Spy General Unloads on Obama’s ISIS War Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas; Attorney Claims ‘It’s Voluntary’

Islamic-Tribunal-DallasBreitbart, by Bob Price, Jan. 27, 2015

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal,” El-badawi stated. “The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.” He called it “two paths to the same result.” The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the “dower” that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.

Breitbart Texas asked what happens when there is a conflict between Sharia law and Texas law. El-badawi said most of the time, the laws are in agreement. When pushed further he admitted that, “we follow Sharia law.” However, he explained, “If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts.” He did not say what the social ramifications of rejecting the “judge’s” decision would be.

The website for the Islamic Tribunal states, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.  Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

It goes on to state, “It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.”

In explaining Sharia law, the website states, “Stoning adulterers, cutting of the hands, polyandry and the like (all can be traced in the relevant literature and can be explained in their Islamic legal mentality and rational context in fairness and justice), are mainly a part of Islamic Criminal Law.  In fact criminal law within Islam only makes up a fraction of the Shari’ah.  It is unscholarly and unfair to generalize that type of understanding, that is Criminal Law, to compromise the whole of Islamic law if we stick to speaking in technical terms.”

The website lists four “judges:” Imam Yusuf Z.Kavakci, Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh and Dr. El-badawi. It states the Islamic Tribunal resolves business disputes, divorce (Talaq) cases, community problems, serious family problems, and Khula.

El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings.

Bob Price is a senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas and a member of the original Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX.

Vanderbilt Professor Under Attack for Criticizing Islam

carol-228x350Frontpage, January 23, 2015 by Mark Tapson:

Last week, in response to the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Carol M. Swain, an openly conservative professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, wrote an op-ed for The Tennessean titled, “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Naturally, any critique of Islam from our leftist-dominated campuses is going to be met with frothing outrage, and Professor Swain’s article was no exception.

“What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam?” the professor began. “What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” Good questions, and ones that those of us whose eyes have long been opened to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism have been asking ever since September 11, 2001, if not before.

But the fact that such questions were being put forth by a major university professor, even a conservative one (with a very impressive résumé, no less), was notable. Swain pulled no punches:

More and more members of the PC crowd now acknowledge that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, nor is it a worthy part of the brotherhood of man I long felt was characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A younger, more naive version of myself once believed in a world where the people of the Book could and would get along because they all claimed Abraham as their father. No more!

Those were strong, clear sentiments about Islam that one doesn’t often – or ever – hear from American academics. She concluded with a statement that dared to challenge the West’s false idol of multiculturalism: “It becomes clearer every day that Islam is not just another religion to be accorded the respect given to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i and other world religions.” The attack on Charlie Hebdo, she wrote, “once again illustrates that Islam is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.”

Swain’s solutions included “remov[ing] the foxes from the henhouses,” “institut[ing] serious monitoring of Islamic organizations,” and expecting Muslim immigrants to assimilate culturally. “If we are to be safe,” she wrote, “then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.”

Among those who took umbrage at this blunt op-ed and complained to theVanderbilt Hustler, the school paper, were: an international student from Pakistan who felt mortified by the piece; an agnostic junior who condemned Swain as xenophobic, hateful, and intolerant; a sophomore who accused Swain of “logical leaps” and “casual bigotry”; a graduate who warned against “fear of the Other”; another who purported to “debunk” Swain’s claims about Islam; and a Muslim undergrad who declared the op-ed to be hate speech and wondered, “How could such an educated, informed woman, a professor at Vanderbilt in charge of educating our youth, publish such ignorance?”

That same student, Farishtay Yamin, happens to be the publicity chair for Vanderbilt’s branch of the Muslim Students Association. She organized a student protest of Swain, saying, with no apparent trace of irony, “What I’m really trying to show [Swain] is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant.” So much for the campus being liberal and diverse and tolerant.

The Muslim Students Association, the Muslim Brotherhood’s oldest offshoot in America, issued a statement, offering Professor Swain “kindness and respect” and forgiveness, pointing out that “she has allowed the acts of people who have distorted Islam to shape her views on an entire community of 1.6 billion people who practice peacefully.” Vanderbilt’s MSA invited her and others to attend their Islamic Awareness Month event called “Terrorism: Who Is to Blame” on Feb. 8. “Please join us for the event so that misconceptions can be cleared,” they urged helpfully.

The Vanderbilt Hustler editorial team responded by defending Swain’s right to free speech but denouncing her “brand of conservatism” as “disgusting and disappointing.” She has “undoubtedly abused her position” by “perpetuating a myth that seeks to shut down debate and discourage the legitimacy of the place that Muslim individuals hold in American society… In fact, many feel that Swain’s actions have created an environment that feels unsafe to some of her students.”

