French intelligence fears Islamist ‘missile strike on airliner’ or 9/11-style attack

French security forces are bracing for the eventuality of civil unrest (file photo) Photo: Alamy

French security forces are bracing for the eventuality of civil unrest (file photo) Photo: Alamy

Telegraph, by Henry Samuel and David Chazan, Aug. 27, 2015:

French security forces are bracing for the eventuality of civil unrest and fear there could be a missile strike on a passenger airliner or a September 11-style attack, according to sources close to French intelligence.

“Airlines have been warned of a possible attack on a plane with an anti-tank missile,” a source told The Telegraph. “But pilots are unsure how to take evasive action.”

After Friday’s thwarted attempt to massacre passengers on an Amsterdam-Paris train and a series of terrorist attacks and attempted killings in France this year, President François Hollande warned the nation to prepare for more violence, considered inevitable as the Islamist threat grows.

The army has made contingency plans for the “reappropriation of national territory”, meaning to win back control of neighbourhoods where the population become hostile to the security forces and where guns are easily obtainable, according to the source.

“There are a lot of alienated and angry fourth-generation immigrant kids in the suburbs and the prospect of radicalisation is increasingly likely,” the source said.

“The idea that attacks like the one on the train are carried out by individuals acting on their own is not credible. We’re dealing with highly-organised networks of militant Islamists embarked on a campaign of violence and determined to intensify it.”

Kalashnikov automatic rifles — used by the train gunman and Islamist terrorists who killed 17 people in Paris in January — and anti-tank missiles are now obtainable in France. Many were smuggled in from the former Yugoslavia after the Balkan wars in the 1990s. More weapons have come in from Libya, the sources said, adding that organised crime and terrorist groups were working together to procure them.

“We don’t know what happened to the arms we (France) to Libyan rebels. It’s worrying,” the source said.

In the chaos following the fall of the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, French officials described the north African country as an “open-air arms market”. In 2011, France admitted to sending “light weapons” to Libyan rebels in 2011, but French media reported that consignments of heavier arms, including European-made Milan anti-tank missiles were also sent.

There were fears that Isil, al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups were procuring heavy weapons from the stocks of Gaddafi’s former army, and that rebel groups were losing control of their own arms.

As early as 2010, an anti-tank missile was seized by police along with several tons of cannabis. Since then, an unknown number of rocket-propelled grenades and missiles are believed to have been smuggled into the country.

A missile attack could be devastating for an airliner, particularly if the plane was taking off and full of fuel. The main Paris airport at Roissy is near drug-infested suburbs of the capital prone to violence.

Agents of the DGSI, France’s equivalent of MI5, warned they are powerless to improve surveillance of Islamist militants bent on losing their lives to cause maximum carnage, and have been “lucky” to have avoided far worse catastrophes since the Paris Islamist attacks in January that killed 17, Le Canard Enchaîné, the investigative and satirical weekly, reported.

An agent told the newspaper there were fears of “an upcoming 11 September à la française where (intelligence) services are mere spectators”.

Luck rather than judgment had allayed larger-scale strikes, another is cited as saying.

“We’ve been lucky. Passengers in a train who neutralise a suspect, another who shoots himself in the foot then calls the emergency services, and a third who fails to blow up a chemical factory; without these fortuitous turns of events, the human and material toll would have been much higher. And we wouldn’t have been able to change a thing,” he told the weekly.

“The truth is we’ve already tried everything. But we’ve reached the very limits of what we are able to do as much from a legislative and organisational as a financial point of view.”

European transport ministers are due to discuss more “systematic and coordinated” security checks across the continent in a meeting in Paris on Saturday, Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister announced on Wednesday.

“We must examine whether we can implement a system that allows for more systematic checks in airports, in public transport, in a more coordinated way,” he told France Inter radio.

Also see:

New ‘Islamic Commandos’ Terror Group Emerges in War-Torn Afghanistan

twitter

twitter

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, August 24, 2015:

The reported emergence of a new terror group in Afghanistan, calling itself the “Islamic Commandos,” indicates that the country remains a safe haven for terrorist organizations.

American troops invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to prevent terrorist groups, namely al-Qaeda, from using the war-torn country as a base for their operations.

Since then, the U.S. has spent billions of taxpayer dollars and lost at least 2,217 American lives on that effort.

Less than one year after President Obama declared an end to the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan, Khaama Press reports that Afghan officials are now saying the Islamic Commandos have begun operating in their areas.

The group, which has at least 1,000 members, has begun to function in northern and southern Afghanistan—particularly in the northern provinces of Badakhshan, Kunduz, and Faryab; and the southern Zabul, Urozgan, and Kandahar provinces. This is according to Mohammad Ali Ahmadi, deputy governor of Ghazni province in eastern Afghanistan, who reportedly told Azadi Radio on Sunday, adding that the group is also operating in his province.

“He said [the] majority of this group is currently fighting with security forces in northern Afghanistan,” adds Khaama Press.

The deputy governor pointed out that the group broke away from the Taliban, which it now considers a rival faction.

It is unknown what brought about the division that led to the formation of the Islamic Commandos, notes Heavy.com.

A report from the Afghan Bokhdi News Agency, written in Dari, quotes Ahmadi as saying that the Islamic Commandos are linked to al-Qaeda and have entered Afghanistan from Pakistan’s restive North Waziristan tribal region located along the Afghan border, according to an English translation provided by BBC.

Breitbart News was unable to independently confirm whether or not the new terrorist group has ties to al-Qaeda. It is unclear whether or not there is a relationship between the Islamic Commandos, the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), and al-Qaeda.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda share historic ties. Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri pledged allegiance to the new Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Akhtar Mansour, who took over the group after Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar was reported dead. Mansour has accepted the pledge.

The Taliban and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) are currently fighting a turf war in Afghanistan.

There are already at least fifteen terrorist organizations operating in the Afghan and Pakistan region, SFGate reports. The Islamic Commandos are the newest terrorist group in Afghanistan.

U.S. and international troops are already dealing with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the entry of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), which has appeared in parts of the country, carrying out brutal executions.

Except for a small Kabul-based embassy presence, the U.S. is expected to withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2016, President Obama has said.

Obama, at the request of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, already slowed down the withdrawal pace of American forces, extending the presence of nearly 10,000 troops until the end of this year.

In 2014, the U.S. president said that by the end of 2015, America would draw down its military presence to about half of the current level.

President Obama has reportedly asked U.S. Gen. John F. Campbell, the top commander of American and international forces in Afghanistan, to reassess the situation on the ground after the 2015 fighting season, the first with the Afghan forces supposedly in the lead.

Earlier this month, The Daily Mirror reported that British special forces (SAS, SBS) were deployed back to Afghanistan to take on both ISIS and the Taliban.

“Just a year after David Cameron said the war was over, members of the SAS and SBS along with US special forces are taking part in military operations almost every night as the insurgent forces close in on the capital Kabul,” noted the article.

