Tag Archives: AlQaeda

ANALYSIS: MPAC Posts Chomsky Article Blaming Boston Bombings On US

Posted on by
Reply

713_largeGlobal MB Watch:

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) national office has posted an article on their Twitter feed by leftwing ideologue Noam Chomsky titled “Boston and Beyond-When we experience terror at home, we must remember the United States’s use of terror abroad.” In 2008, the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) presented an analysis that identified four conceptual categories into which Brotherhood positions on terrorism can usually be parsed. The GMBDR noted that this Muslim Brotherhood strategy regarding terrorism should be seen for what it is, a remarkably consistent and internally coherent means of obscuring the true aims and goals of the group. The third category of that strategy is:

3. DEFENSE- Having staked out the positions that Islam is not violent and that Jihad is not connected with violence, the Brotherhood is left with the task of defending the violence carried out by Islamist groups. Since according to the Brotherhood these groups cannot, by definition, be motivated by Islamic ideology, there can be only one answer- they are fighting because of “legitimate grievances” and hence are “freedom fighters.” This defense of Islamist violence is mounted differently for Brotherhood-related groups such as Hamas as opposed to Al Qaeda. Because of the visible dispute over land, it is easy for the Brotherhood to suggest that the actions of Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas are based on such grievances whereas, in reality, the Brotherhood has managed to turn the conflict into a religious war. The most viable strategy for the Brotherhood in the West is to posit that the problem is “Occupation“, leaving it to the audience to figure out whether the reference is to 1967 or 1947. Given the sensitivity in the West towards terrorism at home, the Brotherhood has a far more difficult job explaining Al Qaeda terrorism which is does by suggesting that while nothing “justifies” such terrorism, Al Qaeda actions spring from justified anger at U.S. foreign policy. This strategy provides a natural interface” for the Brotherhood with the political far-left and, in Europe, the Brotherhood has been successful in forging such alliances.

At one point, Chomsky’s writes:

There are few in Boston who were not touched in some way by the marathon bombings on April 15 and the tense week that followed. Several friends of mine were at the finish line when the bombs went off. Others live close to where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the second suspect, was captured. The young police officer Sean Collier was murdered right outside my office building. It’s rare for privileged Westerners to see, graphically, what many others experience daily—for example, in a remote village in Yemen, the same week as the marathon bombings.

On April 23, Yemeni activist and journalist Farea Al-Muslimi, who had studied at an American high school, testified before a U.S. Senate committee that right after the marathon bombings, a drone strike in his home village in Yemen killed its target. The strike terrorized the villagers, turning them into enemies of the United States—something that years of jihadi propaganda had failed to accomplish.

This is yet another of the myriad attempts that MPAC and other US Muslim Brotherhood organizations have made to blame Islamist violence on US foreign policy. A post from last month discussed an article by an official of the Canadian Counsel on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) that neatly exemplified each of the four strategies conveniently presented in the same order as the GMBDR analysis.

Read more at the NEW Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch (replacing GMBDR)

WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL JIHAD

Posted on by
Reply

rescuers_blood_APby FRANK GAFFNEY:

Authorities in Massachusetts have identified suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing on Monday as Dzhokhar and (the now-deceased) Tamerlan Tsarnaev, two brothers of Chechen descent originally from Kyrgyzstan. Many Americans haven’t heard of the place; most couldn’t find it on a map. Nearly all would be unable to say why people from there would want to kill people from here.

Welcome to the phenomenon of global jihad. It is time to dispense with the illusion that we are safe from foreign threats because we have put, as President Obama repeatedly insisted during the last campaign, “al Qaeda on the path to defeat,” thanks to the death of Osama bin Laden and the drone-delivered thinning of the ranks of his lieutenants.

