Al Qaeda Members List Recalls Inter-connectedness of Jihad

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 29, 2015:

JustSecurity reports that Federal prosecutors have unveiled an Al Qaeda “members list” in the trial of Khaled al-Fawwaz, an Al Qaeda facilitator who dealt with the media, helping to facilitate fatwas, and arrange interviews, including the famous Bin Laden interview with Peter Arnett. The list has been in the hands of Law enforcement since 2001, but only recently made public.

Khalid al-Fawaaz

Khalid al-Fawaaz

Al-Fawwaz, who appears on the list under the alias Hamad al-Kuwaiti, played a role in acquiring the satellite phone used by Bin Laden during the African Embassy Bombings. That phone was in turn acquired for Al-Fawwaz by Tarik Hamdi. Hamdi was employed by World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a front for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad run by convicted PIJ leader Sami Al-Arian, and seconded to the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood front.

Al-Fawwaz and Hamdi’s history reminds us that the tendency of counterterrorism analysts has been to focus on the differences between terrorist organizations, which can often be limiting, and separating violent jihadists from political islamists is a recipe for confusion. The reality is that individuals flow back and forth through groups associated with Islamic political activity and jihad terrorism, and frequently support or associate with multiple organizations even while their primary orientation of supporting what they describe as “The Islamic Movement” goes unchanged.

Wadih el-Hage

Wadih el-Hage

Another name on the Al Qaeda list which reminds of this reality is Wadih El-Hage. El-Hage served as an Al Qaeda facilitator and Bin Laden’s personal secretary. El-Hage was also implicated in the assassination of Imam Rashid Khalifa, in Tuscon, Arizona. Prosecutors connected El-Hage to the killing but he was never charged. The hit was carried out by home-grown jihad organization Jamaat Al-Fuqra. Al-Fuqra began as a Sufi Islamic offshoot of the African American Muslim group Darul-Islam, before breaking off and swearing allegiance to Sheik Mubarak Jilani. Jilani’s group was present in Sudan during the Pan-Arab and Islamic Congress meetings of the 1990s where Al Qaeda mingled with Hezbollah, the Iranian IRGC, the Muslim Brotherhood and others. Two Jamaat Al-Fuqra members would convicted for their involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing.

Ultimately, until we view the global jihad holistically, rather than as separate segments we are denying ourselves the whole picture of the threat. Al-Fawwaz and El-Hage are reminders that the focus of the administration that “We are at war with Al Qaeda…” and only Al Qaeda, is strategic blindness.

How Long Until ISIS is Elevated to Coveted Position of “Insurgency”

Eric Schultz

Eric Schultz

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 29, 2015:

In the kinds of moments we have seen repeatedly from press officials forced to defend the largely indefensible security policies of the Obama Administration, White House Spokesman Eric Schultz struggled to justify to Reporter John Karl why the White House’s decision to release 5 high-level Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for suspected deserter Bowe Bergdahl was some how superior in strategy and morals, to the contemplation of Jordanian officials to return a failed female suicide bomber, in exchange for a Jordanian fighter pilot captured by the Islamic State. Schultz attempted to argue that the Administration released the five, who all held senior positions with the Taliban, because the war in Afghanistan was “winding down” and prisoner exchanges are standard fare at the conclusion of a conflict. Schultz stressed that the Taliban was an “armed insurgency” where as the Islamic state was merely a “terrorist group” and the United States opposes negotiating with terrorists. Despite push back from Karl, who pointed out that there was no qualitative difference in behavior between the two groups, and that the Taliban continued to attack U.S and coalition forces making the “winding down a war” claim disingenuous at best, Schultz was apparently unmoved.

While Karl did not have the opportunity to make the point, the ludicrousness of this claim is extended further because the Islamic State is indeed an armed insurgency, easily meeting established definitions. And by any reasonable metric the Taliban engages in terrorism. This is because, of course, both groups are jihadist organizations, motivated by precisely the same goals, and operating within the strategic doctrine for how Jihad should be waged, in accordance with Shariah, which calls for both the use of terror (“…strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah… Sura 8:60) and the imposition of God’s law and governance over territory (“And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah… Sura8:39).

This is the problem with having a tactics-oriented strategy, rather than a strategy which orients on the enemy threat doctrine. Given time and opportunity, jihadists will always go from “terrorists” to “insurgents.” If not defeated, jihadists eventually become states, where upon (as the administration’s ongoing negotiations with Iran make clear) they are granted yet more privileges and benefits. The Islamic State is not the first band of jihadists to seize territory to further its vision of returning the Middle East to the ways of the earliest companions of the prophet (we call some of their predecessors the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.)

Gorka: President Obama’s 5 Strategic Mistakes in the War Against ISIS (with video)

obama-hmm-ap (1)Breitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Sep. 29, 2014

First it was 1991, then we returned in 2003. Today, it is 2014, and America is again at war in the Middle East–but now it is Syria and not just Iraq.

Despite decades’ worth of analysis followed by military actions, we are, as a nation, making cardinal mistakes once again. Given how different the enemy we face today is, these mistakes will likely have a strategic impact on the safety of all Americans.
In 1991, we deployed US forces to the Middle East to eject the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from the nation of Kuwait, which he had just invaded, and to stop him before he went further and destabilized the whole region.
In 2003, the Bush Administration decided that, after taking down the Taleban government in Afghanistan–which had harbored Osama bin Laden– and destroying Al Qaeda’s camps, Iraq would be next. The reasoning was twofold. Saddam was a brutal dictator and his replacement by a representative government could help stabilize the region. Second, Saddam was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which could potentially be used against US targets. (Let us not open the issue of what happened to those weapons, given that even the United Nations chronicled Saddam’s use of WMD against Iran and even his own citizens, and also that almost every Democrat on Capitol Hill agreed that the evidence indicated that he had not gotten rid of his WMD capabilities.)
Now, America has returned to the region in force, but this time it faces a new type of threat. Not a rogue nation invading its neighbors, nor a fundamentalist government providing sanctuary to jihadist terrorists, but a jihadi threat that is on the verge of capturing a whole country and which has declared the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the theocratic empire of Islam.
Despite our experience with the region and the missions of the last 13 years since the horrific attacks of September 2001, the administration is making five crucial mistakes as it deploys our brave men and women to the war-zone once more:
ISIS – or more correctly: The Islamic State (IS), since it changed its name recently – is not just a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. With the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, the US weapons it has captured, and the obvious charisma of its leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, IS is now a true insurgency, meaning it controls territory in daylight. In fact, the most recent estimate is that The Islamic State now controls a combined area of Syria and Iraq larger that the landmass of the United Kingdom. In no way it is a “JV team.” As a result the current “counterterrorism” approach of the government will by definition prove inadequate.
Never in the history of modern warfare has an insurgency been defeated by airpower. This is not a state-actor enemy with static targets which can be pummeled from the sky. It is an unconventional threat group which is hyper-mobile. After several days of bombings, IS will simply retreat into areas we cannot target from the air, such as heavily populated towns or cities. Such enemies can be defeated, but only if we use the Foreign Internal Defense (FID) model developed by US Special Forces, the “Green Berets,” under which local ground assets take the fight to the jihadists with a proportionally small number of US units acting as special advisers and providers of unique capabilities and intelligence platforms.
The Islamic State is already in a league all of its own and represents a new level of threat which far exceeds al Qaeda (AQ) and which will not be vanquished by the methods the Bush and Obama administrations have used against AQ. By all measures, IS has outdone al Qaeda. From the number of Westerners it has recruited– including women– to the amount of money it has, to its sophisticated use of social media for propaganda purposes, it has proven itself to be the jihadist movement al Qaeda always dreamt of being but never was.
Treating the Islamic State as the problem misses the central nature of the jihadi threat, the fact that it is global. Whether the group is called ISIS or IS, or it is the al Nusra Front in Syria, or Al Shabaab in North Africa, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, these are all one and the same threat. Every member of each of these groups– and the hundreds of other groups fighting in theaters as dispersed geographically as Chechnya or the Philippines– believes exactly the same thing: that they are the best Muslims, true warriors of Allah, and the West is un-Islamic and must be destroyed so a new theocratic empire of Islam can be re-established and expand to cover the world. Focusing on one threat at a time– al Qaeda, then ISIS, and then the next one– will only mean we will be fighting such groups for decades if not centuries.
Given the last point, it is clear that The Islamic State is simply the manifestation of a problem, not the cause of the problem itself. The disease which links all the aforementioned threat groups – which are symptoms – is the ideology of Global Jihad. It is the narrative of Holy War which unites bin Laden to the Boston Bombers, which unites the Boston Bombers to al Baghdadi. One cannot defeat an ideology with bombing runs. You can’t even destroy it with boots on the ground. The final victory against a totalitarian ideology – as in WWII, or even the Cold War – can only come when one discredits the enemy’s message, when you delegitimize his narrative. Unfortunately, with his recent speech to the United Nations, in which he compared the problems of the Middle East to the shooting of a suspected shoplifter in Ferguson, Missouri, the President once more reinforced the administration line that ideology is irrelevant to the threat we all face today.
To quote a British specialist on Islamist radicalism, writing recently on the utter failure of the British approach to jihadism: “it is also unclear if a state or society can win an ideology-based conflict if it ceases defending, advocating, believing in, and seeking to spread its own ideals.”
Can one win this type of war if you do not believe America is an exceptional nation?

