Patriots Take On the Muslim Brotherhood

Pro-Egyptian Military Supporters Rally At White HouseFront Page, by Daniel Greenfield:

“We are faced with an enemy whose goal is to conquer the world by subversion and infiltration or, if necessary, by open war.”

The speaker was Senator John F. Kennedy and he was discussing the Communist Control Act that he had co-sponsored. The Act did what had been previously thought impossible; it outlawed the Communist Party.

The latest bill to fight an enemy whose goal is also to conquer the world by subversion, infiltration and open war doesn’t have a Kennedy co-sponsor. Instead it has the two members of Congress who have fought the hardest to expose the Muslim Brotherhood; Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert.

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act goes to the heart of the beast by designating the entity a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Plenty of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and splinter groups, from Hamas to Al Qaeda, have already ended up on the FTO list.

But the Brotherhood has been able to keep spewing out new front groups that enjoy immunity.

The Act lists some of the Brotherhood groups and Brotherhood leaders already on the FTO list. These include the Kuwaiti Muslim Brotherhood and the head of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood’s political party who served as the coordinator for the bombing of the USS Cole. The Act documents, briefly, the Brotherhood’s history and some of its more recent involvements in worldwide terrorism.

From the original World Trade Center attacks to the recent Brotherhood attacks on Coptic Christians, the Act comprehensively makes the case that the Muslim Brotherhood is a violent terrorist group.

There really is no doubt whatsoever that the Muslim Brotherhood meets the FTO criteria. But so did Boko Haram and the State Department fought tooth and nail to keep an Al Qaeda-linked organization responsible for the murder of thousands off the list.

The Muslim Brotherhood is even more vital to their agenda than Boko Haram.

However the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, if it passes, will force John Kerry to issue a report explaining why the Muslim Brotherhood should not be treated as a terrorist group.

The contents of that report could be guessed at ahead of time.

When challenged over the provision of F-16 fighter jets to Muslim Brotherhood thug Mohammed Morsi, Kerry had claimed that the US couldn’t just walk away from him.

A Kerry aide stated back in June that “We do not share the view of the Egyptian government about links between the Muslim Brothers and terrorist groups like ISIS” and argued that the Brotherhood was a political challenge, rather than a security challenge.

Nevertheless it’s important to have this discussion out in the open.

Americans who warned about the dangers of Communism were marginalized, but by the fifties a unanimous Senate vote had outlawed the Communist Party. JFK did not co-sponsor the Communist Control Act because he was a courageous leader, but because by then it was the safe thing to do.

The pace of world events had taken what had been seen as the obsession of a few cranks and turned it into a compelling national security issue that could no longer be ignored.

As the Middle East churns in the murderous grip of its Jihads, Americans are beginning to see a region under Islamic movements that resembles Eastern Europe under the Communist boot. As they look at the shifting populations in Europe, at the rise of honor killings and FGM, at mobs screaming hate at the Jews in Paris and at burning churches in Egypt, they ask themselves whether they want to live this way.

If Americans wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood, the way that they had once woken up to the threat of Communism, it will be because a handful of members of Congress, prominent among them, Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, kept up the good fight.

Bachmann and Gohmert warned about the Muslim Brotherhood despite the lack of interest in the topic by much of the public, the media and even by their own party.

With them stand a handful of co-sponsors; Trent Franks, who has also stood up against the Muslim Brotherhood, and others like Peter Roskam, who took a stand against Hamas, Cynthia Lummis, who asked during the Benghazi hearings about the Brotherhood’s involvement, Kevin Brady, who tried to cut funding to the UN, Steve Southerland, who spoke at Florida State University in defiance of Muslim protests, and Doug LaMalfa, who condemned Obama for funding Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act would make it possible to go after anyone providing material support to the entity. It would make it possible to keep Muslim Brotherhood agents from entering the United States and to deport Muslim Brotherhood members already in the United States.

The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act may not pass and even if it does, it’s wildly unlikely that Obama, who won’t even stop funding Hamas which is already on the FTO list, would enforce it. But shifts are incremental. They come from the persistent commitment to advancing an issue.

Within a decade, Communism went from kindly Uncle Joe to a nightmarish monster. In 1937, 47% of Americans knew nothing of Fascism or Communism. By 1939, half the country was willing to choose either Communism or Fascism. In 1940, only 37% supported jailing or deporting Communists. By 1945, 48% of Americans saw improving relations ahead for the US and the USSR.

Less than a decade later, outlawing the Communist Party had become the default bipartisan position.

While the propaganda of the left is a powerful thing, it crumbles in the face of world events. The political battlefield is a shadow of the real world. When the world changes, it abruptly transforms everything.

In these moments of transformation, the patriots who have been fighting for the truth have the opportunity to step forward and take advantage of the shift. And those who blindly denounced them will join them, because when the consensus crumbles, they seek sensible point of security to cling to.

It is toward that day that the patriots do their work, placing brick on brick, laboring to build a pedestal on which the truth will be revealed.

There may come a time when the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act is remembered as one of the vital building blocks in the American awakening to the threat of Islamization.

Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Bill To Be Introduced

d3895647-a09e-4025-bc88-6438cca72621By Larry Provost:

A bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives, this afternoon, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

The bill introduced by Rep. Michelle Bachmann, also known as the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014, will “impose sanctions against persons who knowingly provide material support or resources to the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates, associated groups, or agents, and for other purposes.”

