US Intel Chief: Islamic Terror Threat Biggest in History

ISIS fighters

ISIS fighters

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 11, 2016:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said February 9 the Sunni terrorist threat “has been on an upward trajectory since the late 1970s and has more groups, members and safe havens that at any other point in history.”

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart also testified and his assessment wasn’t rosier.

More than 36,500 foreign fighters have gone to Syria, including at least 6,000 from Western countries, since 2012, said Stewart. Within the U.S., the FBI arrested some five dozen Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) supporters last year, a 500% increase from 2014.

“ISIL will likely increase the pace and lethality of its transnational attacks as infrastructure and capabilities mature. It will purposely attempt to stroke sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunnis and between the West and Islam to create the chaotic environment in which it thrives,” Stewart said.

Watch the Clarion Project on Newsmax TV’s “Newsmax Prime with J.D. Hayworth” discussing this topic:

The Islamic State will hold onto Mosul in Iraq through at least the end of the year, Stewart believes. It is the centerpiece of the caliphate in Iraq and has enormous ideological value to the group. The reason is that the Iraqi Security Forces, Kurdish Peshmerga and the Shiite and Sunni elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces (a coalition of militias, many of which are linked to Iran) lack the logistics, morale, qualified soldiers and overall military preparedness.

Stewart said the program to enlist Sunnis in the fight against ISIS—which proved decisive in beating back Al-Qaeda previously—is failing because of concerns about Iranian influence, persecution by Shiite militias and a lack of funding and material. The latter two elements validate Sunni complaints that the U.S. is inadequately supporting them due to the Iraqi central government’s insistence that all U.S. assistance be routed through Baghdad.

Clapper’s statement that Sunni terrorism has been on an “upward trajectory” casts a shadow over the Obama Administration’s  boast that ISIS has lost 40% of its caliphate in Iraq and 20% of it in Syria. It is true ISIS has lost ground and the statistic may be accurate, but Clapper’s statement shows it does not tell the whole story.

The testimonies of Clapper and Stewart explain that ISIS is expanding outside of Iraq and Syria, especially in Libya. The U.S. can and should boast of successes against ISIS, but the statistic doesn’t account for ISIS’ gains globally.

It also doesn’t mean progress against ISIS necessarily translates to overall progress in the war against Islamist terrorism. Clapper said al-Qaeda is poised to strengthen in 2016 because of its affiliates in Yemen and Syria. If ISIS’ holdings in Syria transfer to al-Qaeda’s Syrian wing, Jabhat al-Nusra (or another Islamist extremist group), then there’s no net gain.

Stewart told the Senate Armed Services Committee the ideological makeup of the Syrian rebels is projected to become even more radical in 2016. The chief reason is the Syrian regime’s advances on the ground with the help of Russia and Iran will cause more rebel groups to coalesce with Sunni extremists.

The two intelligence directors also see Afghanistan as an area with growth potential for al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and others. Clapper believes ISIS’ branch in Afghanistan known as Khorasan is likely to only be a “low-level threat,” but the intelligence community has consistently underestimated the terrorist group. Stewart worries that al-Qaeda “could establish a significant presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” if pressure on the group decreases.

“[The Islamist insurgency is] steadily chipping away at Afghanistan’s security…we assess that fighting in 2016 will be more intense than in 2015, continuing a decade-long trend of deteriorating security,” Clapper said.

On the topic of Iran, the intelligence chiefs did not predict a change in the Shiite terrorist threat. Stewart warned Iranian-backed militias in Iraq have threatened to attack U.S. personnel there and some Shiite militiamen have attempted to do so. An Iran-backed militia kidnapped three American civilians working as contractors in Baghdad, just last month,.

Stewart absolved Iran of responsibility for the Shiite militias’ violence towards Americans and Coalition forces, saying it is “almost certainly not at the direction of Iran or [militia] group leadership.”

Even if that’s true—a big if—why shouldn’t Iran be blamed? It is supporting extremist militias who have an anti-American agenda and whose members are inclined to do that very thing. Perhaps Iran wants it to happen and knows it doesn’t even need to direct the Shiite extremists to do it. That would achieve plausible deniability while positioning itself as the power broker to whom the U.S. must plead for help.

Stewart also testified Iran is planning to launch a Space-Launch Vehicle equivalent to a nuclear-capable ICBM. He said it could happen this year, adding Iran continues to work on improving ballistic missile accuracy, range and lethality.