The Chechen jihadists in Boston may or may not have been associated with, or even inspired by, bin Laden’s terror network. But in the days and weeks to come we are likely to discover that they identify with its goals: 1) imposing the supremacist Islamic doctrine ofshariah – a totalitarian, brutally repressive and anti-Constitutional ideology – on the entire world, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. And 2) recreating a caliphate (or a similar theo-political entity) to rule according to that doctrine.

The same is true of other violent jihadists of the Sunni and Shia stripes, including, respectively, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the regime in Iran. Ditto the so-called non-violent Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, that organization – which is the mother-ship for virtually all modern Sunni jihadists – favors an approach better described as pre-violent: The Brotherhood is perfectly prepared to use violence when it will be effective. Until then, they will adopt other measures (which they call “civilization jihad”) to create conditions that would be conducive to the realization of the goals they share with all other Islamists.

My preliminary read on the Brothers Tsarnaev is that they, too, were committed to the triumph of shariah. And whether they were associated with one or the other of these groups, factions, or sects, or if they were self-taught and operating alone, it seems likely that they embraced that doctrine’s requirement to wage jihad against infidels – something they evidently did with pressure-cooker improvised explosive devices near the Finish Line on Monday.

Literally by the minute, we are learning more about their backgrounds and behavior. With luck, we will also know shortly whether they were aided by accomplices or organizational infrastructure that may still pose a threat.

What we know already, however, is that there are perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of others like them around the world. Folks who believe that their god commands them to engage personally in holy war against the infidels and non-shariah-adherent Muslims (whom they call apostates).

What is particularly worrying is that this is not a new revelation. We have been on notice of this fact since well before 9/11. And yet we have at times ignored it – or, in some cases, denied it assiduously. And that is not simply true of average Americans. It has been the widespread practice within administrations of both parties, beginning in earnest under George W. Bush and metastasizing greatly in the Obama presidency. (For a detailed treatment of how this has happened and why, see www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.comand The Muslim Brother in the Obama Administration www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org.)

We have thus systematically violated one of the cardinal principles of warfare dating back at least to the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tsu, who warned that you cannot defeat an enemy you do not know. Worse, we have allowed an enemy we could and should have known long ago to dictate to us what we are allowed to understand, think, and do about them.

For example, the Obama administration has purged the files and training materials of federal law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security, and defense agencies of information that might “offend” Islamists. That would include knowing such truths as that it is the orthodoxy of Islam (although a practice not embraced by all Muslims) to engage in jihad to advance the supremacy of shariah.

Even more alarming, the U.S. government now operates under guidelines for training in “countering violent extremism” (the euphemism it adopted in lieu of the Bush administration’s preferred euphemism for jihad, “terrorism”) that make matters infinitely more dangerous: those using federal funds for such training must now first consult with “community partners” about the trainers and their materials. Those partners appear to beMuslim Brotherhood operatives and front groups.

Read more at Breitbart

Related articles

Disarming Americans, Arming Terrorists

Posted on by
3

obama-libya-copy-450x350By

While the White House was busy drafting proposals to ban assault rifles, the last of the regulations imposed on Saudi travel to the United States after September 11 were being taken apart. While some government officials were busy planning how to disarm Americans, other officials were negotiating the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Muslim Brotherhood-run Egypt.

Obama is unwilling to trust Americans with an AR-15, but is willing to trust a genocidal terrorist group with Abrams tanks and F-16 jets. The F-16’s M61 Vulcan cannon can fire 6,000 rounds a minute and the 146 lb warhead of its HARM missiles can do a lot more than put a few dents in a brick wall. The Abrams’ 120 mm cannon can penetrate 26 inches of steel armor making it a good deal more formidable than even the wildest fantasies of San Francisco liberals about the capabilities of a so-called “assault rifle.”

While Obama has not been willing to respect the Constitution of the United States and its Bill of Rights, he was willing to arm a terrorist group whose motto is, “The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.” If a High School student wrote that on his Facebook page, he would be in police custody within the hour, but an international organization and national government that trades in such rhetoric gets devastating firepower from our government… free of charge.