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. The Muslim Brotherhood main branch, based in Egypt, has financed terrorist attacks worldwide that have killed Americans and others. The Brotherhood attacks Christians, women, and other religious minorities, in the name of Allah to fulfill al-Banna’s vision of “fighting the unbelievers…to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam.” The methods al-Banna suggested to advance jihad included “beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship, and smashing their idols.” Al-Banna also said “it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated” and to “impose its law on nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Hamas, of recent Gaza fame, self identifies as “one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine” and was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995 by President Clinton. The Kuwaiti branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was designated as a terrorist organization by President Bush shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The 9/11 Commission reported that the Islamization of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, were during their membership in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Majid Al-Zindani, who worked for years with Osama Bin Laden, was designated as a terrorist by the United States in February 2004. Al-Zindani was not only a member but a leader in the Yemeni branch of the Brotherhood.

Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, who was Osama Bin Laden’s brother in law, was a Muslim Brotherhood leader who supported the Islamic terrorists waging an insurgent campaign in the Philippines.

The Muslim Brotherhood has participated in “terror conferences” with groups such as Al-Qaeda, Iranian intelligence, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (led by current Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri), Algerian GIA, Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood), Ennahdha (the Tunisian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood), and the Islamic Action Front (the Jordanian Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood).

Read more at Town Hall

UANI Applauds U.S. House for Passing New Sanctions on Iran’s Terrorist Proxy Hezbollah

10564999_10152620859829312_3690162159802858390_n

UNAI:

New York, NY – Today, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for unanimously passing the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act (H.R. 4411), a measure to impose further sanctions on the foreign assets of designated terrorist organization Hezbollah. Among other provisions, the legislation would direct the Treasury Department to prohibit a foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates Hezbollah activities from maintaining a payable-through account in the U.S. The bill was introduced by U.S. Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Edward R. Royce (R-CA), and Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) and cosponsored by 321 Members of Congress. The legislation’s Senate counterpart, S. 2329, was introduced by U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) and has 46 cosponsors.

Said UANI CEO Ambassador Mark D. Wallace:

We applaud the House for voting to toughen sanctions on Hezbollah, the Iranian regime’s terrorist proxy. The House has sent a strong, bipartisan message with this unanimous vote, and we hope the Senate now passes this bill and sends it to President Obama’s desk. As the Administration has noted, Iran remains the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, and Tehran and its agents must be held fully accountable for sowing terror across the globe.

For additional information on Hezbollah and Iran’s terrorist activity, visit the following UANI resources:

Iran VERITAS Project: Documenting Iran’s Violence, Extremism, Repression and Terror

For 35 years the Islamic Republic of Iran has used violence and brutality to consolidate power at home and spread its radical revolutionary ideology abroad. UANI’s Iran VERITAS Project is the definitive record memorializing Iran’s violence, extremism, repression and terrorism at home and abroad.

Iran State Sponsor of Terrorism Timeline

Iran – particularly the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – has been repeatedly tied to terrorist organizations and terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies throughout the world.

Experts: American Adversaries Work Together Despite Differences

Fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) / Reuters

Fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) / Reuters

BY: :

American adversaries in the Middle East continue to work together across sectarian and religious divides to harm U.S. interests and security, requiring a more nuanced response from U.S. officials to address the turmoil in the region, experts say.

The Obama administration has claimed in recent weeks that the United States and Iran—a traditional U.S. enemy since its Islamic revolution 35 years ago—have a shared interest in pushing back the advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), an al Qaeda offshoot, in Iraq. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said last month that the United States and Iran have “some history here of sharing common interests,” citing early cooperation on the Afghanistan war against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Iran, led by a Shiite government, is typically viewed as opposing hardline Sunni groups such as the Taliban and al Qaeda as part of an intra-religious dispute among Muslims.

However, Iran has a long history of harboring and supporting al Qaeda. European intelligence reports indicate that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, founder of the group al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) that eventually morphed into ISIL, operated from Iran after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Zarqawi used protection from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to rebuild the terrorist group’s network and prepare for its expansion into Iraq.

The U.S. Treasury Department has called Iran “a critical transit point for funding to support al Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” The department in February sanctioned three IRGC officers for allegedly providing support to the Taliban as well as to a senior member of al Qaeda who allegedly used Iran to move Sunni fighters into Syria.

“Iran has a long history of fomenting violent conflict and inflaming sectarian divides throughout the Middle East including in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq,” said the group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) in recent press release.

“Depictions of Iran as a source of stability are therefore erroneous and short-sighted, as are assertions that increased Iranian involvement in Iraq will serve American and Iraqi interests,” UANI added.

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq for the George W. Bush administration, said in an email that U.S. diplomats often only view the Middle East through “a sectarian lens.”

“Sunnis and Shi’ites show no compunction working together to screw over America, which their respective extremists consider a bigger threat,” he said. “Heck, sometimes it seems that the State Department never bothered to read the 9/11 report which suggested that the attacks might not have happened had Iran not facilitated the travel to training camps of the 9/11 hijackers.”

“Sure, at first glance, Secretary of State John Kerry may believe that the U.S. and Iran share an interest in Iraq,” he added. “But just because firefighters and arsonists share an interest in fire doesn’t mean they are on the same side.”

In Iraq, ISIL partnered last month with former Baathist generals under Saddam Hussein’s regime to seize the key northern city of Mosul. Religious extremist groups such as al Qaeda have traditionally sought to overthrow secular Middle East regimes such as Hussein’s Baathists.

Top U.S. officials have recently expressed grave concerns about the potential for foreign fighters in ISIL to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

The secular-religious rift in the Middle East also did not stop Hussein from supporting jihadist groups when it suited the former Iraqi dictator’s interests. Hussein reportedly provided safe haven, training, and arms to these groups as long as they agreed to attack countries he wanted to pressure.

Hundreds of thousands of documents obtained in Iraq since 2003, compiled in a report by the Institute for Defense Analyses, further confirmed Hussein’s links to terrorist groups.