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is the Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the National Security and Foreign Affairs Editor for Breitbart News. You can follow him at @SebGorka.

For more on the global threat of radical Islam, please watch Dr. Gorka’s Presentation to the ICT 9/11 World Summit on Counterterrorism: ISIS: Jihad 2.0 below:

Also see:

The Imaginary Islamic Radical

iraqstill-450x281Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 28, 2015

The debate over Islamic terrorism has shifted so far from reality that it has now become an argument between the administration, which insists that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS, and critics who contend that a minority of Islamic extremists are the ones causing all the problems.

But what makes an Islamic radical, extremist? Where is the line between ordinary Muslim practice and its extremist dark side?

It can’t be beheading people in public.

Saudi Arabia just did that and was praised for its progressiveness by the UN Secretary General, had flags flown at half-staff in the honor of its deceased tyrant in the UK and that same tyrant was honored by Obama, in preference to such minor events as the Paris Unity March and the Auschwitz commemoration.

It can’t be terrorism either. Not when the US funds the PLO and three successive administrations invested massive amounts of political capital into turning the terrorist group into a state. While the US and the EU fund the Palestinian Authority’s homicidal kleptocracy; its media urges stabbing Jews.

Clearly that’s not Islamic extremism either. At least it’s not too extreme for Obama.

If blowing up civilians in Allah’s name isn’t extreme, what do our radicals have to do to get really radical?

Sex slavery? The Saudis only abolished it in 1962; officially. Unofficially it continues. Every few years a Saudi bigwig gets busted for it abroad. The third in line for the Saudi throne was the son of a “slave girl”.

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? The “moderate” Islamists we backed in Syria, Libya and Egypt have been busy doing it with the weapons and support that we gave them. So that can’t be extreme either.

If terrorism, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery and beheading are just the behavior of moderate Muslims, what does a Jihadist have to do to be officially extreme? What is it that makes ISIS extreme?

Our government’s definition of moderate often hinges on a willingness to negotiate regardless of the results. The moderate Taliban were the ones willing to talk us. They just weren’t willing to make a deal. Iran’s new government is moderate because it engages in aimless negotiations while pushing its nuclear program forward and issuing violent threats, instead of just pushing and threatening without the negotiations. Nothing has come of the negotiations, but the very willingness to negotiate is moderate.

The Saudis would talk to us all day long while they continued sponsoring terrorists and setting up terror mosques in the West. That made them moderates. Qatar keeps talking to us while arming terrorists and propping up the Muslim Brotherhood. So they too are moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood talked to us even while its thugs burned churches, tortured protesters and worked with terrorist groups in the Sinai.

A radical terrorist will kill you. A moderate terrorist will talk to you and then kill someone else. And you’ll ignore it because the conversation is a sign that they’re willing to pretend to be reasonable.

From a Muslim perspective, ISIS is radical because it declared a Caliphate and is casual about declaring other Muslims infidels. That’s a serious issue for Muslims and when we distinguish between radicals and moderates based not on their treatment of people, but their treatment of Muslims, we define radicalism from the perspective of Islamic supremacism, rather than our own American values.

The position that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and Al Qaeda is extreme because the Brotherhood kills Christians and Jews while Al Qaeda kills Muslims is Islamic Supremacism. The idea of the moderate Muslim places the lives of Muslims over those of every other human being on earth.

Our Countering Violent Extremism program emphasizes the centrality of Islamic legal authority as the best means of fighting Islamic terrorists. Our ideological warfare slams terrorists for not accepting the proper Islamic chain of command. Our solution to Islamic terrorism is a call for Sharia submission.

That’s not an American position. It’s an Islamic position and it puts us in the strange position of arguing Islamic legalism with Islamic terrorists. Our politicians, generals and cops insist that the Islamic terrorists we’re dealing with know nothing about Islam because that is what their Saudi liaisons told them to say.

It’s as if we were fighting Marxist terrorist groups by reproving them for not accepting the authority of the USSR or the Fourth International. It’s not only stupid of us to nitpick another ideology’s fine points, especially when our leaders don’t know what they’re talking about, but our path to victory involves uniting our enemies behind one central theocracy. That’s even worse than arming and training them, which we’re also doing (but only for the moderate genocidal terrorists, not the extremists).

Secretary of State Kerry insists that ISIS are nihilists and anarchists. Nihilism is the exact opposite of the highly structured Islamic system of the Caliphate. It might be a more accurate description of Kerry. But the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood successfully sold the Western security establishment on the idea that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism was by denying any Islamic links to its actions.

This was like an arsonist convincing the fire department that the best way to fight fires was to pretend that they happened randomly on their own through spontaneous combustion.

Victory through denial demands that we pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. It’s a wholly irrational position, but the alternative of a tiny minority of extremists is nearly as irrational.

If ISIS is extreme and Islam is moderate, what did ISIS do that Mohammed did not?

The answers usually have a whole lot to do with the internal structures of Islam and very little to do with such pragmatic things as not raping women or not killing non-Muslims.

Early on we decided to take sides between Islamic tyrants and Islamic terrorists, deeming the former moderate and the latter extremists. But the tyrants were backing their own terrorists. And when it came to human rights and their view of us, there wasn’t all that much of a difference between the two.

It made sense for us to put down Islamic terrorists because they often represented a more direct threat, but allowing the Islamic tyrants to convince us that they and the terrorists followed two different brands of Islam and that the only solution to Islamic terrorism lay in their theocracy was foolish of us.

We can’t win the War on Terror through their theocracy. That way lies a real Caliphate.