“British troops are supposed to be just advisers to the Afghanistan special forces, who they have spent years training,” it added. “But senior defence sources say that in reality the troops are planning and leading counter-terrorist strike operations.”

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Afghan president have discussed the possibility of forming a ten-year regional counterterrorism effort against ISIS.

‘Sandboxing’ Islam: How to Protect America from Jihad Terrorism

image8 (1)Jihad Watch, AUGUST 21, 2015, BY

Enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) can give us the legal and tactical edge in countering the threat from Islamic supremacism.

Background

It should be obvious for anyone with eyes to see that Islam — its scriptures, the example of Muhammad, its doctrines, and its overall ideology — is behind the spread of most terrorism and unrest in the world today. 

From the Islamic State (ISIS), Boko Haram, al-Nusra and al-Shabaab, to slightly older groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to lesser known jihadi organizations throughout Central Asia, India, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Rim, and China, a survey of terrorist attacks reveals Muslim involvement throughout the entire world.

Here in the United States, we are seeing a dramatic rise in Muslim “lone wolf” jihad terrorist attacks (and, as some have described them, known wolves”). Further, from all points of the compass, we are seeing literally tens of thousands of Muslims flocking to the Middle East to join the Islamic State caliphate and support the jihad with their very lives. 

The scenario gets worse. Some analysts argue that we are seriously underestimating the numbers of Western Muslims joining the Islamic State. 

Here at home, we have a “full blown insurgency.” The FBI has already arrested seventy IS-inspired Muslim terrorists, and has active investigations of IS-inspired jihad plots in all 56 of its field offices. NewsMax reports “the government’s terrorist watch list carries 700,000 to a million names.”

mosques_mapThe Challenge: Jihad-Linked Mosques

This is all indisputable fact. The threat is real and growing. Even worse, the threat is specifically from devout, observant Muslims who attend mosque. Behind every lone-or-known-wolf jihadi and every Islamic State recruit there is a mosque where they are receiving instruction in Islam.

That should give us pause, as four separate studies in recent years show that 80% of mosques in the U.S. teach, preach or advocate for jihad and the imposition of sharia law in America. 

Confirming these mosque studies are proven links between mosques and terrorists.  For example, one of the two Mississippi Muslims recently arrested for trying to join the Islamic State is the son of the imam at the local mosque. Many terror-linked mosques have spawned multiple jihadis. The Phoenix mosque attended by the Garland TX jihadis is notorious for having two other members in federal prison on terrorism-related convictions. Perhaps most infamous is the Islamic Society of Boston, which was attended not only by the Boston Marathon Bombers, but by numerous other jihad-terror-linked Muslims. The list goes on and on.

For many people, especially in our political class and certainly among the 2016 field of presidential candidates, there seems to be no solution to this national security nightmare of terror-linked mosques and known wolf jihadis. To date, there is no coherent, principle-based policy to address Islamic terrorism in the United States. 

The Solution: ‘Sandboxing’ Islam in America

This is where I believe the simple analogy of “Sandboxing” can help us.

You’ve probably heard the term, even if you’re not a computer geek. One tech source offers this definition:

A “sandbox” is a play area for young children: it is supposed to be safe for them (they cannot hurt themselves) and safe from them (it is sand, they cannot break it). In the context of IT security, “sandboxing” means isolating some piece of software in such a way that whatever it does, it will not spread havoc elsewhere.

If we think of America as being, ideally, a safe and free place for its citizens, within which we should be able to live, work, play, and, as the ubiquitous bumper sticker says, “Coexist,” then when it comes to Islam and Muslims, we need a solution analogous to the IT security process of “sandboxing.” We need to isolate malicious jihadi forces, “in such a way that whatever they do, they will not spread havoc elsewhere.”

What would “sandboxing” look like when it comes to Muslims in America? In practice, it could include the following policies:

  • A moratorium — a complete freeze — on Muslim immigration. Senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul expressed a similar policy concept following the Chattanooga jihad murders of five US servicemen, proposing a halt to immigration from Muslim countries with known jihad activity. Going one step further, Franklin Graham wrote at the same time that “We should stop all immigration of Muslims to the U.S. until this threat with Islam has been settled.
  • All mosques must be classified and treated as “agents of foreign power,” in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a U.S. law (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) passed in 1938.

The law presciently allows for application in gray areas such as Islam presents, as it states that any entity with a “political or quasi-political capacity” disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances. The purpose is to facilitate “evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.” [Source]

Islam certainly thinks and behaves like a foreign power, is guided in America by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis and other foreign Islamic groups, and has a definite political dimension. (See also here.)

  • Any and all mosques associated with Muslim terrorists must be investigated, and if found to be advancing jihad doctrine, sharia law, and Islamic supremacism over the United States, they should be prosecuted and closed, in accordance with the FARA act referenced above.
  • Stop all foreign funding of mosques, whether by FARA, new legislation, or executive power. We already know that Saudi Arabia is providing extensive funding to advance its extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam worldwide, including of mosques in America, as is Turkey. There already exist covert lobbying groups for Muslim nations, including Iran.

 These are just some starting points to aid in getting this conversation going. The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has an 18-point platform with similar policy proposals which may be considered as well.

We must have hope that, just as illegal immigration has become a major issue in the presidential race, so also we may be successful in elevating public awareness of the clear and present danger from Islam and Muslim jihad terrorists. This is a generational if not century-long struggle ahead of us, and should resonate with voters.

The concept of “sandboxing” is, I believe, the most helpful image in making our case to not only the American people, but also to the political elite and the 2016 candidates. 

We must publicly challenge the Republican presidential candidates to take the initiative, and to fearlessly raise the issue of Islam up to the same level as Immigration. We must demand of them to be bold and daring when it comes to defeating jihad. The defense of our nation, our freedoms, and the lives of our fellow citizens and men-and-women in uniform should be paramount for whoever would be Commander-in-Chief. This issue will be topmost on that person’s desk in the Oval Office from Day One. Better to tackle it now with a strong and visionary policy, than to be knocked back on our heels by a surprise attack in 2017.

Now is the time to put misbehaving Muslims and their terror-linked-mosques on time-out. Islam is at war with us. More and more Muslims are heeding the summons from Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, taking up arms against us in this war, and killing American citizens right here at home. Denying the reality and threat of Islamic jihad is not a valid policy, it is civilizational suicide.

It is time to “sandbox” Islam in America, and use decisive, legal means to counter its threat to our freedoms and our way of life.

_______

Ralph Sidway is an Orthodox Christian researcher and writer, and author of Facing Islam: What the Ancient Church has to say about the Religion of Muhammad. He operates the Facing Islam blog.

Also see:

Will Britain Pass the Choudary Test?

Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, August 12, 2015:

  • The long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole.
  • Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following.
  • It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

If there was a single flaw in the British Prime Minister’s recent speech on countering extremism in the UK, it might be encapsulated in the name “Anjem Choudary.” His speech went into terrific detail on the significance of tacking radicalism through the education system, the Charity Commission, the broadcasting license authority and numerous other means. But it failed the Choudary test.