Read more at Free Beacon

The Newburgh Deception: HBO Documentary Whitewashes American Jihad Plot

 

By Andrew E. Harrod:

The Newburgh Sting will air Monday, July 21 on HBO.  This documentary concerns a 2009 FBI undercover operation against terrorist attacks upon New York area targets.  Viewers beware, though; this film ignores copious evidence of jihadist motivation in a tale of deprived individuals entrapped by zealous officials that discredits effective tactics against terror.

The documentary analyzes how four American Muslims undertook what they thought would be attacks against two Bronx synagogues and American military transport planes in a May 20, 2009 FBI sting.  The operation begins with FBI informant Shahed Hussain visiting Newburgh, New York’s Masjid Al-Ikhlas mosque undercover, where the apparently wealthy Hussain raised suspicions with persistent inquiries into jihad.  “Everybody here is straight,” however, so Al-Ikhlas imam Salahuddin Muhammad remained unconcerned.

Yet the film recounts how Hussain encountered in Al-Ikhlas’s parking lot, on June 13, 2008, James Cromitie, as described by court records, where his Muslim name, Abdul Rehman, also appears.  In the film, Cromitie falls prey not to talk of jihad, but rather to Hussain’s offer of $250,000, according to former FBI agent and ACLU policy analyst Mike German.  “They’re doing it for the money,” Cromitie likewise says on a surveillance tape in the film about the three plotters he recruits.  David Williams (“AKA DAOUD” in official documents), for example, liked “weed and women,” according to his aunt.  He merely became a “jailhouse Muslim” in order to avoid prison gangs and wanted money for his mother’s liver transplant operation.

These four plotters “certainly were not terrorists,” German judges, but ran afoul of FBI entrapment.  The “rules don’t apply anymore” at an FBI that after September 11, 2001, views the “entire Muslim community as suspect,” German criticizes.  “Some bad actors in every community” can appear, concurs Representative Keith Ellison, when authorities “channel a vast amount of law enforcement resources.”  Muslims are now merely the “new thing” after Communists in the 1950s and gang members in the 1990s.

Yet “Islam literally means peace,” Al-Ikhlas assistant imam Hamin Rashada says.  The “most beautiful thing that has ever come off the tongue” is the Koran, he adds, breaking into tears, to which terrorists are “only giving lip service.”  Zero American mosques have had terrorism links, Nihad Awad, from the unindicted terrorism financing co-conspirator Council on American-Islamic Relations, also assures.

Treating Muslims as “partners or as suspects” in law enforcement is the choice Salam al-Marayati from the equally radical Muslim Public Affairs Council outlines for authorities.  Marayati wanted “to push out surveillance as a law enforcement tactic…with effective partnership programs” at a June 2014 presentation of The Newburgh Sting.

Brief references to jihadist ideology appear in the documentary.  The Bronx synagogues are “good…excellent” targets for Cromitie because “I hate those…f—ing Jewish bastards.”  “This is jihad,” Hussain in turn stresses to Cromitie, and not just a matter of money.

Court records, however, give a far fuller account of why the four plotters’ entrapment defense failed both at trial and on appeal.  Cromitie wanted “to do something to America…to die like a shahid, a martyr” and “go to paradise,” he declared to Hussain after initiating contact with him on June 13, 2008.  “In all his prior encounters as an informant,” Hussain “had never heard anything like that before,” the prosecutor’s brief to the appeals court observed.

Read more at American Thinker

Also see:

UK Bans Pro-Jihad Islamist Groups

"All my brothers living in the west, I know how you feel. When I used to live there, in the heart you feel depressed. The cure for the depression is jihad." — British jihadist Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi)

“All my brothers living in the west, I know how you feel. When I used to live there, in the heart you feel depressed. The cure for the depression is jihad.” — British jihadist Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi)

by Soeren Kern:

“I believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. I believe that we should cut the hands off of thieves. I believe the Sharia should be implemented in Denmark. Maybe we should change the Christiansborg Palace [the Danish Parliament building] to Muslimsborg to have the flag of Islam flying over the parliament in Denmark. I think this would be very nice.” — Anjem Choudary, while in Denmark to establish Islam4dk in June 2014.

“[Choudary's network] has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.” — Times of London.

“The cure for depression is jihad.” — Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi), Scottish jihadist.

The British government has banned three groups linked to Anjem Choudary, a Muslim hate preacher who wants to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic state.

The move comes after the groups were found to have organized jihadist recruitment meetings in which two Muslim youths from Cardiff were persuaded to fight with Islamic insurgents in Syria.

The Home Office said on June 26 that the groups Need4Khilafah, The Shariah Project and The Islamic Dawah Association are all aliases of al-Muhajiroun, a Salafi-Wahhabi extremist group that was banned in 2006 but has continued to operate ever since then by using different names.

Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “The Emigrants”) has also operated under a host of other names, including al-Ghurabaa (Arabic for “The Strangers”), The Saved Sect (aka The Savior Sect), Muslims Against Crusades, Muslim Prisoners, Islamic Path, Islam4UK, Women4Sharia and Islamic Emergency Defence, which is still operational.

Al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect were both banned in July 2006, after they organized a march through downtown London to protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Demonstrators linked to the groups waved placards reading, “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Kill those who insult Islam,” and “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way.”

Islam4UK was banned in January 2010. At the time, the group described itself as having been “established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia [in Britain].”

Muslims Against Crusades was banned in November 2011, after the group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates were to function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

All of the bans have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a group can be proscribed if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Section 1.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the “use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Announcing the latest ban, Britain’s Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said, “Terrorist organisations should not be allowed to escape proscription simply by acting under a different name.” He continued:

“That is why we have today laid an order which will, from tomorrow, recognize the Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association as aliases of the group already proscribed as both al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.

