in behavior after returning from his recent travels:

Abdulazeez’s friends said he had returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene.

He later purchased three assault rifles on an online marketplace and used them for target practice, the friends said.

“That trip was eye-opening for him. He learned a lot about the traditions and culture of the Middle East,” said the close friend who received the text message.

Abdulazeez was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza and the civil war in Syria, he said. “He felt Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia were not doing enough to help, and that they were heavily influenced by the United States.”

Another friend said, “He had always talked about it, but I’d say his level of understanding and awareness really rose after he came back.”

And immediately upon his return he began purchasing long guns:

According to Abdulazeez’s friends, he purchased three guns on Armslist.com after returning from Jordan, including an AK-74, an AR-15, and a Saiga 12. They said he also owned 9mm and .22-caliber handguns.

So just as a matter of review for those still searching for motive in Abdulazeez’s killings last week, we have evidence that:

But his motive is a complete mystery that we may never know, say officials close to the investigation.

Conversely we have his family and their anonymous representative pushing mental illness, depression, drug use and financial pressures as motive.

Again, all of the media reporting pushing this narrative is sourced to the family and their representatives, or officials who had talked to the family. Of course, the family would have no ulterior motive floating this story line at all.

And then there’s this from last night:

search

No doubt investigators will continue to piece together the events that led to this horrific terror attack. Meanwhile, none of us should be surprised as the media grinds its preferred narrative.

***

Also see:

Why Won’t GOP Chairman Mention ‘Islamic Terror’ in New Bill?

MikeMcCaulConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 20, 2015:

Here’s the good news: congressional Republicans finally have a bill to address the homegrown terror threat.

The bad news?  It has nothing to do with combating homegrown Islamic terror, and in fact, is a verbatim reflection of this Administration’s agenda to expunge any mention of Islam from the growing terror threat.

Worse, this effort will likely enlist terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as CAIR – the unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism trial in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial – in the effort to combat “extremism.”

Last week, the House Committee on Homeland Security, led by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) passed the Countering Violent Extremism Act of 2015 out of committee by voice vote.  This legislation would create a new $40 million government agency within the Department of Homeland Security – the Office for Countering Violent Extremism – and would be tasked with working across the federal government and throughout communities to develop strategies and data concerning “violent extremism.”

Freeze frame for a moment.

Even if you’ve never heard of the term “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) and its broader agenda before reading this article, you should be highly skeptical.  The fact that a Republican chairman is promoting a bill that does not contain a single reference to “Islamic” terrorism should at a minimum mystify even the most moderate Republican, and more rightfully so anger those who realize Islamic radicals are by far the number one domestic terrorism threat.  The fact this bill creates a new agency during the Obama presidency with broad and vague powers to combat generic “extremists” should raise goose bumps on any conservative’s patriotic neck. Especially given reports as recent as February of this year that the Department of Homeland Security considers “right wing” groups to be a greater threat than Islamic terror.

Now take a trip down memory lane to mid-February when the White House conducted a summit on…you guessed it: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE).  Not only did this summit abjure any effort to focus on Islamic terror, the White House invited the very Islamic extremist foxes to guard the hen house.  As Breitbart reported at the time, several leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston, the mosque that has radicalized numerous terrorists including the Boston bombers, were invited to the summit. These individuals have actually persecuted moderate Muslims for cooperating with federal authorities to root out terrorists.  The summit also featured Muslim extremists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Quite an Orwellian two-day fest, indeed.

But the effort of our federal government to seamlessly parlay the threat of Islamic terror into a coined term “countering violent extremism,” runs much deeper than this year’s pro-Islamic summit at the White House.  The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a California-based Islamic group with ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, has worked with government officials over the past decade to expunge all mention of Islamic terror from official reports assessing terrorism threats.  Regarding ties to the MB, Andy McCarthy explains the connection in-depth. For starters, MPAC was founded by disciples of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah, and following 9/11, MPAC executive director defended Hezbollah and accused Israel of being complicit in the attacks. No wonder the Obama Administration refuses to mention the term or any variation of “Islamic radicals.”   In his must-read magnum opus Catastrophic Failure, former intelligence officer Stephen Coughlin presents in painstaking detail how these subversive Islamic groups have succeeded in censoring all mention of Islamic terror from the federal government’s lexicon.