Our problem is not the Islamic radical, but the inherent radicalism of Islam. Islam is a radical religion. It radicalizes those who follow it. Every atrocity we associate with Islamic radicals is already in Islam. The Koran is not the solution to Islamic radicalism, it is the cause.

Our enemy is not radicalism, but a hostile civilization bearing grudges and ambitions.

We aren’t fighting nihilists or radicals. We are at war with the inheritors of an old empire seeking to reestablish its supremacy not only in the hinterlands of the east, but in the megalopolises of the west.

***

Published on Jan 23, 2015 by Associated Press

Violent extremists may cite Islam as a justification, but the West should be careful about calling them Islamic radicals, Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience of opinion leaders Friday at the World Economic Forum. (Jan. 23)

***

A little dark humor is called for…

Refusing to Name the Enemy in the War on Terror

Published on May 22, 2012 by American Freedom Law Center

SNL skit parodies the Obama administration and mainstream media’s failure to identify radical Islam as the enemy in the War on Terror.

General Tells Senators al-Qaeda Has ‘Grown Fourfold in Last Five Years’

Published on Jan 28, 2015 by One Post

Full testimony here

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On January 27, 2015

The former vice chief of staff of the Army warned the Senate Armed Services Committee today that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.”

“AQ and its affiliates exceeds Iran in beginning to dominate multiple countries,” retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane testified.

Using a term that the Obama administration now eschews, Keane called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation.”

“Radical Islam, as I’m defining it for today’s discussion, consists of three distinct movements who share a radical fundamentalist ideology, use jihad or terror to achieve objectives that compete with each other for influence and power,” he said.

“In 1980, Iran declared the United States as a strategic enemy and its goal is to drive the United States out of the region, achieve regional hegemony, and destroy the state of Israel. It uses proxies, primarily as the world’s number one state sponsoring terrorism. Thirty plus years Iran has used these proxies to attack the United States. To date, the result is U.S. troops left Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, while Iran has direct influence and some control over Beirut, Lebanon, Gaza, Damascus, Syria, Baghdad, Iraq, and now Sana’a, Yemen,” the general continued.

“Is there any doubt that Iran is on the march and is systematically moving toward their regional hegemonic objective? Iran has been on a 20-year journey to acquire nuclear weapons, simply because they know it guarantees preservation of the regime and makes them, along with their partners, the dominant power in the region, thereby capable of expanding their control and influence. Add to this their ballistic missile delivery system and Iran is not only a threat to the region, but to Europe, as well. And as they increase missile range, eventually a threat to the United States. And as we know, a nuclear arms race, because of their nuclear ambition, is on the horizon for the Middle East.”

Keane detailed the growth of al-Qaeda in its quest to “eventually achieve world domination.”

“Third, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS, is an outgrowth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was defeated in Iraq by 2009. After U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011, ISIS reemerged as a terrorist organization in Iraq, moved into Syria in 2012, and began seizing towns and villages from the Syria-Iraq border all the way to the western Syria from Aleppo to Damascus,” he reminded the committee.

That leads to an “unmistakable” conclusion that “our policies have failed,” Keane added.

“And the unequivocal explanation is U.S. policy has focused on disengaging from the Middle East, while our stated policy is pivoting to the east,” he said. “U.S. policymakers choose to ignore the very harsh realities of the rise of radical Islam. In my view, we became paralyzed by the fear of adverse consequences in the Middle East after fighting two wars. Moreover, as we sit here this morning, in the face of radical Islam, U.S. policymakers refuse to accurately name the movement as radical Islam. We further choose not to define it, nor explain its ideology, and most critical, we have no comprehensive strategy to stop it or defeat it.”

Spy General Unloads on Obama’s ISIS War Plan

1422368403396.cachedDaily Beast, by Kimberly Dozier, Jan. 27, 2015

Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn likens the fight against Islamic militants to the Cold War and calls for an international chain of command akin to that of the Allies in World War II.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned” but paralyzed and playing defense inits the fight againstIslamic militancy.Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is  “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life.”

“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.

He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.

He said the administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem, naively clinging to the hope that limited counterterrorist intervention will head off the ideological juggernaut of religious militancy.

“There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,” said Flynn, so they “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”

Flynn refused to name President Obama as the focus of his ire in comments afterward to The Daily Beast, saying that he was simply “sending a message to the American people.” But the comments show the widening rift between some in the national-security community who want to see more special-operations and intelligence assets sent into the fight against ISIS and other groups in Syria and beyond.

Flynn’s comments echo calls by other former Obama administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who all say they urged more intervention earlier in the Syrian conflict.

Flynn left his DIA post in the summer of 2014, with close associates muttering about his frustration with the Obama White House’s inaction against al Qaeda, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, widely known as ISIS or ISIL, and more. Since his departure, he has been speaking to business executives and contemplating several offers from corporate America and academia, but has stayed mum about why he left his DIA post earlier than planned.

Within the shadowy world of special operations-driven intelligence, Flynn developed a reputation for bluntly speaking his mind, working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal at the elite Joint Special Operations Command and later serving as McChrystal’s intelligence chief in Afghanistan before McChrystal had his own run-in with the Obama administration for impolitic remarks in Rolling Stonemagazine.

Flynn caused controversy during his Afghan stint when he went outside military channels to a think tank, publishing a monograph called Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan. That broadside was maligned for the delivery method but widely praised for its message—that traditional military-intelligence practitioners were too focused on targeting the enemy rather than understanding the cultural and economic environment driving the enemy to fight.

In this latest critique, Flynn accused the administration of failing to understand what drives ISIS or al Qaeda.

“They want us to think that our challenge is dealing with an undefined set of violent extremists or merely lone-wolf actors with no ideology or network. But that’s just not the straight truth,” said Flynn. “Our adversaries around the world are self-described Islamic militants—they say,” he told the crowd at the annual National Defense Industry Association’s special-operations meeting. There were many nods of approval.

The current head of Special Operations Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, was more circumspect in comments to the same audience about whether or not the United States “should be” expanding the fight against Islamic militancy.

“The bigger issue is whether we are allowed to do that,” Votel said, measuring his words carefully. The famously reticent U.S. Army Ranger—who just came from leading the shadowy and elite Joint Special Operations Command—said the issue “falls into the realm of uncomfortable topics” he has to bring up with the administration.

Votel described the foreign-fighter flow into the Middle East in support of ISIS as “staggering,” adding that “over 19,000 foreign fighters from more than 90 different countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq.”

Flynn described the enemies arrayed against the U.S. as varied, but “fueled by a vision for worldwide domination, achieved through violence and bloodshed. They want to silence all opposition. They hate our ideals and they hate our way of life.”

In the fight against militant extremism, Flynn said the problem is so sweeping, the world should create a “single unified and international chain of command, probably civilian-led,” like the coalition championed by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. He made further references to former President Ronald Reagan’s all-out war against the Soviet Union, not only outfighting them in proxy wars, but outspending them and outthinking them in terms of fighting their ideology.

Flynn said that since 1960 there had been more than 30 insurgencies, conflicts, and wars, “and in two-thirds of these cases, the bad guys won.”

“A strong defense is the best deterrent,” against such fights, he said, adding that, “the dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary.”

“Retreat, retrenchment, and disarmament are historically a recipe for disaster,” he added, making reference to budget cuts and troop drawdowns faced by the current military as the Obama administration attempts to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq before sending small numbers of trainers and advisers to assist the government there in the current crisis brought on by the territorial gains of ISIS.

The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Flynn’s remarks.

Is the FBI Entrapping Innocent Muslims?