“The group is also known as al-Muhajiroun. This means being a member of or supporting the organization is a criminal offense.

“Al-Muhajiroun remains of significant concern to the UK and the international community, and this order will ensure that it cannot operate in the UK as Need4Khilafah, the Shariah Project and the Islamic Dawah Association.”

The latest ban—a conviction for membership of either group could result in a prison term of up to ten years or a £5,000 (€6,300; $8,500) fine—is unlikely to deter Choudary, who has repeatedly mocked the government’s efforts to prevent him from radicalizing British Muslims.

According to a report published by the Times of London on June 27, Choudary’s network “has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.”

Choudary, who lives and thrives thanks to the generosity of the British welfare state, responded to the ban by warning that he will never be silenced. He said:

“If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison. I’ll radicalize everyone in prison. My paradise and my hell are things which are beyond this reality. My paradise is in my heart. If they put me in prison I’ll carry on there. If they kill me I will die a martyr.

“There is nothing, really, they can do which could dampen my hopes and aspirations. I will carry on being a servant of [Allah] for the rest of my life, inshallah [if Allah wills] — whatever they do they will face the consequences of their actions on the day of judgment.”

According to the Times, British police keep Choudary under close watch, but say he is a “difficult target” because he is “very familiar with the law,” (Choudary attended law school) especially on offenses relating to incitement.

Choudary has been promoting radical Islam since the 1990s, when he partnered with the Syrian-born cleric Omar Bakri Muhammad to found al-Muhajiroun. The group disbanded in 2004 but re-emerged under the name al-Ghurabaa until that was banned in 2006. It has since responded to proscription orders by constantly devising new names to keep the hydra-like network one step ahead of British authorities.

The latest ban came after it was discovered that Need4Khilafah and the Islamic Dawah Association organized meetings to recruit British Muslims to fight in Iraq and Syria.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Don’t Put Terrorists on Trial

by Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
July 14, 2014

The Obama administration has brought an accused Libyan terrorist named Ahmed Abu Khattala to Washington for trial. His saga reveals how the government views the Islamist threat, and it’s discouraging. Fortunately, a much better alternative exists.

 

Ahmed Abu Khattala.

Abu Khattala stands accused of taking part in the murder of an ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi in September 2012. After an achingly slow investigation, during which time the suspect lived in the open and defiantly gave media interviews, the American military seized him on June 15. After being transported by sea and air to Washington, D.C., Abu Khattala was jailed, provided with a defense attorney, Michelle Peterson, indicted, arraigned, and, after listening to an Arabic translation of the proceedings, pleaded not guilty to a single charge of conspiracy and requested a halal diet. He potentially faces life in prison.

 

An artist’s rendering of Abu Khattala, wearing a headphone, next to his attorney Michelle Peterson, being sworn in by Judge John Facciola at his hearing on June 28, 2014 in the federal U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

This scenario presents two problems. First, Abu Khattala enjoys the full panoply of protections offered by the U.S. legal system (he actually was read his Miranda rights, meaning his right to stay silent and to consult with a lawyer), making conviction uncertain. As the New York Times explains, proving the charges against him will be “particularly challenging” because of the circumstances of the attacks, which took place in the midst of a civil war and in a country brimming with hostility to the United States, where concerns about security meant that U.S. law investigators had to wait for weeks to go to the crime scenes to collect evidence, and the prosecution depends on testimony from Libyan witnesses brought over to the United States who may well falter under cross-examination.

Secondly, what good does a conviction bring? If all goes well, a minor operative will be taken out of commission, leaving the ideological sources, the funding apparatus, the command and control structure, and the terrorist network untouched. A years-long, cumbersome, expensive, and draining effort will prove a point, not damage the enemy. If Abu Khattala is convicted, administration officials can crow but Americans will be only marginally safer.

This futility recalls the 1990s, when terrorist attacks were routinely treated as criminal incidents and handled in courts of law, rather than as warfare to be dealt with using military force. In response, I complained in 1998 that the U.S. government saw terrorist violence “not as the ideological war it is, but as a sequence of discrete criminal incidents,” a mistaken approach that turns the U.S. military “into a sort of global police force and requires it to have an unrealistically high level of certainty before it can go into action,” requiring it to collect evidence of the sort that can stand up in a U.S. court of justice.

George W. Bush discarded the criminal paradigm when he dramatically declared a “war against terrorism” in the evening of 9/11. While that is a clumsy phrase (how can one make war on a tactic?), what became known as the Bush Doctrine had the great benefit of declaring war – as opposed to a police action – on those attacking Americans. But now, 13 years later and in part because of the success of this war, the Obama administration has reverted to the pre-9/11 approach of apprehending criminals.

 

George W. Bush addressing the nation and declaring a “war against terrorism” on 9/11.

Instead of this, the U.S. response to terrorist attacks on Americans citizens should be immediate and lethal. As I wrote 16 years ago, “anyone who harms Americans should know that retribution will be certain and nasty. … When reasonable evidence points to Middle Eastern terrorists having harmed Americans, U.S. military force should be deployed. If the perpetrator is not precisely known, then punish those who are known to harbor terrorists. Go after governments and organizations that support terrorism, not just individuals.”

Skip the fine-grain analysis of who carried out the attack. Security depends not on complex court procedures, but on a record of U.S. deterrence established by “years of terrible retribution against anyone who so much as harms a single American citizen.” Enemies must expect to face the full fury of the United States when they harm its citizens, thereby dissuading them from committing such attacks in future.

American taxpayers turn over $3 trillion a year to the federal government and in return expect to be protected from foreign threats. This holds doubly for citizens who venture abroad on behalf of their country, such as the four embassy personnel killed in Benghazi.