It’s ironic that Islam has created unsafe environments all over the world for Jews, Christians, women, gays, cartoonists, and even Muslims themselves, but the Vanderbilt Hustler editors blame Professor Swain for creating an unsafe campus environment for pointing that out (the Dean of Students even felt it necessary to reassure Muslim students that they are still safe on campus). Ironic, too, that – in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo assault – the editors claim that it is Swain who is seeking to shut down debate about Islam.

Last Sunday Professor Swain released a statement acknowledging that her op-ed “could have been written with a milder tone.” But given a chance to clarify her position in an interview, Swain did not back down. She told the Vanderbilt Hustler that, “What we don’t want in the United States is a repeat of what has happened in Europe… It would be beneficial,” she said, “if more Muslims would stand up and condemn jihadic violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals and others.”

Asked how she reconciles the First Amendment with her “obligation as a professor to maintain a safe and civil environment” for “students who might feel threatened by your speech,” Swain replied,

I feel no special obligation to engage in politically correct speech. I think it is unfortunate that hate speech has become whatever makes a non-Christian uncomfortable… Any student who is threatened by a discussion of ideas cannot fully benefit from a liberal arts education… If a student takes one of my courses, then he or she has entered a political correctness free zone tolerant of divergent views.

Bravo. Thanks to the mental straitjacket of political correctness, no one who took exception to Professor Swain’s op-ed seems capable of grasping – or willing to grasp – the distinction between the ideology of Islam and its adherents. Criticism of the former is not the same as bigotry toward the latter. We must not allow the conversation about the world’s undeniable Islam problem always to be derailed by kneejerk accusations of mythical Islamophobia and intolerance. Unfortunately, freeing university students from that mental straitjacket will require an army of Professor Swains.

***

Follow Prof. Carol Swain on twitter @carolmswain 

Visit her website at http://bethepeopletv.com/

and facebook -  https://www.facebook.com/profcarolmswain

Also see:

Islamic State’s ‘province’ claims responsibility for attack on hotel in Tripoli

Screen Shot 2015-01-27 at 11.35.58 AM-thumb-560x559-5556LWJ, by Thomas Joscelyn, Jan. 27, 2015

Gunmen stormed the Corinthia hotel in Tripoli early this morning, killing at least five foreigners and three guards, according to initial reports. Foreign government officials, including those serving as diplomats, and tourists have frequented the hotel in the past, making it an attractive target for jihadists.

The terrorists responsible for the raid reportedly met resistance from security forces. As of this writing, however, the siege was not over.

The Associated Press reported that a car bomb was part of the attack. Images posted online show what appears to be an explosion outside of the hotel. Some of the photos have been published on Good Morning Libya, a Twitter feed that is run by supporters of General Khalifa Haftar, whose forces have been battling jihadists throughout Libya. One of the photos can be seen at the beginning of this article. Online jihadists are claiming that suicide bombers were used in the car bombing.

Screen Shot 2015-01-27 at 10.54.13 AM-thumb-560x435-5559According to the SITE Intelligence Group, the Islamic State’s so-called “Tripoli Province” claimed responsibility for the attack in a short message that was posted on Twitter. The message stated that “heroes of the Caliphate” are responsible for the operation, which has been named the “Battle of Abu Anas al Libi.”

An image published online by the organization’s media operatives can be seen to the right.

Al Libi was a core al Qaeda operative who was captured in Tripoli in early October 2013 and subsequently held in the US for his role in al Qaeda’s bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. Al Libi passed away while awaiting trial earlier this year, and jihadists blame the US government for his death, even though he died of natural causes.

Al Libi’s capture in Tripoli by US forces was denounced by many in Libya. By naming the attack after al Libi, the Islamic State’s “Tripoli Province” is attempting to capitalize on the manufactured controversy surrounding his capture and death.

In some ways, the choice of name for the attack is ironic. The Islamic State’s “provinces” in Libya and elsewhere are part of emir Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s attempt to build international support for his caliphate, and the Islamic State’s supporters are openly confrontational toward al Qaeda. Indeed, the Islamic State’s “provinces” are intended to draw support away from al Qaeda’s international network of official and unofficial branches.

However, al Libi was a loyal al Qaeda operative. Documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound show that Al Libi was appointed to al Qaeda’s security committee after he was released from Iranian custody in 2010. He sought permission from al Qaeda’s most senior leaders before relocating to his native Libya. They granted al Libi’s request and he moved back to Libya in 2011.

An unclassified report published by the Library of Congress in August 2012 identified al Libi as a key player in al Qaeda’s strategy for building a fully operational network in Libya.