That test is: What do you do about a British-born man who is qualified to work but appears never to have done so, and who instead spends his time taking his “dole” money and using it to fund a lifestyle devoted solely to preaching against the state?

 

Anjem Choudary (center).

The problem is not quite as straightforward as some commentators make out. The fact that Choudary is British-born and a British citizen makes it legally impossible for Britain to withdraw his citizenship or otherwise render him “stateless.” He has a young family who cannot be allowed to starve on the streets, even if he could. These are admittedly late liberalism problems, but they are problems nonetheless.

On the other hand, what the state has allowed from Choudary in recent years looks more like a late Weimar problem. Choudary is not merely a blowhard pseudo-cleric with perhaps never more than a hundred followers at any one time — although this is certainly the part of his persona that has garnered most attention. Indeed, his attention-seeking is perhaps the only first-rate skill he has. For instance, there was the time he claimed he was planning a “March for Sharia” through the centre of London, culminating at the gates of Buckingham Palace with a demand that the Queen submit to Islam. Having garnered the publicity he desired, Choudary cancelled his march not because there was a fairly measly counter-demo (of which this author was a part) but because his “March for Sharia” would have been unlikely to gather more than a few dozen attendees, and would most likely have descended into a “stroll inviting ridicule,” at best.

The reason Choudary is more than just an attention-seeker is that over many years he has been involved with innumerable people who have shown themselves to be more than blowhards. They have attempted to bring serious sectarian conflict — as well as murder — to the streets of Britain. A number of Choudary’s associates, for instance, were imprisoned a few years back for attempting a Mumbai-style attack on London landmarks, including the London Stock Exchange. Other of his associates have been to prison for incitement and countless terrorist-recruitment offenses; and since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, a number of his followers have gone to Syria and Iraq to join and fight with ISIS.

Choudary himself is a trained lawyer and has a sufficiently adept mind to know on just which side of the law to keep his remarks. The last Labour government’s creation of a new offense of “glorifying terror” ought to have caught Choudary within it, but it appeared not to have done. He has remained a frustratingly free man.

That said, there are other possible explanations for this. One theory — not beyond the realm of possibility — is that Choudary has been, to some extent (knowingly or unknowingly), used as a “fly-trap” by the police or intelligence services. He is well known enough to have anyone seriously interested in the most radical forms of Islamic extremism come to him. And despite the paranoia of his group, thinking that they are being infiltrated (described not least by the former radical Morten Storm in his excellent memoir, “Agent Storm”), it is possible that this is what has been going on all along. It would mean that there was some agreement to allow Choudary to get away with what he does because it is better for such extremism to have an observable and open meeting-point than to be more clandestine.

There are certainly many defences of such a policy — if such a policy there has been. In the short term, it might have stopped several significant attacks. But the long-term consequences of allowing Choudary to be free constitute a terrible mistake: the main impact of Choudary on the wider public has been colossally to exacerbate suspicions of Muslims as a whole. Broadcasters have for years introduced him as a “sheikh” or a “cleric,” without often casting doubt on his qualifications to such titles, or noting the comparative paucity of his following. The police failure to stop one Choudary demonstration in particular (and indeed to protect his followers) also led to the creation of the English Defence League — an extraordinary negative double-whammy for one person to achieve.

But last week Anjem Choudary was arrested, detained and charged with terror offenses relating to attempts to persuade Muslims in Britain to join ISIS; he now finally faces trial. So far, there has been a muted response in the British media. Part of that is the simple and rightful caution due to reporting restrictions of an upcoming trial. But part of it may also be an “I’ll believe it when I see it” cynicism. It is worth recalling that just last year Choudary was arrested and detained for terror offenses, only to walk free before the bunting was even half up. There are unlikely to be any premature celebrations this time. Perhaps reporters and commentators also have in mind the murky dropping of all terrorism charges before the opening of the trial of former Guantanamo inmate Moazzem Begg last autumn.

It is perfectly possible that Anjem Choudary will slip between the UK’s terrorism laws once again. Or perhaps now it is he that has slipped up, and the most visible chink in the UK’s counter-extremism policy has finally resolved itself.

VIDEO: New Hampshire National Security Action Summit

2159545341

Center for Security Policy, July 30, 2015:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FEATURED KEY LEADERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES   –   NSAS-NH-Agenda-25July                         

Manchester, NH: On Saturday, July 25th, the Center for Security Policy, in partnership withFirst Principles and High Frontier, hosted The New Hampshire National Security Action Summit. A number of America’s most influential national security leaders addressed the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policies in an increasingly dangerous world. Its purpose was to ensure that the common defense receives the priority attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, at both the federal and state levels.

Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of New Hampshire:

  • The threat from Iran, shariah and the Global Jihad Movement
  • The hollowing-out of the U.S. military
  • The border insecurity and immigration crises
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure

 

    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
    • The Honorable “Steve” King, Congressman from the 4th District of Iowa

America’s Electric Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure

      • Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security
    • Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman of High Frontier
    • George Baker, Professor Emeritus, James Madison University
    • Thomas S. Popik, Chairman, the Foundation for Resilient Societies, New Hampshire
    • Hon. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas*
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Border and Immigration Insecurity

    • Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Eagle Forum
    • Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA
    • James Simpson, Economist, Author
    • Karen Testerman, President, First Principles
  • Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania, 2016 Presidential Candidate
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

America’s Military in Decline

    • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Retired)
    • Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis
    • Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute
    • Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Testerman, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
    • Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, 2016 Presidential Candidate

Shariah, the Global Jihad Movement, and the Islamic Republic of Iran

    • John Guandolo, Founder of Understanding The Threat
    • Ted Cruz, Senator for Texas, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    • Julianne Cooper, Founder, Liberty Harbor Academy, New Hampshire
    • George Pataki, former Governor of New York, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

he New Hampshire National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents alike – both at the federal level and the state level.

Previous National Security Action Summits have been hosted in South Carolina and Iowa, drawing hundreds of attendees, significant media coverage and a considerable online audience for the live-streamed events. Footage from those summits can be found at the following links:

NSAS South Carolina: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/south-carolina-national-security-action-summit/

NSAS Iowa: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/18/the-iowa-national-security-action-summit/

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said:

Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world.  The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking, at both the state and federal levels.  This program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.

DHS: Calling Islamic Terrorism ‘Islamic’ Offends Muslims

sddefaultInvestors Business Daily, July 27, 2015:

PC: After a Muslim terrorist gunned down unarmed Marines in Tennessee, the head of Homeland Security revealed a policy to downplay any Islamic role in such terror. The feds are now blindfolding each other on the threat.

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson refuses to call Islamic terror “Islamic,” arguing it’s “critical” to refrain from the label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.

In jaw-dropping remarks Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum, Johnson said the government will call such attacks “violent extremism” over “Islamic terrorism” out of respect for the Muslim community.