Crimes require rules of evidence, Miranda rights, lawyers, judges and juries. Warfare requires full-throated retaliation by the American military.

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

Out of Control Border – Open Invitation to Terrorists

8df0455e-efb9-40e1-b03c-1d342d7d8037Does Obama Believe in Terrorism? by Kevin McCullough at Town Hall, Jul 13, 2014:

I’ve been caught asking myself the same question many times this week.

“Does our President believe in terrorism?”
No, I’m not asking if he personally believes in the use of terrorism, or the ideology of terrorism, or the effectiveness of the weapon of terrorism. Some of my critics are already condemning me for not asking that question from the start. And as well intentioned as some are who would hold those positions, I feel a need to break things down into even more succinct pieces.
Does President Obama believe in terrorism’s existence and imminence in the days we live this very minute?
Normally it would be easy to laugh off such a question from an opinion writer, but these aren’t normal days. The middle easy is burning down. Terrorists are shooting missiles at our best ally. We just turned five of the world’s worst terrorists loose in exchange for a man who got brainwashed to believe the terrorists. And then came this past week…
A source at the border patrol has informed me going back to the days of 9.11.2001, that on any given month (then) we’d have a dozen persons of middle eastern origin attempt to penetrate our southern border each month. In 2014 my source tells me that number is now regularly above a hundred. These persons look very much like all the others crossing the border, most have even learned some spanish, and like all the others they are blending in with, they climb the ladder, jump the fence, and wait for border patrol to pick them up.
This is important to understand given that in the past week–only due to diligent reporting–have we had it revealed that the executive branch of the federal government has authorized free rides for illegals to destinations of choice in the mainland of America. 300,000 “free” rides by our executive branch to people who “tell us” who they are–most days without any form of corroborating identification.
Which would be bad enough, until we learned from the stories coming out of the border that the Islamic State (formerly ISIS, an Al Qaeda faction) has made direct contact with Mexican drug cartels, and then pledged publicly to exploit our southern border. (Come to think of it, I’m pretty certain al-Baghdaddi wasn’t talking about taking a tour when he told his former captors in Iraq that he would “see them in New York.”)
So… to review we’ve got Al Qaeda ready to penetrate our southern border (if they haven’t already). They’re intent on killing us. And we may be giving them rides to anywhere in the lower 48 states.
Then came the information from the National Border Patrol Council, documenting that the same Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) that feels you up, or looks at you on naked machines at airports has been ordered to allow these aliens to fly on commercial jet-liners (no doubt at partial tax-payer expense) with nothing more than their “Notice to Appear” paper from their initial hearing when they arrive in the USA. And as long as they have these easily forged papers TSA can not ask them any further questions about identity. They are then using that form of identification to fly anywhere they wish in the country.
This loosely enforced “security” could put active members of Al Qaeda or any number of other Muslim Brotherhood groups into the heart of New York, DC, or other prime target rich environments. Almost over night, and almost undetected to the good people of America.
The President isn’t stopping the border crossings where nearly 100 for every 4000 that are coming across (and that’s the per day average) turn out to be people of middle eastern origins. The President isn’t requiring the illegal visitors to face the law and it’s Biblically acceptable enforcement. In some cases the crossers are making their initial appearances by SKYPE to a desk operation four states over. The President has instructed the border patrol to play nice and not get into confrontational situations. The President has ordered more than a quarter of a million personal rides to those who wish to meet up with relatives, friend’s, and just people that they know. And the President has not reversed the silly edict allowing anyone in the USA to fly without an ID.
In other words he’s acting as though he firmly doubts that America is being readied for another major-bigger-than-the-previous-record-setting terror attack.
But beyond that he’s actively doing as much as possible to get us as close to that possible reality.
Well he then must believe that Al Qaeda is less of a threat now than it has been in the past. He must believe that there is nothing of significance happening in the Middle East. And his 72% approval rating amongst the world’s muslim population must be because they believe “hope and change” are coming.
For if he believed that a caliphate being established was a dangerous thing, if he believed that evil people exist and are seeking our demise as we read this, and if he believed that these border policies are providing enormous holes in our security for the bad people to do what they want to do…
Then surely he’d ignore his pro-Muslim-brotherhood advisers and do what was best for the welfare of the people he swore an oath to protect.
Right?

*************

DML on terror threat at the border:

 

Jeanine Pirro accuses Obama of implementing a “Trojan Horse” strategy:

 

Frank Gaffney speaks with Judge Jeanine Pirro about the possibility that ISIS will use the current border crisis to entering the United States:

 

Perry: Securing the border is ‘one of the highest priorities for this country from a national security standpoint’

 

Also see:

WHY ISIS IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN AL QAEDA AND WHAT AMERICA MUST DO ABOUT IT

ISIS-heavy-weapons-reutersby :