Also see:

ISIS threatens Obama, Japanese and Jordanian hostages in new online messages

ISIS Video ObamaFox News, Jan. 27, 2015

A new, grisly beheading video from ISIS includes a direct threat against President Obama and is one of at least three new warnings from the terror organization, including pledges to kill Jordanian and Japanese hostages if a hostage held by Jordan is not freed.

In a new online video discovered by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Tuesday, three Islamic State fighters stand behind a kneeling Kurdish fighter as one of the extremists launches into a diatribe against the U.S. and other Western nations.

“Know, oh Obama, that will reach America,” says one of the fighters, clad in black and wearing a balaclava, in a translation from Arabic provided by MEMRI. “Know also that we will cut off your head in the White House, and transform America into a Muslim Province.”

The extremist also issued warnings to European nations.

“And this is my message to France and to its sister, Belgium,” he said. “We advise you that we will come to you with car bombs and explosive charges, and will cut off your heads.”

The video fades to black as one Islamic State fighter brings a knife up to the unidentified Kurdish fighter’s throat.

In a separate online message, Islamic State warned Tuesday that a Japanese hostage and Jordanian pilot the extremists are holding have less than “24 hours left to live.” They demand that Sajida al-Rishawi, a woman who has been held by Jordan for nine years after she admitted her role in deadly attacks at Amman hotels that killed at least 57 people, be freed in exchange for the men.

Al-Rishawi, who Islamic State calls a “sister of the Caliphate,” was sentenced to death in 2006. But, that same year, Jordan imposed a moratorium on the death penalty.

“Any more delays by the Jordanian government will mean [that] they are responsible for the death of their pilot, which then will be followed by mine [i.e. my death],” says a voice believed to be that of Kenji Goto Jogo, one of two Japanese hostages shown in a video released a week ago, along with a demand for $200 million from Japan. “I only have 24 hours left to live, and the pilot has even less. Please don’t leave us to die.”

Jogo is a freelance journalist who was captured in Syria late last year, after reportedly traveling there to try to help Haruna Yukawa, a private soldier who had gone earlier to fight and was captured. Yukawa is believed to have been beheaded after Japan refused to pay the ransom.

Jordanian pilot Mu’adh Safi Yusuf al-Kasasibah was captured in Syria in December and has been held by Islamic State ever since, although the audio message released Tuesday was the first tying his fate to the release of Al-Rishawi.

Jogo’s audio message, which is just under 2 minutes long, was released in a file that includes a still photo of himself holding a picture believed to be of al-Kasasibah, the captured Jordanian pilot.

“I’ve been told [by ISIS] that this is my last message,” the Japanese hostage says, adding that the only obstacle remaining for his release is the Jordanian government and that “time is now running very short!”

Yet another ISIS video was released online on Tuesday, according to MEMRI, bringing to three the total of audio and video messages from the terror group since the weekend.

Tuesday’s video matched a message released over the weekend, though neither bore the logo of the Islamic State group’s al-Furqan media arm. The video released over the weekend appeared to show Jogo holding the body of his murdered countryman.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the new threats, including the one directed at President Obama. In that video, the Islamic State fighters also single out Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish-controlled portion of Iraq.

“But as for you, oh Masoud, you dog, we are going to behead you and throw you into the trash bin of history,” he shouted during the video, while waving his fist in the air. “Know that we are men who fear no one. We will institute the laws of Allah, may He be exalted and praised.”

He then issued another warning, saying that for every missile launched by Kurdish forces, that they would behead one of their soldiers before slitting the throat of the Kurd fighter as people gathered to watch the incident on a public street.

***

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by CNN

Will Ripley reports that a new ISIS video has surfaced and includes a threat to kill Japanese hostage Kenji Goto and a Jordanian pilot in the next 24 hours.

Also see:

Bergdahl to be charged with desertion, ex-military intel officer says

Published on Jan 26, 2015 by Wake Up America

Fox News, Jan. 27, 2015

The Army has decided to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners, with desertion, according to a former military intelligence officer.

Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who now works at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night that he’s learned of the military’s decision from two sources.

“The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl … will be charged with desertion,” he said.

Pentagon and Army officials, however, pushed back and denied that any decision had been made. At a press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Bergdahl “has not been charged,” and no charges have been referred. He said he would not “speculate” about what might happen in the future.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce also told Fox News there is “no change” and that it is an “ongoing review at this time.” Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, did not comment when reached by Fox News.

But Shaffer said Bergdahl’s attorney has been given a “charge sheet” outlining the section of the military justice code Bergdahl allegedly violated.