The policy explains why the U.S. prosecutor and lead FBI investigator in the Chattanooga case still insist on calling Mohammad Abdulazeez a “homegrown violent extremist,” though he blogged about his religious motivations for the attack, and he and his family attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson says that dismissing the religious dimension of the widening homegrown Islamic terror threat is part of a strategy to gain the “cooperation” of the Muslim community. He says that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere.”

Even the moderator was dumbfounded: “Isn’t government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?” “I could not disagree more,” Johnson retorted, arguing that Islam “is about peace.”

Earth to Johnson: You already are “nowhere.” The FBI director warns that he can’t keep up with all the homegrown Muslim terrorism cases cropping up now in all 50 states. Chattanooga is just the latest tragic example of the FBI and DHS missing plots in the pipeline.

And what fruit has pandering to local Muslim leaders produced? U.S. Attorney Bill Killian helped dedicate Abdulazeez’s mosque at its grand opening in 2012, even befriended its leader. Did Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga president Bassam Issa tip him off about Abdulazeez’s radicalization? Did he stop him from driving down the street and opening fire on two military sites?

An internal PowerPoint document shows that mosque leaders were busy invoking the names of radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders to raise money for the mosque, leaders like Sheikh Qaradawi, who once issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to kill U.S. soldiers.

Instead of investigating the mosque and its leaders, the feds have stepped up their groveling.

The notion that Muslim leaders are helping us is totally bogus. In one Islamic State hot spot, Minneapolis, the local Muslim leaders are “cooperating” by demanding that the FBI release jailed IS terrorist suspects. In Boston, congregants of a mosque attended by the Boston marathon bombers are “cooperating” by holding fundraisers and rallies for convicted al-Qaida- and IS-tied terrorists.

Johnson, like his boss, are delusional: Their strategy of “winning hearts and minds” already has failed. So now it’s up to state and local authorities to take this fight from the feds and put down this growing insurgency themselves. They can start by passing a law that allows authorities to press legal action not just against terrorists but also any of their supporters in the Muslim community.

A Tennessee senator frustrated over the slow pace of the federal investigation in Chattanooga introduced a bill that passed implementing Andy’s Law, named after Pvt. Andrew Long, the Little Rock Army recruiter murdered by terrorist Abdulhakim Muhammad.

Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas have also passed the anti-terror law, and North Carolina is on the verge of doing so. Letting victims of terrorism seek damages from individuals and organizations that provide material support to terrorists will go a long way to filling the investigative void left by PC-paralyzed Washington.

The Lost Pilgrims of the Islamic State

A youth uses binoculars to look at Turkish army tanks holding positions, near the border with Syria, in the outskirts of the village of Elbeyi, east of the town of Kilis, in southeastern Turkey, Thursday, July 23, 2015.

A youth uses binoculars to look at Turkish army tanks holding positions, near the border with Syria, in the outskirts of the village of Elbeyi, east of the town of Kilis, in southeastern Turkey, Thursday, July 23, 2015.

Defense One, by Simon Cottee, July 26, 2015:

Like past pilgrimages to China and the Soviet Union, the migration of Westerners to the Islamic State group points to the tragic intersection of estrangement and utopian hope.

In Political Pilgrims, the sociologist Paul Hollander exposes and excoriates the mentality of a certain kind of Western intellectual, who, such is the depth of his estrangement or alienation from his own society, is predisposed to extend sympathy to virtually any opposing political system.

The book is about the travels of 20th-century Western intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, and how these political travelers were able to find in such repressive countries a model of “the good society” in which they could invest their brightest hopes. Hollander documents in relentless and mortifying detail how this utopian impulse, driven by a deep discontent with their own societies, led them to deny or excuse the myriad moral defects of the places they visited.

But the significance of Political Pilgrims extends far beyond its immediate subject matter, and its insights may help to illuminate the mentality of that most recent and disconcerting set of pilgrims: namely, the Western migrants to the Islamic State, whose estrangement from their own societies can prime them to idealize the so-called Islamic State and overlook or justify its terrible human-rights abuses.

It is estimated that around 4,000 people have left their homes in the West to migrate to ISIS. Many have become jihadist fighters in the apparent hope of achieving martyrdom. A significant number—over 550 women—seem to have gone to become mothers and raise the next generation of jihadist “lions.” Some have left to put their medical expertise to use, and others to help in whatever capacity they can. Their motives are as mixed as their backgrounds. Indeed, the striking fact about these new pilgrims is that they don’t fit any single profile. They represent a broad spectrum of humanity, from former rappers and gangbangers to grandparents and gifted students.

On the face of it, they share little in common with the rarefied intellectuals ofPolitical Pilgrims. Yet their estrangement from Western society and the force of their belief in an alternative system far superior to it, evidenced in interviews they have given and other forms of personal testimony, suggest that they share certain discontents and susceptibilities with the subjects of Hollander’s study.

Among the countless examples of folly cited by Hollander is Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s tome Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?, in which the Soviet penal system is praised for—wait for it—its progressive spirit. The second edition of this book, from which, as the historian Robert Conquest noted, “the question mark was triumphantly removed,” was published in 1937—“at precisely the time,” Conquest observed, that “the regime was in its worst phase of gloomy, all-embracing terror.”

How could the Webbs and others like them have gotten it so wrong? They were clearly foolish, but they were not stupid. Indeed, writes Hollander, many of the intellectuals in his survey were widely revered for their fierce intelligence and lively skepticism. Hollander contends instead that they wanted to be deceived about the failures and depredations of the societies they visited. And this, he theorizes, was in turn because, psychologically, they needed to believe in the existence of a perfect social system that not only exemplified their deepest ideals but also gave voice to their deepest misgivings about their own societies.

“Wishful thinking,” the sociologist Karl Mannheim wrote, “has always figured in human affairs. When the imagination finds no satisfaction in existing reality, it seeks refuge in wishfully constructed places and periods.” Hollander approvingly reproduces this quote in his introduction to Political Pilgrims, and one of the great merits of his book is the clarity and force with which it shows how desire can supersede and subvert critical thinking.

The recent migrations to ISIS, just like the political pilgrimages before them, are yet further testimony to the power of wishful thinking and how desire can trump reason.

Earlier this month, it was reported that a family of 12 from Luton, England—including, according to the BBC, “a baby and two grandparents”—had made the journey to Syria. It was the second family believed to have left the United Kingdom for the Islamic State since May. Was the family coerced or, as one relative has suggested, manipulated into going to Syria? Were they the victims of some collective psychosis? Not a chance, if a press release purportedly from the family is to be credited. The BBC acquired the statement from an individual claiming to be an Islamic State fighter, though the media organization could not verify its authenticity.

“None of us were forced against our will,” it said, describing a land “free from the corruption and oppression of man-made law … in which a Muslim doesn’t feel oppression when practicing their religion. In which a parent doesn’t feel the worry of losing their child to the immorality of society. In which the sick and elderly do not wait in agony, tolerating the partiality of race or social class.” It also derisively alluded to the “so-called freedom and democracy” of Western states.