In the space of just a few weeks, the jihadi threat group ISIS has accomplished more than al Qaeda did in the the thirteen years since the September 11 attacks. It will continue to grow in power and come to pose a direct threat to the United States unless America guides a regional response. Now.
On a sunny Tuesday morning in September of 2001, al Qaeda entered the history books as the deadliest terrorist group in modern history. In under a few hours it murdered more people in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania than other terrorist groups like the IRA or the Baader-Meinhof Gang had killed over a period of decades.
Since that dreadful day, the original Al Qaeda, what the administration refers to now as ‘Core AQ’, has executed or inspired other attacks to include those of Richard Reid the infamous Shoebomber, Major Nidal Hassan the Fort Hood killer, and Faisal Shazad, the Times Square bomber. At the same time it has recruited foreign fighters to wage guerrilla war inside Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, as well as for other jihadi theaters.
Additionally, it has waged a propaganda campaign to spread its message of holy war against the infidel with publications such as the periodical Inspire, the e-magazine that included a recipe for pressure-cooker IEDs, a recipe that would be used by the Boston bombers.
Despite all of the above, the threat posed by Al Qaeda pales by comparison to the achievements of its off-shoot the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham which recently declared the establishment of a new Caliphate, or empire of Islam, and has, as a result, changed its name to The Islamic State.
How do we know that ISIS / The Islamic State is a greater threat today than Al Qaeda?
Here are just 6 reasons:
  • While Al Qaeda attracted foreign fighters to wage jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq, its recruitment figures never came close to the thousands that have been so rapidly drawn to fight in Syria and Iraq. The problem is so severe that Attorney General Eric Holder just yesterday had to publicly request his European counterparts do something to stem the flow of fighters.
  • Al Qaeda was predominantly successful in bringing Arab Muslims from the Middle East to fight in wars in their own region or in South Asia. But unclassified reports, and ISIS’ own videos, confirm that it is having an unprecedented success in attracting Muslim men from the West to go fight Jihad. Young men who – if they survive the current fight – will likely return back home to America, the UK, or elsewhere in the West, as hardened jihadis skilled in infantry tactics and in employing improvised explosive devices.
  • Although Al Qaeda was sheltered by the fundamentalist Taleban government in Afghanistan – with bin Laden strategically ensuring that his commanders’ daughter married into Taleban families – as an organization Al Qaeda never controlled a whole country. With the Blitzkrieg assault of ISIS fighters capturing city after city in Iraq in recent weeks and then declaring a new Caliphate, ISIS is on the cusp of functioning as a de facto country, a Jihadi Nation. Al Qadea almost always acted like a terrorist group and less like an insurgency, the important distinction being that insurgencies hold territory in daylight. ISIS, however, is a fully fledged insurgency that has captured city after city and is functioning as a quasi state.
  • With other regional jihadi commanders, such as the former head of the Al Nusrah front, swearing bayat (loyalty) to ISIS we see the open confirmation of the reality that Al Qaeda’s brand has been overtaken. This is the kind of international operational recognition Al Qaeda always wanted and tried desperately to obtain but never managed too. And ISIS has succeeded to become a multinational jihadi authority in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
  • Bin Laden, and the current leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, always understood the importance of propaganda and information warfare, especially after the American jihadi Anwar al Awlaki took over editorship of Inspire magazine. But they never came close to the sophistication and media savvy of ISIS with is whirlwind establishment of a Social Media presence. Not only is ISIS filming and distributing the standard jihadi footage of its vicious attacks but also video of the mass murders of its prisoners. More importantly it is also disseminating more subtle and softer narratives via Twitter and other channels in ways that Al Qaeda never did.
  • ISIS has capabilities that exceed even the wildest dreams of the original founders of Al Qaeda. After capturing the city of Mosul and the raiding the local government coffers, it now has over $400 million at its disposal. The 9/11 attacks only cost Al Qaeda $500,000. ISIS has funds now adequate to at least 800 9/11 attacks. Add to that all the latest US military hardware it has captured and the older Syrian Scud missile it also paraded openly for all the world to see last week , and it is clear ISIS and Al Qaeda are in totally different leagues.
For all these reasons, and many more, ISIS poses a significantly bigger threat than Al Qaeda ever did. A threat not only to Shia-controlled states like Iraq or Syria. ISIS has made its plan clear . It is reestablishing the theocratic empire of Islam, the Caliphate, that was dissolved after WWI, in 1924, by the secularizing President of the new Republic of Turkey, Kemal Ataturk. They are driven by an ideology that is absolutist and global. After taking out the “Near Enemy” in Syria and Iraq, they wish to kill other apostates, others they deem to be false Muslims, be it King Abdullahh II of Jordan, or the new president of Egypt, retired General Sisi who has vowed to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological cousins of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Read more at Breitbart
Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the national security and foreign affairs editor of the Breitbart News Network.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Iraq’s Collapse, America’s Interests

Published on Jun 30, 2014 by securefreedom

Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Friday, 27 June, 2014

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory, Marine Corps University; National Security Affairs Editor, Breitbart.com.

 

See also:

Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts by Sebastian Gorka

ISIS in the Homeland

pic_giant_061614_SM_ISIS-in-the-HomelandBy Andrew G. Doran:

For a 500-mile stretch of territory that winds, more or less, along the Euphrates from Iraq to Syria, a regime of masked, sociopathic murderers reign in terror under the black flag of jihad.

This territory is not represented on any map of nation-states – a concept that little reflects realities in Iraq and Syria.  It is land claimed by the disciples of terrorist Abu Al Zarqawi. On June 10, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) seized the city of Mosul in the Nineveh Province, capturing “arms and ammunition from the fleeing security forces” — arms and ammunition supplied by the American government, which will now be used to impose terror on defenseless civilians. The offensive coincides with a successful campaign by ISIS in eastern Syria. Perhaps there will be new detention centers of torture and murder; perhaps there will be more tweets proudly displaying crucifixions.

Like Zarqawi and bin Laden, these terrorists will not be satisfied to reign in the Hell of their own making in the Middle East, or with the toppling of insufficiently Islamic regimes, or even with winning the Sunni-Shia civil war that now rages. Their ultimate target will be the United States. They are coming this way. Perhaps as many as a dozen are already here – or, to be more precise, already back.

As Eli Lake recently reported in the Daily Beast, thousands of foreigners have gone to Syria to take up arms against the regime of Bashar Assad, serving with various rebel factions, most of which fall somewhere on the Islamist spectrum.