CVE agenda chart

In chapter 7 of the book, Coughlin shows how the bipartisan 9/11 Commission made reference to Muslims and Islam hundreds of times while barely using the terms “violent extremism.”  In 2007, MPAC criticized the language of the 9/11 Commision’s references to Islamic terrorism and recommended that the government “find another terminology.”  Not surprisingly, more recent intelligence reports and terror threat assessments have not mentioned the word Islam even once – just like the McCaul bill.  Coughlin notes that DHS’s Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division has taken the lead on pushing the “CVE” agenda when it published its training and guidance manual on CVE in 2011.  The manual instructs the bureaucrats to use examples to “demonstrate that terrorists and violent extremists vary in ethnicity, race, gender, and religion.”

Unfortunately, Rep. McCaul has a history of coddling CAIR’s leadership in his committee work on Homeland Security, as illustrated by this picture of him with their representatives as first reported by Breitbart.  This is also not the first time McCaul has exhibited poor judgement in concocting a bill that advances Obama’s dangerous agenda while selling it as a conservative solution. Earlier this year he used his committee to promote a Trojan horse border bill that weakened current law but effectively adopted Obama’s premise about the nature of the border crisis.  Last year, he purged a number of experienced immigration and counter-terrorism staffers from the committee, leaving a huge gap in savvy and institutional knowledge as it relates to issues like the CVE agenda.

Conservative members of the House need to educate themselves quickly on the broader implications of this bill and where it is coming from.  They must either block the bill or demand amendments that will actually align the substance of the bill with the plain language of the title.  The best way to do this would be by designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and freezing its assets.  There is no better way to “counter violent extremism” than by stopping the MB from engaging in subversion and funding radical mosques.

It’s bad enough Republicans have no desire to stop Obama’s dangerous fundamental transformation of our country.  Can they at least not offer to step on the gas pedal for him?

Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.   

Also see:

Watch This TV Host SCHOOL Obama… Says What We’re ALL Thinking

CKUoDT5VEAEQYymAllen B. West,  written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor on July 19, 2015:

In just over two minutes, this young woman sums up perfectly what we’ve all been thinking and saying for some time now about all that’s wrong with our national discussion and focus. All that, sadly, was brought into high relief with last week’s killing, on American soil, of four Marines and one U.S Navy sailor at the hands of an Islamic terrorist.

In closing out yesterday’s “On Point with Tomi Lahren” show, host Tomi Lahren absolutely and eloquently SCHOOLS President Obama and the left for misguided priorities and distractions — from climate change and wage inequality to gay marriage, “white racism” and more.

Ms. Lahren, who herself comes from a family of Marines, calls out radical Islam — now a reality at home — as the real problem in no uncertain terms. It’s two minutes well worth watching — and sharing.

Ms. Lahren’s clearly had enough of President Obama’s lack of strategy for dealing with the real and present threat, now on our own shores, of radical Islam. She channels so many of us in closing:

I’ve had it with this failed strategy, this halfway, half-baked, tiptoe, be-friendly-to-jihadis mentality pushed by this administration.

A Time To Confront Our Enemies At Home

obama (1)Frontpage, by David Horowitz, Daniel Greenfield, July 20, 2015:

The killing of five unarmed military servicemen at two military recruiting centers is an omen and a warning: The “war on terror” has come home.

Thanks to Obama’s retreat from Iraq and the Middle East, the jihad waged by Islamic terrorists is now being fought on American soil, instead of on a battlefront in Fallujah and Anbar. Thanks to the borders Obama has destroyed and the tens of thousands of legal immigrants the White House has decided to import from terrorist regions, the enemy is among us. Thanks to Obama’s denial that we are at war at all, the Islamic jihad is now being waged in Chattanooga and Fort Hood, the fly over country that liberals and progressives have always despised.

This is not the first time that a military recruiting office in the South was attacked by a Muslim terrorist. In 2009 – Obama’s first year in office – Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire on a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, under orders from Al Qaeda in Yemen, and killed Private William Long.