“As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer said there’s a “huge battle” going on inside the Obama administration, as some try to “suppress” this development. “This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” he said.

Shaffer said the Army “wants to do the right thing,” but the White House “wants this to go away.”

He said: “The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Bergdahl was held for five years before his release was secured in 2014.

But while the president joined with Bergdahl’s parents in the Rose Garden at the time in celebrating his return home, the prisoner swap swiftly became a matter of severe controversy. Fellow soldiers accused Bergdahl of deserting his post on a base in Afghanistan in 2009. And the trade itself, of his freedom for five Guantanamo prisoners, drew criticism in Congress from lawmakers who said it sent a troubling signal.

On Monday, former diplomat Richard Grenell claimed the administration has “sent the message” that the U.S. will negotiate on such matters. He cited an alleged offer, made around the same time as Bergdahl’s release, by the Qatari government to trade two Americans held in Qatar for an Al Qaeda agent held in a U.S. federal prison. The Obama administration denies there was any deal. Those prisoners were ultimately released over the past two months.

****

Bergdahl Charges Again Raise Questions Over GITMO Transfers

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 27, 2015

Multiple sources are saying that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is expected to be charged with desertion, over his leaving his post prior to being abducted by the Haqqani network, which is tied to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bergdahl was swapped by Obama Administration in exchange for five high-level Taliban leaders being held at Guantanamo Bay. As the Center has previously pointed out, the insistence by the Administration that the Bergdahl swap take place is a byproduct of its increased urgency to move Gitmo detainees to third countries and finally close the camp for good. The administration was ultimately dishonest with the American people, sending National Security Advisor Susan Rice out to claim Bergdahl served “with honor and distinction,” while administration supporters, and President Obama himself, attempted to push the meme that the swap was merely a prisoner transfer as the expected outcome of war’s end:

“You don’t do prisoner exchanges with your friends, you do ‘em with your enemies,” Obama told NBC’s Brian Williams. “It’s also important for us to recognize that the transition process of ending a war is going to involve, on occasion, releasing folks who we may not trust but we can’t convict.”

Ironically, also recently released (early, for time served) was a Al Qaeda sleeper agent, who was in fact convicted. meanwhile, freed fighters continue to return to the battlefield despite misleading claims to the contrary. The reality is that far from the war coming to an end as the Administration claims, the United States has indeed never been further from victory over the Global Jihad than it is right now, thanks to a lack of overarching strategy. And with the Bergdahl release, The United States placed itself in a hypocritical position of urging other nations to refrain from the same kind of hostage negotiations, in order to free innocent civilians , that the U.S. used to release a known defector.

Barack Al Qaeda

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by Wild Bill for America

Who’s side is Mr. Obama on? Shameful that the evidence goes against him.

Also see:

Pat Condell: A special kind of hate

Published on Jan 27, 2015 by Pat Condell

Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.

Jews in Europe report a surge in anti-Semitism
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/wor…

74% of French Jews are considering emigration
http://tabletmag.com/scroll/173382/ne…

Jews flee anti-Semitism upsurge in Europe
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/…

French Muslims see Jews controlling the economy
http://www.jta.org/2014/11/16/news-op…

Islamic anti-Semitism
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islamic_Ant…

The global pogrom
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Co…

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world…

Reporter wearing kippah abused by Muslims in Malmö, Sweden
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/20…

Jews attacked in Malmö days after synagogue vandalised
http://www.jta.org/2014/08/04/news-op…

Jewish woman beaten by Muslims in Sweden for wearing Star of David
http://www.inquisitr.com/1422149/anti…

The mayor of Malmö blames Jews for anti-Semitism
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-…

Anti-Semitism in Copenhagen
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/bruc…

Switzerland: Muslim protesters attempt to storm synagogue
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/New…

Belgian cafe posts a sign banning Jews from entering
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world…

Anti-Israel protesters defend Hitler. Police eject pro-Israel man
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/…

Anti-Semitism in Britain. “Sit up and take notice.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/463…

UK Islam apologist admits to Muslim anti-Semitism, “our dirty little secret”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/…

The Luton Islamic Centre is a hotbed of anti-Semitic hatred
http://hurryupharry.org/2015/01/18/lu…

Jewish MP cancels surgeries after threat
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news…

UK Muslim gang goes “Jew bashing”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/…

Another gutless UK politician condemns the current wave of anti-Semitism without once alluding to its source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/relig…

New York City councilman David Greenfield calls out the Jew haters for what they are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpGPz…

Arab TV teaching children to hate Jews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2…

Daniel Greenfield: We need to talk about Muslim anti-Semitism
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgre…

Contemporary imprints of the anti-Semitic libel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempo…

Is the FBI Entrapping Innocent Muslims?