Thousands of these fighters are citizens of Western countries that have visa waivers for entry into the United States – in other words, they can travel here without any hassle at all. An intelligence source conveyed to Lake concerns that the NSA could not “track thousands of bad guys,” adding that “on the human-intelligence front, this is even more difficult.” These veterans of al-Qaeda and its affiliates constitute a fundamentally different threat than that which America faced in 2001: They are Western (at least in nationality); they are seasoned combat veterans; they are known, but perhaps too numerous to track.

After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, the fatigue of the American people is palpable, which has prompted many to welcome President Obama’s winding down of the global War on Terror. Despite the president’s repeated claims on the campaign trail two years ago, the evidence suggests that al-Qaeda is not “on the path to defeat” or “on the run.” It is, rather, “morphing” and “franchising,” according to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.

Yet in Syria, America’s commitment, however anemic, is to the overthrow of Assad, a contemptible and ruthless secular dictator but one whose regime is fighting al-Qaeda and its affiliates among the rebels. This paradox is apparently lost on those most keen on his overthrow. Competing objectives in Syria have caused America to lose focus on the principal enemy and principal threat: al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

If these Islamist veterans of the Syrian conflict succeed in pulling off a terrorist attack against the United States, the problem with  America’s policy in Syria will come into focus immediately. One can well imagine the hearings on Capitol Hill: “We knew these people were coming. Why was more not done to stop them? Why wasn’t the intelligence community given the resources it needed to track these terrorists? Why were we sending arms to overthrow the dictator who was trying to kill these terrorists who later killed Americans?” The foreign-policy priorities of the present will instantly be regarded as an unworthy distraction and forgotten. It is, of course, easy enough to ask these questions retrospectively; it is another thing altogether to ask them in advance — which prompts one to take notice when someone on the Hill does.

Read more at National Review

Two Arab countries fall apart

20140614_MAP001_0

The Economist:

WHOEVER chose the Twitter handle “Jihadi Spring” was prescient. Three years of turmoil in the region, on the back of unpopular American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have benefited extreme Islamists, none more so than the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), a group that outdoes even al-Qaeda in brutality and fanaticism. In the past year or so, as borders and government control have frayed across the region, ISIS has made gains across a swathe of territory encompassing much of eastern and northern Syria and western and northern Iraq. On June 10th it achieved its biggest prize to date by capturing Mosul, Iraq’s second city, and most of the surrounding province of Nineveh. The next day it advanced south towards Baghdad, the capital, taking several towns on the way. Ministers in Iraq’s government admitted that a catastrophe was in the making. A decade after the American invasion, the country looks as fragile, bloody and pitiful as ever.

After four days of fighting, Iraq’s security forces abandoned their posts in Mosul as ISIS militiamen took over army bases, banks and government offices. The jihadists seized huge stores of American-supplied arms, ammunition and vehicles, apparently including six Black Hawk helicopters and 500 billion dinars ($430m) in freshly printed cash. Some 500,000 people fled in terror to areas beyond ISIS’s sway.

The scale of the attack on Mosul was particularly audacious. But it did not come out of the blue. In the past six months ISIS has captured and held Falluja, less than an hour’s drive west of Baghdad; taken over parts of Ramadi, capital of Anbar province; and has battled for Samarra, a city north of Baghdad that boasts one of Shia Islam’s holiest shrines. Virtually every day its fighters set off bombs in Baghdad, keeping people in a state of terror.

As The Economist went to press, it was reported to have taken Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s home town, only 140km (87 miles) north-west of Baghdad. The speed of ISIS’s advance suggested that it was co-operating with a network of Sunni remnants from Saddam’s underground resistance who opposed the Americans after 2003 and have continued to fight against the Shia-dominated regime of Nuri al-Maliki since the Americans left at the end of 2011.

It was barely a year ago, in April 2013, that ISIS announced the expansion of its operations from Iraq into Syria. By changing its name from the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) by adding the words “and al-Sham”, translated as “the Levant” or “Greater Syria”, it signified its quest to conquer a wider area than present-day Syria.

Run by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an Iraqi jihadist, ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000-5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya and perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe.

It is ruthless, slaughtering Shia and other minorities, including Christians and Alawites, the offshoot to which Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, belongs. It sacks churches and Shia shrines, dispatches suicide-bombers to market-places, and has no regard for civilian casualties.

Its recent advances would have been impossible without ISIS’s control since January of the eastern Syrian town of Raqqa, a testing ground and stronghold from which it has made forays farther afield. It has seized and exploited Syrian oilfields in the area and raised cash by ransoming foreign hostages.

Rather than fight simply as a branch of al-Qaeda (“the base” in Arabic), as it did before 2011, it has aimed to control territory, dispensing its own brand of justice and imposing its own moral code: no smoking, football, music, or unveiled women, for example. And it imposes taxes in the parts of Syria and Iraq it has conquered.

In other words, it is creating a proto-state on the ungoverned territory straddling the borderlands between Syria and Iraq. “This is a new, more dangerous strategy since 2011,” says Hassan Abu Haniyeh, a Jordanian expert on jihadist movements. If ISIS manages to hold onto its turf in Iraq, it will control an area the size of Jordan with roughly the same population (6m or so), stretching 500km from the countryside east of Aleppo in Syria into western Iraq.

It holds three border posts between Syria and Turkey and several more on Syria’s border with Iraq. Raqqa’s residents say Moroccan and Tunisian jihadists have brought their wives and children to settle in the city. Foreign preachers have been appointed to mosques. ISIS has also set up an intelligence service.

The regimes of Mr Assad in Syria and Mr Maliki in Iraq have played into ISIS’s hands by stoking up sectarian resentment among Sunni Arabs, who are a majority of more than 70% in Syria and a minority of around a fifth in Iraq, where they had been dominant under Saddam Hussein. But Mr Assad has cannily left ISIS alone, rightly guessing it would start fighting against the more mainstream rebels, to the regime’s advantage. And he has highlighted the horrors of ISIS to the West, as the spectre of what may come next were he to fall.