The statement, as the scholar Shiraz Maher pointed out, clearly serves a propagandistic purpose, and it could well be a fabrication. But it also accurately reflects the sentiments expressed by other Western migrants who have made the journey to Syria, and who in their social-media postings have mocked the notion that they have been “brainwashed” into joining ISIS. Furthermore, it distills two intimately connected themes that are essential for understanding the mentality of the Western migrants: estrangement and utopian hope.

[I]SIS’s caliphate project, because it offers a bracing utopian alternative to Western secular society, speaks directly to those who feel their lives are worthless, spiritually corrupted, empty, boring, or devoid of purpose and significance, and who see no value in their own societies. It promises, in short, salvation and ultimate meaning through total commitment to a sacred cause. “I don’t think there’s anything better than living in the land of Khilafah,” or caliphate, said one British jihadist in a video, “Eid Greetings from the Land of the Khilafah,” released last summer by ISIS’s media arm. “You’re not living under oppression. … You’re not living under kuffar [unbelievers]. … We don’t need any democracy. … All we need is shariah.”

Similar themes come out strongly in a recent report on female Western migrants. Based on the social-media postings of self-identified migrants apparently within ISIS-controlled territory, the authors found that estrangement from Western society and anger at perceived injustices against Muslims worldwide, together with a strong sense of religious calling and an unwavering faith in the rectitude of the newly emerging caliphate, form the basis for why these women journey to ISIS.

From this, it is clear that their departures owe as much to perceived corruption and oppression at home as to a desire to see in the Islamic State a utopian society free of any such secular perversions. This may also explain how, despite all the evidence, Western migrants to the caliphate can ignore or discount the mountain of incriminating evidence against ISIS, and risk everything to join it.

In Britain, where Prime Minister David Cameron just this week introduced a counterterrorism strategy as part of what he called “the struggle of our generation,” debate over ISIS and its recruitment methods has become unhelpfully polarized. On the one side are those, including British officials, who portrayISIS recruits as “vulnerable” or impressionable youth who, despite their murderous intentions or actions, are actually victimsOn the other side are those, often academics and human-rights activists, who similarly argue thatISIS recruits are victims, but of oppressive government policies and actions rather than sinister jihadist groomers. The problem with both lines of argument is that they deny the agency of those who join ISIS, and obscure the religious idealism that motivates them.

One of the biggest challenges associated with countermessaging efforts against ISIS is how to prompt would-be migrants to rethink their favorable perceptions about the group and its self-proclaimed state. This is less a problem of finding the “right” narrative than of reconfiguring individual human desire, because it is possible that, at some deep psychological level, would-be migrants to ISIS want to be deceived about its widely reported depredations. As Christina Nemr, a former U.S. counterterrorism advisor, recently observed, people “push ‘threatening information’ away in favor of information that confirms their own beliefs.”

It is hard enough to sway those who have yet to make up their minds about ISIS— the so-called “fence-sitters.” But it is monumentally harder to sway those who, because of their idealism and estrangement from their own societies, want or need to see the best in ISIS

Simon Cottee is a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Kent. He is the author of the forthcoming book The Apostates: When Muslims Leave Islam.

Also see:

Domestic terrorism’s link to international terrorism

 

mohabdThe Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, July 25, 2015:

There is a serious problem the way we categorize terrorism in the post-9/11 world. The separation between domestic terrorism and international terrorism breaks down very rapidly–there is an international connection to all the past jihadist attacks in the West. My interview on the John Batchelor radio show (9 minutes) regarding the tragedy in Chattanooga, TN.

Click here to go to the audio.

UK PM Cameron Delivers Landmark Speech on Islamism

Islamist-extremism-Dave-HPClarion Project, by Elliot Friedman, July 20, 2015:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron gave a landmark speech yesterday on Islamist extremism, naming, for the first time, the root cause behind international terrorism.

He told the audience at a school in Birmingham, “This is what we face – a radical ideology – that is not just subversive, but can seem exciting; one that has often sucked people in from non-violence to violence; one that is overpowering moderate voices within the debate and one which can gain traction because of issues of identity and failures of integration.”

This is the first time a Western leader has names Islamist extremism specifically as the problem and terrorism merely as a symptom of the ideology.

He said, “No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It starts with a process of radicalization. When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offenses, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.”

These include groups like the Egypian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 by Nazi sympathizer Hassan al-Banna, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Pakistani-based Jamaat e-Islami, all of which peddle a softIslamism which shares the goals of groups like the Islamci State (ISIS) but differ in methodology.

In the USA, Muslim Brotherhood front groups including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) all play the part of non-violent extremist groups.

All of these organizations condemn the Islamic State, but as Cameron noted, so does Al-Qaeda. “We can’t let the bar sink to that level,” he stated. “Condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organization cannot be enough to prove you’re challenging the extremists.”

He attacked the false narrative that grievances are the root cause of Islamist extremism, correctly noting that “it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.”

Although he acknowledged that British and Western foreign policy isn’t perfect and that poverty in Muslim communities is an issue, he correctly highlighted that “We could deal with all these issues – and some people in our country and elsewhere would still be drawn to Islamist extremism.”

The Prime Minister stated, “We must be clear. The root cause of the threat we face is the extremist ideology itself.”

Cameron also addressed the problem of integration of Muslim in the UK, which fuels Islamist extremism. “We have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds,” he said.

This is particularly acute in some Muslim communities like Tower Hamlets, where disgraced ex-mayor Lutfur Rahman operated, in the Prime Minister’s words, with “political corruption on an epic scale, with voters intimidated and a court adjudicating on accusations of ‘undue spiritual influence’ for the first time since the 19th century.”

But the Prime Minister broadened the scope of the government’s counter-extremism strategy to tackle all the interrelated issues that form a part and parcel of the Islamist ideology. He highlighted the pervasive anti-Semitism which runs through the Islamist ideology and called out people who only partially oppose Islamism.

He spoke about sharia law courts in the UK, the role of non-violent hate preachers like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, female genital mutilation, the Trojan Horse scandal (where Islamists conspired to take over British schools) and the child sex-abuse scandal in Rotherham (in which over 1,600 girls were systematically raped over a 10-year period by Pakistani grooming gangs).

He also called out the recalcitrance of authorities who have been slow to act to curb extremism due to fears of being called racist.

Cameron bluntly said, “This has got to stop.”

Critically, he said, “Simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work, because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. Now it is an exercise in futility to deny that.”

Importantly, he said that Islam is not the issue, rather, this extremist ideology which identifies itself as the only legitimate arbiter of Islam is the issue.

“Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism,” he stated.

Clarion Project has covered all of these issues in the past and long stressed the interconnected nature of the ideology, terrorisim, anti-Semitism, abuse of women and children and the like. We also advocate the same solution proposed by Cameron, who said, “We’re now going to actively encourage the reforming and moderate Muslim voices.”