In addition to giving the Hezbollah-run government of Lebanon two hundred M113 Armored Personnel Carriers, Obama deliberately turned a blind eye while Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups in Libya received arms shipments from Qatar. Those weapons included a good deal more firepower than anything you can buy at Wal-Mart and later made their way to Mali and Syria. More weapons made their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Whether any of these weapons were used in the assault on the Benghazi mission is unknown, but entirely possible.

While the Al Qaeda attackers at Benghazi were heavily armed, with the complicity of the Obama Administration, the Americans had been forced to abide by Libyan gun control laws, because while Obama was willing to bomb a country and help arm its terrorists, he wasn’t willing to allow embassy security personnel to flout firearms law in a city ruled by terrorist militias. Instead the terrorist militia of the Muslim Brotherhood was hired to provide security for the Benghazi mission… with tragic results.

There has been a great deal of ink spilled about Nancy Lanza’s irresponsibility in keeping guns around the house; but what of Obama’s irresponsibility in sending guns to Mexican drug lords and jets and tanks to Muslim terrorists?

Based on his track record, Obama believes that it is safe to send weapons to Mexican drug lords, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda terrorists, not to mention the Muslim Brotherhood, but that it’s far too dangerous for an American to own a clip that can hold more than 10 rounds.

And that means that Obama doesn’t think much of the moral character of Americans, but thinks a great deal of Muslim terrorists.

This double standard is the defining motif of this administration. A handful of mass shootings is enough to deprive all Americans of their constitutional rights, but the worst act of mass murder of Americans is not enough to deprive Saudi Muslim students looking for a good flight school of their visas.

Even while Obama and Biden are pushing more background checks for gun owners, Saudi students will undergo fewer background checks. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama vowed to stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. But when the political winds shift in an ugly direction toward gun owners, then Obama can be found blowing on the fan.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

Al Qaeda is No “Remnant,” Mr. President

Posted on by
1

By Bob Beauprez for Townhall:

During his interview recently on the Jon Stewart Show, President Obama continued his established narrative that he has driven al-Qaeda into the ground sufficiently that only a few “remnants” of the radical Islamic terrorist organization remain.

A “remnant” is a “small group of surviving people” according to the dictionary.  But, remnants don’t grow, multiply, and spread. A remnant doesn’t extend across a significant portion of the planet.

In the final debate, the President claimed that “al-Qaeda is much weaker than when I came into office.”

At the Democratic National Convention – just five days before the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya – and frequently on the campaign trail, Obama brags that he has put al-Qaeda “on its heels.”

True enough, Osama bin Laden is dead and other al-Qaeda leaders have joined him. But, the assassination of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi is a brutal reminder that radical Islamic terror groups have not disappeared and certainly are not dormant.

“al-Qaeda is not ‘on its heels,’” asserts KT McFarland, a National Security Expert and former Reagan Defense Department official. “al-Qaeda and its affiliates are planting the flag into new regions around the globe and are now active in more than 30 countries,” says McFarland.

The West Africa nation of Mali is among the latest tragic manifestations of al-Qaeda influence. Northern regions of Mali have been under control of the Islamic radicals since March. Malian military forces assisted by the French military (Mali was a French Colony until 1960) are currently preparing an attempt to retake the region by force.

McFarland’s assessment that al-Qaeda is “active in more than 30 countries” certainly exposes the phoniness of the President’s contention. So, too, does the following report filed today by Reuters describing the expansive methodology of al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Mali and elsewhere.

Flush with cash, Al Qaeda-linked gunmen – dubbed “gangster-jihadists” by French parliamentarians – are now key players in a web of Islamists and criminal networks recruiting hundreds of locals, including children, and a trickle of foreign fighters. Among the shifting alliances, Al Qaeda’s North Africa wing, known as AQIM, has forged links with Malian Tuareg Islamists, and MUJWA, a group that splintered off from AQIM but still operates loosely with it.