Read more at The Economist

Also see:

Islamist Threat on the Rise

AQIM CLAIMS KIDNAPPING OF ITALIANS IN COMMUNIQU…by PETER BROOKES:

Since the national conversation of late has been riveted on terrorism spurred on by the controversy swirling around the Taliban prisoner swap, it’s a good time to take stock of the state of Islamist militancy.

Bottom line? The threat is getting worse.

For instance, for the year 2013, the State Department estimated that terrorist attacks jumped more than 40 percent globally while RAND’s Seth Jones asserted in The Wall Street Journal that the number of jihadists worldwide hovered around 100,000.

Those figures from last year are jaw-dropping – but from the looks of it, the situation isn’t getting any better this year.

Let’s start with Syria. What began as part of the peaceful “Arab Spring” movement against the dictator in Damascus, Bashar Assad, a few years ago has morphed into a violent “Islamist Spring” campaign that has set the country aflame.

The three-plus year civil war has emerged as an magnet for Islamist extremists from across the globe bent on joining the latest militant jihad.

Indeed, there may be some 12,000 foreign fighters from 80 countries in Syria, some of whom have joined up with al Qaeda-associated groups like the al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, according to Bloomberg.

In addition to the bloodshed that has taken the lives of more than 150,000 people so far and displaced millions more, these foreign fighters are being schooled in the terrorist “dark arts” on the Syrian battlefield.

But it’d be a mistake to think the threat is simply “over there.”

The director of National Intelligence has told Congress that al Qaeda terror groups in Syria have built camps to train “recruits” to return to their native lands and conduct attacks.

Read more: Family Security Matters

4 of ‘Taliban 5’ Will Likely Fight Again, U.S. Spies Say

1402356795295.cachedBy Eli Lake:
Obama’s top intelligence officers warned that four out of the five Taliban prisoners swapped for Bowe Bergdahl would return to the battlefield.
A top intelligence official told lawmakers in a classified Senate briefing last week that he expected four out of the five Taliban leaders released by the Obama administration to eventually return to the battlefield.

According to a pair of U.S. officials, the briefing from Robert Cardillo, a deputy director of national intelligence, represented the latest community-wide U.S. intelligence assessment on these Taliban Five, completed in 2013.

It also means that President Obama was faced with a particularly excruciating choice as he weighed whether or not to swap these five for American hostage Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The government of Qatar, which agreed to look after the five Taliban leaders as part of the deal for Bergdahl, warned that factions within the Taliban were growing impatient, and campaigning to kill Bergdahl instead of trading him.

“Time is not on your side,” they told U.S. negotiators, according to two senior defense officials. They described a growing split within Taliban and Haqqani Network (which held Bergdahl) over how to best use the soldier—a split confirmed by multiple Taliban and Afghan sources in the region.

Making matters more desperate for Bergdahl was the fact that in September a CIA drone killed Mullah Sangeen Zadran, the Haqqani Network commander who first captured Bergdahl, a move that could have scuttled any chance at all for a prisoner swap.

Read more at The Daily Beast

Releasing the Taliban Five: A Choice, Not an Obligation

pic_giant_060914_SM_Releasing-the-Taliban-GBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

As usual, Senator John McCain has not exactly been a model of consistency on the Bergdahl-Taliban swap. First he said he would support such a deal; then, after it was done and popular opinion turned sharply against it, he maverickly condemned it. Still, he could not have been more correct on Sunday in dismissing the Obama administration’s rationale for the exchange.

Senator McCain was being interviewed by Candy Crowley, the Obama campaign savior in CNN garb. As recounted in a Corner post by Patrick Brennan, Ms. Crowley dutifully spun the reeling administration as being between a rock and a hard place, its options limited to: (a) getting captive Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl back now by exchanging the five Taliban commanders detained at Gitmo or (b) being compelled “to release the [Taliban] detainees when U.S. combat operations end in Afghanistan.” Senator McCain countered that this was a “false choice.” That is correct. Even if combat had ceased in Afghanistan, the release of these Taliban detainees would not have been required by the laws of war.

My weekend column discussed the Obama fiction that the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. In reality, the president is engaged in a slow-motion surrender to the Taliban and its jihadist allies that is arbitrarily scheduled to take two years — arbitrarily, that is, unless you think it is the American political calendar rather than Afghan battlefield conditions that decides when combat ends. Now, on top of that fiction, the administration and Ms. Crowley are stacking yet another, to wit: The winding down of combat operations in Afghanistan equals the end of the war on terror, triggering the law-of-war mandate to release all enemy combatants who cannot be charged with war crimes or other offenses.

As we’ve been pointing out here for over a decade, combat operations in the ongoing conflict are taking place under a congressional authorization for the use of military force. The AUMF was enacted overwhelmingly a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Recognizing that the jihad against the United States is aglobal one carried out by an intercontinental network of terrorist confederates who do not restrict their operations to one country, the AUMF does not limit combat operations geographically. To the contrary, it authorizes the president to use force against the enemy — essentially, any persons, organizations, or countries complicit in the 9/11 attacks, or that have facilitated and harbored those who were complicit — anywhere in the world where the enemy can be found.

As we’ve also frequently noted, the conflict is labeled the “war on terror” because the government is reticent about naming the enemy — Islamic-supremacist jihadists — for fear of giving offense to Muslims. That, however, is not the only reason for this amorphous label. There is also the difficulty of pinning down the locus of the conflict. It has never been limited to Afghanistan. Consequently, even if the fighting in Afghanistan were really ending, that would not mean the war is over.

Read more at National Review