Clarion has conducted many interviews with Muslim (and non-Muslim) human rights activists who are fighting for reform in Muslim communities.

We have also covered the work of womens rights activists who are fighting for equal rights in Muslim communities worldwide. Our latest film, Honor Diaries, focussed on women’s rights activists from communities where honor violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are rampant.

We also catalogue progressive Muslim organizations whose work has a positive impact fighting for human rights and against the Islamist ideology.

Indeed, one of these groups, the Quilliam Foundation, was influential in the writing of the Prime Minister’s speech and has been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism in the UK.

Co-Founder of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz, himself formerly a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, said of the speech, “The Prime Minister made a giant leap for UK counter-extremism.”

The speech is the precursor to the unveiling of the British government’s Counter-Extremism Policy in the autumn.

The implementation of the policies outlined in the speech can only advance the cause of human rights. Indeed, the speech represents a milestone in the fight against Islamist extremism.

Read the full text of the speech.

Also see:

A Time To Confront Our Enemies At Home

obama (1)Frontpage, by David Horowitz, Daniel Greenfield, July 20, 2015:

The killing of five unarmed military servicemen at two military recruiting centers is an omen and a warning: The “war on terror” has come home.

Thanks to Obama’s retreat from Iraq and the Middle East, the jihad waged by Islamic terrorists is now being fought on American soil, instead of on a battlefront in Fallujah and Anbar. Thanks to the borders Obama has destroyed and the tens of thousands of legal immigrants the White House has decided to import from terrorist regions, the enemy is among us. Thanks to Obama’s denial that we are at war at all, the Islamic jihad is now being waged in Chattanooga and Fort Hood, the fly over country that liberals and progressives have always despised.

This is not the first time that a military recruiting office in the South was attacked by a Muslim terrorist. In 2009 – Obama’s first year in office – Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire on a military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, under orders from Al Qaeda in Yemen, and killed Private William Long.

It was the shot that should have been heard around the country but wasn’t, because America’s Commander-in-Chief told us that Muhammad was a lone crazed assassin, not a vanguard Islamic soldier. According to Obama, there was no war with Islamic fanatics. The fanatic himself rejected the lie.  “This is not the first attack, and won’t be the last,” Muhammad warned. “I’m just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one will be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

The next one—the attack this time– was certainly deadlier than his. Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer’s attack in Chattanooga copied Muhammad’s tactic of opening fire from a car on a recruiting center before driving on to the next target. In 2009 Abdulhakim Muhammad was not charged with terrorism. The Commander-in-Chief called him “a lone gunman” and a pliant media dutifully dismissed his military mission as a product of personal depression and mental instability rather than an act of service to Allah’s war.

Barack Obama’s first year in office was also the year of the Fort Hood massacre, when a self-declared Islamist warrior, shouting “Allahu Ahkbar,” gunned down 13 American soldiers – also unarmed by order of their government. The Obama administration officially labeled his act of war “workplace violence” and refused to identify the enemy or take steps to defend his targets.

Four unarmed Marines and an unarmed sailor died this week because of the refusal of our Commander-in-Chief to learn from the 2009 attacks or prepare for the next. Instead he covered it up with psychobabble, and continued to deny our servicemen the weapons that could have saved their lives. Obama’s strategy in this war to destroy us, target by target, is to lull Americans into believing that there is no war, that Islamic terrorists are “not Islamic,” and that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The result of Obama’s denial is that the war has come home and we are fighting blind in our own country with our hands tied behind our backs.

Every Muslim attack in the last decades has been made possible because the apologists for terrorism among us have done everything they could to deny the plain and obvious, to tie the hands of our first responders, and to make the tasks of our would be destroyers that much easier. While the Muhammads and Mohammads kill Americans in a holy war for Allah, the liberal apologists for Islamic fanatics wage a holy war against their critics. They have been doing this since 9/11, beginning with President Bush. For eight years the Bush administration kept our Islamic enemies on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq but thanks to the appeasement of Obama and the Democrats, they have finally succeeded in shifting the terror front from Tikrit to Tennessee.

Our military cannot defend our shores against the Islamic holy war when their commander-in-chief will not allow it. By withdrawing from Iraq and tying the military’s hands, Obama has allowed the homeland to become a target. By abandoning the Iraqis to the mercies of the mullahs, he has created chaos and a vacuum in the region that stretches from Afghanistan to the Levant. The results are horrific: hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims slaughtered by ISIS with barely a mention from the Obama White House, let alone a response; two million Christian and Muslim refugees driven from their homes by fear of crucifixion and beheading, murder and rape; ISIS savagery instantiated in an “Islamic State.” Obama’s response? “The Islamic State is not Islamic.”

Obama is the leader of America’s fifth column – the domestic abettors of America’s destroyers. The column itself is the danger we face. Even as the ashes of 9/11 smoldered, Saudis and Kuwaitis were rushing to buy up American law firms and PR outfits to defend the killers and transform them into victims; longstanding anti-American parties like the ACLU got to work persuading hundreds of American cities to make pledges of non-cooperation with Homeland Security the Patriot Act; Democrat run “sanctuary” cities sprang up to provide safe havens for criminal aliens seeking a base in the American homeland; a coalition of civil rights groups set out to sabotage America’s defenses, claiming that a totalitarian state was around the corner if Americans dared to confront terrorism with beefed up security.  With the imprimatur of the White House, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fronts manufactured a crisis of Islamic “persecution” and worked to expunge the words “Islamist” and “jihad” from the manuals and pronouncements of the federal government. Their goal? To handcuff law enforcement’s first responders as they dealt with the terrorist threat.  With the connivance of the White House they reached the goal.

So where do we stand? The holy war against Americans – against atheists and believers, against Christians and Jews – grows more dangerous by the hour while the president and his followers find every excuse to promote a nation’s denial and make it more and more difficult to defend itself. Defense of America is condemned as “Islamophobia” – and this by liberals at the Center for American Progress and the New America Foundation as well as by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is actually responsible for inventing the term.

The battle flag of our internal attackers is green and red. The green side of the unholy alliance is the political arm of the Islamic jihad, the Brotherhood and its offshoots. The red side is the political left encompassing the spectrum from liberal to progressive (but excluding patriots like senators Lieberman and Menendez). The apex of this unholy collaboration is in Washington D.C. where the president finds ever more innovative ways of promoting Islam as the victim and denying the obvious threat. He withdraws our military ground forces from frontline battlefields safely distant from America’s shores. He wags his finger at Christians, drawing diagrams of moral equivalence between Islamic fanatics and their infidel victims. He turns his back on allies in Israel and Egypt, while offering his political support to the Brotherhood in Cairo and the Islamists in Teheran. The Democrats have become a party of collaborators and their leader the Petain of a Vichy America that provides a stealth cover to the enemy’s attempts to destroy us.

It is time to stop pretending that Obama and his minions really care when Christians are slaughtered without mercy or Jews are threatened with extinction. What is being done to stop these genocides?