It was the shot that should have been heard around the country but wasn’t, because America’s Commander-in-Chief told us that Muhammad was a lone crazed assassin, not a vanguard Islamic soldier. According to Obama, there was no war with Islamic fanatics. The fanatic himself rejected the lie.  “This is not the first attack, and won’t be the last,” Muhammad warned. “I’m just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one will be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

The next one—the attack this time– was certainly deadlier than his. Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer’s attack in Chattanooga copied Muhammad’s tactic of opening fire from a car on a recruiting center before driving on to the next target. In 2009 Abdulhakim Muhammad was not charged with terrorism. The Commander-in-Chief called him “a lone gunman” and a pliant media dutifully dismissed his military mission as a product of personal depression and mental instability rather than an act of service to Allah’s war.

Barack Obama’s first year in office was also the year of the Fort Hood massacre, when a self-declared Islamist warrior, shouting “Allahu Ahkbar,” gunned down 13 American soldiers – also unarmed by order of their government. The Obama administration officially labeled his act of war “workplace violence” and refused to identify the enemy or take steps to defend his targets.

Four unarmed Marines and an unarmed sailor died this week because of the refusal of our Commander-in-Chief to learn from the 2009 attacks or prepare for the next. Instead he covered it up with psychobabble, and continued to deny our servicemen the weapons that could have saved their lives. Obama’s strategy in this war to destroy us, target by target, is to lull Americans into believing that there is no war, that Islamic terrorists are “not Islamic,” and that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The result of Obama’s denial is that the war has come home and we are fighting blind in our own country with our hands tied behind our backs.

Every Muslim attack in the last decades has been made possible because the apologists for terrorism among us have done everything they could to deny the plain and obvious, to tie the hands of our first responders, and to make the tasks of our would be destroyers that much easier. While the Muhammads and Mohammads kill Americans in a holy war for Allah, the liberal apologists for Islamic fanatics wage a holy war against their critics. They have been doing this since 9/11, beginning with President Bush. For eight years the Bush administration kept our Islamic enemies on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq but thanks to the appeasement of Obama and the Democrats, they have finally succeeded in shifting the terror front from Tikrit to Tennessee.

Our military cannot defend our shores against the Islamic holy war when their commander-in-chief will not allow it. By withdrawing from Iraq and tying the military’s hands, Obama has allowed the homeland to become a target. By abandoning the Iraqis to the mercies of the mullahs, he has created chaos and a vacuum in the region that stretches from Afghanistan to the Levant. The results are horrific: hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims slaughtered by ISIS with barely a mention from the Obama White House, let alone a response; two million Christian and Muslim refugees driven from their homes by fear of crucifixion and beheading, murder and rape; ISIS savagery instantiated in an “Islamic State.” Obama’s response? “The Islamic State is not Islamic.”

Obama is the leader of America’s fifth column – the domestic abettors of America’s destroyers. The column itself is the danger we face. Even as the ashes of 9/11 smoldered, Saudis and Kuwaitis were rushing to buy up American law firms and PR outfits to defend the killers and transform them into victims; longstanding anti-American parties like the ACLU got to work persuading hundreds of American cities to make pledges of non-cooperation with Homeland Security the Patriot Act; Democrat run “sanctuary” cities sprang up to provide safe havens for criminal aliens seeking a base in the American homeland; a coalition of civil rights groups set out to sabotage America’s defenses, claiming that a totalitarian state was around the corner if Americans dared to confront terrorism with beefed up security.  With the imprimatur of the White House, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts manufactured a crisis of Islamic “persecution” and worked to expunge the words “Islamist” and “jihad” from the manuals and pronouncements of the federal government. Their goal? To handcuff law enforcement’s first responders as they dealt with the terrorist threat.  With the connivance of the White House they reached the goal.

So where do we stand? The holy war against Americans – against atheists and believers, against Christians and Jews – grows more dangerous by the hour while the president and his followers find every excuse to promote a nation’s denial and make it more and more difficult to defend itself. Defense of America is condemned as “Islamophobia” – and this by liberals at the Center for American Progress and the New America Foundation as well as by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is actually responsible for inventing the term.

