Dr. Sebastian Gorka gave this excellent lecture to a Marine Corps audience in March 2015.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka gave this excellent lecture to a Marine Corps audience in March 2015.
Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:
Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.
The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.
To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.
These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…
To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.
As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.
Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Jan. 28, 2016:
TEL AVIV – The Islamic State, Al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood are preparing for a major confrontation with Western-backed forces in Libya, Syria, and beyond, reported Breitbart Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.
Speaking during his regular segment on John Batchelor’s popular nighttime radio program, Klein highlighted recent events that he said indicate a looming confrontation between Shiite and Sunni-armed forces.
Listen to Klein’s interview on Batchelor’s show here:
Klein pointed to a recent report at Breitbart Jerusalem indicting the Libyan branches of the Islamic State, Al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood are in discussions to complete a “mega merger” in the country.
Klein connected the merger prospects to a report claiming dozens of Russian, American, and British troops have been deployed to Libya ahead of an offensive there against the Islamic State.
Also, on Friday Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged decisive military action to halt the progress of IS in Libya, warning the global terrorist group was seeking to use the country as a regional headquarters and staging base.
And Klein discussed Breitbart Jerusalem reports of Iran arming regional terrorist organizations while competing for influence with the larger Saudi/Sunni axis.
Klein told Batchelor’s audience of the possible al-Qaida-Islamic State merger:
“They are reading the tea leaves. They are seeing the larger Sunni-Shiite divide, which has been escalating exponentially in recent weeks… They are seeing that there are no borders anymore.
There are no borders in Libya, there are no borders in Syria largely to speak of. The Turkish border is quite a mess. Yemen is in question.
So my analysis is that al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and others are seeing some sort of coming confrontation, maybe not between the U.S. and Russia but between proxies backed by the Saudis on the one hand and backed by Iran on the other.
There is a lager confrontation that they understand is coming against them in Libya and then ultimately beyond in Yemen and in Syria.”
PJ MEDIA, BY JONATHAN SPYER JANUARY 19, 2016:
On a recent reporting trip to Iraq and northern Syria, two things were made apparent to me — one of them relatively encouraging, the other far less so. The encouraging news is that ISIS is currently in a state of retreat. Not headlong rout, but contraction.
The bad news?
Our single-minded focus on ISIS as if it were the main or sole source of regional dysfunction is the result of faulty analysis, which in turn is producing flawed policy.
Regarding the first issue, 2015 was not a particularly good year for ISIS. In the course of it, the jihadis lost Kobani and then a large area to its east, bringing the Syrian Kurdish fighters of the YPG and their allies to within 30 km of the Caliphate’s “capital” in Raqqa city.
In late December, the jihadis lost the last bridge over the Euphrates that they controlled, at the Tishreen Dam. This matters because it isolates Raqqa, making it difficult for the Islamic State to rush reinforcements from Aleppo province to the city in the event of an attack.
Similarly, the Kurdish YPG advanced south of the town of al-Hawl to Raqqa’s east.
In Iraq, the Iraqi Shia militias and government forces have now recaptured Ramadi city (lost earlier in 2015) following the expulsion of ISIS from Tikrit and Baiji.
The Kurdish Pesh Merga, meanwhile, have revenged the humiliation they suffered at the hands of ISIS in the summer of 2014. The Kurds have now driven the jihadis back across the plain between Erbil and Mosul, bringing them to the banks of the Tigris river. They have also liberated the town of Sinjar.
The city of Mosul nestles on the western side of the river. It remains ISIS’s most substantial conquest. Its recapture does not appear immediately imminent, yet the general trend has been clear. The main slogan of ISIS is “Baqiya wa’tatamaddad,” “Remaining and Expanding.” At the present time, however, the Islamic State may be said to be remaining, but retreating.
This situation is reflected in the confidence of the fighters facing ISIS along the long front line. In interviews as I traversed the lines, I heard the same details again and again regarding changing ISIS tactics, all clearly designed to preserve manpower.
This stalling of the Islamic State is the background to their turn towards international terror, which was also a notable element of the latter half of 2015. The downing of the Russian airliner in October, the events in Paris in November, and the series of suicide bombings in Turkey since July attest to a need that the Islamic State has for achievement and for action. They need to keep the flow of recruits coming and to maintain the image of victory essential to it.
Regarding the second issue: seen from close up, the Islamic State is very obviously only a part,and not necessarily the main part, of a much larger problem. When talking both with those fighting with ISIS and with those who sympathize with it in the region, this observation stands out as a stark difference in perception between the Middle Eastern view of ISIS and the view of it presented in Western media. The latter tends to present ISIS as a strange and unique development, a dreadfully evil organization of unclear origins, which is the natural enemy of all mainstream forces in the Middle East.
From closer up, the situation looks rather different.
ISIS has the same ideological roots and similar practices as other Salafi jihadi organizations active in the Syrian arena. ISIS treats non-Muslims brutally in the areas it controls, and adheres to a rigid and fanatical ideology based on a literalist interpretation and application of religious texts. But this description also applies to Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria.
Nusra opposes ISIS, and is part of a rebel alliance supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. In March 2015, when Nusra captured Idleb City in northern Syria, the city’s 150 Christian families were forced to flee to Turkey. Nusra has also forcibly converted a small Druze community in Idleb. The alliance Nusra was a part of also included Muslim Brotherhood-oriented groups, such as the Faylaq al-Sham militia, which apparently had no problem operating alongside the jihadis.
ISIS is not a unique organization; rather, it exists at one of the most extreme points along a continuum of movements committed to Sunni political Islam.
Meanwhile, the inchoate mass of Sunni Islamist groups — of which ISIS constitutes a single component — is engaged in a region-wide struggle with a much more centralized bloc of states and movements organized around the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is committed to a Shia version of political Islam.
The Middle East — in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent Lebanon, all along the sectarian faultline of the region — is witnessing a clash between rival models of political Islam, of which ISIS is but a single manifestation.
The local players find sponsorship and support from powerful regional states, themselves committed to various different versions of political Islam: Iran for the Shias; Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Muslim Brotherhood-supporting Qatar for the Sunnis.
The long awakening of political Islam as the dominant form of popular politics in the Middle East started decades ago. But the eclipse of the political order in the region, and of the nationalist dictatorships in Iraq, Syria, Egypt (temporarily), Tunisia, and Yemen in recent years, has brought it to a new level of intensity.
States, indifferent to any norms and rules, using terror and subversion to advance their interests, jihadi armed groups, and the refugee crises and disorder that result from all this are the practical manifestations of it.
This, and not the fate of a single, fairly ramshackle jihadi entity in the badlands of eastern Syria and western Iraq, is the matter at hand in the Middle East.
Daily Caller, by Russ Read, Jan. 16, 2016:
The war against radical Islamic terrorism could go on much longer than anyone is expecting, and the enemy may not give the U.S. any choice but to fight it.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was quite sober in his address Wednesday on the subject of the politics of dealing with radical Islam. Speaking to a room of people packed to the brim on Capitol Hill, Gingrich outlined in a clear and concise manner his belief that combating the terrorist forces within radical Islam will take as many as 100 years. He noted that the choice to go to war had already been made by the enemy, and the U.S. will eventually have no choice but to respond in a massive way.
Though he certainly had ample criticism for President Barack Obama’s current strategies for countering terrorism, calling the President “delusional,” he was willing to point blame for the current situation in multiple directions. “You have to look seriously at why did we fail in Iraq … in Afghanistan.” Gingrich believes that the commission set up to investigate the attacks on September 11, 2001, failed. So too did both Bush and Clinton, and especially Paul Bremer, Bush’s envoy to Iraq after the initial 2003 invasion.
He opened his remarks with a comparison of today’s time to that of former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain just before the outset of World War II. Unlike others who have attempted to draw the comparison as a slight, the former history professor took a different tack.
“Chamberlain was not weak” he explained, referring to the former prime minister crushing his opposition in parliament at the outset of the war, “[he believed] almost any future was worth getting to that did not involve World War II.”
Gingrich said Chamberlain certainly had a point, highlighting the massive death and destruction left in the wake of the conflict. “Look at the scale of World War II, you cant argue that it was successful,” he explained.
He outlined the point that people knew then that another war was going to be bloody, much like those who look at the war on terrorism realize its going to be bloody now.
“It’s not irrational to ask how to avoid that,” said Gingrich, “we could be involved in a 70 to 100 year war … this is going to be hard to communicate,” he continued.
Reality, though, sometimes trumps one’s preferences, and Gingrich believes that the reality of the threat posed by Islamic radicalism and the terrorism it spawns requires a very difficult, and bloody, form of vigilance.
“We are having a difficult time coming to grips with how large this problem is … this is a clash of civilizations,” he said.
Despite current disagreements over how to confront radical Islamic terrorism, Gingrich is optimistic that leaders will come to his point of view, if only because things will get to a point where they have no choice but to do so. He outlined three points that he predicts will occur in the process that will eventually lead to people acknowledging the severity of the problem:
“One. This is going to be a very hard to win the argument about, because if you do win the argument, you’ve now undertaken a project of historic depth involving an enormous amount of blood.”
“Two. It will happen eventually because the enemy won’t give you any choice … the threat is so obvious, that people will say, just as they did with World War II … OK, we have no choice. The challenge for those of us who are trying to win this is to shorten the amount of time it takes … for us to get there.”
“Three. You have several different blocs engaged in this [argument].”
Gingrich believes those camps run across a spectrum. On one end you have those “who want the enemy to win.” You also have “an entire academic left which is so anti-Western … that they can’t really imagine there is a threat to us that we haven’t earned.”
Yet another political cabal knows there’s a problem, but doesn’t have the will to confront it. “You have the group who sort of know that, OK, we out to do something, but after all, we shouldn’t disrupt the culture of the State Department, we shouldn’t disrupt the patterns of the U.S. military.”
Gingrich alluded that these are the same people who have contributed to U.S. failures abroad. He believes these are the individuals who said “we should wage an Iraqi campaign that doesn’t disrupt the Army, as opposed to we should change the Army as much as we have to to win the Iraq campaign.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum, he believes there is “a minority, but a growing minority, that breaks into two units.” The first is a small, but crucial “intellectual pattern … which has always been worried about security … has always thought America was worth defending, and needed defending.”
The other much larger portion is a growing bloc whose view is “if I think you are going to come and try to kill me, I’d like to kill you before you come and try to kill me.” Gingrich refers to this mentality as the “Roman model of defense,” the idea that “I really don’t want to fight you, but if I do have to fight you I am going to wipe you out.” He points to the U.S. bombing of large population centers in Germany and Japan as an example of how the U.S. has genuinely wished to avoid war, but reacts to threats with tremendous force.
Gingrich believes that the same mentality that has led the U.S. to fight and win against its adversaries before should, and will, be the mentality applied to the question posed by radical Islamic terrorism.
“We have probably been the most ferocious [country] with the application of force once provoked,” he noted. He believes those who are worried about being attacked are “going to keep growing for a practical reason.” Gingrich believes this growing faction will inevitably be one the one to force change in policy.
Dr. Sebastian Gorka was on Hannity last night talking about the increasing jihadist threat in America as well as the Iranian detention of US sailors.
In this short briefing, Walid Phares gives an overview of the “jihadist strata” in the U.S. beginning with with the Muslim Brotherhood’s arrival in the 1960’s and subsequent penetration of all of our institutions.
Recorded at Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group Lunch on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, December 15, 2015.
Breitbart, by Simon Kent, Dec. 31, 2015:
Islamic State terrorists plan to take their struggle across the world in 2016 and push their fighters into a final showdown with liberal western democracies.
To that end hundreds of sleeper cells in “dozens of countries” will mobilise in an unprecedented bid to spark a huge military retaliation in the Middle East, according to one of the world’s leading authorities on the death cult.
The claim comes as fears grow of a New Year’s Eve terror plot in London and other major European cities including Paris and Brussels cancel or curtail their traditional celebrations to say farewell to the year.
The next 12 months will see a huge increase in both the number and scale of major terror attacks, Dr Theodore Karasik, a Gulf-based analyst of regional geo-political affairs who has extensively studied Islamic State’s behaviour, has revealed. He warned:
“ISIS’s media operation is taunting its enemy to come to fight their Final Battle.
“But first, it wants to show its global reach with zeal…from cells, to lone wolves, to bedroom jihadists – to target landmarks and crowds in dozens of countries across the world.”
Dr Karasik added that by his estimate there are close to 40 ISIS affiliates globally with millions of adherents and believers around the world. The New Year may ring in with disturbing terror attacks. He added:
“ISIS is an airborne disease and still remains robust as the movement enters into a new combative and aggressive phase.
“Many of us see the change of year as ‘turning over a new leaf’ and ISIS may do the same.
“The level of ISIS’s destructiveness, to force confrontations across the world, indicates that 2016 is likely to be more chaotic than 2015.
“The threat is real, and the requirement for international, regional, and local cooperation is truly necessary and will be tested again and again in perhaps unexpected places.”
As Breitbart News reported, Dr Karasik’s warning comes as two men suspected of being Islamic State militants were arrested in Turkey, allegedly for plotting a suicide bomb attack during New Year’s Eve celebrations in the capital of Ankara.
Earlier this week ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released an audio message threatening Israel while taunting the “Crusader” West for failing to launch a ground campaign against his terrorist organization.
“Crusaders and Jews don’t dare to come on the ground because they were defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Baghdadi stated in the 23-minute recording.
Baghdadi vowed the establishment of an Islamic State caliphate in Israel. “Jews, soon you shall hear from us in Palestine which will become your grave,” he said.
Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 29, 2015:
A recent report by, of all places, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, found that the Syrian rebels were mostly Islamic Jihadists and that even if ISIS were defeated there were 15 other groups sharing its worldview that were ready to take its place.
And that’s just in Syria.
The official ISIS story, the one that we read in the newspapers, watch on television and hear on the radio, is that it’s a unique group whose brand of extremism is so extreme that there is no comparing it to anything else. ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Or with anything else. It’s a complete aberration.
Except for the 15 other Jihadist groups ready to step into its shoes in just one country.
Islamic Supremacist organizations like ISIS can be graded on the “Caliphate curve”. The Caliphate curve is based on how quickly an Islamic organization wants to achieve the Caliphate. What we describe as “extreme” or “moderate” is really the speed at which an Islamic group seeks to recreate the Caliphate.
ISIS is at the extreme end of the scale, not because it tortures, kills and rapes, but because it implemented the Caliphate immediately. The atrocities for which ISIS has become known are typical of a functioning Caliphate. The execution of Muslims who do not submit to the Caliph, the ethnic cleansing and sexual slavery of non-Muslims are not aberrations. They are normal behavior for a Caliphate.
The last Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, was selling non-Muslim girls as sex slaves after the invention of the telephone. A New York Times report from 1886 documented the sale of girls as young as twelve, one of them with “light hazel eyes, black eyebrows and long yellow hair”. An earlier report from theLondon Post described Turks, “sending their blacks to market, in order to make room for a newly-purchased white girl”. This behavior is not a temporary aberration, but dates back to Mohammed’s men raping and enslaving non-Muslim women and young girls as a reward for fighting to spread Islam.
The ISIS behaviors that we find so shocking were widely practiced in even the most civilized parts of the Muslim world around the time that the Statue of Liberty was being dedicated in New York City.
To Muslims, the end of slavery is one of the humiliations that they had to endure because of the loss of the Caliphate. Europeans forced an end to the slave trade. The British made the Turks give up their slaves. The United States made the Saudis give up their slaves in the 1960s. (Unofficially they still exist.) When the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt, its Islamist constitution dropped a ban on slavery.
The Muslim Brotherhood is on the moderate side of the Caliphate curve not because it doesn’t want to bring back the Caliphate, it does, or because it doesn’t want to subjugate non-Muslims, it does, but because it wants to do so gradually over an extended period of time using modern political methods.
But whether you take the long road along the Caliphate curve or the short one it still ends up in the same place. Everyone on the Caliphate curve agrees that the world, including the United States, must be ruled by Muslims under Islamic law and that freedom and equal rights for all must come to an end.
ISIS is just doing right now what the Muslim Brotherhood would take a hundred years to accomplish.
The Nazis and the Communists had a vision for the world. So do the Islamic Supremacists who advocate the restoration of the Caliphate. All three groups occasionally played the victim of our foreign policy, but they were not responding to us, they were trying to bring about their positive vision of an ideal society.
Nazi, Communist and Islamist societies just happen to be living nightmares for the rest of us.
No one on the Caliphate curve is moderate. Some on the Caliphate curve are just more patient. They put up billboards, create hashtags and try to ban any criticism of their ideology as Islamophobic. But that’s just Caliphatism with a human face. And that makes them a much more dangerous enemy.
ISIS is in some ways our least dangerous enemy. We haven’t defeated ISIS, because we haven’t even tried. Instead Obama fights a war in which 75 percent of strikes on ISIS are blocked and leaflets are dropped 45 minutes before a strike on oil tankers warning ISIS to flee. If we were to fight ISIS by the same rules as our wars in the last century, the Islamic State would have been crushed long ago.
A insta-Caliphate like ISIS isn’t hard to beat. The global networks of Al Qaeda employing more conventional terror tactics are a trickier force because they are embedded within the stream of Muslim migration. And the Muslim Brotherhood is the trickiest of them all because it is so deeply embedded within Muslim populations in the West that it represents and controls those populations.
What ISIS accomplishes by brute force, the Muslim Brotherhood does by setting up networks of front groups. Both ISIS and the Brotherhood control large Muslim populations. ISIS conquers populations in failed states. The Muslim Brotherhood however exercises control over populations in the cities of the West. We could bomb Raqqa, but can we bomb Dearborn, Jersey City or Irvine?
This is where the Caliphate curve truly reaches its most terrifying potential.
The original Islamic expansionism was so devastating not because it managed to seize control over the hinterlands of Arabia, but because it conquered and subjugated civilized cities such as Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Athens and Delhi. ISIS envisions repeating these conquests and more, but if it succeeds it will not be because of its military strategy, but because it targets have been colonized.
We can destroy ISIS tomorrow, but we will still be in an extended war with a hundred other groups who all have a vision for restoring the Caliphate. This war will never end until we crush their supremacist agenda by demonstrating that we will never again allow such a horror to exist on this earth. As long as Muslim groups hold out hope for a restoration of the Caliphate this war, in its various forms, will go on.
We are not at war with an organization, but with the idea that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and are endowed by Allah with the right to rule over them, to rob them, to rape them and enslave them. ISIS is the most naked expression of this idea. But it’s an idea that everyone on the Caliphate curve accepts.
Until we defeat this racist idea, new Islamic groups will constantly keep arising animated by this vision. Wars fueled by supremacist beliefs have historically only ended when the illusion of superiority was destroyed by utterly defeating and humiliating the attackers. It worked with Japan and Nazi Germany.
Our war now will not end until we destroy the supremacist faith in the Caliphate curve.
Watch Muslims, in their own words, vowing to to install a worldwide Caliphate:
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Michael Finch, the president and Chief Operating Officer of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
The two discussed 10 Things America Must Do To Defend Itself From Jihad, with Robert crystallizing the crucial steps the U.S. must take to reverse the tide.
Faith Freedom, By Eric Allen Bell, Dec. 29, 2015:
Islam is now and has always been at war, with the civilized world. And the first casualty of war is the truth. Islam commands is followers to engage in Taqiyya, using deception to spread Islam. And here in the Western World, the Islamic agenda is spreading like wildfire, gaining influence and getting things done, by means of deception. And their first line of defense are the Liberal Lemmings who, by means of ignorance or well-meaning but uninformed sympathy, are lockstep with spreading the Islamic lies – and in doing so, spreading Islam – at the expense of our way of life.
Let us never lose sight of the fact that the goal of Islam is to FORCE the entire world to submit to Islamic Law. Immigrate. Infiltrate. Caliphate. Some of us see where this is going. Others still do not.
I submit for your review the following. Below is a list of actions an American President would take, if he were the most influential advocate the Islamic world had ever seen:
NOW – What Would a Marxist American President Do? THE EXACT SAME THING !!!
So my question to you is this: Does it matter if Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim or if Barry, who announced his plan to be President, at the home of a sixties American terrorist, is a blatant Marxist? The net effect is the same. Whether Liberal Lemming, Islamic Apologist or a secret Islamist, the net effect is still the same.
Never judge a man by his words. Always judge a man by his actions. It is time to hang the American flag upside down, because our country is in distress.
Is Barack Hussein Obama Pro-American? The very question itself reads like a painful joke. But sadly, for so many millions of Liberal leaning American citizens, they just don’t get the punchline, no matter how many times you try to explain it to them. It’s like hitting your head up against the same wall, over and over again. It is time to tear down that wall.
If a person dies, it does not matter if it was a heart attack, a stroke, or if they got hit by a train. They’re dead. They’re gone. And if America dies, all that matters is that we are no more. We cannot let this happen to us. We cannot let this disease metastasize. We cannot sit passively by, while the sunlight of our free speech is slowly eclipsed by a crescent moon and star.
Our parents and grandparents and ancestors sacrificed so much, had so much courage, believed so strongly in a free America, in an America worth fighting for, that they fought. It has been said that our freedom is paid for in installments, by each generation. The payment is due. Our freedom is under attack. The Islamic world is and has always been at war with the civilized world. And now we have the fox guarding the hen house. The time for action is now.
We are stewards of our inherited freedom and our freedom is under attack. We simply cannot let this happen. This cannot and must not be our downfall. When a Saudi Prince has committed tens of billions of dollars to spread Islam in the United States, when the Islamic State has declared war on the United States, when the Islamic Republic of Iran is building a nuclear bomb while chanting, “Death to America” we need to wake up. We cannot afford to hit the snooze button even one more time.
Of course, if you’re already awake this is obvious to you. But it is not enough for us to simply understand that Islam presents an existential threat to our very way of life. We must take action. Knowledge without action is useless in these dark days of mass Islamic deception. We are not being called upon to fight upon the shores during D-Day, or ship out to the Pacific while Kamikaze fighters crash land on our boats and kill us all – at least not yet. If we tapped into a fraction of the courage our forefathers had, imagine what we could do. Imagine what we must do.
So what can we do? What must we do? The fact of the matter is that the Information Age can be the Death of Islam, if want it to be – if we are determined. But this will only work if we are willing to stick our necks out, to risk relationships, to risk being called bigots and racists and Islamophobes and actually spread the information that we have. In the Information Age, Information is our greatest weapon.
The Islamic agenda in the West is to gain influence by means of deception. And those of us who care about human rights and liberty and freedom must shine the light of truth into the darkest corners, where evil hides. And if we don’t, then goodness will be hiding in the dark corners, terrified of evil. It’s happened before and we must not allow this to happen ever again. We have it in our power to prevail, if we can only find the will to do so.
If enough of us spread information, telling the truth about the brutality of Islam, we will reach critical mass. So I ask you, I implore you, I BEG YOU – PLEASE get onto Facebook, Twitter, all of social media and spread the truth about Islam. Our knowledge and our anger is simply just not enough. The time for action is now – right now.
There is excellent information, powerful information to be found on FaithFreedom.org and JihadWatch.org and TheReligionOfPeace.com and PoliticalIslam.com and so many more digital fountains of truth. Get on the mailing list of Act for America. When I’m not suspended at Facebook, I post this type of information regularly at: Facebook.com/EricAllenBell and on myTwitter.com/EricAllenBell account.
Harness the truth and post it boldly, recklessly and with a vengeance. Be willing to sacrifice a little bit of your social standing at work, or among the parents of your kids friends, or among your own friends and become a digital warrior, determined to defeat Islam. You can save your ass or you can save face, but you cannot save both. You’re going to have to choose. And our choices determine our destiny.
Can we not honor those who gave their lives to protect our free speech by learning how to copy and paste?
Remember, the enemy of Islam is information. Share this information. Carpet bomb the internet with the truth about Islam because this information must grow, faster than Islam can spread its’s lies. Spread the dangerous truth about the Islamic agenda. The courage exists inside of you already. And if we tap into that courage, nothing can stop us. It never has and that is why we are still free.
The enemy of Islamic infiltration is information. Spread it far. Spread it wide. Spread it like Napalm.
The Information Age will be the death of Islam.
Eric Allen Bell is a writer, filmmaker and Media Adviser, presently living in New York, NY. While making a documentary about the construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in Murfreesboro, TN he attempted to expose “Islamophobia”. Once he stated that Islam was the biggest threat to human rights in the world today, he was banned from the writing Daily Kos and MichaelMoore.com, after LoonWatch.com created a petition to silence him. His article, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam” has been widely circulated and has caused several Liberals to rethink how they look at the Religion of Peace.
The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Dec. 13, 2015:
My expanded thoughts on the war with the Global Jihadi Movement, Trump’s remarks, and more on the Lori on Liberty radio show (60 min)
The Sean Hannity Show, December 17th 2015
Former FBI Special Agent, Air Marshal and Navy SEAL Jonathan Gilliam lays out an excellent plan to defeat global terrorism.
In the video below, Gilliam lays out his simple, yet effective, four stage strategic war plan.
Can someone please get this video to President Obama?
Breitbart, Dec. 7, 2015:
We are living in a world rapidly evolving away from the mental constructs and language of the last 375 years. These ideas can be traced to the Treaty of Westphalia ending the 30 Years War in 1648 and Grotius proposal of a system of International Law in the same era. The ideas were then extended through the development of state warfare culminating in the Napoleonic Wars.
This intellectual framework was applied and reapplied through two World Wars and the Cold War. It is the framework within which academic and bureaucratic careers were made and are still being made.
It is now a framework which distorts reality, hides from uncomfortable facts, and cripples our ability to develop an effective national security and foreign policy.
The gap between the old world in our heads and the new world we now find ourselves in is so large that the very language of the past blocks us from coming to grips with an emerging future that will be radically different.
Consider these challenges to the old intellectual order:
1. We are in a Long War which could easily last 100 years or more, which will transcend all national boundaries and which ignores or rejects a century of work trying to routinize and tame warfare.
2. There are technological and doctrinal breakouts on the horizon which will challenge our very survival. ElectroMagnetic Pulse, cyber war, loyalties to religiously inspired movements transcending traditional concepts of patriotism, militarization of space, are examples of breakouts which will reach require new thinking and new organizations and doctrines.
3. The Chinese system of strategic competition in a world of “no war, no peace” ( see Sun Tzu’s the Art of War with its injunction that the greatest of all generals win bloodless victories as an initial starting point for Chinese strategies of blending war and peace into one continuum) as illustrated by the nine dash line and the long project to assume sovereignty over the entire South China Sea is an example of how different that competition will be. The ongoing cyber competition is a good example of the blurring of war and non war boundaries. This pattern is actually historically more normal than the American effort to draw a sharp line between war and peace.
4. Russia is re-emerging as an opportunistic, predatory state with loyalty to its self defined national interests rather than to any theory of international legality. The Russian nuclear arsenal requires us to think much more deeply about how we communicate with and seek to negotiate with Russia. Managing the evolving Russian challenge may require more 19th century Real politick in the Bismarck-Disraeli tradition and less reliance on legalisms.
5. The sobering reality is that we are at the end of the 70 year strategy of attempting to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and at the beginning of a dangerous new era of coping with the threat of nuclear weapons. The gap between the new dangers and the old thinking can be seen in the totally inadequate design of the Department of Homeland Security. As originally proposed in the Hart-Rudman Commission’s work in 2000 this department should be sized to handle simultaneous nuclear events in three different cities. Today, 15 years later, it could not adequately handle one nuclear event. Yet the spread of nuclear capability to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere virtually guarantees weapons could be used in the near future. We now have to develop a two prong strategy which both focuses diplomatically on minimizing their spread and the danger of their use and focuses national security and homeland security assets on surviving nuclear events if diplomacy fails.
6. Lawfare combined with ubiquitous regular media and social media coverage is creating new ground rules for the effective use of force in defense of American safety. For two generations we have allowed lawyers, media members, and non governmental organizations to define an ever more complex and more unwieldy set of ground rules. The efforts to turn war into criminal justice and to find “humane” methods of waging war have largely come at the expense of American national security. Confronted by enemies like Islamic Supremacists who don’t care about either the rule or law or the public opinion pressures created by visible violence, the United States will find itself at increasingly one sided disadvantages. The notion of “bringing to justice” those who attacked us on 9/11 or Paris this November is absurd. Not only do we need to move the lawyers, NGOs and media to the side, but our new leaders must communicate directly and bluntly the nature of the threats we face, and make it plain that we all must sacrifice something if we want this nation to endure. We have to cease treating our enemies with the kind of disdain (the “J.V. team” comment, for example) that allows our leaders to demand little of themselves and nothing of us.
7. As I noted at the beginning, we are engaged in a Long War. Hollywood began recognizing that war with movies like Black Sunday 38 years ago (1977) in which a Palestinian group sought to kill thousands at a Super Bowl. Today, 36 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the American Embassy and year long hostage crisis, 22 years after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, 17 years after the bombing of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 15 years after the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, 14 years after the attack of 9/11killed 2,996 people, we need to have the courage to face the facts. We are losing the Long War. Our elites in America and Europe have an enormous resistance to dealing honestly and effectively with the Islamic Supremacists who seek to kill us and destroy our civilization. Until we can find accurate words to describe the realities of the Long War we have no hope of even beginning to win it. We have to recognize that this Long War may require totally new approaches completely outside the American historic experience. Furthermore the enemy’s ability to adapt may force us to dramatically shift away from the traditional “American Way of War”.
8. The Long War will last at least 50 to 100 years unless there is a disaster so large the West is compelled to mobilize with ruthless efficiency and destroy the capacity for Islamic Supremacists to function. We have no language or doctrine for sustaining a century long struggle in a free society. We have no serious efforts underway in our national security community to even begin thinking about such a long war. We certainly have no plans or systems which enable America to cope with technological breakouts, Chinese scale and complexity, Russian opportunism and a Long War simultaneously. We also have no plans to communicate with the American people and organize understanding among Americans to sustain a century long effort which will inherently be both foreign and domestic. Since we can’t talk with ourselves it is no wonder we can’t build support among our allies.
9. As I outline in my new novel, Duplicity, Islamic Supremacism is a virus and has to be seen as an epidemiological phenomenon. Seen in this context the internet and social media are the centers of gravity for the Long War. Any effort which focuses on geographic campaigns, such as defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, is by definition a misunderstanding of the Long War. Our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the last 14 years have failed in large part because we have no larger strategic context of defeating Islamic Supremacists within which to orient them. Imagine we had confused Guadalcanal for World War Two and you can see how far we have to go to rethink our current activities. It will be extraordinarily hard to get our national security bureaucracies and professionals to admit how big the failures are and how deep the change has to be. It will be even harder to get our political elites to understand how badly we are losing and how much we must rethink our current analyses, strategies, and activities.
10. The biggest zone of controversy will be the inherently transnational nature of the Long War. Because Islamic Supremacism is a virus and because it spreads through the internet and social media it will require strategies and institutional relationships which have both domestic and foreign operating capabilities. We have to study the American struggle against Nazis in the 1930s (the House Un-American Activities Committee was established in 1938 to go after Nazi penetration of the United States). We have to study the frighteningly effective Soviet penetration of the American government in the 1930s and 1940s and the systematic government response to eliminate Soviet spies, agents and sympathizers. The history of other countries and their campaigns to eliminate penetrations by foreign enemies also should become part of such a study.
11. Unavoidability is the first key to understanding the scale of the national security challenge we face. Whether we want to fight Islamic Supremacists or not is irrelevant. They intend to fight us. Whether we would like to live in a world of extreme nuclear danger or not is irrelevant. Every year countries like North Korea, Pakistan and Iran get more nuclear capability. Whether we want to deal with domestic subversion and domestic enemies or not is irrelevant. As Paris just proved once again, ignoring your enemies doesn’t mean they will ignore you. In fact it may create space for them to become more dangerous and more lethal.
12. The sheer range and complexity of challenges and the speed with which any one problem can erupt requires a new approach to monitoring threats and managing responses. Just as we had to develop fleet and theater information integration systems to cope with speed and complexity we will have to build national command systems that integrate all departments and all sources of information.the Army Training and Doctrine Commands new emphasis on complexity is a welcome step in this direction. Their new doctrine manual “Win in a Complex World” is an important step in the right direction,a
13. Rethinking national strategy on this scale takes time and inevitably involves very intense arguments. The emergence of the American response to the Soviet challenge after World War Two is a good example. George Kennan wrote his 8,000 word “long telegram” analyzing the Soviet’s as a global threat in February, 1946. It set the stage for a four year process of policy development culminating in the April, 1950 adoption of NSC 68 outlining the containment strategy for the Cold War. If it took the generation who fought in World War One and led the country in World War Two four years of thinking we shouldn’t be surprised if it takes us a lot of argument, thinking and innovation to develop a grand strategy for the 21st century. It has to be done but it wont be done easily.
14. Our first assignment is to look at facts and develop new words and new constructs to accurately describe what we are facing. Until we have done that we will be crippled by the very words we use and the obsolete ideas we are trapped in.
Carol Brown has some interesting comments on Gingrich’s ideas over at American Thinker
Gates of Vienna, December 9, 2015,
Summary: With the convergence of two Islamic timelines (al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the caliphate has been re-established.
These two Islamic timelines, in addition to two Muslim Brotherhood documents — all of which were ignored by Western leaders — are mobilizing jihadists worldwide. The Muslim Brotherhood’s primary mission of dawah, which shakes the identity and faith of Westerners, making them more vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission, has reached its goal and is ready to be superseded by the next jihad phase, that being all-out war, or violent jihad. All Islamic groups are working together to wage violent jihad on the West. Their intention to do so began ever since the first caliphate was abolished in 1924.
All-out war with the West has begun. With the culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse. More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West, and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any discussion or analysis of Islam.
Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.
The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).
Criminalizing Islamophobia was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.
Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.
Coughlin attributes the recent escalation in worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks to the convergence of these two Islamic timelines culminating in December, and to the collaboration of leftists with Islamic organizations that include the Muslim Brotherhood, which was listed as a terrorist group in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Why has the media neglected to raise the alert and publish these Islamic timelines, known for over ten years, as front-page bold headlines in every major newspaper? Al Qaeda’s timeline is hell-bent on waging violent jihad on the West. The OIC’s timeline to criminalize speech deemed offensive to a Muslim, even when that criticism speaks the truth about Islam, is already underway in some European countries as hate speech laws that abridge our right to free speech and expression. Deadlines are quickly approaching, while Islamic terror attacks are escalating worldwide.
In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec as Bill 59 (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against non-believers.
What applies to one religion should equally apply to all, but it doesn’t. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed warrants a death sentence, whereas a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 colored condoms (Eggs Benedict), a photograph of Christ on the crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine (Piss Christ), and a painting of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung and clippings of porno magazines (Black Madonna) all warrant center stage at the Museum of Modern Art. The same rules do not apply for Muslims whose religion is always protected from discussion, analysis, or criticism.
Lynch’s promise conforms to UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called for the killing of his dissenters and insulters.
Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.
None of these topics are up for discussion or analysis, as they are considered blasphemous and shed a negative light on Islam — despite the fact that they were all committed in the name of Islam, described in the history of Islamic conquest, and mandated by Islamic doctrine. Mentioning Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year old girl, or female genital mutilation considered praiseworthy and recommended in Islam, is also considered offensive and not to be discussed.
Discussing the truth about Islam is diametrically opposed to Islam. It would enable its enemies to defeat it, as well as lure away potential converts to Islam. Islam obligates every Muslim to invite non-Muslims to the true path of Islam (dawah) through interfaith dialogue or bridge-building. According to Sayyid Qutb, the revered Muslim Brotherhood theorist and founding father of modern jihad, the bridge does not allow for people on both sides of the bridge to mix, but rather only for the non-believers to come over to Islam,
The aim of Dawah, as Coughlin points out in his new book, Catastrophic Failure — Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, is “to destroy our faith in God, our government, our legal system, our leadership, and our society” while strengthening the belief in Islam, so that we become defeated in mind and vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission.
That is the primary mission of the Muslim Brotherhood, since the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 by Turkey’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Founded four years later in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood spent decades writing about reviving the Islamic faith through dawah, particularly for America.
America was viewed by the Muslim brotherhood as a powerful country devoid of human values, and therefore susceptible to dawah that would shape and direct this great country towards Sharia. Practising dawah enables the Muslim brotherhood to “destroy Western civilization from within”, as reflected in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the group in North America.
The sole purpose of dawah is preparing for jihad. Jihad will never end until the entire world shuns its false religious practices, accepts the one true religion of Islam, and unites under a global caliphate governed by Sharia. After all, “it is the nature of Islam to dominate and not be dominated, and Islam must impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet,” according to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.
Coughlin often refers to a key Pakistani book that analyzes the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad, The Quranic Concept of War (1976) by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army. Malik writes that when the non-believer becomes demoralized as his faith and identity are being destroyed, yet still refuses to convert or submit, then it becomes time to unleash the next phase of all-out kinetic jihad. It is this violent phase that instills terror into the non-believer’s heart. It is al Qaeda and other jihadist groups launching violent terrorist attacks on the West.
It should be emphasized that Malik’s radical views on the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad were endorsed as national policy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — a country that implements the death penalty for those who insult Islam. It was Pakistan that introduced the first anti-Islam UN draft resolution in 1999. It was Pakistan that co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN Resolution 16/18 with none other than the U.S. Under the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. helped usher in a resolution that violates the very foundation of who we are as a nation, the First Amendment, the right to free speech and expression.
UN Resolution 16/18 also violates Article VI of the Constitution, which, as Coughlin writes, “states the supremacy of the Constitution and its laws, while Sharia states the same about its own laws.” Sharia is incompatible with the Constitutional rule of law or form of government in the U.S.; they cannot co-exist, as Islamic law dictates that man-made laws cannot be passed if they contradict the undisputed rules of Islam. In most of the Muslim world, Sharia is the law of the land. Coughlin writes that Sharia subordinates national security interests and undermines the Article VI requirement to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.
Discovered in 2004, the Explanatory Memo, which describes how to take over North America, has been collecting dust in U.S. national security agencies for over ten years. The same can be said for the Muslim Brotherhood’s worldwide twelve-point strategy for Islamic policy, better known as The Project, which was written in 1982 and discovered shortly after 9/11. Both revealing documents, which direct Muslim Brothers to infiltrate and undermine the government and all U.S. institutions (which has already been done), have been relegated to nothingness, as have the death-to-the-West timelines of al Qaeda and the OIC, rather than be taken seriously as major threats to Western civilization, and dealt with accordingly.
Muslim Brotherhood groups, as well as other Islamic groups, such as the OIC and al Qaeda (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and forerunner to ISIS), have been patiently planning for decades to restore the caliphate. It was finally re-established last year, as per Phase Five(2013-2015) of al Qaeda’s timeline.
Despite the fact that most Muslim Brotherhood organizations appear moderate, they are becoming more confrontational and violent against the West at the urgings of al Qaeda, who feel that the time is ripe to leave the non-violent preparatory phase of dawah and wage a more violent jihad.
Coughlin writes that it was the Muslim Brotherhood, at the urging of al Qaeda, who brought on the 2011 collapse of Arab regimes (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen). The purpose was not to promote Western freedom, as people were made to believe, but rather to do the very opposite by replacing these Westernized regimes with more Sharia-compliant ones. The events were naively portrayed by the media as the Arab Spring. That marked Phase Four (2010-2013) of al Qaeda’s timeline, and was right on schedule.
The call to violent jihad has become even stronger with the re-emergence of the caliphate, which, under Sharia, legally obligates Muslim to wage offensive jihad in non-Muslim lands through the authorization of the caliph (ruler of the caliphate). Offensive jihad first appeared in 632 AD when the first caliphate appeared, resulting in the eventual conquest by Islamic armies of Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Spain.
Today, nearly a quarter of U.S. Muslims believe that violent jihad is justified in establishing Sharia and is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam, and 51% agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (according to a June poll of 600 Muslims living in the U.S.).
9/11 was referred to as “The Awakening” in Phase One (2000-2003) of Al Qaeda’s timeline, which was hatched well over 20 years ago. And events are playing out exactly as planned by Al Qaeda, despite Coughlin’s warnings to senior Pentagon officials and Congress members to name the enemy as he names himself in order to understand and defeat him. “What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, and not whether he is correct about them.”
Coughlin taught that we must identify the enemy (jihadist or Islamic terrorist) according to his fighting doctrine (Islamic law of jihad) that he himself says he is following, fighting for, and implementing. For that reason, the Pentagon dismissed Coughlin in 2008. Three years later, at the request of 57 Muslim groups, hundreds of documents and presentations from military training and counter-terrorism material critical to the national security of the U.S. were discarded for being offensive to Islam or Islamophobic, that is, containing references to Islam or jihad. Those documents were reviewed and tossed away by those same groups.
The U.S. military and law enforcement are no longer capable of defining the enemy, as their course material no longer teaches the truth about Islam and jihad. The fact of the matter is that Islamophobia prohibits any reference to Islam or jihad, not because it is offensive, but because it is informative: because it exposes the truth about the enemies and their fighting doctrine — information that would help us win the war against them.
With the help of leftists who blame Islamic terrorism on everything but Islam, including climate change, Muslim Brotherhood groups in North America are — besides infiltrating the Obama regime, including all its national security and intelligence agencies — progressively destroying the identity and soul of non-believers by slowly instituting Sharia standards to make Islam supreme: revising school history books in accordance with Islam, forcing people to eat or purchase only unlabelled halal products, allowing Muslim students to skip music or mixed-gender gym classes, removing Christian symbols considered offensive to Muslims, closing down major streets for Islamic prayer, and now imposing hate-speech laws to censor and criminalize any discussion or criticism of Islam.
None of this would be possible without the aid of leftist organizations doing the leg work for Muslim Brotherhood groups. There is cause for great concern when one such organization, the highly influential Arab Sp — the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that helps shape the course of international relations and security policies — cooperates with the OIC by refusing to call the Islamic State Islamic.
The OSCE — as well as President Obama himself, along with other world leaders — believes that doing so wrongly links Islam with terrorism, despite the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS names itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its acts to Allah.
The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the OIC are working cooperatively with and in parallel to one another, fueling the jihadist frenzy worldwide, Coughlin recently asserted on Canada’s CFRA radio. The Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts are synchronized with those of al Qaeda’s and the OIC’s to ultimately re-establish the supremacy of Islam and gradually enforce Sharia worldwide through a more violent jihad.
The OIC continues going to great lengths to take the Islam out of the Islamic State. After proclaiming last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam, OIC Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani has recently upped the ante by announcing at a UN General Assembly the establishment of a Messaging Center to counter “extremist discourse and propaganda”, meaning, any discussion critical of Islam.
Equally important, Coughlin adds, is the active alliance of hard-left groups with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, heightened by the possibility of a nuclear armed caliphate. He warns that this is just the beginning.
As the holiday season approaches, numerous large-scale attacks in major Western cities will take place. With the final anniversaries of the two Islamic timelines quickly approaching, with one culminating this week, our submissive, politically correct and culturally sensitive politicians are still doing absolutely nothing. The clock is ticking…
|1.||It is interesting to note is that Islamophobia is a term coined and promoted by a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (International Institute for Islamic Thought, IIIT) back in the early 1990s to render the West impotent to defeat the enemy.|
|2.||Some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoots (al Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) have been declared foreign terrorist groups by the U.S. and Canada, while other offshoots, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that deals with social justice and civil rights, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were among the unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history in 2008: the Holy Land Foundation, the U.S.’s largest Islamic charity in Texas funneling millions of dollars to Hamas and other jihadist organizations.|
|3.||Rest assured that the architect of Quebec’s Bill 59, Jacques Frémont, Emeritus University Law professor at the University of Montreal, will soon bring his Sharia-compliant blasphemy laws to Ottawa where he was recently named next president of the University of Ottawa. Frémont is also president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which will soon initiate hate-speech lawsuits against those who express anything deemed offensive to a Muslim (decided upon by the tribunals). It is of interest to note that Frémont is also the former director of a George Soros-funded progressive-leftist group called Open Society Foundations.|
|4.||Is it any wonder why there are no UN resolutions to criminalize speech when it comes to advocating jihad against non-Muslims? To criminalize Muslims who deliver virulent mosque sermons that criticize and condemn to death Jews and Christians, portrayed as sons of apes and pigs, as mandated in Islamic doctrine? To criminalize Muslims who kill, torture, and terrorize non-Muslims worldwide to the point of genocide, such as the Yazidis and Christians in the Middle East, as well as other Muslims who are not considered Muslim enough by the perpetrators? To outlaw the Muslim slave and sex slave trade industry that continue to this day in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, and in other countries where Islam has become more prevalent, as mandated by the Koran that specifically allows taking slaves as war booty from non-Muslims? Regardless, UN Resolution 16/18 is a hot item on the UN Resolution menu, as far as UN Resolutions go, with defamation of Islam being the prime concern amongst voters.|