When the Commander-in-Chief occasionally drones a terrorist leader this is not an act of war or reprisal but a feint to draw attention away from the fact that he is disarming America, degrading our military even as the threat to our citizenry grows and grows.

It is time to recognize that Obama does not love America enough to confront our enemies and defend our shores.

It is time for the patriots among us to wake up and step forward. It is time to call the actors by their right names. Islamist are Islamists and terrorists are terrorists. But that is only a beginning.

It is time to hold accountable all those who are helping to bring the war home. This is essential in order to defend ourselves against the next round of terrorist attacks. Let us begin by calling them by their right names:

A denier is a denier.

An appeaser is an appeaser.

An enabler is an enabler.

A betrayer is a betrayer.

And President Obama is all of these.

And so are those who follow his lead.

4 Reasons Why ISIS is more dangerous than Al Qaeda – Dr. Sebastian Gorka

11692534_10153449057621585_4999738908319706841_n
Published on Jul 10, 2015 by Sebastian Gorka

Dr. Sebastian Gorka provides an analysis of ISIS, its doctrine and strategy and explains four reasons why ISIS is far more dangerous than Al Qaeda. Gorka spoke at the Heritage Foundation, 10 July 2015

http://thegorkabriefing.com/

http://threatknowledge.org/team/

Understanding the Enemy by Dr. Sebastian L. Gorka

Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism

 The Management of Savagery, by Abu Bakr Naji

***

Here is the entire event:

Michael Savage Interviews ‘Catastrophic Failure’ Author Stephen Coughlin

Catastrophic-Failure-Cut

In light of the recent comments by the President on defeating the enemy’s ideology, Stephen Coughlin reminds us how it was Obama who has played a major role in blinding us to that ideology by, among other things, adopting Quintan Wiktorowicz’s “Countering Violent Extremism” narrative and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. Listen and find out how and when the wrong headed “Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” narrative was adopted.

Also see:

UK: Politicians Urge Ban on the Term “Islamic State”

political correctnessGatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern,July 4, 2015:

  • “If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the West, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.” — Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.
  • “O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war… Mohammed was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone… He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war. — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State.
  • While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is.

The BBC has rejected demands by British lawmakers to stop using the term “Islamic State” when referring to the jihadist group that is carving out a self-declared Caliphate in the Middle East.

Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the BBC’s director general, said that the proposed alternative, “Daesh,” is pejorative and using it would be unfair to the Islamic State, thereby casting doubt upon the BBC’s impartiality.

Prime Minister David Cameron recently joined the growing chorus of British politicians who argue that the name “Islamic State” is offensive to Muslims and should be banned from the English vocabulary.

During an interview with BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program on June 29 — just days after a jihadist with links to the Islamic State killed 38 people (including 30 Britons) at a beach resort in Tunisia — Cameron rebuked veteran presenter John Humphrys for referring to the Islamic State by its name.

When Humphrys asked Cameron whether he regarded the Islamic State to be an existential threat, Cameron said:

“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic state. What it is is an appalling, barbarous regime. It is a perversion of the religion of Islam, and, you know, many Muslims listening to this program will recoil every time they hear the words ‘Islamic State.'”

Humphrys responded by pointing out that the group calls itself the Islamic State (al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah, Arabic for Islamic State), but he added that perhaps the BBC could use a modifier such as “so-called” in front of that name.

Cameron replied: “‘So-called’ or ISIL [the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is better.” He continued:

“But it is an existential threat, because what is happening here is the perversion of a great religion, and the creation of this poisonous death cult, that is seducing too many young minds, in Europe, in America, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

“And this is, I think, going to be the struggle of our generation. We have to fight it with everything that we can.”

Later that day in the House of Commons, Cameron repeated his position. Addressing Cameron, Scottish National Party MP Angus Robertson said that the English-speaking world should adopt Daesh, the Arabic name for the Islamic State, as the proper term.

Daesh, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria), is the Arabic equivalent to ISIL. Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic word “Daes,” which means “one who crushes something underfoot,” and “Dahes,” which means “one who sows discord.” As a result of this play on words, Daesh has become a derogatory name for the Islamic State, and its leaders have threatened to “cut the tongue” of anyone who uses the word in public.

Robertson said:

“You are right to highlight the longer-term challenge of extremism and of radicalization. You have pointed out the importance of getting terminology right and not using the name ‘Islamic State.’ Will you join parliamentarians across this house, the US secretary of state and the French foreign minister in using the appropriate term?

“Do you agree the time has come in the English-speaking world to stop using Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL and instead we and our media should use Daesh — the commonly used phrase across the Middle East?”

Cameron replied:

“I agree with you in terms of the use of Islamic State. I think this is seen as particularly offensive to many Muslims who see, as I see, not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women, and murdering people because they’re gay. I raised this with the BBC this morning.

“I personally think that using the term ‘ISIL’ or ‘so-called’ would be better than what they currently do. I don’t think we’ll move them all the way to Daesh so I think saying ISIL is probably better than Islamic State because it is neither in my view Islamic nor a state.”

Separately, more than 100 MPs signed a June 25 letter to the BBC’s director general calling on the broadcaster to begin using the term Daesh when referring to the Islamic State. The letter, which was drafted by Rehman Chishti, a Pakistani-born Conservative MP, stated:

“The use of the titles: Islamic State, ISIL and ISIS gives legitimacy to a terrorist organization that is not Islamic nor has it been recognized as a state and which a vast majority of Muslims around the world finds despicable and insulting to their peaceful religion.”

Scottish Nation Party MP Alex Salmond, in a June 29 newspaper column, wrote:

“We should start by understanding that in a propaganda war language is crucial.

“Any description of terrorists which confers on them the image that they are representing either a religion or a state must surely be wrong and an own goal of massive proportions. It is after all how they wish to refer to themselves.

“Daesh, sometimes spelled Daiish or Da’esh, is short for Dawlat al Islamiyah fi’al Iraq wa al Sham.

“Many Arabic-speaking media organizations refer to the group as such and there is an argument it is appropriately pejorative, deriving from a mixture of rough translations from the individual Arabic words.

“However, the real point of using Daesh is that it separates the terrorists from the religion they claim to represent and from the false dream of a new caliphate that they claim to pursue.

“It should become the official policy of the government and be followed by the broadcasting organizations.”

The BBC, which routinely refers to Muslims as “Asians” to comply with the politically correct norms of British multiculturalism, has held its ground. It said:

“No one listening to our reporting could be in any doubt what kind of organization this is. We call the group by the name it uses itself, and regularly review our approach. We also use additional descriptions to help make it clear we are referring to the group as they refer to themselves, such as ‘so-called Islamic State.'”

The presenter of the BBC’s “The World This Weekend” radio program, Mark Mardell, added:

“It seems to me, once we start passing comment on the accuracy of the names people call their organizations, we will constantly be expected to make value judgements. Is China really a ‘People’s Republic?’ After the Scottish referendum, is the UK only the ‘so-called United Kingdom?’ With the Greek debacle, there is not much sign of ‘European Union.'”