The battle flag of our internal attackers is green and red. The green side of the unholy alliance is the political arm of the Islamic jihad, the Brotherhood and its offshoots. The red side is the political left encompassing the spectrum from liberal to progressive (but excluding patriots like senators Lieberman and Menendez). The apex of this unholy collaboration is in Washington D.C. where the president finds ever more innovative ways of promoting Islam as the victim and denying the obvious threat. He withdraws our military ground forces from frontline battlefields safely distant from America’s shores. He wags his finger at Christians, drawing diagrams of moral equivalence between Islamic fanatics and their infidel victims. He turns his back on allies in Israel and Egypt, while offering his political support to the Brotherhood in Cairo and the Islamists in Teheran. The Democrats have become a party of collaborators and their leader the Petain of a Vichy America that provides a stealth cover to the enemy’s attempts to destroy us.

It is time to stop pretending that Obama and his minions really care when Christians are slaughtered without mercy or Jews are threatened with extinction. What is being done to stop these genocides?

When the Commander-in-Chief occasionally drones a terrorist leader this is not an act of war or reprisal but a feint to draw attention away from the fact that he is disarming America, degrading our military even as the threat to our citizenry grows and grows.

It is time to recognize that Obama does not love America enough to confront our enemies and defend our shores.

It is time for the patriots among us to wake up and step forward. It is time to call the actors by their right names. Islamist are Islamists and terrorists are terrorists. But that is only a beginning.

It is time to hold accountable all those who are helping to bring the war home. This is essential in order to defend ourselves against the next round of terrorist attacks. Let us begin by calling them by their right names:

A denier is a denier.

An appeaser is an appeaser.

An enabler is an enabler.

A betrayer is a betrayer.

And President Obama is all of these.

And so are those who follow his lead.

The West’s War Against Jihadi Terrorism Is Just Beginning

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then and now.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then and now.

Gatestone Institute, by Guy Millière, July 19, 2015:

  • “I’ll see you guys in New York.” — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-declared “Caliph” of ISIS.
  • On May 23, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama declared that the “war on terror” was over.
  • In a public opinion survey conducted in 2006, in Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia, two third of respondents supported the idea of ​​”uniting all Muslim countries in a new caliphate.”
  • On June 8, 2015, President Obama said his administration had “no strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. The Islamic State does have a strategy.
  • For now, Western countries are, at best, on the defensive. They dare not even identify the enemy. Rather than cautionary vigilance in the face of danger, today’s Western leaders are choosing willful blindness and appeasement.

Saint Quentin Fallavier, France, June 26. A man, Yassin Salhi, decapitates another man, Hervé Cornara, his boss. He lifts the head he has just severed, takes a selfie, sends the picture to one of his jihadi friends in Syria, and pins the head to a fence, next to the black flag of the Islamic State. He then attempts to trigger a deadly explosion in a factory manufacturing industrial gases, but fails. Had he succeeded, he could have caused a regional disaster akin to the accident that occurred in Seveso, Italy, in 1976.

The same day, another man, Seifeddine Rezgui, goes to a beach in Sousse, Tunisia. He unearths an assault rifle he earlier had buried in the sand. He kills thirty-nine tourists, mainly British, and wounds forty others. He is shot and killed by the police. Before the shooting spree, he had sent a selfie, smiling, rifle in hand, next to the black flag of the Islamic State. He sends the picture to a jihadi friend in Syria, just as Yassin Salhi did.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber kills twenty-seven people when he blows himself up in a Shiite mosque in Kuwait City.

The Islamic State issues a statement claiming responsibility for the three attacks, and stating that June 26 was the first anniversary of the caliphate proclaimed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

In one year, the Islamic State has come to control half of Iraq, more than half of Syria, and occupy an area the size of Great Britain. It seized important towns, such as Ramadi and Palmyra. It destroyed monuments that had been preserved since ancient times. It killed thousands of people, mostly Christians, often in the most atrocious manner. It restored slavery. It spread well beyond its original territory and secured promises of allegiance from other Islamic groups: Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jund al-Khilafa in Algeria and in Yemen, and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Egypt. It is now present in fourteen countries. It releases bloody videos, and awakens religious callings. It welcomes thousands of recruits from Sunni Arab countries, from Europe, and from America. It calls on all “authentic Muslims” to kill the “disbelievers” (Christians and Jews) and “impure infidels” (Shi’ites) in all possible ways, and in all possible places.