Iran was also rated as one of the top three foreign intelligence threats to the U.S. alongside Russia and China. Stewart said “some of these foreign intelligence entities also seek to influence our national policy and decision-making process.”

The most positive parts of their testimonies focused on the U.S.-backed Kurdish fight against ISIS and some encouraging news from Afghanistan.

Clapper said the Afghan National Security Forces will “probably” retain control of the major population centers and their losses will be limited to some rural areas with a small population. Stewart said the Afghan special forces are significantly improving and the Afghans have secured almost all of the provincial capitals and major highways. They have also shown they are capable of launching major counter-attacks like they did in Kunduz after a surprise routing at the hands of the Taliban.

Overall, the assessment was very bleak. Sunni extremists are getting stronger. Shiite extremists are, at best, not weakening and Iran is advancing its ballistic missile program for delivering nuclear weapons.

A summary of two intelligence chiefs’ statements could be written like this: The trend is in the enemy’s favor.

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking 

***

Also see:

Twitter Puts Anti-American, Anti-Israel Group in Charge of Censorship

twitter-censorFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 9, 2016:

Twitter has unveiled its creepily Orwellian “Trust and Safety Council” under the creepily Orwellian slogan, “When it comes to safety, everyone plays a role”. These groups will be helping set censorship policy for the site.

The Trust and Safety Council incorporates a laundry list of organizations, most obsessed with identity politics, bullying of hate speech, some of them more problematic than others. So while the Dangerous Speech Project suggests that countering speech is better than censorship, Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council also includes Feminist Frequency.

Stuart K. Hayashi had discussed the problems with Feminist Frequency earlier this year. Jonathan McIntosh, the man behind Feminist Frequency, is a radical leftist who has smeared American soldiers and attacked Israel and complained about people celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden. He attacked Charlie Hebdo after the massacre, ranting, “It’s telling that so many white folks are quick to jump to the defense of racist speech but can’t be bothered to fight institutional racism.”

Aside from McIntosh’s politics, it’s very problematic that a man who hates free speech this much will be helping set censorship policy for Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council.

Anita Sarkeesian, the front woman for Feminist Frequency, helped promote a UN Broadband Council report which quoted Lyndon LaRouche and was described by The Telegraph as a blueprint for internet censorship.

“Among other censorious suggestions, it openly urges governments to use their legislative powers and license only those Internet providers that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

This is a serious problem, especially since Twitter is putting political extremists with pro-censorship views in charge of censorship. And McIntosh has his own history of hateful views.

Twitter has forgotten that it owes its success to being an open platform. Turning it into a heavily censored forum moderated by radical leftists will alienate most of its global audience and kill its future.

***

UNREAL: U.S. ISIS recruits claim they have “immunity”; just wait until you see why…

New-ISIS-recruits-300x180By Allen West, Feb. 6, 2016:

One of the problems with the current battlefield on which we find ourselves engaged is that we’re treating it with police action rather than combat operations. The battle against Islamist terrorists is not a law enforcement endeavor. Combat troops on this battlefield don’t have the time to read anyone their Miranda rights or collect evidence. Furthermore, our rules of engagement (ROE) are giving away the initiative to the enemy. Consider the recent testimony of the Afghanistan operational theater commander, General Campbell, before the House Armed Services Committee. When asked by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), a Navy fighter pilot, if he’s authorized to attack the Taliban simply for being the Taliban, Gen. Campbell responded, no. That means, the enemy who seeks to kill our men and women deployed in Afghanistan cannot be attacked — our troops have to sit back and wait to be engaged.

 And folks, if you’ve ever been in a firefight, that ain’t right. Just wanna remind you about what retired Marine 1st Sgt. Jim Reifinger says, “if you ever find yourself in a fair fight, it’s because your tactics suck.” And thanks to this current administration, our tactics REALLY suck.

However, it’s not just in Afghanistan where we find the theater of the absurd, it’s also right here in America — in Minnesota.

As reported by the Star Tribune:

Five Twin Cities men accused of plotting to go to fight alongside ISIL in Syria are asking a federal judge to drop murder conspiracy charges on grounds that they have “combatant immunity” under both common and international law. 

They say combatants are immune from criminal prosecutions for acts of war, including murder, against military targets. 