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

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

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

Here’s the case they make:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo

UNC-Chapel Hill vehicle jihadist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar

Seattle Jewish Federation killer Naveed Afzal Haq

Little Rock killer Carlos Bledsoe (aka Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad)

Fort Hood killer Major Nidal Hasan

Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad

Boston bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Cross-country jihadist spree killer Ali Muhammad Brown

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

Also see:

Leader of Islamist group behind Stand With The Prophet Rally Warns of WWIII over Cartoons

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 26, 2015

The leader of Pakistani Islamist organization Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) says that cartoons of Mohammed may lead to war:

“The path that the West has chosen will take the world to a third world war,” [JI chief Sirajul Haq] said on Friday. He was addressing thousands of people at a rally, organised to protest against the insulting caricatures published in Western publications, particularly French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The JI chief demanded that the United Nations make laws to discourage blasphemy of all religious personalities. He said France must apologise for hurting sentiments of billions of Muslims across the world.

There have been several major protests in Pakistan organized by JI to protest the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, some of which have turned violent.

Jamaat-e-Islami may also have been behind the recent Stand With the Prophet Rally and fundraiser, held at the Curtis Cuwell Center in Garland Texas, January 17th. The event,which was billed as an effort to “build a movement”, and compared those who drew cartoons of the prophet with ISIS terrorists.

While most of the coverage of the event focused on the attendance of controversial imam and unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Siraj Wahhaj, few noted Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid, the founder of Soundvision, the group which organized the event, has his own troubling ties.

malik-mujahidMujahid is the past president of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) which was founded on the principles of ,and which is widely considered a front group, for Jamaat al-Islami (JI) in the United States. ICNA formally joined with the Muslim Brotherhood to present a united front in the 1990s, according to Holy Land Foundation Trial documents. ICNA is believed to have solicited donations for Pakistani charities known to have donated to Hamas. ICNA’s founding secretary general was convicted of war crimes for engaging in genocide against Bengalis when Jamaat al-Islami militias fought on behalf of Pakistan in Bangladesh’s war of liberation. ICNA’s showed its true nature in 2010 when it published a handbook which contained the stated goal of establishing Shariah law and Islamic rule through a worldwide Caliphate.

Given the views expressed by JI’s chief, it’s no surprise that a former ICNA president’s organization would also describe the issue of “defaming the prophet” in terms of war metaphors like describing cartoons of the prophet as “attacks, which are no accident.”

Although Mujahid hasn’t always been metaphorical,  having reportedly encouraged Muslims to fight jihad in Bosnia by telling a 1995 ICNA convention audience:

“Qital [killing] is an essential element of Islam. And sometimes you don’t like it. Qital is ordained upon you, though it is hateful to you, but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you…. And one example is, now we have 60 or so Muslim countries, and not a single one of them wants to go for Qital and Jihad for Bosnia. Qital is ordained upon you though it is hateful to you.

In addition to Mujahid, Stand With the Prophet speaker Sheikh Alauddin Al Bakri has also been associated with JI. In a tour of India, Al-Bakri spoke at a “Jamaat-e-Islami hind” (JeI of India) convention. Al Bakri was also the speaker at a meeting of the Student Islamic Organization of India (SIO) reportedly a JI front. At that meeting Al Bakri emphasized, “ that time of talking and time of complaining has gone; now is the time of action.” Al-Bakri is a book editor of Iqra Publications that produces Islamic texts for K-12th grade students. Included on Iqra’s site are offerings of quran translations by Jamaat-e-Islami founder and infamous Islamist scholar Abul A’la Maududi and Zaki Hammad, member of the Quranic Literacy Institute, which was connected to Hamas in civil court.

While the organizers of the Stand with the Prophet Rally may color up their support for a sharia blasphemy-based approach to make it palatable for an American audience, their Pakistani counterparts appear to have no such compunction about stating their position, or the threat they pose to the West.

ISLAM IN EUROPE NOW A NO-GO SUBJECT

WhiteHouse.gov

WhiteHouse.gov

The American Spectator, By Aaron Goldstein, Jan. 28, 2015

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments whileFNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlanticby David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will  the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:

YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIAH CONTROLLED ZONE

ISLAMIC RULES ENFORCED

The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Today praising the attacks:

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his face by one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.

It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

3 terror attacks in 48 hours: Hey Islamapologists, what’s your excuse this time?

japanese_hostage-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 26, 2015

Over the past 48 hours, there have been three more terror attacks worldwide, but I doubt you’ve even heard about them:

1.In the Philippines, one person was killed and 48 injured when a car bomb exploded, which local authorities believe the al-Qaida-backed Abu Sayyaf group was behind – and of course we reported here how the Obama administration decided to end U.S. support against Islamic jihadism there.

