The Problem with Countering Violent Extremism

kl-450x296Frontpage, February 25, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

Obama’s Summit to Counter Violent Extremism was one of the most schizophrenic events on record. Its overall strategy was to counter Islamic radicalization while claiming that it had nothing to do with Islam. Even the King of Saudi Arabia and the leaders of a number of Muslim countries are willing to talk about Islamic terrorism. Obama isn’t. But he is rolling out a strategy to influence the theology of Muslims.

How do you change the beliefs of a religion which you can’t even name? You can’t and you don’t.

The whole premise of CVE subdivides “violent extremism” from Islam and then further subdivides violent extremism from extremism. Barbers split fewer hairs than this. CVE tells us that the best way to fight violent extremists is with “non violent extremist” Salafi clergy who have the most influence on them. We’re supposed to fight the ISIS Caliphate with supporters of another kind of Caliphate.

What it really comes down to is paying Muslims to argue with other Muslims on social media. And hope that the Muslims we’re paying to do the arguing are the good kind of extremists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and not the bad kind of extremists, like ISIS. Even though they’re both vicious killers.

CVE not only doesn’t fight terrorism, it perpetuates the whole reason for it by outsourcing our interaction with domestic Muslims to the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood. That’s a big part of how we got a terrorism problem in the first place. CVE’s promoters have convinced us that the best way to fight Islamic terrorism is by partnering with Islamic terrorists.

Obama began by watering down terrorism from a military problem to a law enforcement issue. CVE waters it down even further by eliminating it as a law enforcement issue (the FBI chief was not invited to the summit to avoid making law enforcement the focus) and turning terrorism into a social problem.

The underlying problem with CVE is that it tries to transform a military problem into a civilian social problem. It bogs us down in debating Islamic theology while warning us not to mention Islam. These are not problems that we can solve. Even if there really were a definite split between Muslim moderates and extremists, rather than an immoderate Islam broken into different factions in a power struggle, the government is not the right tool for settling a religious dispute. And that’s what CVE tries to do.

CVE declares that ISIS and its supporters are not Muslims. The Saudis might have the authority to do that. Al Azhar may have the authority to do that. We don’t. The only people who believe these claims are American non-Muslims. Muslims are not impressed by us deciding who is and isn’t a Muslim.

The United States government is not an Islamic authority. We’re not a Muslim country and we shouldn’t try to be. And non-Muslim countries don’t have a good track record of exploiting Islamic theology.

Islamic terrorism is a military problem. It always has been.

Post 9/11, that’s how we first saw it. Islamic Jihadists are not domestic terrorists even if they have the right passport. Nazi saboteurs in WW2 or Communist spies during the Cold War were not a domestic enemy. It’s not the possession of American citizenship that distinguishes a domestic enemy from a foreign enemy, but his cause. Domestic enemies may seek to overthrow the government. Foreign enemies are working to aid a foreign force in inflicting harm on the United States of America.

CVE demands that we fight a war over someone else’s ideas on our own soil. It’s a dead end strategy. At best we would end up with a government approved Islam and an anti-government Islam. And then our accomplishment will have been to replicate the same totalitarian state of affairs in the Muslim world. But it’s far more likely that we will end up being used as pawns in a war between different Islamist groups, such as ISIS and the Brotherhood, funding their causes and bleeding for their political agendas.

But we’re not actually in a war of ideas. It’s still a war of bombs and bullets.

Terrorism against America won’t be stopped on Twitter. It can be stopped at the airport. Our domestic terrorists are mostly Muslim refugees or their children. And the occasional American converted by them. The situation would have quickly gotten ugly if we had allowed large numbers of Nazi and Imperial Japan loyalists to enter the United States during WW2. The Nazis sent in teams of saboteurs who were tried by military tribunals and executed. The spy rings and saboteur teams were not seen as a domestic problem.

The United States did not employ moderate Nazis to try to reason with the extremist Nazis or non-violent Nazis to educate the violent Nazis about the true peaceful meaning of National Socialism.

Instead the issue was defined in terms of allegiance to the United States. Everything else proceeded from that. Either you were loyal to the United States or you weren’t. CVE shifts the emphasis of allegiance from the United States to Muslims. It puts the burden on the United States to integrate Muslims, to make them feel at home, to reassure them so that they don’t turn to violence.

And that’s exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants.

Instead of placing the burden on Muslims to be loyal, a burden that all Americans already carry, it commences a process of domestic appeasement for trying to win the loyalty of people who already swore an oath to end all foreign allegiances and defend the nation against foreign enemies. It transforms Muslims into a separate nation within the United States whose allegiance is always contested and has to be constantly won over and over again.

While claiming to combat an Islamic State Caliphate, CVE concedes its central premise.

The allegiance of citizens in a nation at war is not a bargaining matter. Either it exists or it does not. A sensible counterterrorism strategy at home will not aim at parsing different flavors of Islam, but at distinguishing between those citizens whose allegiance we have and those whose allegiance we do not.

Islamic terrorism and support for it, of any variety, is first and foremost a failure of allegiance. It is treason in the practical, if not always the legal sense. It is the action of an enemy who through this betrayal knowingly abandons his or her citizenship.

We do not need to counter “violent extremism”. What we need to do is to be certain of allegiances.

This isn’t new territory. During WW2, the United States not only arrested enemy agents, it also initiated denaturalization proceedings against Nazi sympathizers. Not only did we not take in new Nazis during the war, but we made it clear to the existing ones that they would be executed or deported.

The combination proved to be extremely effective. It did not ensure loyalty. What it did was make it clear that treason would not be tolerated. And it prevented a flow of new enemy recruits.

That is what is needed in wartime.

A real strategy for fighting Islamic terrorism begins with the recognition that we are at war. It identifies the enemy. And it offers those whose allegiances are mixed a choice between committing or departing. CVE does the opposite. It refuses to recognize that there is a war. It rejects the idea that Muslims should be expected to show their allegiance and instead demands that the United States show its allegiance to them. It inverts the balance of citizenship and invests the United States in an unspoken religious debate.

We have lost sight of the problem and so we are unable to arrive at a solution. The problem is military. Islamic terrorism is not domestic unrest, but foreign invasion. It should be understood and addressed in those terms whether it comes through an immigration checkpoint or carrying a bomb over the border.

Also see:

“First Steps in Defeating Islamic Terror: Understanding the Arab and Muslim World”

Published on Feb 19, 2015 by emetonline

EMET was proud to host Dr. Mordechai Kedar on why Islamic terrorists are targeting the free world, and what we need to know about the Muslim and Arab world to win the war on terror.

From ISIS’s beheadings, to the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, including the Charlie Hebdo shootings leaving 13 innocent dead, and the slaughter of four Jews at a Kosher supermarket for the mere fact that they were Jewish, the Western world has been left shocked by an enemy it does not know how to defeat. The Islamic State’s campaign of genocide and crimes against humanity has taken on a new level of horror with the recent murder of Jordanian pilot, Moaz al-Kassasbeh, who was burned alive by the radical Islamic terror group. The U.S.’s greatest ally in the Middle East, the State of Israel, was subject to Hamas’ launch of 4,000 rockets into many of its major cities, and the State has to fight terrorists, including those from Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah, on a daily basis to protect its citizens.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. He served for twenty-five years in IDF Military Intelligence, where he specialized in Islamic groups, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic press and mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena. The Los Angeles TimesEdmund Sanders described him as “one of the few Arabic-speaking Israeli pundits seen on Arabic satellite channels defending Israel”

***

3620388745_e201000530_z

“WE ARE DEALING WITH AN IDEOLOGY” By Andrew Harrod, (philosproject.org)

Israeli scholar Mordechai Kedar’s Feb. 12 presentation for the Endowment for Middle East Truth gave indispensable insight into the Islamic sources of jihadist movements now threatening the world. During his briefing entitled “First Steps in Defeating Islamic Terror,” Kedar warned that one must recognize the nature of a threat if one ever hopes to defeat it.

“There is no radical Islam,” Kedar said definitively. “There is no moderate Islam. There is Islam.” Each of Islam’s three canonical sources includes “whatever you want to justify, [from] zero violence to 100 percent violence.”

Like Jews and Christians, every Muslim “has his own reality of religious doctrine” and “can argue that opposing viewpoints have hijacked Islam.” Many Muslims uphold Islam’s positive ideas and are “as peaceful as can be.” Other Muslims go the opposite way. Kedar pointed out that environment plays a significant role, since a Muslim who grows up in a free society like the United States will most likely “tailor his Islamic garment” with benign texts, while a Muslim who grows up in war-torn Libya will probably seek out Islam’s more martial aspects.

The problem is that it only takes a few bad seeds. If just one out of every 10,000 Muslims in the worldwide community of 1.5 billion joined ISIS or a similar group, these 150,000 Muslims could “devastate the whole world.” After all, 9/11 and this January’s Paris massacres took place at the hands of just a few jihadists.

The audience watched segments of an ISIS propaganda video showing mass beheadings of captives in places like Europe, Malaysia and the Middle East. This type of video strikes terror in the hearts of Iraqi soldiers and other Middle Easterners longing for peace and order. An English-speaking jihadist pictured in the video warned that Americans deployed to the region could be the next beheading victims; he also called out “to Obama, the dog of Rome.” Kedar explained that a medieval Muslim leader, following the 1453 Ottoman subjugation of the “cats” of Constantinople, had declared that the “dogs of Rome” were Islam’s next target.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, can be thought of as the grandmother of organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Nigeria’s Boko Haram. The Muslim Brotherhood’s logo, whose depiction of crossed swords and Quran leaves no doubt about its Islamic agenda, features the Arabic word “prepare,” which occurs only once in the Quran, in verse 8:60’s command to “prepare … whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.” The Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations represent Sunni terror, while Hezbollah is the Shiite terror counterpart with a state sponsor in Iran’s Islamic Republic, possibly nuclear-armed in the future.

One audience member referenced Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s internationally noted New Year’s Day address that called for Islamic reform, but Kedar was unimpressed. “I highly respect this man,” he said, but added that Sisi is no different from past dictators like Anwar Sadat (subsequently assassinated), Hosni Mubarak, or Hafez Assad. “Every ruler who sees himself as a target of those radical Muslims has made similar appeals for religious reform,” Kedar said, “yet the last people on earth to change anything are political Muslims who would not consider Sisi legitimate” after that president overthrew Muslim Brotherhood rule.

Willful blindness was a running theme in Kedar’s briefing. He warned that “political correctness will kill America after it already killed Europe,” where the human landscape is morphing after decades of Muslim immigration and non-assimilation.

Kedar ominously concluded his presentation by saying that “the Atlantic is not wide enough to protect this country from a global jihadist ideology.” He pointed to the book 40 Hadith on Jihad, which has a chapter titled “War is a Deception.” While current policies often prevent American authorities from asking about religion during criminal investigations, combatting Islamic threats demands, first and foremost, “intelligence, intelligence and intelligence.” Sun Tzu’s dictum of knowing the enemy remains valid in today’s conflicts, religious or not.

Bearing the cross: a letter to the Islamic State

By Mark Durie, Feb. 21, 2015:

This is the first of a two-part post on the 21 Egyptian martyrs killed in Libya.  This first part is a reflection, as a Christian, on aspects of this event and reactions to it.  The second part, ‘A message signed with blood to the Nation of the Cross’ consists of explanatory notes on the texts – spoken and written – which were part of the Islamic State’s film of their ritual beheadings.  This post has also appeared onLapido media.

The Islamic State sent me a letter this week. This letter was in the form of a short film produced by the Islamic State’s Al-Hayat Media centre.  This was not addressed to me personally, but to all Christians everywhere.  Its title was A Message Signed with BLOOD to the Nation of the Cross.  This was a video of the ritual slaughter of the 21 Egyptian Christians.  Their blood flowing in the ocean waves was the ‘signature’ at the end of the video.

As I write this it is Ash Wednesday.  This is the start of forty days of Lent, a period of fasting and contemplation for Christians all over the world.  For many centuries it has been a custom of Christians to receive a mark of the cross in ash upon the forehead as a sign of repentance.

As I received this mark of the cross today I was thinking of the 21 Egyptian Christian martyrs.  Copts permanently bear the sign of the cross, tattooed on their wrists, as a sign that they will refuse to renounce their beliefs.

A Coptic Girl with a Wrist Cross Tatoo

A Coptic Girl with a Wrist Cross Tatoo

I intend to read out these men’s names at our morning church services this Sunday, here in Melbourne, Australia.  And I also choose to honour them today by writing to acknowledge the truth about why they were killed, and in particular the explanation given by their killers.

I also wish to record, as a Christian and a pastor, my intense protest at theWhite House official statement of February 15 2015 concerning this event.  This makes no mention of the reason the twenty one were killed: their Christian faith.  This culpable denial dishonours them, as it dishonours me and Christians everywhere.

The White House statement claimed that “ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect or ethnicity.”  Not true.  The Islamic State’s actions are constrained by its theology, and in this case its targets are also determined on religious grounds; they were Christians.  It is not an endorsement of the killers’ Islamic beliefs to acknowledge that these jihadis follow a form of Islam, and that their sect and faith does constrain their behaviour accordingly.

President Obama has defended his administration’s misrepresentations on the grounds that the radicals are “desperate for legitimacy” so “They try to portray themselves as religious leaders, holy warriors in defense of Islam.” But these are not desperate people.  They are shockingly confident in their beliefs. They do not “try to portray themselves” as Islamic: they sincerely believe they are. Christopher Hitchens got it right over a decade ago when he suggested of Al Qa’ida recruits that “they believe their own propaganda,” and “absolutely subscribe to the tenets of their version … of their religion, Islam.”

Obama also stated that “we must never accept the premise that they put forward, because it is a lie.”  This too is nonsense.  A lie is a deliberate intention to deceive, and these self-described jihadis are – at least by their own understanding – speaking the absolute truth when they claim to speak for Islam.

Some years ago I had the privilege of reading the Gospel at a Coptic service held in St Paul’s Anglican Cathedral, here in Melbourne.  The service was held to commemorate the 22 martyrs of the attack on Al-Qiddisin Church in Alexandria on New Year’s Eve. It was led by Bishop Suriel, Melbourne’s Coptic bishop.

The Al-Qiddisin martyr’s service impressed me deeply. I long pondered the fact that the Coptic church of Egypt has been grieving over the freshly dug graves of its martyred sons and daughters since the dawn of Christianity.  As I sat through the service and sung the hymns about martyrdom, I thought, “So this is what it means to be a Copt”.

The Islamic State video, a polished production, depicts 21 Christian men, hands bound behind them, being led one-by-one along a beach in Libya to a point where they are forced to bow down with their heads in the sand, and there they are beheaded, crying out Ya Rabbi Yasou ‘Lord Jesus!’, some reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Severed heads were then placed on top of each corpse, their Muslim slayer standing over them.  The final film shots show the Mediterranean washing red with their blood.

One of the Coptic victims with his killer

One of the Coptic victims with his killer

The whole event was meticulously choreographed and rehearsed.  The video’s obvious purpose is to humiliate and terrorise Christians, whom it derisively calls, “The Nation of the Cross”.  I admire the courage of the martyrs, who did not disown the name of Christ and the cross to follow Islam, even as they were being mocked and killed by their tormentors.

It is indisputable (see Part 2) that the whole script of this video is intensely religious. It is packed with references to the Qur’an and the Hadiths of Muhammad.  As Graeme Wood comments in an important recent Atlantic Monthly article, the Islamic State adherents are constantly referencing Islam’s sacred texts. In their everyday speech, “Koranic quotations are ubiquitous”.  This film is no exception.  For anyone who knows anything about Islam it is impossible to view this film without being aware of the heavy constraining influence of the Qur’an and the Hadiths on the script.  These references are essential for understanding the true context, meaning and intent of the film.

The Egyptian government reacted angrily to the executions, bombing Islamic State positions inside Libya.  Egypt was incensed about this massacre – and rightly so – but it has a very long and enduring track record of not prosecuting Muslims who have massacred Christians within its own borders.  General Al-Sisi is a leader who has been complicit in this peculiar form of Muslim cowardice.  This moral inconsistency is causing great division and confusion among Copts at the present time.

My comment after the Al-Qiddisi massacre in January 2011 remains as valid now as it was then:

“I deplore the lack of freedom of religion in Egypt,  the authorities’ apparent unwillingness to protect the indigenous Christian minority and its places of worship, and the lamentable track record of the Egyptian justice system in securing criminal convictions against those who have targeted Christians for attack.  I call upon Egypt’s leaders to respond to these abuses honestly and with integrity, without making excuses or indulging in denial.”

There is a double standard in the house of Islam.  Examples are legion.  The Jordanian royal house has been prominent in speaking up against attacks against Christians in Iraq and Syria, yet at the time when the Common Word letter was being released to the Christian world in 2008 under Jordanian royal sponsorship, its own Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought had posted on its website fatwas by its Chief Scholar – the former Mufti of Jordan – which declared death for Christians for the crime of leaving Islam, and even identified one person by name (see here).

King Abdullah has on the one hand been a champion of the rights of displaced Christians in the Middle East, and God knows they surely need one.  On the other hand he has held up the notorious Pact of Umar as evidence of Jordan’s history of religious tolerance:

“Jerusalem, which is, regrettably, subject to the worst forms of Judaisation today, stands witness to fourteen centuries of  deep, solid and fraternal relations between Muslims and Christians, enhanced by the Pact of Omar [ibn al-Khattab], and promoted by my grandfather, Sharif Hussein bin Ali, may God bless his soul.”

In contrast to this historical revisionism, the renowned Muslim jurist Ibn Kathir, accurately described the intent and effect of the conditions of the Pact of Umar as guaranteeing the continued degradation of Christians under Islamic rule:

“This is why the Leader of the faithful ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.”

Readers who read classical Arabic may consult the Royal Jordan Aal al-Bayt Institute’s own database of commentaries here, to view Ibn Kathir’s original text.

The problem is that as long as Muslims allow derogatory words like mushrik‘associator, polytheist’ and kafir ‘infidel’ to be applied to Christians, while also preaching Qur’anic verses which denigrate non-Muslims, the hostility and hatred can only continue.

As long as the highest legal authorities of the Islamic mainstream continue to assert the right of Muslims to kill those who leave Islam, bursts of extreme religious hatred such as we have just seen in Libya can only continue.

As long as Muslims claim that the well-documented brutal slaughters of Islamic conquest and the ensuing oppression of nations under the Islamic system of dhimmitude were a mercy to the world, the ‘opening’ up (al-futuh) of dark nations to light and truth, hatred towards non-Muslims will continue to arise in the house of Islam.

The fundamental problem is not peculiar variants of extreme religious worldviews, it is a deeply engrained religious worldview that is not acknowledged by many who hold it.  Those who, like King Abdullah, allow it room to breathe by claiming that it is something other than what it really is are as much a part of the problem as the violent jihadis who are proud to own the worldview.

In the house of Islam, hatred has deep roots stretching back through time.  In 1836 Edward Lane reported in The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians that it was standard practice in many Cairo schools to require Muslim school boys to invoke daily curses on the heads of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims.  In essence these curses called for the looting, killing and enslavement of non-Muslims.   It is only against the backdrop of inter-generational hatred that a television series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion could have become mainstream viewing in Egyptian society, and continuing kidnapping, rape and killings of Copts are perpetrated without justice for the victims.

There is an ill-wind of hatred blowing in the house of Islam and it has been blowing for a very long time indeed.  When this wind is whipped up into a tornado, the world is appalled, but it is the constant steady breeze of hatred that is the root of the problem.

As this letter was addressed to the Christians of the world, here I give my personal reply to the Islamic State, written as a Christian:

I am not intimidated by your hatred.  Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us not to fear those who may kill the body.  The people of honour on that beach in Tripoli were those 21 courageous Copts, who dared to confess the name of Christ, even with a knife to their necks. They knew well what choice they were making. You thought to humiliate them, but the Word of God tells me they are the vindicated ones, the men of glory.  I believe they knew that full well.

For you I have no hate, only pity.  You wield the sword to kill ideas and worship you do not understand, but you do this in vain. The truth cannot be killed by your knives.

General Sisi of Egypt was right: because of you, people all over the world are doubting Islam.

Here is how a young Egyptian girl reacted to what you did:  

‘I am encouraged because now I know that what we have been taught in history books about Egyptian Christians being martyred for their faith is not just history, but that there are Christians today who are brave enough to face death rather than deny their Lord! When I saw these young men praying as they were being prepared for execution and then many of them shouting ‘O Lord Jesus’ as their throats were being slit, I realized that the Gospel message can still help us to hold on to the promises of God even when facing death!’

This is the true truth, and it is precisely because of this truth that a new wind is blowing in the house of Islam: a fresh breeze of questioning, a wind of gentleness and openness. This is the life-giving breath of hope that there must be a different way to walk with God.  You are men of the past: the future belongs to those you killed on the beach.

To read the second part of this post, go to this link.

Mark Durie2Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

What the White House Summit to Counter Violent Extremism Can’t Fix

President Obama speaking at the White House summit on countering violent extremism on Feb. 19. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

President Obama speaking at the White House summit on countering violent extremism on Feb. 19. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

WSJ, by Aaron David Miller, Feb. 19, 2025:

The problem that Barack Obama’s summit to counter violence and extremism is meant to address isn’t one that community activism can resolve. The president’s message about the need for tolerance, understanding, and  inclusiveness to prevent and preempt radicalization of American youth is well suited to our historic notion of the “big tent.” But the world confronts a radicalized version and vision of Islam that requires a military and political approach. This isn’t something that Washington can fix quickly or comprehensively. First and foremost, the Arab states and the Muslim world must own up to the radical extremists in their midst.

We aren’t at war with Islam, and the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims aren’t jihadis. President Obama has acknowledged this. But he won’t clearly define the enemy we face. Determination to avoid playing into jihadi hands or alienating our Arab friends has led the president to a world of obfuscation and denial. The current threat isn’t from Basque separatists, Chechen radicals, or the Kurdish PKK; it’s from radicalized Muslims who are spreading their poison from Pakistan to Syria to Nigeria to the alienated and aggrieved Muslim communities of Europe.

This is a long war, specifically against those individuals and groups that have chosen to resurrect an austere, violent and fundamentalist version of their religion. To describe the fight by claiming, as President Obama did in his Los Angeles Times op-ed, as a battle against terrorism gets at only the visible hunk of the iceberg. The mass below the water line is where the danger lurks. And that threat is not some generic global challenge but resides primarily in the lands of the Arabs and among disparate Muslim groups such as Boko Haram that thrive in empty spaces and highly fractured societies.

The rise of Islamic State–and that’s why this summit is taking place–is a direct result of years of no governance, bad governance, and Sunni-Shiite sectarian rivalry fostered willingly (see: Iran) and unwillingly (see: U.S. invasion of Iraq) in the Middle East and South Asia. Force is required to preempt, contain, and to keep these radical jihadis at bay. The problem of ISIS will not be resolved until the broken spaces in which it thrives are filled with good governance, security, and prosperity. And that is not only beyond U.S. capacity but also may not necessarily be desired by the Iranian and Arab governments that play this dangerous game. Iran, the United States’ new putative partner, isn’t interested in turning Iraq into a cohesive state where the majority Sunnis rule; nor is Tehran–or the Russians and the U.S., for that matter–interested in getting rid of Bashar al-Assad, who feeds ISIS recruitment by killing Syrian Sunnis. Islamic State can’t be “ultimately defeated,” as President Obama is fond of saying, without a fundamental transformation in the Middle East.

The notion that Washington can somehow take the lead in this effort is preposterous. In conjunction with our regional partners, particularly the Gulf states, we must play a relentless and key role on the military aspect of the fight. But the U.S. should be under no illusions that we can fix what ails the Middle East. Some of our regional allies–the Saudis, Qataris, and Kuwaitis in particular–have funded and supported Islamist fundamentalist groups, including those on the Syrian battlefield. By propagating their own fundamentalist version of Islam, the Saudis contributed for years to the problem we all face now. And because we have so few friends in the region, we have no choice but to continue to depend on states (think Egypt and Saudi Arabia) whose values are fundamentally different from ours and whose repressive policies toward legitimate dissent help feed radical jihad.

We may not be able to come up with a neat prescription for how to defeat Islamic State and jihadi radicals. But as we fight this long war we can at least be honest about the challenge and the enemies we face. That clarity might bring more focus and urgency to the fight.

Aaron David Miller is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars and most recently the author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” He is on Twitter: @AaronDMiller2.

Secure the Border!

aisis-426x350Frontpage, February 19, 2015 by Raymond Ibrahim:

Originally published by PJ Media.

In a move reminiscent of “ancient history,” Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile-long “Great Wall”  –  a combined fence and ditch  –  to separate itself from the Islamic State to the north in Iraq:

Plans for the 600-mile wall and ditch Saudi Arabia will build with Iraq in an effort to insulate itself from the chaos engulfing its neighbors.

Much of the area on the Iraqi side is now controlled by Isil [the Islamic State], which regards the ultimate capture of Saudi Arabia, home to the “Two Holy Mosques” of Mecca and Medina, as a key goal….

The irony here is that those Muslims that Saudi Arabia is trying to keep out are the very same Muslims most nurtured and influenced by a Saudi — or “Wahabbi,” or “Salafi” — worldview.

Put differently, Saudi Arabia is again appreciating how jihad is a volatile instrument of war that can easily backfire on those who support it.  “Holy war” is hardly limited to fighting and subjugating “infidels” — whether the West in general, Israel in particular, or the millions of non-Muslim minorities under Islam — but also justifies fighting “apostates,” that is, Muslims accused of not being Islamic enough.

Indeed, the first grand jihad was against Muslim “apostates” — the Ridda [“apostasy”] Wars.  After Muhammad died in 632, many Arab tribes were willing to remain Muslim but without paying zakat (“charity”) money to the first caliph, Abu Bakr.  That was enough to declare jihad on them as apostates; tens of thousands of Arabs were burned, beheaded, dismembered, or crucified, according to Islamic history.

Accordingly, the Islamic State justifies burning people alive, such as the Jordanian pilot, precisely because the first caliph and his Muslim lieutenants burned apostates alive, and is even on record saying that “false Muslims” are its first target, then Israel.

This is the problem all Muslim nations and rulers risk: no one — not even Sharia-advocating Islamist leaders — are immune to the all-accusing sword tip of the jihad.  If non-Muslims are, as “infidels,” de facto enemies, any Muslim can be accused of “apostasy,” instantly becoming an enemy of Allah and his prophet.

A saying attributed to the Muslim prophet Muhammad validates this perspective: “This umma [Islamic nation] of mine will split into seventy-three sects; one will be in paradise and seventy-two will be in hell.”  When asked which sect was the true one, the prophet replied, “al-jama‘a,” that is, the group which most literally follows the example or “sunna” of Muhammad.

This saying perfectly sums up the history of Islam: to be deemed legitimate, authorities must uphold the teachings of Islam — including jihad; but it is never long before another claimant accuses existing leadership of not being “Islamic enough.”

Enter the Saudi/Islamic State relationship. From the start, the Arabian kingdom has been a supporter of the Islamic State.  It was not long, however, before IS made clear that Saudi Arabia was one of its primary targets, calling on its allies and supporters in the kingdom to kill and drive out the Saud tribe.

Nor is this the first time the Saudis see those whom they nurtured — ideologically and logistically — turn on them.  Back in the 1980s, the Saudis were chief supporters of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and helped create al-Qaeda.

But once the “distant” infidel was subdued, al-Qaeda and its Saudi-born leader Osama bin Laden came home to roost, doing the inevitable: pointing the accusatory finger at the Saudi monarchy for not being Islamic enough, including for its reliance on the great American infidel during the First Gulf War.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia is not only a chief disseminator and supporter of the Salafi ideology most associated with jihad, but the Arabian kingdom itself was forged in large measure by articulating and calling for holy war in the 19th and -20th centuries, including against Turks and fellow Arab tribes (both Muslim).

The Saudi argument then was the very same argument now being made by the Islamic State — that the rulers of Islam’s holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina (in this case, the Ottoman Turks) were not “Islamic” enough.

Such is the double-edged sword of jihad.   All Islamic governments, regimes, and kingdoms must always try to direct this potent instrument of war against enemies or neutral targets — preferably ones far away from their borders (Afghanistan, America, etc.). For they know that the longer the jihad waxes in strength and goes uncontained, the more it becomes like an all-consuming fire indiscriminately scorching all in its path.

And this explains why Saudi Arabia is a chief funder and supporter of external jihads: to send its own zealots out of its borders to fight distant infidels (a “better them than me” mentality).  It also explains why nations like Saudi Arabia, which were forged by the jihad, continually find themselves threatened by the jihad — or, to paraphrase a young Jewish rabbi: “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

EXPERT: FBI ‘NEUTERED’ BY MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

muslim-brotherhood-white-houseWND, by F. MICHAEL MALOOF, Feb. 9, 2015:

WASHINGTON – A veteran national-security specialist disputes FBI Director James Comey’s contention that restrictions on information-gathering are the main hindrance to uncovering ISIS conspiracies in the U.S.

Clare Lopez, who served in the CIA for 20 years and is senior vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, said the problem isn’t with working-level FBI agents, who know the jihadi threat is “nurtured” in mosques. The hindrance is from “higher-level” FBI management and the national security leadership, she insisted.

She said the FBI for too long has allowed itself “to be influenced by operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates whose objective is to neuter U.S. national security defenses.”

Lopez was responding to Comey’s recent comment that restrictions on information-gathering stemming from intelligence leaks by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have created barriers for law enforcement and the intelligence community.

Comey made the comment as he revealed the FBI has opened cases in 49 U.S. states of people suspected of having ties to ISIS.

Lopez said that when someone such as Michael Steinbach, an assistant director for the FBI Counterterrorism Division, publicly complains that he cannot fathom the recruitment appeal of ISIS or understand why parents in the U.S. encourage their children to join ISIS, “then, America, we have a problem.”

“That means the FBI’s top [counter-terrorism] official has no idea how to identify and stop that ISIS recruitment process before more young Muslims answer the call to jihad,” Lopez said.

She noted, however, that Steinbach was one of the FBI’s key figures in the “Great Purge” of 2011-2012 when, “at the urging of its Muslim Brotherhood advisers, the FBI literally purged hundreds of pages of training curriculum that used to educate agents about how Islamic doctrine, law and scripture inspire Islamic terrorism.”

The FBI, she said, “banished the instructors whose knowledge of these things was deemed so threatening by the Brotherhood.”

Lopez said the move was an illustration of the Muslim Brotherhood strategy – outlined in a document entered into evidence in a terrorism trial – to destroy the Western civilization from within, by their hands.”

That means, Lopez said, “We’re going to be induced to destroy ourselves.”

Lopez also referred to a document published by a combined team of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the FBI on how to make mosques off-limits to law enforcement.

She pointed out that Islam’s founder, Muhammad, had established mosques with “command and control centers” for the Muslim community’s earliest jihad wars.

Despite that history, she said U.S. troops nonetheless “were shocked” when they were first fired upon from within mosques and when they entered mosques in Iraq and Afghanistan and discovered weapons caches.

Similar concern over the potential of violence emanating from mosques in the U.S. was outlined in a Middle East Quarterly article. It raised concerns regarding the extent American Muslims, native-born a well as naturalized, are being radicalized by Islamists.

The article showed how modern jihadists legitimize their violent actions by relying on the same textual works as their nonviolent Salafist counterparts.

Lopez said the 2011 study of mosques in the U.S. found that some 80 percent promote jihad violence and that the more Shariah-compliant the mosque is, the more likely it will be to promote jihad.

“And you’re still wondering if the FBI is going to be aggressive in infiltrating mosques and Islamic centers?” Lopez asked.

“Unless our law enforcement professionals are permitted to understand the indicators and warnings that signal development of an Islamic jihad threat, in advance,” she said, “the FBI will be desperately scrambling to keep up with an ever-expanding pool of potential jihad recruits.”

She identified the threats as passport-carrying American citizens, immigrants with residence status, or documented refugees, some of whom have returned from ISIS battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

She pointed out that al-Qaida and ISIS have issued calls for individual jihad, meaning Islamic terror at home and unconnected in any formal way to a group on the Department of State’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.

She said law enforcement officials need to understand how Muslims can become radicalized without ever joining al-Qaida, ISIS or any other group on the FTO list.

“How can the FBI or any national security agency even begin to understand this process when they are forbidden even to use the words ‘Islamic terror’ or ‘jihad?’” she asked.

She referred to many examples of individual jihadists who were not associated with any organizations or groups on the FTO list but undertook serious violent actions in the name of jihad.

The examples of individual jihadists include Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 service personnel at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009; Carlos Bledsoe, who in June 2009 murdered Amy Long at the Little Rock, Arkansas, Army recruitment center; and the Tsarnaev brothers, who learned how to make pressure cooker bombs by reading al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and then exploded two at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.

“The common identifier for these individual jihadists was their deep Islamic faith and decision to answer the call to jihad,” she said. “The other common marker was that law enforcement had no clue these Muslims were on a pathway to violent jihad, despite all the associations, all the indicators and all the warnings.

“So yes, there will certainly be more individual jihad attacks, and it is likely they will choose soft targets, as they did in Paris and Brussels and Sydney,” Lopez said.

“And without the official knowledge or training or authority to identify and stop such jihadis in advance, our front line of homeland defense increasingly becomes ourselves.”

The True History of Christendom and Islam

cruzadasportada-398x350

Frontpage, By Raymond Ibrahim On February 13, 2015:

U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama’s recent condemnation of medieval Christian history as a way to exonerate Islam is a reminder of how woefully ignorant (or intentionally deceptive) a good many people in the West are concerning the true history of Christian Europe and Islam.

The problem is that those who condemn things like the Crusades—including “mainstream” academics, journalists, movie-makers, and politicians—do so without mention of any historical context.  Worse, they imply “we” already know the context: evil popes and greedy knights exploiting Christianity to seize Muslim lands and wealth.  Or in the words of Karen Armstrong, “the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam.”

Of course, the true story of Christendom and Islam is antithetically different.  Consider some facts for a moment:

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia.  Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered—today casually called the “Islamic world,” including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China—much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are (to give them their modern names in no particular order): Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Belarus, Malta, Sardinia, Moldova, Slovakia, and Montenegro.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.  (Till this day, Turkish Muslims celebrate this day of great rapine and slaughter.)

The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany.  That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” This was not mere paranoia; as late as 1627, Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives and selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.

Nor did America escape.  A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.  The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”

In short, for roughly one millennium—punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing—Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.

And therein lies the rub: Today, whether as taught in high school or graduate school, whether as portrayed by Hollywood or the news media, the predominant historic narrative is that Muslims are the historic “victims” of “intolerant” Western Christians.  (Watch my response to a Fox News host asking why Christians have always persecuted Muslims.)

So here we are, paying the price of being an ahistorical society: A few years after the Islamic strikes of 9/11—merely the latest in the centuries-long, continents-wide jihad on the West—Americans elected (twice) a man with a Muslim name and heritage for president; a man who condemns the Christian Crusades while openly empowering the same ideology that the Crusaders fought for centuries.

Surely the United States’ European forebears—who at one time or another either fought off or were conquered by Islam—must be turning in their graves.

But all this is history, you say? Why rehash it?  Why not let it be and move on, begin a new chapter of mutual tolerance and respect, even if history must be “touched up” a bit?

This would be a somewhat plausible position—if not for the fact that, all around the globe, Muslims are still exhibiting the same imperial impulse and intolerant supremacism that their conquering forbears did.  The only difference is that the Muslim world is currently incapable of defeating the West through a conventional war.

Yet this may not even be necessary.  Thanks to the West’s ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of “immigration,” refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called “ghettoes” but in Islamic terminology are the ribat—frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.

All this leads to another, perhaps even more important point: If the true history of the West and Islam is being turned upside its head, what other historical “orthodoxies” being peddled around as truth are also false?

Were the Dark Ages truly benighted because of the “suffocating” forces of Christianity?  Or were these dark ages—which “coincidentally” occurred during the same centuries when jihad was constantly harrying Europe—a product of another suffocating “religion”?

Was the Spanish Inquisition—also condemned by Obama—a reflection of Christian barbarism or was it a reflection of Christian desperation vis-à-vis the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who, while claiming to have converted to Christianity, were practicing taqiyya and living as moles trying to subvert the Christian nation back to Islam?

Don’t expect to get true answers to these and other questions from the makers, guardians, and disseminators of the West’s fabricated epistemology.

In the future (whatever one there may be) the histories written about our times will likely stress how our era, ironically called the “information age,” was not an age when people were so well informed, but rather an age when disinformation was so widespread and unquestioned that generations of people lived in bubbles of alternate realities—till they were finally popped.

‘Defeat Jihad Summit’ Challenges Islamic Supremacism – And The Obama ‘Strategy’and A.U.M.F. That Disregard It

33480681301Center for Security Policy, Feb. 11, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah. Among the noteworthy participants in this roundtable discussion were:

  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
  • former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
  • S. Senator Ted Cruz
  • Representative Steven King
  • Representative Mike Pompeo
  • Representative Scott Perry
  • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
  • Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.)
  • Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame
  • Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders
  • Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard
  • Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson
  • Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger
  • former Muslim Nonie Darwish
  • Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
  • Australian pastor Mark Durie

Highlights of the Summit included:

  • A discussion of the nature of our jihadist enemies and the mainstream – not extremist –character of their inspiration: the politico-military-legal shariah doctrine derived from the sacred texts, institutions and authorities of Islam. There was widespread agreement that we mustunderstand and be able to name our foes, not pretend that they and their motivations are unknowable.
  • The global jihad takes various forms including: the violent kind; civilization (or cultural, stealthy and subversive) jihad; institutional jihad (employing entities like the multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations under the OIC’s influence); individual jihad (its perpetrators are mistakenly being described as “lone wolves”); and material support (which, under shariah, is prized as highly as the service of those who take up the sword).
  • America urgently needs a strategy for countering all such jihadist endeavors – one that brings to bear all instruments of national power to achieve a decisive correlation of forces and our victory. We face a truly existential threat from the global jihad movement, as do other nations of the Free World now under assault for sharing our values and love of liberty.
  • The  unveiled last Friday by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force being proposed by the administration are wholly inadequate. The former compounds the inadequacies of the President’s “lead-from-behind” approach with an even more passive one: “strategic patience”; the latter appears calculated to fail and to embolden, rather than defeat, the Islamic State or any other foe.

The Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., moderated the nearly six-hour summit. Afterwards, he commented:

The participants in the Defeat Jihad Summit have rendered a real public service. Their insights, analyses and recommendations concerning the threat from shariah-adherent Muslims and the need to empower and join forces with others in the Muslim community who eschew that brutally repressive ideology create the basis for a far more sound, effective and durable national security strategy.

We at the Center for Security Policy look forward to working with them and all those benefitting from the livestreaming and other products that will disseminate the fruits of this summit, far and wide.

To view videos of the summit’s presentations, go to www.SecureFreedom.org. For more information about the Summit, contact Samantha Nevore at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856.

The event was live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The event in its entirety is embedded below. Video highlights to follow shortly:

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Published on Feb 8, 2015 by Steve Laboe

Our enemy has doubled or even more over the past decade; and we don’t have a coherent strategy in place to combat Islamic Extremism says Lt. General Michael Flynn to Chris Wallace in a Fox News Sunday Exclusive Interview

Also see:

Charlie Rose interview of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn on Hulu

Bill Warner on Jihad versus Crusades

Published on Aug 20, 2014 by Bill Warner

Whenever you’re dealing with an apologist for Islam, or even a Muslim, and you bring up jihad, almost immediately, they kickback to you: “But what about those terrible crusades? Why they’re the moral justification for jihad and we’re just as bad as they are. So let’s not talk about jihad, okay? Let’s talk about the Crusades.”

Well, what I would like to talk about here, are facts. I created a database of 548 battles that Islam fought: jihad battles against classical civilization. This isn’t even all the battles. It doesn’t include battles Africa, India, Afghanistan and other locations. It’s primarily at data base of the battles against the classical civilization of Rome and Greece.

548 battles are a lot; too many to comprehend. So I created a dynamic battle map with displays of the Mediterranean in 20 year increments. On the display, a white dot designates a battle during the twenty-year period, a new battle. Every time the screen changes to the next 20 year period, the previous white dots turn red and a new set of current battles  are shown with white dots so you can see the unfolding history. This may seem a little confusing, but when you see it you’ll know exactly what I mean.

As the dynamic display starts, Islam bursts out of the Arabian Peninsula and immediately starts attacking the Middle East. Notice that it is not long before there are battles across the Mediterranean and attacks in southern France, and Spain.

Notice something else: when most people think of Islam, they think of Arabs; and of desert. Yet here we see that Islam is projecting power throughout the Mediterranean. Notice how the little islands of the Mediterranean are getting hammered. The navy of Islam would attack coastal towns, kill, rob, rape, and then take slaves. As this entire battle map unfolds, slaves are taken. Over a million slaves were taken from of Europe into the Islamic world. It’s something you don’t think about, but it’s absolutely true.

There were over 200 battles fought in Spain alone. We also see, however, on the east coast, in Turkey, that Islamic forces attempt to break into Europe. What happens in Spain during this ongoing fight that lasted for 400 years is that the Christians push back the Moslems. But what happens in the East is that Constantinople falls and now then eastern Europe gets hammered. The jihad comes to Eastern Europe. It’s pushed out of Spain, but northern Africa becomes completely Islamic, and the Middle East is completely Islamic.

This is all jihad, relentless jihad. And why is it so relentless?

Well, Mohammed was relentless in his jihad, and these people are good students of Islam. And so it’s jihad against the Kafir, endlessly.

It was traditional that when a new Sultan came to power, he would immediately attempt to launch new wars because he would be noted in Islamic history as to how well he fought against the Kafir.

So that’s what the jihad looked like over that time period: 548 battles. But remember, when you bring up jihad, people want to bring up the Crusades. So I also prepared a dynamic battle map of all the offensive raids of the crusaders. Let’s watch it and make a comparison.

As it begins, the Crusades enter Turkey and the Middle East; battles ensue. But there are far fewer than you might think. And in short order, the map concludes. The last battles are fought and the Crusades are over.

Now we can talk about some facts! Yes, there were Crusades. But notice that they ended centuries ago, and jihad is still being practiced today. Jihad has been with us for 1400 years. There is no comparison between jihad and the Crusades; certainly not a moral comparison. And when you’re looking at the Crusades, remember, in one sense the Crusades were defensive wars. Why? As we saw in the first jihad map, it was Islam that came out of Arabia and conquered the Middle East, a Christian Middle East. The crusaders were trying to free their Christian brothers and sisters from jihad. So there’s no moral comparison all. The motivation of the crusaders was to free Christians; the purpose of jihad was, and still is, to enslave the Kafir.

So, the next time you hear somebody talk about “those dreadful Crusades”, respond to the facts of the matter. Speak up and tell that person, “You don’t really know the facts!”

The threshold of outrage on jihad

1157American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Feb. 6, 2015:

Millions of people around the world were horrified by the recent display of abject barbarism when ISIS doused Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh with accelerant, put him in a cage, and burned him alive.

And horrified we should be.

Some say, as I have read in comments on blogs, that perhaps this act of terror will be the catalyst that will wake people up to the ruthless and relentless savagery sweeping across the Middle East under the banner of the Islamic State. And the awakened masses will finally understand what we are up against and who the enemy is.

But I’m not so sure.

Were many not horrified by recent beheadings of journalists and aid workers?

Were many not shocked by the murders at the office of Charlie Hebdo? (Less so by the Jews murdered later that day because, well apparently, they were just Jews.)

Remember when it was plastered all over the news that Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of girls and sold them as sex slaves? Or the plight of Yazidis on Mount Sinjar? Or people being crucified, buried alive, raped, and butchered?

Or news of daily horrors in Muslim majority countries where women are whipped, stoned, beheaded, and girls are burned alive, to name but a few barbaric practices dictated by Sharia/Islamic law.

Remember when terror tunnels reaching into Israel were discovered (tunnels that are now being rebuilt with our tax dollars)?  Or when jihadists crept into the home of an Israeli family and slit the throats of nearly every single family member who lay asleep?

People and children maimed and murdered. One at a time. A family at a time. A village at a time.

Remember Benghazi? So much horror has unfolded since that horror that it runs the risk of becoming a distant memory.

And what of the Islamic terror attack that killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11, leaving the world in shock, disbelief, sorrow, and rage? (Though many also celebrated the darkness that befell America on that fateful day.)

And then there was the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. The Fort Hood jihadist. The Islamic terrorists who bombed the USS Cole, a Madrid train, a London subway, the Boston Marathon, and Pan-Am flight 93.

There were the Air France flight 139 hijackers, the US Embassy in Beirut bombers, the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires suicide bombers, as well as the jihadists who kidnapped and murdered members of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich.

Along with the bombings of US Embassies in East Africa, the Khobar Towers, the Beirut Marine barracks, and the World Trade Center (1993). And the Mumbai terrorist attack and the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking and murder.

As well as people butchered and beheaded on the streets of Western nations, one in four women raped by Muslim men in countries like Sweden, Jews who are routinely attacked in countries like France, ongoing acts of terror against Jews in Israel, Christian genocide in the Middle East, and on and on and on.

To name but a few examples.

Not only are there countless more examples from the past few years (just last month alone, nearly 4,000 people were murdered and another 2, 261 were critically injured in 266 jihad attacks spanning 28 countries), but you can go back in time – 1400 years more or less – and find nothing but violence perpetuated upon the earth in the name of Islam.

So to return to my original point: If this centuries-long history doesn’t impress. And if unthinkably savage events in our lifetime haven’t already awakened the sleeping masses, I’m not convinced anything will.

Except, perhaps, this:

Speaking the truth about the underlying ideology that drives this bloodbath. Educating others about the words written in the Koran that demand that non-Muslims convert, pay the jizya tax, or die. Helping people realize that these acts of jihad are not isolated events. Spreading the word that Islam is not a religion of peace, but rather a political ideology of subjugation and war. And rejecting at every turn this nation’s plunge into darkness as the president stands with evil – aligning himself with and negotiating with those who wish to destroy us.

May every single human being who has fallen beneath the sword of Islam rest in peace and may their deaths not be in vain.

Evidence Surfaces That Chris Kyle’s Killer Was Not Suffering From PTSD But May Have Been A Terrorist Sympathizer

screen_shot_2015-02-04_at_12.01.52_pmTruth  Revolt, by  Yehuda Remer, Feb. 4, 2015:

his trial to start very soon, new facts have surfaced surrounding the man who shot and killed Chris Kyle.

The narrative until now has stated that Eddie Ray Routh was suffering from PTSD when Kyle took him under his wing, attempting to help a fellow veteran in need.  The new facts coming to light could show that Routh was not suffering from PTSD but a converted Muslim who sought out Kyle as retribution for the sniper’s success in Iraq.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Warfighter Foundation received Routh’s wartime record and made a startling discovery – Routh was never in combat or in any sort of traumatic experience.

Posted to their Facebook page, they write:

Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.

He held a non-combat arms occupation of 2111 (Small Arms Repairer/ Technician or more commonly referred to as an Armorer). Balad Air Base had a Pizza Hut, 24 hour Buger King, Subway, Popeye’s, Baskin Robbins, movie theater, and even a miniature golf course. It even had a strictly enforced 10-mile per hour speed limit! What a dangerous place…

His tour was comparable to being on a base in southern California, only with MANY more luxuries that were catered to the morale and welfare of the troops who occupied it. He was known to be a drug user and a below average performer while in the Marine Corps.

This has NOTHING to do with PTSD. He was an individual with psychological problems that were not associated with his service. So don’t give me that bleeding heart bullshit that he was a veteran suffering from PTSD.

twf tweet

What is known. however, is that Routh, while never serving in combat, did work at the Bilad Airbase prison, guarding Muslim terrorists.

Walid Shoebat, a former radicalized Muslim terrorist and member of the PLO who has since converted to Christianity, believes that because of his past and credentials, he is confident in his deduction that Eddie Routh was in fact becoming a radical Muslim, although there is no proof yet of the conversion.

Shoebat brings as one proof a phone call Routh had with his father where he expressed sympathy for the detainees he was guarding.

“During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions.”

He continues, “It is a known fact that Routh’s family contacted Kyle about their son’s diminishing mental health. Routh was admitted to inpatient psychiatric treatment prior to the events at Rough Creek Ranch, according to a report from the Daily Mail.  Routh had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past five months and told authorities that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, police records show.”

The second proof Shoebat brings is Routh’s beard with a trimmed mustache.  Shoebat profiles Routh and writes, “In the story on Eddie Routh, who murdered Chris Kyle, there are signs of concern, especially the facial hair, it does match the profile of a convert.”

Notice the trimmed mustache in one picture but not the other.

er

“One main key in profiling a Muslim fundamentalist is that they usually trim the mustache,” Shoebat writes.  “Always remember, a Muslim fundamentalist is mandated by Islam to trim the mustache,” he adds.

Is it a stretch?  Was Eddie Routh sent on a covert mission for extremist Muslims hell-bent on killing “The Devil of Ramadi?”  It will be interesting to watch as the trial unfolds and more information comes out if Kyle’s killer was suffering from PTSD or if he had ties to Muslim extremists.

French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Attack: The three soldiers were patrolling a Jewish community centre in Nice, on the French Riviera when a man named as Moussa Coulibaly, 30, attacked them with a knife, injuring two in the face and one in the arm

Attack: The three soldiers were patrolling a Jewish community centre in Nice, on the French Riviera when a man named as Moussa Coulibaly, 30, attacked them with a knife, injuring two in the face and one in the arm

PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On February 3, 2015:

A man deported from Turkey back to France less than a week ago under suspicion he was trying to join ISIS attacked three police officers standing guard outside a Jewish center in Nice yesterday, in what is yet another example of what I have termed “known wolf” syndrome.

I coined that term here at PJ Media back in October following two separate terror attacks in Canada within a week of each other by two separate individuals who were already known to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I noted here that this was also the case with the Sydney hostage taker, Sheikh Haron, in December. Haron had already been convicted of harassing the widows of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and was out on bail in two other separate cases. This was true yet again with the two Kouachi brothers responsible for the massacre at the offices of French magazine Charlie Hebdo last month, one of whom had already been in jail on terrorism charges.

Now it seems that Moussa Coulibaly, who stabbed three police officers yesterday in Nice, was yet another “known wolf.”

The Daily Mail reports:

The man who stabbed three soldiers outside a Jewish community centre in Nice today, was apprehended in Turkey last week while en-route to join ISIS, authorities believe.

Moussa Coulibaly, 30, was arrested at Istanbul airport and deported back to France after border control became suspicious, a security source has said…

Coulibaly was detained after the attack, near the Galeries Lafayette department store, and a second man has since been arrested by police.

The attack took place in central Nice around 2pm this afternoon, after Coulibaly had been fined for travelling on the tram without a ticket.

He ‘paid the fine without flinching and then rushed at the soldiers,’ The Local reports.

Coulibaly then pulled an eight-inch blade out of a bag and set upon one of the soldiers, injuring him in the chin, police said.

Coulibaly then swiped at two other soldiers – injuring one in the cheek, and the other in the forearm – before being apprehended by riot police stationed near the building.

He has a record of theft and violence, but the motive for the attack is not yet clear, an anonymous police official said.

The attack took place outside a Jewish community centre in Nice, home to an Israeli association and a Jewish radio station.

Agence France Presse adds:

Police detained Moussa Coulibaly and a suspected accomplice on Tuesday after the attack on the soldiers in front of a Jewish community center in Nice.

Border police had flagged Coulibaly to their Turkish counterparts on Jan. 28, who promptly returned him home, the French security official said on condition of anonymity because she wasn’t authorized to speak on the record.

French authorities, however, were unable to turn up enough evidence against Coulibaly to open a legal case against him.

As I’ve been regularly observing here at PJ Media since October, the recent international terror attacks have universally been committed by subjects already known to law enforcement and intelligence. In the case of the Charlie Hebdo attackers in France, they were on the no-fly list of both the U.S. and the UK.

How many more people will need to die before Western authorities begin to take sufficient action against those already known to them who intend to commit acts of terror? Sadly, we’re about to find out.

***

Published on Feb 3, 2015 by AlohaSnackbar01

Also see:

America in Retreat: The Price of Obama’s Indifference – Dramatic Increase in Global Jihad Attacks

Washington Free Beacon, by David Rutz, Feb. 4, 2015:

President Obama laid out a defense of his reactionary, retreating foreign policy during his State of the Union address Jan. 20.

“My first duty as Commander-in-Chief is to defend the United States of America,” he said. “In doing so–in doing so, the question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military–then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world. That’s what our enemies want us to do.

“I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now. And around the globe, it is making a difference.”

Syrian rebels are fighting a ruinous war against the regime of Bashar al-Assad, a cruel dictator who has used chemical weapons against his own people with no repercussions for crossing Obama’s vanishing “red line.” The rebels have been left twisting in the wind by the administration.

Since Obama withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq before trying to tell everyone it wasn’t his idea, the country has collapsed into chaos. The Islamic State, a viciously evil terrorist group Obama dismissed as a “JV team” only a year ago, captured Mosul and has terrorized the region with beheadings, executions and sharia law. Radical Islam is, quite simply, on the rise. Soon, Obama appears ready to repeat his mistakes in Iraq by leaving Afghanistan too early as well.

In Ukraine, a sovereign people are trying to fight off Russian-aided separatists in a conflict that has claimed more than 5,000 lives, and the U.S. won’t send defensive weapons to aid Ukrainians as they attempt to deal a devastating blow to the aggressive Vladimir Putin.

“It is making a difference,” Obama said of his foreign policy approach. And he’s right–key regions around the world are on the brink of ruin as the U.S. continues to retreat under his watch.