London Mayor Boris Johnson believes both viewpoints are valid. In a June 28 opinion article published by the Telegraph, he wrote:

“Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behavior; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favor of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh,” and his point deserves a wider hearing.

“But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism — and here I am afraid I disagree….

“Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority? …

“Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears.

“You can’t say “Salafist,” because there are many law-abiding and peaceful Salafists. You can’t say jihadi, because jihad — the idea of struggle — is a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness. The only word that seems to carry general support among Muslim leaders is Kharijite — which means a heretic — and which is not, to put it mildly, a word in general use among the British public.

“We can’t just call it “terrorism”, as some have suggested, because we need to distinguish it from any other type of terrorism — whether animal rights terrorists or Sendero Luminoso Marxists. We need to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade. We can’t censor the use of “Muslim” or “Islamic.”

“That just lets too many people off the hook. If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the west, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.”

What does the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have to say? In a May 2015 audio message, he summed it up this way:

“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war. Your Prophet (peace be upon him) was dispatched with the sword as a mercy to the creation. He was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone. He (peace be upon him) said to the polytheists of his people, ‘I came to you with slaughter.’ He fought both the Arabs and non-Arabs in all their various colors. He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war.

“So there is no excuse for any Muslim who is capable of performing hijrah [migration] to the Islamic State, or capable of carrying a weapon where he is, for Allah (the Blessed and Exalted) has commanded him with hijrah and jihad, and has made fighting obligatory upon him.”

While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is. While the former are performing politically correct linguistic gymnastics, the latter are planning their next religiously-inspired attacks against the West. A new twist on an old English adage: The sword is mightier than the pen.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Designating Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Immigration Enforcement

rId14_image2Center for Immigration Studies, By Dan Cadman, July 2, 2015:

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just issued a public report on the process used to designate foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which assigns lead responsibility to the Secretary of State. It is called “Combating Terrorism: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Process and U.S. Agency Enforcement Actions”.

GAO initially prepared and distributed the report to the Department of State (DOS) and other government parties in April, but withheld it publicly until material that DOS identified as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU) was redacted from the public version just released.

Even with the SBU redactions, one finds some interesting and suggestive factoids buried in the report in typically dry bureaucratic language.

Among them is that, under the designation process developed by DOS, various agencies participating in the targeting and review can put “holds” on designation. Section 219 of the INA, which outlines the legal basis for designation of FTOs contains no such proviso.

The reasons described for placing “holds” are just a wee bit fuzzy and this arouses my suspicious nature because, in addition to the other government agencies one would expect to participate (such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Justice and Homeland Security Departments, etc.), one finds mentioned the DOS regional bureaus (see note 16 in the report). These are the folks that look out for the political angles of inter-governmental relationships between the United States and other countries. Could it be that bilateral politics are involved in FTO designation? One fears so, because it is suggestive that, although various other statistics are scattered throughout the GAO report, the number of holds and who placed them is nowhere to be found. Could this be the “sensitive” data that DOS didn’t want revealed to the public? If so, under which secretaries of State did such regional bureaus exercise this extra-statutory ability? And how many such holds have been placed, and for how long?

Another interesting factoid is that between 2009 and 2014 Customs and Border Protection inspectors denied entry to over 1,000 alien applicants for admission based on terrorism grounds, including membership in or affiliation with designated FTOs. We can reasonably assume that some portion of these aliens were applying for admission under the visa waiver program (VWP) and that a significant number were granted multiple entry visas by DOS consular officers before the terrorist connection was known, but that their visas were not revoked by DOS after the connection was made.

Then there is the abysmally low number of aliens taken into custody within the United States on terrorism-related removal grounds, presumably by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the same date range used to calculate CBP figures, (2009-2014 — half of a decade), ICE agents have removed exactly three aliens. Three. And yet the FBI director, the director of national intelligence, and others tell us that the nation is peppered with Islamic State supporters, not to mention the plethora of other terrorist groups one can choose to affiliate with.

The shockingly low number comports with remarks I made in a prior posting when I commented that since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose mission is obviously to protect the homeland, we Americans — and most particularly the leaders in this administration — seem to have forgotten the important lesson about the nexus between safe communities and using the deportation laws to remove foreign threats.

Two other noteworthy items that merit their own examinations in full, but not here: that waivers have been granted to individuals with terrorist connections, apparently both to enter the United States, and to gain various immigration benefits administered by one of DHS’s subordinate agencies; and that of the 69 FTOs designated since 1997 when the law authorizing designation took effect, 10 (nearly 15 percent of total designations) have been removed from the list by the Secretary of State.

What Fireworks Does ISIS Plan for the 4th of July?

0 (5)PJ Media, by  James Jay Carafano On June 29, 2015:

What to make of reports that ISIS may try to pull off a terrorist attack on Independence Day?

Let’s look at the facts.

It is not the first time after 9/11 that U.S. authorities have expressed concerns about possible terrorist attacks timed to coincide with significant dates like the 4th of July.  In 2011, a senior U.S. official told reporters, “We have received credible information very recently about a possible plot directed at the homeland that seems to be focused on New York and Washington, D.C.,” timed for the anniversary of al Qaeda’s big attack on the two cities. Some hold that the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi was scheduled to coincide with 9/11.   In fact, warnings of impending terror threats from authorities go back as far as 2002.

Next, we know that ISIS is active—both promoting and inspiring transnational terrorist attacks. Just last week near simultaneous assaults occurred in France, Kuwait and Tunisia.

Further, the US remains a prime target for terrorist activity.  There was another Islamist terrorist related plot uncovered last week—the third in less than a month.

Additionally, we can’t even be sure of where an attack might happen. Terrorists have contemplated hitting everything from high-profile targets in big cities to shopping malls in the suburbs.

None of that necessarily means that something bad will happen between grilling the hot dogs, cheering on the main street parades and watching the fireworks over the capitol.

Coordinating a terrorist attack to happen at a specific time and place, particularly when there will likely be heightened awareness and security, complicates the challenge of pulling off a terror strike–though those obstacles didn’t thwart two relative amateurs who bombed the Boston Marathon (and who had also considered conducting an attack on Independence Day).

Still, if an attack does occur the odds of any particular American being a victim are pretty small.  That’s cold comfort, as the real purpose of terrorist attacks is to terrorize us, killing us is just a consequence.

Best advice is to have a nice day, but take the common-sense precautions that people should always take in public. There are plenty of lists out there of the right steps to take. Read one.

The reality is that even the best security can’t child-proof a free society.  On July 4, of all days, Americans shouldn’t want it any other way. When a free society gives up on freedom the terrorists win.

****

Also see:

***

I’ve been searching for a good article on situational awareness and there is precious little out there. If my readers can find any please leave links in a comment. Here is an interesting one:

***

Personal-security-2-Situational-awareness_0Stratfor.com series:

***