2.The Taliban conducted a truck bomb attack at a gas station in Kabul near the military airfield there. Officials think it might have been a premature suicide attack; thankfully only two civilians were wounded.

3. ISIS executed a Japanese hostage by beheading and is still holding another under threat of execution, demanding an exchange for a female Islamic suicide bomber being held in Jordan.

Now mind you, this was just in the last 48 hours.

What gets me is how fast those “Islamapologists” in the West continue to push the narrative of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion” by a few radicals. Well, it seems to be more than a few, and what if this narrative is totally wrong? What if this “hijacked” narrative is just something being contrived in the West to advance a state of denial — such as we saw last week in President Obama’s State of the Union address and in his previous statements of “Let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic” – even though the first the letter in ISIS stands for Islamic.

First of all, I suggest we stop using the phrase “radical Islam.” The proper classification should be “militant Islam” — that is if you’ve read the Koran, the hadiths, and the suras. If you understand the respective phases of Islam’s development and expansion and how it relates to world history — not progressive socialist or Islamist revisionist history — “hijacked a religion?” I don’t think so. As matter of fact, I said this back in 2009 on a panel in New York City moderated by Jeb Babbin, which included Andrew McCarthy and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers. You can watch it here.

 

History does not agree with the “hijacked” reference — and that subject has been covered most recently by the Israeli paper, Haaretz.

As written by Salman Masalha, “One of the fundamental problems with Islam is the view that its doctrines – exactly as written, exactly as they were developed and forged in the Arabian desert in the 7th century – “are good for all times and all places.”

“The religious ideology that all Islamic scholars of all Islamic sects uphold rests on the Koranic text and the canonical traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. According to Islam, the world is divided into two: the camp of the faithful, comprised of those who believe in the religion of Islam, and the camp of the infidels, which comprises the rest of the world, including Christians and Jews.”

“The infidels are divided into three categories: people of the book – the Jews and Christians … those who have a sort of book – the Zoroastrians … and those with no book – those who worship idols or the stars,” the Shi’ite scholar Al-Tusi wrote in the 10th century. And Islam’s attitude toward unbelievers nowadays is made very clear in the words of religious arbiter Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia: “The Koran, the laws of the prophet and the general agreement among Muslims all teach us that Muslims have an obligation to be the enemies of the infidels – the Jews, the Christians and the rest of the idol worshippers.”

In the West we must stop finding any means possible to dismiss what Islamic doctrine and text commands. There is a reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse and the sword of Muhammad. I don’t recall Jesus Christ carrying a sword, do you?

Once Muhammad departed from Mecca (first Mecca phase) and ended up in Medina he took a turn towards violence. The corresponding verses in the Koran reflect that and history does as well. Muhammad led some 20-25 raids — combat operations — the first being circa 622 AD with the Nakhla raid. The abrogated verses of the Koran results in the latter verses – the more violent once — superseding the previous “peaceful” verses — but they are all words and revelations from Allah.

This leads to the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of Islam — it means whatever it wants to mean, a religious buffet. And that’s why I say “radical Islam” is not the correct definition. There’s nothing radical about their text — as they see it. However, after the first Mecca phase to the present, Islam has been militant in its designs — proselytization and expansion has not been done by a peaceful means, but rather from the end of a sword.

So why this widespread sense of denial?

Mr. Masalha explains, “As Islamist terror appeared on the world stage over the past few decades, many Muslims cried out, claiming that such terror besmirched Islam and didn’t represent it. The terrorists have kidnapped Islam, they said. But the question that begs to be asked is, who kidnapped whom? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the Islamic texts are the ones that kidnapped the terrorists, not the reverse?”

“When reports emerged after a recent conference of Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that one religious arbiter had implied that members of ISIS were heretics, Al-Azhar was forced to issue a denial. Muslim religious scholars find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who wave the banner of militant Islam – for reading the publications of these fundamentalist organizations shows that they derive their strength and inspiration from the very same foundational texts of Islam itself.”

But hey, I know that no matter how many facts I present, the Islamapologists will brand me as the Islamophobe. However, what about taking the militant Islamists at their word?