The five — Hamza Ahmed, brothers Adnan and Mohamed Farah, Abdirahman Daud and Guled Omar — are scheduled to appear in federal court in Minneapolis next week for a hearing on that and other motions in the case, which is set to go to trial May 9. 

The men were charged last year with conspiring to leave the United States to fight with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  [Folks, note that only liberal progressives who refuse to acknowledge Israel’s existence refer to ISIS as ISIL.] In October, the government filed a new indictment that added a charge of conspiracy to commit murder, which attorneys for the men say should not apply. 

“ISIL has engaged in atrocious acts,” attorneys for the five said in one motion. “But however one might describe it as an entity, it has an organized professional army engaged in traditional military warfare — an army with which the defendants are alleged to have intended to join in ‘combat.’”

Federal prosecutors who brought the case argued in a court filing last month that the men were “grossly mistaken” in claiming ISIL fighters are combatants as part of a regularly constituted military force.

OK, let me explain what the defense lawyers for these wannabe barbarians are trying to do. They’re seeking to classify ISIS as a legitimate entity — a state — with a military force. Basically, these very slick chucklehead lawyers want to rewrite the Law of Warfare. They’re seeking to legitimize Islamic terrorists — these non-state, non-uniform belligerents. What they’ll seek next week is for these five men to be classified as “legitimate” combatants, rather than unlawful enemy combatants.

Let me explain the danger. But first let me remind you these Islamic jihadists reside in the congressional district represented by one Keith Ellison. A study of Rep. Ellison’s background should cause y’all much concern. Then again, Ellison was right there this past Wednesday with another Islamist sympathizer and enabler, Barack Obama, in Baltimore, at the very questionable Islamic Center of Baltimore mosque.

Now, here’s the danger: if these men are allowed to be classified as a legitimate combatants, then will we be able to deter any future ISIS recruits from leaving this country? If these lawyers are successful, the argument becomes one of ISIS not being a terrorist organization, but the legitimate and “organized professional army” of a state that’s conducting “traditional military warfare.”

Something tells me that if we follow the money, perhaps we’ll find out who’s funding this legal team — wouldn’t surprise me if it’s the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). You know, that unindicted co-conspirator in the largest Islamic terrorist funding case in U.S. history, the Holy Land Foundation trial.

Herein lies the problem in treating this as a law enforcement act; this is why we need a declaration of war against Islamic terrorism, not just ISIS or al-Qaida. Under that scenario, if you’re an American citizen seeking to join this terrorist group — not an organized professional army — your rights as a U.S. citizen would be revoked. You’re joining forces with the enemy, an unlawful enemy; you’re not a legitimate combatant and therefore not recognized by the Geneva Convention.

If we head down the path the lawyers in this case are pushing, then Hezbollah, Hamas, the Quds Force, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa and Al Quds Martyrs Brigade, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Jemaat al-Islamiyah and all the others must be recognized as organized professional armies. This is a very dangerous slippery slope, combined with our releasing the enemy back to the enemy — as Obama continues to do in releasing enemy combatants from Guantanamo Bay.

Prosecutors also wrote that the current fighting in Syria has been determined a noninternational armed conflict — a battle between a nation-state and an insurgent group or between two rebel groups within the borders of a single country — which would invalidate any claims of combatant immunity. And even if the fighting in Syria were considered an international armed conflict, they said, the men can’t be considered combatants anyway. 

“They are, if they must be categorized within the international law of armed conflict, best categorized as aspiring war criminals,” the prosecution said.

Let us never forget, in the history of warfare, armed conflict, there’s a reason why those captured on the battlefield not in uniform were tried and summarily executed. It was to protect civilian populations from being caught in the crossfire of battle. And if you’ve seen the recent drone pictures of Homs Syria, you know what happens. And then these uninformed combatants flee and come to other nations, where the enemy can infiltrate because they don’t declare themselves by wearing uniforms and openly carrying their arms.

The 21st century battlefield will require leaders who won’t succumb to insidious, and deadly, games of political correctness. Here we are with unconscionable rules of engagement on the battlefield, and these lawyers are about to provide legitimizing status to barbaric war criminals. Funny, I don’t recall Rep. Ellison or President Obama addressing this last Wednesday. So, if this categorization were to be accepted in the court next week, then ask yourself, were Syed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik legitimate combatants, soldiers, who conducted a military operation in San Bernadino?