The Islamists, who advocate a political ideology based on Islam, are trying to impose a strict form of sharia law. At least three suspected criminals have been stoned to death or executed by firing squad in Mali while several others have had hands and feet amputated.

Almahamoud, a man from Ansongo who was accused – wrongly, he says – of stealing cattle, suffered an amputation in August. “They cut off my hand to make an example of me,” he said. “They will continue mutilating people to impose their authority. I don’t know how I will live with just one hand.”

Traditional, moderate Islamic customs have been crushed. Music is banned, women cover themselves with veils and residents are flogged for smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. Ancient religious shrines central to the Sufi Islam practiced by many Malians have been smashed because they are deemed illegal by the hardliners.  Read more.

Bob Beauprez is a former Member of Congress and is currently the editor-in-chief of A Line of Sight, an online policy resource. Prior to serving in Congress, Mr. Beauprez was a dairy farmer and community banker. He and his wife Claudia reside in Lafayette, Colorado. You may contact him at:  http://bobbeauprez.com/contact/

The Jihad and Christopher Stephens (Part I)

Posted on by
1

By Diana West:

In analyzing the Benghazi scandal, it is crucial to highlight not only the dangers of relying on jihadist armed gangs for  American security in Benghazi, but also the betrayal of American principle undertaken by the  Obama administration in setting such a policy in place. The fact is, relying on  “local militias” was not some stop-gap practice; it was official US policy. This begins to tell us why “Benghazi-gate” is so much more than  an inquiry into a calamitous security break-down, and the ghastly chain of lies  the administration told thereafter.

On March 28, 2012,  Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom sent a  cable from Libya requesting more  security. His request was denied. This  cable, however, is evidence of more than State’s negligence in failing to  address a dangerous security situation that would be exploited by al Qaeda  affiliates on September 11, 2012. In the cable, Nordstrom makes note of the fact  that “rebuilding and expanding post’s PSA Local Guard Force” was one of his  “core objectives.” Further: “As recommended by the Department, post is  developing plans to transition our security staffing … to [a model] that  incorporates more locally-based and non-emergency assets.”

Naturally. these “plans” weren’t working. Hence, Nordstrom’s request for more  American security. And hence the denial from State for reasons, Nordstrom  recently told Congress, that came down to the fact “there was going to be too  much political cost.” But what politics drove such a recommendation? Here is  where the entire Libyan debacle, the debacle of “Arab Spring” — Arab Jihad –  comes into play. It is time to reckon with the fact that despite the grand talk  of democracy and human rights, President Obama ordered Uncle Sam to join that  jihad in 2011, precipitously pulling support from a long-standing ally in Egypt  and a post-9/11 ally in Libya to empower the vanguards of   liberty-supressing Islam, extending the reach and dominion of a hostile,  totalitarian system.

Obama was hardly alone, drawing support from left-wing Democrats, the UN  crowd, media, the GOP establishment, George W. Bush, “neocons,” all of whom  boosted this same “Arab Spring,” often for different reasons. One of the great  champions of what we should start thinking of as the jihad outreach such a  policy necessarily entails was the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and long  before he arrived in Benghazi during “Arab Spring.”

Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a series of US Libyan embassy cables, starting  in December 2007, which document what became rather an abiding interest in two  repatriated ex-Guatanamo detainees, Ben Qumu Abu Sufian Ahmed Hamouda and  Muhammad Abdallah Mansur al-Rimi — ben Qumu in particular.

For the next six months or so, cables, some by Stevens, some by other  personnel, track embassy access to these detainees, their condition, and their  welfare in their Libyan detention. One cable (not by Stevens) details an extended family  visit to Qumu. His relatives, the cable reports, “were able to bring some food,  clothes, personal hygiene items and reading materials to him. Tarnish [a  security officer] described [Qumu's] physical condition and spirits as `very  good’ and indicated  that security officials at the facility … had  allowed the family to stay with him for a few extra hours in light of the  impending New Year’s holiday.”