FBI-Agents-STING-OPERATIONSPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Jan. 27, 2015

Any of my regular readers here at PJ Media can attest, I am no fan of the FBI’s counter-terrorism programs. Recently, I’ve been writing about the FBI’s failures to catch “Known Wolf” terrorists – individuals who were already known to law enforcement prior to their acts of terror. So no one can accuse me of being an apologist for the bureau.

But an article yesterday in The Guardian entitled “Counter-terrorism is supposed to let us live without fear. Instead, it’s creating more of it” by two individuals currently promoting the screening of their film “(T)error” at the Sundance International Film Festival falsely claim the FBI is engaged in a deliberate effort to entrap innocent American Muslims.

Here’s the case they make:

While making our film (T)ERROR, which tracks a single counter-terrorism sting operation over seven months, we realized that most people have serious misconceptions about FBI counter-terrorism efforts. They assume that informants infiltrate terrorist networks and then provide the FBI with information about those networks in order to stop terrorist plots from being carried out. That’s not true in the vast majority of domestic terrorism cases.

Since 9/11, as Human Rights Watch and others have documented, the FBI has routinely used paid informants not to capture existing terrorists, but to cultivate them. Through elaborate sting operations, informants are directed to spend months – sometimes years – building relationships with targets, stoking their anger and offering ideas and incentives that encourage them to engage in terrorist activity. And the moment a target takes a decisive step forward, crossing the line from aspirational to operational, the FBI swoops in to arrest him.

So they accuse the FBI of setting suspects up and then arresting them – entrapment. This “entrapment” claim is commonly repeated by defense attorneys and self-styled “civil rights” groups. In fact, that’s what the authors of The Guardian article explicitly say:

The cumulative effects of FBI surveillance and entrapment in communities of color have been devastating.

I’ll leave aside their “communities of color” smear, but there is one glaring problem with their entrapment claim: in no single jihadist-related terrorism trial since the 9/11 attacks has a federal court on ANY LEVEL found that the FBI engaged in entrapment. Many suspects have made the claim, but none have successfully argued it. In only one case I remember, that of Ahmadullah Niazi, did the Justice Department voluntarily drop an indictment because of the reliability of an informant.

Those who peddle these FBI entrapment claims have been found to regularly play fast and loose with data, such as describing terror conspirators who turn state’s evidence against their partners and are sentenced to jail for their roles in terror plots as “informants.”

Another tactic taken is to equate the involvement of an informant as a de facto case of entrapment, as do the authors of The Guardian article. They cite the arrest earlier this month of a Cincinnati-area man:

A recent example: on 14 January, the FBI announced that it had interrupted an Isis-inspired terrorist plot in the United States. Christopher Lee Cornell, a 20-year-old recent Muslim convert from Cincinnati, was allegedly plotting to attack the US Capitol with pipe bombs and gun down government officials.

But then they make a colossal leap with this non sequitur:

Cornell was arrested after purchasing two semiautomatic weapons from an Ohio gun store because the man that Cornell thought was his partner was actually an FBI informant.

So the reason he bought the weapons was because there was an informant? In the information made available so far, there’s no indication that’s the case. If the record of every single jihad-related terror case since 9/11 is any guide, it’s unlikely their claim will stand. One reason why these terrorism cases have universally withstood scrutiny by the federal courts are the extensive measures taken by the FBI to prevent entrapment.

As an example of how far the FBI will go to prevent someone from turning to terror, consider the case of 19-year-old Colorado woman Shannon Conley, who was sentenced last week to four years in prison. As the court record shows, the FBI repeatedly warned Conley over a period of months not to attempt to travel to Syria to join ISIS and even talked to her parents asking them to intervene. And yet she persisted in her plans and was arrested trying to board a plane bound for Turkey. Now her parents are saying “the terrorists have won” after her sentencing blaming the federal government for prosecuting their daughter.

If anything, this administration has bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns that they are unfairly targeting Muslims, such as special rules for dealing with the Muslim community and conducting a wide-spread purge of counter-terrorism training materials at the request of Muslim organizations. Curiously, none of this is mentioned in The Guardian article.

Attorney General Eric Holder, hardly a right-wing neo-con ‘Islamophobe’, has directly challenged the claims that the FBI uses entrapment targeting the Muslim community, telling one Muslim legal group:

Those who characterize the FBI’s activities in this case as ‘entrapment’ simply do not have their facts straight or do not have a full understanding of the law.

And yet The Guardian regurgitates a number of howlers, such as this:

And on campuses across the country, Muslim student associations have banned discussions of politics, terrorism and the “war on terror.”

But Muslim Student Associations (MSA) have had no trouble at all discussing politics, terrorism and the “war on terror.” In fact, you can’t shut them up from talking about it. One topic you won’t hear addressed at MSA meetings, however, are the long litany of senior MSA leaders who have been convicted in terrorism cases.

In the absence of actual evidence, The Guardian authors have to resort to anecdotes, including this one:

After a recent screening of our film at a New York City mosque, a young African-American convert to Islam, sporting a brown full-body covering with matching hijab, confessed to us that she feels uncomfortable discussing aspects of her identity. She does not speak about her religious conversion in public, for fear of attracting or encouraging informants.

Yes, because wearing a brown full-body covering with a matching hijab, no one would ever know she’s a Muslim.

This is how laughably ridiculous those who peddle this false narrative have sunk. Perhaps a review of some of the jihad-related terror cases where FBI informants weren’t involved is warranted:

Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo

UNC-Chapel Hill vehicle jihadist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar

Seattle Jewish Federation killer Naveed Afzal Haq

Little Rock killer Carlos Bledsoe (aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad)

Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan

Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad

Boston bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Cross-country jihadist spree killer Ali Muhammad Brown

Undoubtedly, if FBI informants had been used in any of these cases to prevent their terror attacks, The Guardian authors, Islamic “civil rights” groups and their ilk would be crying “entrapment.”

Also see:

New York Times Discovers Yemen’s ‘Death to America’ Houthi Rebels are Moderates and Possible U.S. Partners

PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On January 26, 2015

The New York Times launched some weapons-grade stupidity on Sunday with an article by Rod Nordland and Eric Schmitt citing “experts” claiming that the Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen that have swept though critical parts of the country, including the capital Sanaa, are not just moderates, but possible U.S. counter-terrorism partners.

Because of the ongoing Houthi offensive, Yemen’s information minister admitted last week that the government had lost effective control of the country.

Amanpour tweet

Thankfully, the Times is here to assure us that when the Houthis shout “Death to America” they really don’t mean it:

At first glance the official slogan and emblem of the Houthis, who are now the dominant force in Yemen, does not offer much hope to American policy makers.

It includes the words “Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.” Houthis shout it when they march, wear it on arm patches, paint it on buildings and stick it onto their car windows. When pictured, those words are rendered in red, framed by “God is great” and “Victory to Islam” in green, on a white background.

Sometimes the red words are shown dripping blood.

But for all their harsh sloganeering, the Houthis may be a lot more moderate than it suggests, according to many diplomats and analysts who have followed them closely. They say it would be premature to dismiss them as Yemen’s Hezbollah, despite their alliance with Iran.

For reference purposes, here’s the slogan in question:

Houthi logo

Houthis tweet

Ah, but we have nothing to fear, because they fight Al-Qaeda says the Pentagon:

On Wednesday, Michael G. Vickers, the Pentagon’s top intelligence policy official, noted that the Houthis’ dominance had been growing over the past several months as they expanded their control since last September, but he said that has not interfered with American missions. “The Houthis are anti-Al Qaeda, and we’ve been able to continue some of our counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda in the past couple months,” Mr. Vickers said.