No, they were just savage butchers, unlawful enemy combatants who attacked innocent civilians. If we don’t get serious and let this enemy know we’re dead set on killing them and crushing their theocratic-political totalitarianism, we will not win. Remember Hillary Clinton said we should “empathize” with our enemy. And Bernie Sanders, heck, he’ll be too busy redistributing the wealth and resources of America. Neither of them could be trusted to protect our republic and its citizens. And based on the actions and rhetoric of folks like Obama and Rep. Ellison, we don’t have anyone safeguarding us now.

DHS Ordered Employee to Scrub Records of Muslims with Terror Ties

shutterstock_253261459.sized-770x415xc

PJ MEDIA, BY DEBRA HEINE, FEBRUARY 8, 2016

Back in December, Philip Haney, a former DHS investigator and now whistle blower, publicly stated what many of us have suspected for years: “the Obama administration is more concerned with the rights of non-citizens in known Islamist groups, than with the safety and security of the American people.”

During an appearance on Fox News, he also alleged that an investigation his team was working on could have stopped the San Bernardino terrorist attack.

In an explosive article in The Hill on Friday, Haney now claims that DHS ordered him to actually scrub records of Muslims with terror ties.

It begins with a recounting of the 2009 Christmas bombing terror plot to slaughter 290 innocent travelers on a flight from the Netherlands to Detroit, Michigan. Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (aka the Underwear Bomber) failed to detonate Northwest Airlines Flight 253 because the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned, and passengers were able to subdue him until he was arrested.

Following the attempted attack, President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to “connect the dots.” He said, “this was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.***

Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.”  Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.

A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially before an attack occurs.

Haney concludes that “it is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009.”

Secure Freedom Radio: Patrick Poole on Obama’s outreach to the wrong Muslims

Getty Images

Getty Images


Secure Freedom Radio, by Frank Gaffney, Feb. 4, 2016:

With Patrick Poole

PATRICK POOLE, National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media:

Why is America Reaching Out to the Wrong Muslims?

Frank Gaffney spoke to Patrick Poole on the radio today. Poole is the National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media.

Gaffney began by asking Poole about Obama’s recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore. Poole responded:

“This is kind of emblematic of the failure of the Obama administration’s handling of violent extremism or CVE (countering violent extremist) policies which go back to the latter half of the Bush administration where we see this engagement with known bad actors in the Muslim community, promoting them as moderates that are supposedly going to help us de-radicalize yet in fact we’re seeing from an empirical point of view, we’re seeing more terrorists now than we’ve ever seen before.”

Poole then noted the irony of Obama having to travel all the way to Baltimore for a mosque visit because local mosques in the DC area had too many red flags associated with them. Gaffney noted that even the mosque in Baltimore has an imam who has been controversial. Poole reminded us that the Islamic Society which runs the mosque in Baltimore is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney suggests that America has essentially been suborned by enemy operatives from the Muslim Brotherhood . Poole agrees and suggests that this group has somehow become acceptable as a group with which our government believes it can work.

That seems unreal when you learn the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood. Poole explained:

“The Muslim Brotherhood’s endgame is identical to that of Al-Qaeda,  the Islamic State and a number of these other terrorist groups… to re-establish the caliphate and impose Sharia Law.”

As Gaffney correctly pointed out, it seems like Obama is reaching out to “the wrong Muslims.”

Many Americans probably don’t know that there was even a petition launched for the White House on Change.org to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization that was signed by over 200,000 Americans which the administration brushed aside claiming there was no evidence that the Brotherhood was committed to violence.

What we have is a situation not unlike what Europe is facing.  Through increased Muslim immigration, jihadists are being embedded in our society. Some are waging cultural jihad and when that fails, militant jihad.

At the same time, we’ve got progressive leaders like New York City mayor Bill de Blasio shutting down surveillance of mosques in the name of political correctness which Poole suggests could cost American lives. Of the people who are against surveillance, Poole says:

“They’re creating the conditions which Muslims are going to be subject to more inspection because we hear these advocates saying, who basically use the Muslim community as a human shield for the extremists, and when something happens, much as it did after 9/11 when most of the surveillance took place in New York… when the next event happens it will be the whole Muslim community rather than these hot spots of jihad. It’s not rocket science.”