Why the solicitude for a high-ranking al Qaeda member with connections to a  terror financier? Ben Qumu, a native of Derna in eastern Libya, rose in the al  Qaeda ranks after training at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in the 1990s,  reportedly serving under bin Laden in Sudan after which he fought with the  Talban. He was captured in 2002 along the Af-Pak border and sent to Gitmo before  being repatriated to Libyan custody in 2007.  He would be released in a  Libyan government reconciliation program in 2010.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Diana West is a journalist and columnist whose writing appears in several  high  profile outlets. She also has a website:  DianaWest.net.

 

Related articles

To Be Politically Correct U.S. Ignores Threat Of Radicalized Muslim-Americans

Posted on by
Reply

Judicial Watch Blog:

Political correctness has led the U.S. government to ignore the growing threat of Muslim-Americans radicalized by the violent Islamist extremist ideology promulgated by al Qaeda and its affiliates, according to a shocking report released by the House Committee on Homeland Security.

As a result, the terrorist threat to military communities is “severe and on the rise” while political correctness continues to stifle the military’s ability to effectively understand and counter the threat. In fact, the report actually states that the Obama Administration has chosen political correctness over accurately labeling and identifying certain terrorist attacks appropriately, even denying Purple Hearts medals to killed and wounded troops in domestic terror attacks.

The scathing report is the result of a heated series of committee hearings on the taboo issue of Islamic radicalization in the United States, a subject that the administration evidently fears will alienate Muslims. The bottom line is that al Qaeda is using U.S.-based Muslim radicals to plan mass casualty attacks. “Homegrown radicalization is now the vanguard of al Qaeda’s strategy to continue attacking the United States and its allies,” congressional investigators found.

Recent cases of Islamic radicals threatening military communities are documented in the report. For instance, in June 2009 a U.S. Muslim convert (Carlos Bledsoe) opened fire on a U.S. Army recruiting office in Arkansas. “Bledsoe specifically targeted the U.S. military to avenge what he believed was its mistreatment of Muslims,” the report says.  “He also had traveled to Yemen and was radicalized to al Qaeda’s violent Islamist extremist ideology.”

The other case received worldwide media attention because an Army Major (Nidal Hasan) murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others at Fort Hood in Texas. “In another glaring instance of al Qaeda-inspired homegrown terrorism, the government also neglected to indict Maj. Nidal Hasan on any terrorism-related charges, considering the case to be an example of ‘workplace violence’ despite his reported e-mail communications with the operational leader [of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula], the since-slain American terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki,” the report said.

Additionally, a policy allowing radical Muslim clerics to lecture in U.S. prisons and circulate jihadist materials is contributing to the creation of Islamist terrorists, investigators found. The radicalization of American Muslims remains “a real and serous homeland security threat,” according the committee’s findings, and the U.S. government needs to “confront the Islamist ideology driving radicalization.”

The U.S. government “cannot continue to simply ignore or deflect” the threat posed by radical American Muslims, it concludes. “Unfortunately, it appears that that within the United States, political correctness has prevented many from sufficiently acknowledging and tackling this dangerous problem. We continue to face an unwavering threat, and must be fully aware that homegrown radicalization is part of al Qaeda’s strategy to continue attacking the United States.”

As implausible as this dangerous PC revolution may seem, the Homeland Security committee’s findings are backed by the Obama Administration’s ongoing Muslim outreach effort. Under the initiative Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met to discuss national security matters with a group of extremist Muslim organizations, the nation’s space agency (NASA) was ordered to focus on Muslim diplomacy and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

The president also sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission and ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law. Oh, and Democrats held a special Senate hearing (“in response to the spike in anti-Muslim bigotry”) to better protect Muslim civil rights in America.

Earlier this year the administration revamped the way it trains federal agents to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. As part of the transformation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism. In all, 700 pages of documents from about 300 presentations given to agents since the 2001 terrorist attacks were purged.

Read more about