“These Islamists aren’t ashamed to proclaim their worldview in public. From their perspective, Islam is “an aggressive religion, a religion of war, a religion of jihad, a religion of beheadings and bloodshed,” as Hussein bin Mohammed wrote in an article published on an Islamist website under the title “The beheading issue.” “It’s neither beheading unbelievers nor terror that besmirch Islam,” he argued, but rather “all those who want Islam to be in the image of Mandela or Gandhi, without bloodshed and beheadings.” The provocative writer then added, “That isn’t the religion of Mohammed, who was sent out with his sword until Judgment Day; Mohammed, of whom the only chapter in the Koran that bears his name is called the war chapter. … All those who try to paint Islam as a religion of peace, doves and love … are doing so under the influence of the West’s false views and its evil ideas, which are being exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it.”

Nope, I’ll take the enemy at their word, and for what they believe. I will not be a member of the dismissive “coexist” crowd who do so only in fear of having to face this historic evil. So henceforth, I will be keeping track of everyone who comes out and supplies the false narrative that, “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radicals.”

Islam must have a reformation that brings it into the 21st century — leaving behind the savage and barbaric violence of the text from the 7th and 8th century. Until that happens, well, nothing else matters — as Mr. Masalha states, “only a root canal of Islam’s ideas can move the Arab and Muslim world toward modernity.”

But more importantly, some in the West urgently require another medical procedure to remove their heads from a certain lower part of their anatomy.

Saudi Arabia’s New King Helped Fund Radical Terrorist Groups

King Salman, Saudi Arabia's newly enthroned monarch / AP

King Salman, Saudi Arabia’s newly enthroned monarch / AP

Washington Free Beacon, By Adam Kredo, Jan. 26, 2015

King Salman, Saudi Arabia’s newly crowned monarch, has a controversial history of helping to fund radical terror groups and has maintained ties with several anti-Semitic Muslim clerics known for advocating radical positions, according to reports and regional experts.

Salman, previously the country’s defense minister and deputy prime minister, was crowned king last week after his half-brother King Abdullah died at the age of 90.

While Abdullah served as a close U.S. ally and was considered a reformer by many, Saudi Arabia has long been criticized by human rights activists for its treatment of women and its enforcement of a strict interpretation of Islamic law.

President Barack Obama is scheduled to travel to the Saudi capital of Riyadh on Tuesday to pay respects to Abdullah and meet with Salman, who also has been seen as a moderate friend of the United States.

However, throughout his public career in government, Salman has embraced radical Muslim clerics and has been tied to the funding of radical groups in Afghanistan, as well as an organization found to be plotting attacks against America, according to various reports and information provided by David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In 2001, an international raid of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, which Salman founded in 1993, unearthed evidence of terrorist plots against America, according to separate exposés written by Dore Gold, an Israeli diplomat, and Robert Baer, a former CIA officer.

Salman is further accused by Baer of having “personally approved all important appointments and spending” at the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a controversial Saudi charity that was hit with sanctions following the attacks of September 11, 2001, for purportedly providing material support to al Qaeda.

Salman also has been reported to be responsible for sending millions of dollars to the radical mujahedeen that waged jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s, according to Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who is now director of the Brookings Intelligence Project.

“In the early years of the war—before the U.S. and the Kingdom ramped up their secret financial support for the anti-Soviet insurgency—this private Saudi funding was critical to the war effort,” according to Riedel. “At its peak, Salman was providing $25 million a month to the mujahedeen. He was also active in raising money for the Bosnian Muslims in the war with Serbia.”

Salman also has embraced radical Saudi clerics known for their hateful rhetoric against Israel and Jews.

Salman has worked closely with Saleh al-Moghamsy, who tweeted in August 2014 that “Allah only gathered Jews in the land of Palestine to destroy them.”

Al-Moghamsy also stated in a 2014 television interview that “the hatred of Jews toward Muslims is an eternal hatred.” He also claimed in 2012 that Osama bin Laden had died with more “sanctity and honor” than any infidel, or non-Muslim.

Despite this rhetoric, Salman has maintained close ties to al-Moghamsy.

Salman chairs the board of an organization run by al-Moghamsy and has sponsored the cleric’s public events, including a 2013 festival. Salman and al-Moghamsy were pictured many times together at that event, according to regional reports.

Al-Moghamsy also has been an adviser to two of Salman’s sons, one of whom posed for a selfie with the cleric in July.

Salman also has reached out to other hardline preachers, including Safar Hawali, a one-time mentor of Osama bin Laden who has called for non-Muslims to be expelled from Saudi Arabia.

In 2005, Salman called Hawali to inquire about his health and in 2010 praised him upon the release of a book.

While crown prince, Salman also made a point of phoning Aidh Abdullah al-Qarni, a Saudi author currently on the U.S. Terrorist Screening Center’s No Fly List who has praised Hamas and calledIsraelis “the brothers of apes and pigs.”

Additionally, Salman, in his role as crown prince, has recently visited Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, the nation’s highest religious authority, who has asserted that 10 is an appropriate age of marriage for girls and called for the destruction of all churches in the Arabian Peninsula.

Weinberg, who has been tracking Salman closely, said that the new monarch is taking up his predecessor’s mantle of moderate reform.

“Just like King Abdullah tried to present himself as a reformer, some are trying to suggest that the new king, Salman, is a moderate who will continue his half-brother’s so-called progressive policies,” Weinberg said. “But just look at where Saudi Arabia is after Abdullah: people are being decapitated and flogged by the state in the streets.”

“Women are systematically oppressed by their own government, and the regime continues to propagate incitement and intolerance,” he continued. “Salman’s background funding mujahedeen abroad and embracing hateful clerics suggests that he is at best a political opportunist who will tolerate continued religious extremism, even if he does not hold such views himself.”

Death of Saudi King & Coup in Yemen: Signs in Iranian Prophecy

Foreground: Iranian Revolutionary Guards, banner in background: the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

Foreground: Iranian Revolutionary Guards, banner in background: the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

By Ryan Mauro:

The coup in Yemen by Iranian proxies and the death of Saudi King Abdullah must be seen through the eyes of Iranian regime elements focused on the “end-of-times” prophecies. These huge developments are seen not only as strategic opportunities by the Iranian regime; they are seen as fulfillments of prophecy signaling the imminent appearance of the Mahdi to bring final victory over the enemies of Islam.

THE END-OF-TIMES WORLDVIEW

The Iranian regime’s view of the world is centered around the appearance of the Mahdi, also known as the Hidden 12th Imam in Shia Islam. It also explains its strategy in the context of prophecies surrounding the Mahdi’s arrival on the scene, including issues related to Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Former President Ahmadinejad famously displayed his belief that the Mahdi’s return is very near to the point that other regime elements derided him and his clique as “deviant” for believing that the Mahdi is directly guiding them.

Ahmadinejad was not doing this for domestic political reasons. If anything, it hurt him politically. He’s continued the rhetoric even after leaving the office. In April, he said the Iranian regime will “provide the setting for the Hidden Imam’s world revolution” and it’s the “prime goal” to facilitate the “beginnings of the emergence of the Hidden Imam.”

Supreme Leader Khamenei’s beliefs are not different. He likewise preaches that the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran is the fulfillment of prophecy to set the stage for the Mahdi to defeat Iran’s enemies.

Like Ahamdinejad, Khamenei believes Iran has a responsibility to consciously fulfill prophecy in order to trigger this event. His representative in the Revolutionary Guards said in June that Iran needs to shape the necessary “regional preparedness” for it to happen.

In July 2010, a senior Iranian cleric said that Khamenei told his inner circle that he had met with the Mahdi, who promised to “reappear” during his lifetime. A sermon by a top cleric in Qom and shown on state television claimed that Khamenei said “May Ali protect you” the second he was born.

The most vivid explanation of the end-of-times prophecy in the Iranian regime’s calculations came in 2011 when a terrifying videowas leaked titled, “The Coming is Upon Us.” It was obtained by Reza Kahlili, a former CIA spy within the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Iranian regime did not contest its authenticity.

The basis of the video was that the Iranian regime is fulfilling specific prophecies to trigger the appearance of the Hidden 12th Imam. Supreme Leader Khamenei, President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah are depicted as the incarnations of figures foretold in prophecy.

Kahlili said the production of the film was overseen by President Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff and it ends with a list of endorsements from clerics. A portion was shown on the regime-controlled media.

The blowback was fierce even from within the regime. A major seminary in Qom even condemned the comparison of Ahmadinejad to the military commander who will lead the final war. Significantly, it did not condemn the comparison of Khamenei to the political leader who will ally with the Mahdi known as “Seyed Khorasani.”

The regime tried to distance itself from the video, but the filmmakers said it was shown to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad for approval. They also pointed out that prominent clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders call him “Seyed Khorasani” to his face. Khamenei’s representative in the Guards told a state newspaper on April 12, 2011 that ayatollahs agreed that Khamenei is Khorasani.

The Iranian regime’s foreign policy is based on a fusion of these strategic and ideological goals. It rationally pursues these extremist objectives. The mistake that many Western analysts make is conflating the two. The regime appears Soviet-like in its strategic calculations, but they are made for a highly ideological end.

DEATH OF SAUDI KING & COUP IN YEMEN

The full significance of the death of Saudi King Abdullah can only be understood through the Iranian prophetic framework.

Read more at Clarion Project

Video: Nonie Darwish on Obama and the Koran

Published on Jan 22, 2015 by The Glazov Gang