Gaffney makes the excellent point that if we keep reaching out to the wrong Muslim groups, it leaves very little space for the type of Muslims we want living in America who reject Sharia Law and don’t want to live under it themselves.

Gaffney and Poole concluded their discussion by noting the irony of Egypt’s rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood as our administration seems to embrace them. Poole, who has visited Egypt numerous times said that he’s often asked by the people there why we are working with the Muslim Brotherhood after millions of Egyptians protested them.

Why indeed?

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • President Obama’s visit to the Baltimore mosque is emblematic of the Administration’s CVE (countering violent extremism policies)
  • Islamic societies in this country and what we know about their relationships to the Muslim Brotherhood
  • America has been suborned by enemy operatives

(PART TWO): Podcast (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • How does the Muslim Brotherhood differ from terror organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State?
  • Systematic outreach of the Obama administration to the wrong Muslims
  • Obama administration’s response to public petition to make the Muslim Brotherhood a designated terror organization

(PART THREE): Podcast (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • DHS and State Department shutting down investigation that could have uncovered critical evidence in preventing the San Bernardino attacks
  • CVE encouraging domestic terrorism
  • Civilization jihad becoming militant in the US similar to what’s happening in Europe

(PART FOUR): Podcast (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Censorship of NYPD’s radicalization report
  • Is mosque surveillance necessary?
  • How Muslim communities are used as shields for radicals
  • President el-Sisi’s crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

(PART FIVE): Podcast (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • Conflagration between the Egyptian government and the Muslim Brotherhood
  • President el-Sisi’s speech at Al-Azhar University
  • The Obama administration’s embrace of radicals domestically and around the world

Sharia as the Jihad’s Point of Coordination

arabwaveFrontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 4, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has a really important paper out and you should read it all, but I just want to highlight one area.

The three entities (the ummah, dawah and jihadi) do not have to act along formal chains of command to interoperate successfully. This is because they each execute according to their own functional orientation to Islam that reconciles through a common understanding of Islamic law.

And further

To appreciate the strategy, it should be visualized along the lines of the starfish rather than the spider: Cut an appendage from a starfish, and the severed part can grow into a fully functional starfish. Cut off a spider’s head, and all appendages become useless. In terms of command relationships, we in the West tend to think like spiders. While the Soviet Union was a spider; the Islamic Movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and ISIS are starfish.

These are very important points that need to be understood to grasp the larger scope of the struggle. Finally…

To say the threat arises out of Islam is to say that it emanates from shariah. Hence, the arrow in the diagram reflects the recognition that the three lines of operation emanate from Islam through a common understanding of shariah. For this reason, shariah also provides a common reference point based on Islamic legal concepts recognized as settled. This doctrinal framework is commonly understood and easily communicated in the Islamic world. For this observation to be valid, one does not have to prove that the underlying Islamic law reflects “true Islam,” or even that most Muslims agree with it.

As I’ve said, read the whole thing, but this needs to be kept in mind, particularly when arguing with the “ISIS is not real Islam” or “Hamas is not real Islam” school of deniers.

Listen to great interview of Ryan Mauro on Voices of Global Freedom Radio

audio ryan mauro

Voices of Global Freedom, Jan. 29, 2016:

Today Roy Backpack Baron and Yoda have another interview with Professor Ryan Mauro is the National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the threat of Islamic extremism and provides a platform for voices of moderation and tolerance within the Muslim community. Clarion Project films have been seen by over 50 million people. Learn more at

www.clarionproject.org

Don’t miss this high energy, entertaining, informative show covering current threats to our liberty and how to survive and thrive in these dangerous troubled times.

Reviving American Power After Obama

Flickr/White House

Flickr/White House

National Interest, by Kim R. Holmes, February 2, 2016: (h/t Fortuna’s Corner)

For the last seven years we have witnessed an unprecedented experiment based on a fundamental question: What would the world look like if the United States pulled back from its traditional leadership role? That was after all, the key thrust of President Barack Obama’s new foreign policy. He promised to embark on a radically new way of dealing with the world—one where we would “engage” our enemies rather than confront them.

The verdict is in.