And they’re nothing like yet another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, say the “experts”:

“The Houthis are not Hezbollah,” said Charles Schmitz, an expert on the group and a professor at Towson University, referring to the Iranian-supported group that dominates Lebanon and is actively fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. “They are domestic, homegrown, and have very deep roots in Yemen, going back thousands of years.”

In fact, they could be U.S. counter-terrorism partners if they only dropped their “Death to America” sloganeering (!!) the “experts” continue:

April Alley, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group in Sana, said: “Theoretically there is quite a bit of common ground in Yemen between the Houthis and the U.S., particularly when it comes to security issues and Al Qaeda. But so far it’s not been enough to overcome the obstacles. The Houthis have their own limits in which they can engage the Americans given the political narrative they have propagated.”

It should be noted that last week a U.S. Embassy vehicle carrying U.S. personnel was shot up at a Houthi checkpoint.

And a Houthi checkpoint featuring the “Death to America” signs has been operating right outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa since September:

Yemen photo

 

Houthi checkpoint tweets

 

One curious omission in the Times article, however, is that Obama hailed Yemen as one of his administration’s counter-terrorism successes back in September:

t4

 

So with Iran or Iranian proxies in charge of another Arab capital (Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, Sanaa) we have nothing to fear, the New York Times is here to tell us.

And the Houthis take their place as acclaimed moderates in the U.S. foreign policy narrative bubble, along with the “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood, the“vetted moderate” Syrian rebels, the “moderate elements” of Hezbollah (as cited by CIA Director John Brennan), and even “moderate” Al-Qaeda.

Video: Steve Coughlin Counterterror Training Education and Analysis

622022286
Center for Security Policy, September 13, 2012

Over more than a decade following 9/11, MAJ Stephen Coughlin was one of the US government’s most astute and objective analysts, and an expert in the connections between Islamic law, terrorism and the jihadist movement around the globe.

Through knowledge of published Islamic law, MAJ Coughlin had a demonstrated ability to forecast events both in the Middle East and domestically and to accurately assess the future threat posture of jihadist entities before they happen.

He has briefed at the Pentagon, for national and state law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and on Capitol Hill for Members of Congress. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy. His book, Catastrophic Failure, will be released in late 2012.

With this series of presentations, the general public has access to a professional standard of intelligence training in order to better understand the jihadist threat.

Part 1: Lectures on National Security & Counterterror Analysis (Introduction)

 

Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

 

Part 3: Abrogation and the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

 

Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law:

 

Part 6: The Boston Attack and “Individual Jihad” –  summary of key points

Fight Them Over There

U.S. Marines fight the Taliban in Afghanistan / AP

U.S. Marines fight the Taliban in Afghanistan / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Matthew Continetti, January 16, 2015

Argue about the limits of free speech, the definition of “true” Islam, whether terrorists are lunatics or rational, or the social and political repercussions of terrorism as much as you’d like. The truth is that such debates are irrelevant to the core security problem: There is a growing and energetic movement of radical Muslims dedicated to killing as many people as they can and imposing their will on the rest.

And there is really only one way America can respond to this challenge. We need to kill them first. We need to kill them on a field of battle whose contours are determined not by the terrorists but by us. We need to kill them over there—in the Middle East—before they reach the West.

I realize that for at least the next two years what I propose is wishful thinking. American policy has reverted to a defensive condition in which Islamic terrorists set the terms of conflict. We have been here before. Until 2001, the United States treated Islamic terrorism as a matter of law enforcement. When our embassies were raided or bombed, when our barracks were destroyed, when our soldiers and sailors were murdered, when our World Trade Center was attacked, when our destroyer was damaged, we treated the assailants as members of an Arabic-speaking mafia, as criminals to be apprehended, tried, and punished.

Didn’t work. The jihad grew. It even found a base in Afghanistan, where it could equip and train and plot. In 2001, in a single fall morning, the World Trade Center was destroyed, the Pentagon bludgeoned, and more than 3,000 innocent people were killed.

America rethought its approach to terrorism. No longer were the terrorists considered felons. They were now unlawful combatants. Surveillance, interrogation, and detention policies became more aggressive. We invaded Afghanistan, we toppled the Taliban, and we sent al Qaeda leadership into hiding.

When America invaded Iraq in 2003, al Qaeda and its followers—joining forces with Saddam’s former commanders and marginalized Sunni tribes—designated the Tigris-Euphrates plain the main battleground of the global jihad. Aspiring jihadists, enemies of the West, traveled to Iraq where they encountered, and were killed by, heavily armed and expertly trained U.S. pilots, soldiers, and Marines.

The point of the war on terrorism was not merely to “decimate” the “core of al Qaeda.” The objective was also, in the course of a long struggle, to delegitimize the Qaeda movement and deter its fellow travelers by revealing Islamism as an evolutionary dead end. The unstated message of the strategy was this: If you choose jihad against the West, you will spend your life in Guantanamo or you will die.

Look what happened. By May 2008, plagiarist and emcee Fareed Zakaria could report: “If you set aside” the war in Iraq, “terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.” And soon one did not have to “set aside” Iraq. When the change in strategy and surge of troops Bush ordered in 2007 began to take effect, violence in Iraq went “way down” too.

With the election of President Obama, however, the conflict between Islamism and America entered a third phase. Our troops were removed from the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving Special Forces and drone pilots to do most of the fighting. The defense budget was cut. Harsh interrogation was curtailed, and Guantanamo Bay slowly emptied. Surveillance practices were disrupted. The words “Islamic terrorism” would not be uttered, for that somehow legitimized extremists. As for the terrorists themselves, they were once again treated like criminals.

What has resulted is a dramatic uptick in Islamic radicalism. In January 2014 the RAND Corporation found that “the number of Salafi-jihadist groups and fighters increased after 2010, as well as the number of attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates.” Attacks including the Ft. Hood massacre; the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi; the Boston Marathon bombing whose victims included an 8-year-old boy; and the public beheading of British Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The absence of American troops in Iraq created an opportunity for ISIS, the Islamic army born of the Syrian civil war. Last summer, from its base in Raqqa, Syria, ISIS invaded Iraq. It captured and imposed sharia law on Mosul, a city of more than a million people, beheaded journalists, and threatened Baghdad, the Kurds, and minority sects with extermination.

ISIS “controls more land and has more weapons than any other jihadist organization in history,”according to experts at the American Enterprise Institute. ISIS is said to possess “more than $2 billion in assets” and command an “estimated 40,000 fighters.” ISIS is expert at “propaganda by the deed”: the spectacular use of public violence to provoke fear in your enemies and loyalty in your friends. There is even an ISIS gift shop. A global movement cowering in fear does not sell tchotchkes.

Nor is ISIS the only jihadist group on the offensive. Yemen has collapsed into a civil war between Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Iranian-backed Houthi militants. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb operates freely in Libya and Algeria and Mali. Boko Haram slaughtered thousands while expanding its holdings in Nigeria. Al-Shabaab runs central and southern Somalia. Hamas kills Jews from its Gaza satrapy. The Taliban is ready for its comeback in Afghanistan. This swelling of radical Islam—in territory, in resources, in adherents, in scalps—extends to Muslim communities around the world, and to disturbed and alienated men and women hungry to join a winning fight.