On the first day of Ramadan, June 17, one of its leaders, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, renewed the call to kill “infidels”. Yassin Salhi, Seiffeddine Rezgui and the author of the suicide bombing in Kuwait City followed the directive.

Three days after the attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, the Islamic State killed Hisham Barakat, Attorney General of Egypt in a bomb attack in Cairo. At the same time, it launched an offensive against the Egyptian army in Sinai, in El Arish. Israeli intelligence believes that the offensive was organized in cooperation with Hamas in Gaza.

The Islamic State is present in Egypt’s larger cities, in the Gaza Strip, in Judea and Samaria, and in the territories occupied by the Palestinian Authority. The French police estimate that it has sleeper cells in France and throughout Europe. The Islamic State controls the city of Derna in Libya and the coast of Cyrenaica, whence boats carrying thousands of illegal immigrants are sent to Sicily and southern Italy.

The Islamic State is minting its own coins bearing a world map and the words “The Islamic State – A Caliphate based on the doctrine of the Prophet.” It appears to have global ambitions.

It does not have the means to realize all its ambitions. Nevertheless, it has unprecedented resources for a jihadist structure. It is the first jihadist structure to organize as a state, and the first to produce oil. It works as both a state and as an informal global network.

It is the main incarnation of the global jihadist threat of our times. It does not yet have nukes, but it could have access to nuclear bombs through Pakistan.

It is now the main incarnation of the jihadist war launched against the West and its allies several years ago.

Rather than cautionary vigilance in the face of danger, today’s Western leaders are choosing willful blindness and appeasement. They speak of the Islamic State as if it were a cult and as if it promoted a “perverse ideology.” They therefore cannot understand its attraction for so many young Muslims. They do not grasp how it establishes for young Muslims a return to the original Islam and to what Muslims consider the “words of God” dictated to Muhammad. They also do not understand the nostalgia for the caliphate, ever present in the Sunni world, since the departure of the last Caliph, orchestrated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924.

In a public opinion survey conducted in 2006, in Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia, two thirds of the respondents supported ​​”uniting all Muslim countries in a new caliphate.”

Many Muslim commentators in the Western world encourage blindness; they declare that the Islamic State is not Muslim. The flag of the Islamic State bears the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith. The Quran used, and cited constantly, by the Islamic State is the Quran used and cited by all Muslims, all over the world. Muslim organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Fiqh Council of North America, have published texts claiming to “refute” the Islamic State’s Islamic legitimacy, however, none of those texts asserts that the Islamic State does not respect Islamic principles.

After the killings in Tunisia, David Cameron said the fight against the Islamic State is the “fight of our generation.” He did not say how he would lead the fight. He then repeated that the ideology of the Islamic State is not Islamic.

After the beheading in Saint Quentin Fallavier, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls spoke with a little more clarity, and said that the enemy is “jihadism.” He added that the world must pursue a “war against terrorism.” He did not say how the war should be conducted.

France has neither the means nor the will to wage a global war. President François Hollande immediately mitigated the “harshness” of Manuel Valls’s remarks and simply referred to France’s “determination.” Manuel Valls’s remarks resembled other remarks, pronounced fourteen years ago.

On September 20, 2001, nine days after the attacks of September 11, U.S. President George W. Bush spoke of a “global war on terror.” He designated targets and implemented a strategy. Most Western leaders strongly criticized him at the time. Despite mistakes, by the autumn of 2008, Islamic jihadism and terrorism had largely receded and seemed on the edge of defeat.

In March 2009, the U.S. Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from “Global War on Terror” to the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

On May 23, 2013, President Obama declared that the “war on terror” was over.

In January 2014, in an interview given to The New Yorker, Obama downplayed Islamic State power, and compared it to a “jayvee” (junior varsity) team.

Eighteen months later, on June 8, 2015, he said his administration had “no strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. It seems his administration still does not have one.

The Islamic State does have a strategy. The jihadist war against the West and its allies is growing.

The West’s war against jihadist terrorism is only beginning. For now, Western countries are, at best, on the defensive. They dare not even identify the enemy.

In 2009, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi walked away from a U.S. detention camp in Iraq, he said, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” He is not in New York — yet.

Also see: