Massive Terror Attack on Military Checkpoints in Egypt’s Sinai Kills Dozens

CI0r3wTWsAAM86yPJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 1, 2015:

A coordinated attack by terrorists on multiple Egyptian military checkpoints in north Sinai has left dozens dead with fighting still ongoing in some areas, according to multiple reports.

tweets 234

Wilayat Sinai, the ISIS affiliate operating in Sinai and formerly known as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM) until their merger with ISIS in November 2014, has reportedly already taken credit for the attack:

haaretz tweet

This attack comes just two days after the assassination of Egypt’s Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat, whose funeral was yesterday.

tweet1234

The attacks occurred near Sheikh Zuweid not far from the Rafah border crossing into Gaza.

tweets456

***

If casualties are in fact 60 dead or more, this would be one of the biggest terror attacks in Egypt’s modern history and definitely would mark an escalation in the conflict between terrorist groups and the Egyptian government in the two years since the ouster of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi.

***

Egypt is one of the top U.S. allies in the Middle East, though the Obama administration withheld military supplies from Egypt for nearly two years as the insurgency in the Sinai escalated, only relenting recently.

sisi234

Read more

Also see:

Hillary May Have “Appointed” Morsi President of Egypt

hillary_clinton

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, June 29, 2015:

It’s an interesting development and certainly wouldn’t be surprising.

After all the entire aim of the Obama-Clinton policy was to get the Islamists in power across the region. When they couldn’t do so democratically, they went to war under false pretenses as in Libya. Considering the convoluted nature of Egypt’s system of elections, it’s doubtful that they would have had any problems forcing the authorities into giving them what they wanted.

Now, however, the news website Al-Monitor reports that there is evidence that Morsi did not win the 2012 elections after all, but was merely declared the winner by the electoral commission, in order to avert the violence that was sure to follow an announcement to the contrary.

Per Al-Monitor’s translation, the document states that the commission had opted to “take the decision that is correct and most beneficial for the country and its citizens, despite it being in violation of the law, and announce Dr. president of Egypt. This is to spare the country of the bloody conflict that will inevitably occur in the event that Ahmed Shafiq is announced president….”

The letter also, however, spells out another option: namely, and again per the translation of Al-Monitor, “to reject all pressure – whether internal or external – and announce the facts to the Egyptian and global public opinion, and reveal the defects and gross cases of manipulation and forgery that marred the electoral process as a whole. This is in addition to revealing the criminal pressures, practices and threats that the chairman and members of the committee, as well as their families, have faced.”

The allusion to “external” sources of pressure is particularly intriguing. According to Al-Monitor, local Egyptian press has reported that then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted Tantawi prior to the announcement of the election results with the aim of “putting pressure on Egyptian authorities to hand power over to Morsi.

Of course that raises basic questions about their own narrative of a coup that overthrow Morsi. In practice Mubarak and Morsi were both removed from power after the military backed popular uprisings. What isn’t discussed much is that the coup against Mubarak was backed by Obama and Hillary.

Among other things, we’re seeing the clearing of the board and the resetting of Egypt back to pre-Arab Spring conditions with Mubarak’s people making a comeback. The other side of the coin means that some resolution will be achieved with the Muslim Brotherhood. Anyone expecting Egypt to fundamentally change is likely to be disappointed.

Also see:

Al-Jazeera Disclosures Deserve a Closer Look…By the Feds

REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

by IPT News  •  Jun 24, 2015

Al Jazeera’s run of bad publicity got a little worse this week, when the online Arabic newspaper New Khalij published an article citing part of a cable from the Saudi Embassy saying the network answers to the Qatar government and is stocked with reporters who are part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arabic language cable was among a batch of internal records published by Wikileaks.

“[W]hatever has been said about the impact of the journalists working in Al-Jazeera, having their weight and their agenda, and most of them belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or being sympathizers with it, the final say in the end is with Qatari decision makers, with them the ones who determine its objectives, and the ones who identify the direction of the channel to achieve their objectives,” the New Khalij report says, citing the Saudi cable.

The cable added that “the existence of a number of prominent journalists belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood in the channel is a matter worthy of concern, as the rulers of Qatar and its Sunni people are of the Hanbali school, and believe in the movement of Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and the Muslim Brotherhood does not have roots the Qatari society.”

Qatar wants to influence the political decision-making of neighboring countries through weaving good relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, the cable said. The reason the network turns to “religious leaders such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and political ones such as Hamas derives from Qatar believing that in order to be effective in the region, it must have bargaining chips in many countries, and this is what is achieved for it by the Muslim Brotherhood in its global structural organization and its presence in most Arab and even Islamic countries such as Turkey.”

The Saudi assessments fit neatly with claims made in recent federal lawsuits filed against Al-Jazeera America (AJA) by former senior employees. The lawsuits claim the network’s U.S. branch discriminated against non-Muslim employees and deliberately pushed anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli biases.

Shannon High-Bassalik’s complaint claims that Al Jazeera is a place “where truth and objectivity are set aside to cater to the Company’s pro-Arabic prejudices.” Instead,employees were told that AJA was here to bring “the Arabic viewpoint to America,” which explained in part why it aired programs critical of the U.S., Egypt and Israel.

It’s a network owned and controlled by a foreign government that aims to influence U.S. opinion, and by extension, U.S. policy. The Foreign Agents Registration Act(FARA) provides an exemption to media organizations and journalists who act on behalf of foreign principals, but only within designated parameters. Among those parameters, the media organization must be one thatis not owned, directed, supervised, controlled, subsidized, or financed, and none of its policies are determined by any foreign principal defined in subsection (b) of this section, or by any agent of foreign principal required to register under this subchapter…

The recent allegations in separate federal lawsuits and now in leaked Saudi Arabian cables raises the potential for significant FARA violations by Al-Jazeera America, and appears to be ripe for investigation.

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Q&A part 1

red pill brief 2

Published on Jun 25, 2015 by Vlad Tepes

This is the first part of the question and answer session after Stephen Coughlin’s Red Pill brief given in Austria in May 2015

***

For the rest of the briefing go HERE

Investigation Exposes AMP Leaders’ Ties to Former U.S-Based Hamas-Support Network

1186IPT News, June 24, 2015:

Federal investigators shut down a massive Hamas-support network in the United States between 2001 and 2008, prosecuting some elements and freezing the assets of others.

But the Investigative Project on Terrorism finds that many of the same functions – fundraising, propaganda and lobbying ­– endure, now carried out by a group called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). The IPT investigation identified at least five AMP officials and speakers who worked in the previous, defunct network called the “Palestine Committee.” It was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance Hamas’ agenda politically and financially in the United States.

Last year, AMP joined a coalition of national Islamist groups in forming the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is among the other founding members (for more on that coalition, click here). CAIR and its founders appear in internal Palestine Committee records admitted into evidence during the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history.

Several Palestine Committee entities were created by Mousa Abu Marzook, who remains a top Hamas political leader. One branch, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), was convicted in 2008 along with five senior officials, of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas. HLF’s role in the Palestine Committee was the chief fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States, prosecutors say.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis during a sentencing hearing.

A flow chart of other Palestine Committee entities includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a Northern Virginia think tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). IAP served as a propaganda outlet, organizing rallies and publishing magazines with articles supporting Hamas. CAIR was added to a Palestine Committee meeting agenda shortly after its 1994 creation.

UASR published an academic journal and, prosecutors say, was “involved in passing Hamas communiques to the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood community and relaying messages from that community back to Hamas.”

Today, AMP routinely engages in anti-Israeli rhetoric, sponsors conferences that serve as a platform for Israel bashers, and openly approves “resistance” against the “Zionist state.” One AMP official acknowledged the goal is to “to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel.”

An April 2014 AMP-sponsored conference in Chicago, for example, hosted Sabri Samirah, the former chairman of IAP, as a speaker. There was little to no talk about how to achieve peaceful coexistence.

“We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine. Long Live Palestine,” Samirah said. “We have a mission here [in the U.S.] also to support the struggle of our people back there in order to achieve a free land in the Muslim world, without dictators and without corruption.”

The U.S. government had earlier deemed Samirah a “security risk” and he was barred from reentering the country for several years following a trip to Jordan in 2003. While in Jordan, he served as a spokesman for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Islamic Action Front. The charges against Samirah were subsequently dropped and he returned to the U.S. last year.

Read more

Also see:

The Caliphate is Reborn — Western Stupidity Continues

isisdabiqGates of Vienna, by , June 23,2015:

On June 29, 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or IS) declared the formation of a new Caliphate and rebranded itself the Islamic State. As the author Robert Spencernotes, a plan for the restoration of the Caliphate was sketched out ten years ago by the Jihadist terror network al-Qaida. It has been carried out more or less exactly by the Islamic State. IS itself recognizes al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden as an important predecessor, as well as the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq (which ultimately became the Islamic State), Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

When a new Caliphate was declared in June 2014, many people considered it to be a bad joke. However, a year later, the Islamic State is still around. It has been successfully pushed back on several occasions, following significant military resistance. Yet it has also displayed an ability to adapt, and to conquer new territories when it has suffered a defeat on other fronts. The Islamic State is clearly not a joke.

The Egyptian activist Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. He, too, sought to reestablish the Caliphate. It was considered a major blow by many Muslims when the Turkish reformer Mustafa Kemal, or Atatürk, formally abolished the Caliphate in 1924. Al-Banna was preceded by other Muslim activists such as Rashid Rida. Banna is the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan, who is currently Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at the prestigious University of Oxford, England. Ramadan has served as a high-level advisor to the authorities in Britain, France and the EU.

The influential Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi is widely considered to be a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was a follower of the MB founder Hassan al-Banna in his youth. Qaradawi has confirmed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a former member of the Brotherhood. Baghdadi on June 29, 2014 declared himself Caliph Ibrahim of the Islamic State. By reestablishing the Caliphate, al-Baghdadi was merely fulfilling the desire of millions if Muslims worldwide, a goal which the Muslim Brotherhood have been fighting towards for nearly a century.

The author Graeme Wood published an in-depth article in the American magazine The Atlantic which has been referred to by many: “What ISIS Really Wants.” I don’t agree with all of his claims. Nevertheless, he concluded that “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam. Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.” One pious Muslim Mr. Wood talked to commented that “I would go so far as to say that Islam has been reestablished” by the IS Caliphate.

Read more

Also see:

‘Al-Ahram’ Editor: ‘Washington Post’ Waging A Vicious Campaign Against Al-Sisi Regime In Service Of Muslim Brotherhood

Muhammad 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Allam (image: ahram.org.eg)

Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam (image: ahram.org.eg)

MEMRI, June 22, 2015:

In an article titled “Political Pamphlets in an American Paper,” the editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, Muhammad ‘Abd Al-Hadi ‘Allam, slammed the U.S.’s Washington Post for its frequent attacks on the Egyptian regime since the ouster of former Egyptian president Muhammad Mursi. According to ‘Allam, the Washington Post is waging a “vicious campaign” and voicing “open incitement” against Egypt in the service of “terror organizations” such as the Muslim Brotherhood. This, while refraining from criticizing human rights violations or the absence of press freedom in countries like Turkey and Qatar.[1]

The following are excerpts from the article:[2]

“No country in the world [other than Egypt] receives so much attention in Washington Post editorials, which are full of a strange and pathetic fury over this country’s domestic affairs – to an extent that indicates the existence of a vast lobby behind these articles, whose number has broken every record in the last few months.

“The press inside and outside Egypt is entitled to write whatever it wants, and we have a right to tell [our] critics that the strength and the reputation of a great country that is undergoing a process of rehabilitation are not a ‘toy’ in the hands of interests groups that hammer the readers over the head every morning with editorials that constitute a vicious campaign. [This campaign] first of all undermines the faith in the changes that are currently happening in Egypt, and in its economic growth on the eve of the opening of the new Suez Canal in less than two months.

“The ongoing and widespread use of terms such as ‘oppressive state’ and ‘tyranny’ in this big American paper’s editorials [about Egypt] constitutes open incitement against the Egyptian state and against its judiciary, which is presented as a [mere] tool in the hands of the regime. [This criticism] is part of an ongoing attempt by some Western media to kill the rule of law [in Egypt] in favor of terrorist organizations that have become masters of deception, cheating and killing in the name of religion [namely the Muslim Brotherhood].

“During this period, we did not find in this widely-distributed American paper even one investigative article about the ideological roots of the culture that [condones] violence and opposes the nation state. [This is the culture of] the groups of political Islam, which have been the eternal allies of the U.S. and Britain since the 1920s. We never saw [in this paper] a single report about the deadly violence against Egypt’s civilians, police officers and military personnel. At the same time, there is plenty of sympathy and compassion for the Muslim Brotherhood and its leaders, who have fled to Arab and foreign countries in order to spread their endless poison. These are the same leaders against whom millions of angry [Egyptians] came out in the June 30 revolution.

“The Egyptian people left the handling of this issue to the police and the military, and let them deal with this group that is undermining the abilities of the nation states. [So far], we have not seen or heard that any of the imaginary assessments regarding the imminent collapse of the [Egyptian] state and the shattering of its foundations have come to pass. These papers’ efforts to spread [these assessments] is an open game, which most Egyptians receive with a sarcastic smile and with pity for these foreign reporters and for their Egyptian collaborators who see only what they want to see, while ignoring reality.

“The American paper displays overt hostility towards Egypt in its editorials, but it does not dare direct criticism at countries that never practiced democracy [at all]… [This,] out of concern for American interests and in order to avoid clashing with interest groups inside [the U.S.] that are close to those countries. Had the paper been fair, it would have discussed the issue of human rights and freedom of the press in Turkey, [or] the issue of the foreign laborers in Qatar, just as it addresses the situation in Egypt.

“The Egyptians practical response to this paper’s claims in recent days regarding empty promises [made by President Al-Sisi] will come when we invite papers from around the world to attend the inauguration ceremony of the new Suez Canal and the vast projects associated with it. Then we will see the promises that the president has undertaken [to fulfill] for the sake of his people – while other people justify the crimes of the terrorists between the lines [of their articles] and want the circle of bloodshed to widen and grow. The response of the [Egyptian] state and people in the coming months will expose the campaign of lies and deception that has been waged in Washington by fugitives from Egyptian justice and by agents [of various parties]. [This campaign] is waged on recruited websites and papers and in foreign papers that are more concerned with destroying the abilities of the Egyptian state than in supporting the interests of their countries.

“The ‘political pamphlet’ press will fall, even if it originates in the capitals of the very countries that gave rise to the theory of democracy and turned the Arab East into hell. And in case you have forgotten, let us remind you of the crime of your silence over the Iraq war and of what your people did in Abu Ghraib prison, or the disasters that later befell the Arab world!”

Endnotes:

[1] In an article published in Al-Ahram on June 22, columnist Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Tawwab likewise attacked “some large newspapers around the world that lean in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood” and that have lately been harshly criticizing the Al-Sisi regime and calling it a “coup regime.” According to ‘Abd Al-Tawwab, these papers deliberately harm the reputation of the Al-Sisi regime and blame it for things that are not its fault, with the aim of evoking sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood. He added that these papers attack Egypt because certain countries “unfriendly to Egypt” have lately purchased shares in them, and also because they are influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global lobby. He accused the papers of “committing shameful crimes” and called to hold them accountable. He added that he could understand why Egypt is taking this matter so lightly, and called it to confront the “deliberate attack and the fabrications.”

[2] Al-Ahram (Egypt), June 18, 2015.

Also see:

Former CAIR-Canada Official Represents Egyptian Brotherhood

Wael Haddara, a former official with CAIR-Canada and senior adviser to Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist with the Muslim Brotherhood's party

Wael Haddara, a former official with CAIR-Canada and senior adviser to Deposed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist with the Muslim Brotherhood’s party

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro. June 23, 2015:

Media coverage of the U.S. State Department’s decision to comply with Egypt’s request not to meet with a Muslim Brotherhood delegation this month missed an important point: That delegation included a former official from the Canadian wing of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and he has connections to several other Canadian Islamist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood delegation visited the U.S. to advocate against the Egyptian government. The Brotherhood announced a new violent phase in January shortly after its representatives met with State Department officials. Brotherhood media outlets are calling for acts of violence in Egypt and against the interests of countries that are friendly towards President El-Sisi.

Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy writes that the Brotherhood delegation included Wael Haddara, a Canadian who served as a senior campaign adviser to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s official candidate.

Haddara claims he is not a member of the Brotherhood but the group’s followers often play a game of semantics with what it means to be a “member.” He says he was a media advisor to Morsi before he launched his presidential campaign.

Haddara was on the board of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR-Canada. CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and was banned as a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates last year. Two other directors besides Haddara are known Muslim Brotherhood supporters. He left CAIR-Canada/NCCM in 2012 to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

CAIR-Canada changed its name in 2013 and tried to make the organization sound like it is unrelated to CAIR in America. However, the group’s own documents prove the association of the two groups. For example, CAIR’s press releases have referred to its “office in Canada,” and a 2003 affidavit by CAIR-CAN’s chairperson said CAIR “has direct control over the character and quality of all activities of [CAIR-CAN] including the use of its trademark and trade name.”

Haddara was also the president of the Muslim Association of Canada. The Point de Bascule blog, a website that closely monitors Muslim Brotherhood activity in Canada, found that the Muslim Association of Canada’s website openly stated it was pursuing the Brotherhood agenda in 2005.

Read more 

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks at 2015 Watchmen on the Wall Conference

10441013_10152789305602581_5210403848035624314_n

Brigitte Gabriel recently addressed the gathering of pastors attending the annual Family Research Council “Watchmen on the Wall” event. She gave a fantastic speech about the dangers facing our country from radical Islam, and what we must do as a nation to confront this very real threat.

Blindfolded America

John-Brennan-CIA-660x350-1434704398
Crisis Magazine, by Wiliam Kilpatrick, June 19. 2015:

If you’ve ever noticed that U.S. policy in regard to the war on terror is confused, you’ll appreciate Stephen Coughlin’s just released book, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The confusion is no accident, says Coughlin, but is the result of a deliberate Muslim Brotherhood plan to influence decision-making at the highest levels of the government and the military. Coughlin is an attorney, intelligence officer, and an expert on Islamic law and ideology. He is well-known for his “Red Pill” briefings to the security and defense establishments and to members of Congress. The “Red Pill” is a reference to the pill which allowed the characters in The Matrix to see reality as it is and to leave behind the false virtual reality that had been constructed for them.

Coughlin discusses the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the government, the military, the security establishment, transnational bodies, and even the interfaith community. Just as importantly he explains the overall strategy which guides the Muslim Brotherhood’s various influence operations. A major component of the strategy is deception. Thus, in America, Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups—who are anything but moderate—present themselves as the moderate experts on Islam who possess the knowledge to counter the radicals.

Of course, they don’t advertise themselves as the Muslim Brotherhood. But when American security agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security consult with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, or a dozen other such groups, they are in effect dealing with the Brotherhood. The connections between these organizations and the Brotherhood are well-established, but for various reasons our agencies ignore the evidence. One reason is that many in the government believe that the Muslim Brotherhood—the progenitor of almost all terrorist groups—is genuinely moderate. Another reason is that the Brotherhood-linked groups are practically the only game in town. They are well-organized, well-funded, and have been ingratiating themselves with successive administrations for decades.

coughlin-coverWhatever the reason, these are the groups our security leaders turn to for advice. And, according to Coughlin, it’s not just input that is sought, but also direction. In effect, he says, we have outsourced our understanding of Islam to groups who do not have the best interests of America at heart. The other side of the coin is that the advice of other competent experts is ignored. When the advice of the Muslim experts contradicts the advice of non-Muslim experts, the Muslim advice is favored and the non-Muslim expert might well find himself out of a job.

Why does Muslim expert advice consistently trump non-Muslim expert advice? According to Coughlin, the security-intelligence establishment is in thrall to the same multicultural and relativist dogmas that afflict the rest of us. One of these dogmas, elaborated in Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, is that no culture can ever explain another culture. Each culture is the final arbiter of its own meaning. For an outside culture to try to explain Islam is therefore tantamount to an act of cultural imperialism. Thus, says Coughlin, Muslim cultural experts are not even required to provide evidence for their assertions: “Often, all that is required to halt an inquiry or analysis are the words, ‘Islam does not stand for this’ from a cultural expert.”

The upshot, says Coughlin, is that many of our critical decisions on homeland security and on military and foreign policy are guided by groups whose main objective is to turn all societies into Islamic societies.

According to Coughlin, a prime instance of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation occurred in 2012, when the White House purged more than one thousand documents and presentations from counterterror training programs for the FBI and other agencies. This was done in response to a letter to John Brennan, then Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. The letter, which was signed by dozens of leaders of Muslim activist groups, complained about the “use of biased, false, and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” After the FBI training program was made Islam-compliant, the Department of Defense followed with what Coughlin describes as a “Soviet-style purge of individuals along with disciplinary actions and re-education.”

Coughlin contends that a similar kowtowing to Islamic interests has undermined our war efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Rules of engagement that subordinate the safety of our troops to the overriding principles of “respect for Islam” have a profoundly demoralizing effect on soldiers and make them think twice about a career in the Army. Coughlin cites a survey of West Point graduates showing that nearly half of young officers think the current military leadership is weak, while 78 percent think that the high exit rate of good officers threatens national security.

According to Coughlin, such demoralization is among the chief aims of Islamic strategists. “The Islamic way of war,” he writes, “places substantial effort on the preparation stage, the object of which is to induce a collapse of faith in the cultural, political and religious institutions underpinning the target.” As an example of this strategy he cites The Quranic Doctrine of War, a book by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik. Malik stressed that the chief effort prior to actual warfare should be to “dislocate” the enemies’ faith:

To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy [it] is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate his faith. An invincible faith is immune to terror. A weak faith offers inroads to terror…. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting lines of communication or depriving it of its routes to withdraw. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s faith is destroyed.

Coughlin observes that the object of jihad, of both the stealth and armed variety, is the destruction of faith. Therefore, “jihad is primarily understood in terms of spiritual war … a form of warfare that the Pentagon is not disposed to recognize.”

There is, however, one organization that should be disposed to recognize spiritual warfare. Unfortunately, says Coughlin, the Church has proved no better at recognizing and resisting Islamic influence operations than the government and the military. The appendix to his book contains a sixty-three-page chapter titled “Interfaith Outreach.” While Coughlin’s main concern is the undermining of national security, he maintains that Islamic activist groups have taken the entire culture as their target. In “Interfaith Outreach,” he discusses the Muslim Brotherhood attempt to subvert the interfaith community—a process that parallels the penetration of the military and is likewise intended to result in a “dislocation of faith.”

Coughlin focuses in particular on the interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Catholics. Like the security establishment’s “dialogue” with Muslim representatives, the interfaith dialogue, he claims, is rigged to discourage any critical analysis of Islam. One of the principles that guides the dialogue process is that the participants “speak in a way that people of that religion can affirm as accurate.” This, of course, is simply an extension of Said’s contention that one culture has no business explaining another culture. It means that the Catholic dialogue participants should defer to Islam’s interpretation of Islam. Thus, if a Catholic had the temerity to bring up the subject of Islamic violence, it would be enough for his Muslim counterpart to state that Islam has nothing to do with violence, and perhaps to recite a couple of verses from the Koran, and that would be that.

Full and frank discussion is further inhibited by an overarching emphasis on trust and friendship. The ground rules stipulate that “dialogue must take place in an atmosphere of mutual trust.Moreover, to quote from Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims, dialogue partners must pledge “to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another.” That sounds nice, but isn’t there a danger that the bonds of friendship might get in the way of objectivity? That friendship might actually undermine objectivity? Thus, writes Coughlin, “persons who undertake a reasonable effort … [of] performing a competent assessment of the ‘others’ religion could be characterized as lacking the requisite trust….” Too deep an inquiry might bring accusations that one is uncharitable, intolerant or Islamophobic. So, in order “to remain committed to being friends,” dialoguers tend to avoid the crucial questions in favor of discussing the common ground between Muslims and Christians.

Read more

Stephen Coughlin’s “Red Pill” Brief

red pill brief
Maj. Stephen Coughlin is a retired U.S. Army officer and one of the foremost experts on Islamic law in the United States. For years he was well-known inside the Beltway for his “Red Pill” briefings of military commanders and defense officials on the topics of jihad and sharia. He was so effective in his work that the Muslim Brotherhood successfully arranged to have him pushed out of the Pentagon.

More recently, he is the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, which incorporates material from the “Red Pill” brief, as well as much additional material on the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of Western governments, transnational bodies, NGOs, and the “interfaith” industry.

The videos below are of a “Red Pill” briefing Maj. Coughlin gave to the Wiener Akademikerbund on May 23 under the auspices of Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa, following his participation with the team at the OSCE conference in Vienna.

Recorded by Henrik Ræder Clausen and edited by Vlad Tepes (h/t Gates of Vienna)

***

More with Stephen Coughlin:

Time for Huma Abedin to Come Out of the Shadows

huma_hillary_7_ap_605_605-450x244Frontpage, June 19, 2015 by :

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s longtime confidante, is currently the vice chair of her 2016 presidential campaign. “I’m not sure Hillary could walk out the door without Huma,” Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald said back during the days of Hillary’s first run for the presidency. Huma and Hillary are inseparable, including having been linked together on a private e-mail network while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State and Ms. Abedin was her deputy chief of staff. If Hillary Clinton were to be elected president of the United States, Ms. Abedin will no doubt be right there with Hillary as her right hand person in the White House. And that may well be a major coup for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose strategic plan calls for destroying Western civilization from within and “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

In view of her background that involves the Muslim Brotherhood, it is time for Huma Abedin to come out of the shadows and reveal exactly what she did and whom she communicated with while at the Clinton State Department.

Huma Abedin is the daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, who has had ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood.  During her youth, Huma lived with her family in Saudi Arabia, where they had re-located from Michigan and where she was exposed to the Wahhabi jihadist ideology, before returning to the United States at the age of 18.

In the late 1990’s, while Huma Abedin was interning in the Bill Clinton White House and began her long association with Hillary Clinton, she served as an executive board member of George Washington University’s Muslim Students Association, which had its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Huma Abedin later worked at the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). Her mother was the editor of JMMA, taking over from Huma’s father after he had died. Huma’s tenure as assistant editor overlapped with that of a wealthy Saudi individual with reported al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood ties, Abdullah Omar Naseef, who had recruited her father to move to Saudi Arabia to lead the IMMA think tank.  Although Huma severed her own ties with the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs when she began her service in Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Huma’s brother and sister have remained involved with the journal.

The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs – an Abedin family project in which Huma Abedin was deeply involved – espouses the Islamic supremacist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Andrew McCarthy noted, Huma Abedin herself “spent 12 years working at a journal intended to aid Islamic domination of the West.”

Nevertheless, Hillary relies on Huma Abedin and trusts her completely, which will give Ms. Abedin extraordinary influence in a Hillary Clinton administration.

“The picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider,” according to a May 2013 report in the New York Times.

While serving as Hillary’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department, Huma Abedin had access to the most highly sensitive government information, which included developments in Libya both before and after the tragic killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans that resulted from the Sept. 11, 2012 jihadist terror attack in Benghazi.  Moreover, with Huma whispering in her ear as her key adviser on the Middle East, Hillary oversaw the Obama administration’s pivot towards engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups in Egypt and Libya.

The Obama administration decided in 2011 to formally expand its engagement with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group, after the Obama administration had so enthusiastically supported the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Hillary Clinton declared at the time that “we welcome…dialogue with those Muslim Brotherhood members who wish to talk with us.” The Obama administration then reportedly intervened behind the scenes to help the Muslim Brotherhood’s choice for president, Mohammed Morsi, prevail in the presidential run-off election over his more secular army-backed rival.

Huma Abedin’s mother Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin is a chairperson of the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child, which had strongly advocated for Sharia laws to replace more secular laws in Egypt under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood dominated government. As Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know; The Dark Side of Revolutions in the Middle East and President of FormerMuslimsUnited.org noted in a Frontpage Magazine article entitledHuma Abedin’s Mother and an Islamist Agenda, “Huma did not keep a distance from her mother’s activities when she introduced Secretary Clinton to her activist mother. During Clinton’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the US Secretary of State visited and spoke at the Islamic college of Dar El-Hekma together with Huma, where Dr. Saleha Abedin was a vice-dean and one of its founders.”

That visit took place in 2011, at the very time that the Obama administration was expanding its outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood and was embracing the “Arab Spring.”

Read more

Also see:

Here’s Why You’re About to See Pro-Muhammad Billboards All Across America

The Blaze, by Billy Hallowell, June 17, 2015:

A new pro-Muhammad billboard campaign is being funded by a Muslim group in an effort to counter negative narratives surrounding Islam, while simultaneously evangelizing.

Organized by the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim education group, the billboards have already been posted in cities in California, New Jersey and Florida, among other locations, in an effort to present Islam as a faith that embraces love, Reuters reported.

The giant placards, which are slated to appear in cities across america, include messages like: “Looking for the answers in Life? Discover Muhammad,” “Kindness is a mark of faith” and “Muhammad believed in peace, social justice, women’s rights.”

Islamic Circle of North America/Facebook

Islamic Circle of North America/Facebook

“We thought a proper approach would be to actually educate the larger public about [Muhammad’s] personality, which exemplifies love and brotherhood,” Waqas Syed, Islamic Circle of North America deputy secretary general, told Reuters.

The organization, which plans to place about 100 billboards in various cities across the country, said that the effort is being undertaken to try and counter the deadly attacks against Charlie Hebdo that unfolded at the hands of Muslim extremists in Paris earlier this year, Reuters reported.

As TheBlaze previously highlighted, the Islamic Circle of North America is no stranger to posting billboards aimed at dispelling what they say are blatant myths about the Muslim faith.

In 2011, the group set up a 24/7 toll-free hotline — which is still present on the newest billboards — that people could call to ask questions about Islam. The following year, the organization launched a campaign aimed at clarifying the true meaning of “Shariah,” a term that refers to Islamic law.

Islamic Circle of North America/Facebook

Islamic Circle of North America/Facebook

The Islamic Circle of North America held its annual convention last month in Baltimore, Maryland, where 20,000 attendees discussed ways to combat myths surrounding Islam, the Baltimore Sun reported.

[The convention was very poorly attended]

“The stereotypical image of the prophet is not what we are taught or preach. The Islam we know or practice is totally different from that image. Our Islam is a commitment to God and … treating all human beings as equals,” Islamic Circle of North America president Naeem Baig told the outlet. ”When you look at the life of the prophet, his faith and commitment to God and service and to society, we must convey that.”

The pro-Muhammad billboards coincidentally come just weeks after activist Pamela Geller’s Muhammad cartoon contest was targeted by extremists in Garland, Texas.

Also see:

ICNA Billboard:

ICNA-mo-ad

Pamela Geller’s Proposed AFDI Billboards:

sounter-icna-afdi-800x295

Muhammad-quotes-800x233

Egypt’s Grand Mufti Court Upholds Death Sentence of Former President Morsi

morsi sentenceCAIRO, June 16 (UPI) — Egypt’s Grand Mufti court in Cairo on Tuesday upheld the death sentence of former President Mohamed Morsi over a prison break.

Morsi and more than 100 Muslim Brotherhood members were sentenced to death in May for breaking out of the Wadi Natroun prison in 2011. The decision to uphold the death sentence was passed to Egypt’s highest religious authority, the Grand Mufti.

The death sentence can still be appealed.

Morsi was also sentenced to life imprisonment on espionage charges along with 16 other Muslim Brotherhood members, accused of spying for the Palestinian militant Islamist group Hamas. Three other senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders were sentenced to death by hanging.

In Egypt, life imprisonment sentences equate to 25 years in prison.

The judge said the Muslim Brotherhood “collaborated with Palestinian Hamas to infiltrate Egypt’s eastern borders and attack prisons.”

Morsi is already serving 20 years after being convicted of inciting violence and torturing protesters outside the presidential palace in 2012, but was acquitted in their deaths. He has previously said he is innocent of all the charges, claiming he is the victim of a coup led by current President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi.

Morsi was Egypt’s first freely elected president after the downfall of Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule, but unrest began less than a year into his term when he declared himself to have far-reaching powers. He was overthrown in 2013.

Also see:

If the death penalty is not approved and the civil court ignores the disapproval and goes forward to implement the death penalty, this could mean that the court is secured by the backing and protection of the President in order to serve justice. This in turn reveals that Al-Sisi is truly willing and able to go forward with cleaning corruption and rolling back religious extremism in an effort to reform the country.

The Rise and Fall of Al Jazeera America

al-jazeera-america-Frontpage, June 11, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

When Al Jazeera America was announced, the Qatari propaganda network was riding high. Once known as a dump for Al Qaeda videos, the Arab Spring had allowed the House of Thani to project its power across the region, toppling governments and replacing them with its Muslim Brotherhood allies.

Qatar had been notorious for its ties to Al Qaeda, but those connections had done little for the oil-rich oligarchy. The Muslim Brotherhood however handed Egypt over to Qatar. And Al Jazeera’s propaganda had been widely credited with supplying the images and messaging that made it happen.

Qatar’s key Arab Spring asset however had been in the White House. Mubarak would not have fallen if he had retained the support of the President of the United States. Nor would Gaddafi have been toppled or Assad have come under so much pressure without US military intervention or the expectation of it.

Al Jazeera America was going to be the final building block allowing the House of Thani to brainwash millions of Americans and influence foreign policy directly at the source. It was a grandiose dream for a tyranny that was increasingly living beyond its means while playing a dangerous game of empires.

Qatar had become the dominant voice on the Middle East in Washington D.C. The takeover of Gore’s left-wing Current TV would enable the totalitarian regime to launch a news network that would build on its existing relationship with the American left which saw the mainstream media as not biased enough.

How hard could launching a successful news network be?

Al Jazeera might have been riding high in the early days of 2013, but its comeuppance was already on the way. A few weeks after its announcement, the protests against its man Morsi began to take off. By the time AJA launched, Morsi had already been toppled and Al Jazeera propagandists would find themselves behind bars for their part in Qatar’s Brotherhood coup against the Egyptian government.

While Al Jazeera portrayed them as journalistic martyrs, one of the most notable arrestees, Mohamed Fahmy, sued Al Jazeera for endangering him by acting as “an arm of Qatar’s foreign policy” that “was not only biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood — they were sponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

These were all obvious facts that were being ignored by the mainstream media which dismissed Al Jazeera’s critics as ignorant Islamopohobes. But even as its Muslim Brotherhood allies were losing in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria, Al Jazeera America would come under fire from its liberal media pals.

Read more