The central front of the war on terror is no longer Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. It is the West, and all lands associated with the West. So the radicals strike Israel, they kill in Sydney, they gun down cartoonists and Jews in Paris, they plan to strike the U.S. Capitol with pipe bombs and rifles.

Such a pattern of destruction ought to force a reevaluation of American strategy. But that has not happened. Instead our response to jihadism has been confusing, contradictory, insipid, self-destructive, and inane.

The administration not only skips a solidarity march in Paris. It won’t call the Charlie Hebdo and kosher market attacks Islamic terrorism. The favorite newspaper of the White House is more concerned with the “fear and resentment” of European populations tired of being killed than it is with terrorism. The error-ridden blog edited by one of the president’s favorite pundits says discussions of free speech “often seem more about justifying Islamophobia against everyday Muslims, who are just as overwhelmingly peaceful as every other religious group, than they are about protecting rights that are seriously endangered.”

Guantanamo inmates are released to Oman, which borders Yemen, on the same day an American jihadist is arrested for plotting an attack on the nation’s Capitol. The State Department says it’s okay for Iran—a radical theocracy that is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world, that sows upheaval from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Bahrain to Yemen, that originated the idea of assassinating Western authors who blaspheme Mohammed—to build additional nuclear plants.

The means by which the president reluctantly has attempted to take the fight to the terrorists are not succeeding. Micromanagement by White House officials of the air campaign against ISIS has resulted in a stalemate. American advisers to Iraq say it will take a minimum of three years to prepare the Iraqi army to roll back the Caliphate. Meanwhile our soldiers are subjected to mortar rounds launched from ISIS positions. So passive-aggressive is the president’s war on ISIS that Iraqis are beginning to suggest that “ISIS is a U.S. creation.” One Iraqi told the Wall Street Journal: “The international coalition against ISIS is a comedy act. America can destroy ISIS in one day only, but it does not do it.”

What about Yemen, which President Obama has held up as a model of intervention? Michael Crowley of Politico reports, “Since mid-September, the U.S. has conducted just three drone strikes in Yemen, down from 19 last year, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation. And that was a fraction of the 2012 peak of 56 drone and air strikes.” Yemen and Syria are the key nodes of a global network of financing, training, and planning for jihadist operations. The United States has allowed this network to persist, indeed to grow in complexity and reach.

Only by extinguishing ISIS can the United States begin to reassert its authority and put the jihadists on the defensive. But increasing the number and pace of drone and air strikes will not be enough. The number of U.S. ground forces in Iraq must be dramatically increased, and America seriously must work to remove the cause of the Syrian civil war: the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, whocontinues to use chemical weapons, has entered into a de facto alliance with our terrorist adversary, and is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

Above all, America must cease pretending that Muslim rage is something the United States can ignore and avoid or is powerless against or cannot fight over there. We must fight it over there, or be resigned to terrorist attacks over here. Again and again and again.

Also see:

After Paris attacks, E.U. leaders call for more sharing of information, intelligence

34By Michael Birnbaum:

In the wake of this month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, European leaders are calling for significant changes to what has long been a paradox of their borderless continent: Their citizens can move freely, but information about them does not.

There is no European no-fly list, because there is no European data­base of air travelers. People inside a 26-nation zone can speed from the tip of Portugal to the border with Russia without once having their passports scrutinized. Many E.U. citizens enter and exit Europe without ever being checked against police databases.

The gaps can lead to delayed security responses at best and flawed ones at worst, critics say, and attackers have sometimes exploited the issues to their advantage. Now, after the bloody assaults that claimed 17 victims in Paris and after dozens of suspected Islamist militants were rounded up around Europe, European leaders are pushing to fix what they say are flaws in the system.

E.U. nations plan “to share information, intelligence, not only with the European Union but also with other countries around us,” E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said Monday after a meeting on counterterrorism with E.U. foreign ministers and top diplomats from several Middle Eastern nations.

Even as officials have stripped away barriers to free travel among European countries, individual nations have continued to hold sway over their intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and there are relatively few E.U.-wide databases in which information about people is stored. In Belgium, for example, police rely on the honor code when they ask new residents with E.U. citizenship whether they have criminal records in other countries.

The Paris attackers were able to use these gaps to their advantage, counterterrorism officials say. One of them, Amedy Coulibaly, drove his common-law wife and others to the Madrid airport before he embarked on his deadly attacks, allowing them to flee to Turkey without immediately drawing the attention of French authorities, who had been monitoring them domestically.

At least one of the brothers who attacked the offices of a satirical Paris newsweekly had traveled to Yemen for training, authorities say. But without a European database that might have helped track their movements, French officials weren’t easily able to watch their air travel, database advocates say.

Gilles de Kerchove, the E.U.’s counterterrorism coordinator, said he is seeking to require that all passports be checked by computer, which would enable agents to run them against databases and track who enters and exits Europe.

Read more at Washington Post

***

Ryan Mauro on Fox: International Anti-Islamism Alliance Needed

Analysis: Former al Qaeda operative freed, sent home to Qatar

By

Editor’s Note: For more on Qatar’s track record in fighting terrorism, see Dr. Weinberg’s report for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Sanctions & Illicit Finance, Qatar and Terror Finance, Part 1: Negligence.

972_ali_almarri_2050081722-7128Ali Saleh Kahlah al Marri, an admitted former al Qaeda operative, has been released from a American jail and permitted to return home to Qatar.

No formal statement has been released yet by either government, but it is being reported that al Marri’s release was the result of a bilateral agreement between the Qatari and American governments. According to the US Bureau of Prisons, a prisoner with the same name and estimated age (ID number 12194-026) was freed on Friday.

Additionally, a source from al Marri’s family told the Qatari press he was recently released and arrived in Doha Saturday. Soon afterwards, the story was confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP), which spoke to al Marri’s nephew.

This followed statements by two of his former attorneys that he was expected to be released within days. And photographs have been posted on social media that reportedly show al Marri coming home to his children for the first time in over a decade. A Kuwaiti newspaper posted video of a man identified as al Marri at the airport in Doha bumping noses with male relatives and kissing his mother’s feet.

An al Qaeda sleeper agent

Ali Saleh Kahlah al Marri was at one point the only enemy combatant detained on US soil. According to the terms of a plea deal he accepted in 2009, al Marri “was instructed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to enter the United States no later than September 10, 2001″ and to await further instructions. Mohammed, also known as KSM, was serving at the time as the chief of al Qaeda’s external operations and is considered the mastermind of 9/11 attacks. According to the FBI in 2009, “Ali al-Marri was an al-Qaeda ‘sleeper’ operative working on U.S. soil.”

President George W. Bush indicated that the US intelligence community believes al Marri discussed various targets with KSM, including “water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and United States military academies.” Bush also described him as “a present and grave danger to US national security.”

The plea bargain accepted by al Marri acknowledged that his computer’s search history included research on “various cyanide substances” according to “the method taught by al Qaeda for manufacturing cyanide gas,” as well as research on “dams, waterways and tunnels in the United States, which is also consistent with al Qaeda attack planning regarding the use of cyanide gases”. The plea deal also noted that “between 1998 and 2001″ he “attended various training camps because he wished to engage in jihad”.

In other court documents, US officials alleged that KSM chose al Marri to be an al Qaeda sleeper agent because he had a family and would therefore be less likely to attract suspicion. He was pulled over in a routine traffic stop two days after 9/11 when a police officer saw al Marri’s son standing up in the moving car’s back seat.

Al Marri was then briefly arrested on an old warrant for driving under the influence and raised authorities’ suspicions when he paid his $300 bail out of a briefcase full of bundles of hundred dollar bills. Al Marri would later acknowledge receiving these funds from an al Qaeda financial facilitator in the United Arab Emirates, Mustafa Hawsawi, whom KSM had instructed him to visit. Soon afterwards, al Marri was detained again when law enforcement officials confirmed a telephone at his home had been used to contact Hawsawi, whom they had already connected to one of the 9/11 hijackers.

Hawsawi was captured alongside KSM in early March 2003 and then held in the CIA’s controversial detention and interrogation program before being transferred to Guantanamo, where he remains in detention.

Reason for release unclear

Al Marri’s release seems to be the end result of a process set in motion by President Obama during his first month in office.

Read more at Long War Journal

Changing the Rules of the Democracy Game in Europe: Change the rules in Europe and change them now!

The situation in Europe is intolerable. At any given moment one of the thousands of Jihadists living in Europe can be annoyed by a movie, article or caricature published in a newspaper, grab the closest Kalashnikov and spread death and destruction in editorial offices, shops, museums, schools and on the streets.

He can hurl bombs – homemade or imported – into restaurants, movie houses, theaters, railroad stations, pour oil on highways and perpetrate other terrorist acts which will not be enumerated here so as not to give him any ideas.

There are various factors that indicate the potential for a major explosion:

  1. The enormous number – tens of millions – of Muslims in Europe, a large number to take into account even if only a small fraction of them turn radical.  Look at it this way: if, of the fifty million Muslims in Europe, only one in a thousand becomes a Jihadist, that means there are still fifty thousand Jihadists like the ones who turned Paris into an urban battleground last week.
  2. The fact is that many Muslims did not integrate into European culture. Many of them live in areas where they constitute the vast majority, where the language heard on the street is not French, schools are locally run even if they are called public schools, the mosque is the center of the neighborhood and the Imam is the spiritual leader who guides the perplexed (and there are many) and sustains the stumbling, especially economically. Many Muslims have really remained in their land of origin, both psychologically and mentally, and Islamic Sharia – anti-democratic by definition – is more important to them than the laws of the land in which they reside.
  3. Europe places almost no limitations on Muslim immigration. There is no proper guarding of the coastline and when illegal infiltrators arrive, they receive fair treatment, work permits, financial support, public housing, medical care and education without any linkage to their contribution to the society and economic system that absorbs them. The good reception the immigrants receive is sure to bring the rest of the family tomorrow, the day after that and next week.
  4. European security forces are not using sufficient surveillance forces to keep track of the Jihadists and their fellow travelers as well as their support systems. There is almost no one listening to what is being said in mosques, not enough tracking of Syrian and Iraqi war veterans, very little supervision of what is going on in the public sector. In France there are Muslim neighborhoods closed to police. In Germany there are already Islamist “modesty enforcing officers”  who force the locals to fall into step with behavioral requirements.

As a result of these factors, many Muslims feel that Europe is theirs. They pray on the streets and block traffic, including ambulances, force supermarkets to stop selling pork and alcoholic beverages, demand that churches cease to ring their bells and force women to dress according to Islamic law when outside the home. Europe’s economy – especially the financial market – is increasingly accepting Sharia requirements. European young women are seen as legitimate prey to satisfy the lusts of some of the immigrants, and the percentage of Muslims among those in jail is much higher than their percentage of the general population. This fact reflects the derision the immigrants and their sons feel for European law.

An Algerian colleague who fled his country thirty years ago once told me: “Algerians do not move from Algeria to France; they move Algeria to France”. The problem is worse when considering Muslims from Central Africa – Chad, Mali, Niger – because they suffer discrimination based on their skin color and not only their religion, a fact which explains why south Sahara Muslims are involved in terror acts: the terrorist that attacked the Hyper Casher store and the terrorist who tortured Ilan Halimi to death in 2006 were of African origin.

Europe’s reality today is a continent that is adopting another culture at a rapid pace. Dreams of cultural diversity have been shown to be unfounded delusions, as the immigrant culture is sure of itself and easily subjugates the fragile indigent culture which has divested itself of all values and has no desire to defend itself from the external threat it faces.

European nations have lost their immune system and are falling prey to new ideas, post modern in nature, that have broken Europe’s spirit and destroyed Europe’s ability to defend itself and its culture. Europe is sacrificing its values and cultural and physical existence on the altar of human rights, of which nothing will survive when Europe ceases to be Europe.

Is there anything to be done?

First, let me point out as clearly as possible: what is written below is not a recommendation or call to any specific action. It is a list of possible measures with which every person and every country can either agree or disagree. Second, in Europe there are millions of Muslims who arrived there in order to become Europeans, adopt European culture and live with and live within Europe as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.

They contribute to European society, to Europe’s economy and to the country in which they live a normative lifestyle. They are not terrorists, do not support terrorists and are wholeheartedly against terror. One of them hid Jews in the freezer room of HyperCasher in Paris after shutting the motor. May he be blessed. No one has the right to minimize by an iota the good deeds of these Muslims.

That is why the question at hand is what European nations can do in order to guard against Jihadists. And the answer is made up of a long list of procedures and steps whose goal is to turn the immigrant population into a European one. Of course, any Muslim who does not like these steps can leave Europe and find a home that is more suited to his cultural preferences.

The countries of Europe must own up to the fact that they are in a state of cultural emergency, change the rules of the democracy game and modify existing laws. The peoples of Europe must understand that any nation that does not know how to defend itself is doomed to disappear, a culture that is unable to preserve its values is marching proudly into the window case of a museum exhibit and a society that does not bring the next generation into the world is not going to exist in that next generation.

Future legal systems must reflect Europe’s desire to preserve its civilization, heritage and culture:

Every Muslim suspected of inciting to violence, possessing an unregistered weapon, of attending weapons training or operating in Syria and Iraq must be kept from entering or remaining in Europe by governmental order.

Areas into which law enforcement forces dare not enter must be opened before them.

Every mosque must contain a recording system and cameras that allow local security organizations to ensure that no subversive or anti-governmental activity is taking place within its confines.

Imam’s speeches are to be read from a written page that is submitted to local security organizations. Imams will not be allowed to speak unless their words are recorded and documented. They must speak in the language of the host country and not in that of the country of origin.

A Muslim who visits his country of origin will have to prove the reason for his trip and what he did while there. Anyone who arouses suspicions that while in his country of origin he acted or prepared to act against his host country or against armies in other parts of the world will lose the right to return to Europe.

Imams caught inciting to violence will be returned to their country of origin forthwith.

Along with the leaders of street gangs, organizations that advance the rule of Sharia law will be closed and their members sent back to their countries of origin.

Charity fund managers will have to prove what the source of every eurocent is and where it is going.

Every immigrant will be given a year to learn a trade or choose a vocation and find his place in a normative place of work, begin paying taxes and saving for his pension fund. Anyone who does not fulfill these conditions will not be eligible for financial help and be returned to his country of origin.

Every Muslim must take part in a course to learn the local language, the history and anthem of the host country. He will have to pass a vocational course and pledge allegiance to his new country, its laws and values.

Bigamy and polygamy will be strictly outlawed and defined as a crime against women. Family violence and especially honor killings will be sufficient reason to return the entire family to its country of origin.

Female circumcision will be outlawed and anyone participating in this practice, whether parent of circumcisor, will be thrown out of Europe immediately.

Covering one’s face will be forbidden and any woman caught with her face covered in the street will be sent back to her country of origin with her entire family. Selling face coverings will be against the law.

Public schools in which children of immigrants are enrolled will be under constant supervision to ensure that they are not educating in ways that cannot coexist with the values of the host country.

Newspapers, radio and television will be forums for free debate and open to discussions of religion and tradition, free of censorship of their written and spoken content, including caricatures.

The standard punishment for immigrant criminals will be a return to their land of origin.

The rules of political correctness will be abandoned and criticism of religions, all religions, will become legitimate and accepted.

An official body will be formed to check the purpose of organizations, their ideologies, their goals and the way they intend to try to reach them.

Only flags of the host country, the EU or organizations recognized by the government will be allowed.

Any opinion on social media that is in favor of Jihad will get the writer of said opinion a free ticket on a flight back to his country of origin.

Every organization connected to Islamic terror, the Muslim Brotherhood and the like will be illegal.

Each country will encourage births by providing economic support to couples who show they identify with the ethos of the country in which they live.

Any immigrant who criticizes the above measures will be sent elsewhere, preferably to his country of origin, where he will feel more at home.

At the same time, the countries of Europe must begin investing in unemployment-ridden Islamic countries so that their citizens will be less motivated to emigrate to Europe.

The above measures may seem severe and anti-democratic, but it is simply hypocrisy to believe that a democracy must protect those who are against the very idea of democracy for ideological and religious reasons. Democracies must defend themselves and their citizens or they will simply disappear.  No democracy should turn into a prescription for cultural suicide, every democracy must express itself in such a way that the culture of those who created it can survive.

It will take only a short while for these measures to seem absolutely crucial to preserve European culture. Preventing the application of these measures will only increase the hatred of Europe’s traditional societies for the immigrants, a hatred whose signs we can already see at the “Pagida” organization protests in Germany. The present situation is leading Europe to an explosion between Muslim immigrants and European society, an explosion which may destroy Europe. If determined steps are not taken to absorb the Muslim immigrants into European society the results may be destructive to the society, regimes and economies of the European countries.

A question that rises naturally is what is going on n the USA. There are those who claim that it has already embarked on a track similar to that of Europe, but that it lags 15 years behind Europe, so that if there is no change in the USA’s attitude to Islamization, in another 15 years America will look just like Europe today.  Take this as a warning.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is a senior lecturer in the Department of Arabic at Bar-Ilan University. He served in IDF Military Intelligence for 25 years, specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. Thoroughly familiar with Arab media in real time, he is frequently interviewed on the various news programs in Israel.

U.S. Military Not Taught Ideology of Islamic Jihad, ‘Our Nation Is In Great Peril,’ Says CSP

By Penny Starr

Tommy Waller, director of state outreach for the Center for Security Policy.

Tommy Waller, director of state outreach for the Center for Security Policy.

(CNSNews.com) – Center for Security Policy (CSP) official Tommy Waller, who fought against Islamic jihadists “on their turf” in Afghanistan and elsewhere, said his military training did not include instruction in the ideology of the enemy, a deliberate omission that puts America in “great peril.”

Waller, a Marine Reserve major, speaking via Skype at the National Press Club on Jan. 16, said he was speaking as an employee of the CSP, a conservative national security group in Washington, D.C., which released that day a new report, The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement.

The plan, designed by 16 experts on counter-terrorism, intelligence, the military and national security, is based on President Ronald Reagan’s plan to defeat the Communist Soviet Union.

The Secure Freedom Strategy explains that Muslims who adhere to Sharia law are behind the global jihad movement and the deadly attacks around the world on innocent people of all faiths, including other Muslims.

Waller, who is CSP’s director of state outreach, said it was his hope that the strategy can help defeat that enemy. His full remarks are reproduced below:

 

“Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing I have to tell you is that I’m addressing you as Tommy Waller, an employee of the Center for Security Policy and not as Major Waller, a commissioned officer in the Reserve component of the Marine Corps.

“Now, why is it that I have to make that distinction? Well, it saddens me to say that if I were currently in an active duty I would have to refrain from speaking about factual information about this ideology – Sharia — the very ideology that threatens our way of life because my words might be offensive.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic and when those that take an oath cannot be taught about the threat to our Constitution, which is both foreign and domestic, our nation is in great peril.

“Now I’ve deployed as an active duty Marine to numerous theaters of operations. I’ve faced the global jihad movement on their turf. And yet I was never taught what animated those Jihadists.

“Still to this day, if you attend a formal military school, you’ll find that there’s never mention of the ideology that animates our enemies.

“We speak in terms like violent extremist organizations. We never nail down the facts about what animates these organizations or, as Clare mentioned, individuals that subscribe to the ideology.

“I recently attended a school that was nearly a year long – a formal military school for commissioned officers at the field grade level. And in 10-plus months we covered information operations for less than an hour and our case study was the Communist insurgency and how we conducted propaganda operations against it in Vietnam.

“It’s mind-boggling to me how our enemies maintain absolute information dominance but it makes sense if that’s the curriculum that we have in our military’s formal schools.

“I’ve been up until this point, shocked and saddened by – and almost bewildered – by the absence void in factual analysis of our enemy on behalf of the national security community and what we face today is tantamount to the military of the Cold War being prevented from studying Communism. Being prevented from studying the ideology that they faced on the battlefield.

“And so it’s my sincere hope that my generation and those that follow it can recover the courage that our previous generation had to study the ideology of the enemy.

“I have to say that the ‘Secure Freedom Strategy’ gives me hope. It’s the first step in our generation doing a major course correction.

“And my personal request on behalf of the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice to that Constitution – in defense of that Constitution – on behalf of them, my request is that we embrace this strategy because we owe it to the generations that went before us and those that will follow us.”

At Waller’s request, the press conference ended with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Frank Gafney, president of the Center for Security Policy. (Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Frank Gafney, president of the Center for Security Policy. (Photo: CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Members of the “Tiger Team” include Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin; Clare Lopez, former Operations Officer in the CIA’s Clandestine Service and senior vice president for research and analysis at the CSP; Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, former Commander–in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and father of the Navy Red Cell counterterrorism unit and chairman of CSP’s military committee; Dr. J. Michael Waller, expert on psychological warfare, propaganda and influence operations and a senior fellow at CSP; and Frank Gaffney, former acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and the president of CSP.

You can see read the report here.

***

Launch Materials (PDF format):

***

Tom Trento Of The United West uploaded this recording of the entire news conference (event begins at 7:30 in the video)

 

Ambassador Bolton: Obama’s Skewed Beliefs on Terrorism Come From Marxist Ideology (Video)

Gateway Pundit, by Jim Hoft, January 15, 2015:

On Thursday Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron penned an op-ed today in the London Times on the terrorist enemy facing the West. They never mention Islamic radicalism. And they blame terrorism on poverty.
Tonight former Ambassador John Bolton discussed Obama’s far left and dangerous beliefs.

Greta Van Susteren: Did you read his op-ed in the London Times. It was odd… He said the way to fight terror is jobs.

Ambassador Bolton: The terrorist threat does not come from economic deprivation. That is leftist ideology, it’s really Marxist ideology, that all of this religion politics is the super-structure of economics. And, the primitive belief that if it weren’t for poverty everything would be fine in the world. Some of the worst terrorists are among the best educated and come from well-off people. Osama bin Laden being example number one.

 

In a public statement released after the 9-11 attacks, Barack Obama blamed “a climate of poverty and ignorance” for the terrorist attack on America. He has repeated this claim that poverty breeds terrorism over the years.

A British research project published in 2014 found that younger, educated and affluent Muslims were more prone to support terrorism.