The world is a far more dangerous place today than when Obama took office. Global terrorism is rising dramatically. The Middle East is a cauldron of war and instability. Instead of “ending,” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan persist—and in the case of Iraq, under far worse conditions than Obama inherited in 2009. We face a terrorist threat arguably as bad, if not worse, than Al Qaeda was at its height: ISIS is more vicious, controls territory and even has a government, which, as far as safe havens for terrorists go, poses a more dangerous threat than in 2008. Russia and China are more powerful and threatening than they were in 2008. Our friends and allies are confused and afraid. And our enemies are significantly emboldened.

The new order Obama wants to establish is, unfortunately, one in which the United States cannot possibly win. It is hopelessly stacked against us: an asymmetrical strategic environment in which our adversaries can make huge gains at our expense—and at relatively low cost to themselves. Examples include not only the Iranian nuclear deal, where Tehran reaps a huge financial windfall but is left free—in ten or fifteen years (if not earlier)—to pursue nuclear weapons. They also include as Exhibit A Obama’s Russia “reset” policy, which paved the way for the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of eastern Ukraine with Russian surrogate forces.

Obama’s foreign policy has been a historic failure. But frankly, recognizing this fact does not automatically tell us how to correct it. We can’t just go back and recreate the world as it was before Obama sought to transform it. Too much water has passed under the bridge, and it will be much more difficult to get America back on track than many realize. We are in a very deep hole, and it will require brutal honesty to dig our way out of it.

We must do nothing less than completely overhaul Obama’s way of approaching the world. Every flawed assumption must be challenged. He claims adversaries will be more cooperative if we “engage” them. We must insist the opposite is true—that they stand down or back away only when they are confronted. He argues that our costs (both in terms of money and influence) go down when we appease our enemies. We must counter with the opposite; that they go up astronomically, as witnessed not only by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine but even by Iran’s bellicosity in the wake of the nuclear deal. He contends we will be more respected if we display a more open hand toward our adversaries. Polls of world opinion, not to mention the disrespect many world leaders (like Vladimir Putin) show toward Obama personally, prove otherwise. He promises a cheap and easy peace if we simply pull back and let others take the lead. We must show that the opposite is true—that peace is hard and expensive to achieve, and others, including our allies, follow only when we lead them.

The world Obama has left us is filled with new forces intent not only on threatening our security but disrupting the international order we helped create. Russia, Iran, ISIS and even China are trying to replace the old order with a new instability—perhaps even chaos—in which they win and we lose. For them, it truly is a zero-sum game. Yes, Russia and China partially benefit from the order they deride (especially China economically); but they do so mainly on their own terms, not ours or even those of the rest of the international community.

It’s in that dynamic that the asymmetry resides. It’s asymmetric because our adversaries and rivals pick and choose their fights at pressure points convenient to them, while we pretend that any attempt on our part to counter them only leads to more disorder. This is utterly false; in fact, it’s the exact opposite. Our refusal to stand up to adversaries signals a lack of commitment to that order, and to the security of our allies and friends who depend on us. Obama’s famous caution is not perceived by much of the world as a cool weighing of options (as his defenders imagine), but as indecision and even indifference. When he saves all his vigor and passion for issues like climate change, and neglects our defenses and makes deals with adversaries like Iran, he’s broadcasting his priorities loud and clear: America is getting out of the superpower business, and it’s time for the world to get used to our shrinking strategic presence.

There is only one way to reverse this dynamic: disrupt the disrupters—that is, those who wish to disrupt America’s leadership in the world. We should be thinking of ways to invert the cost ratios that now favor revisionist powers and forces like Russia, China, Iran and ISIS over us. In other words, we need to raise their costs for opposing us, while reducing the costs we incur from not opposing them. It may cost us more in the short run to challenge them, but in the long run we save because deterrence works better than appeasement. If we don’t do this, the price of peace will only go up. We will face a cascade of escalating challenges unleashed by the perception that we are an easy mark, and that it pays to challenge the United States of America.

It is true that we can never be as cynical as Russia or China in manipulating conflicts. Our values and international commitments will force us into the frustrating position of not being able always to meet them tit-for-tat. But there is no reason why we can’t make it more costly for them when they blatantly threaten us or our allies. That was the way Ronald Reagan confronted the Soviet Union, and it worked quite well.

We need to do more of some things but less of others. We must focus on what really counts, and stop chasing windmills like pretending climate change is the world’s biggest threat. We need to stand up a viable and friendly Syrian force to combat both ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, not waste our time on fruitless diplomatic initiatives at the United Nations that serve no purpose other than to offer cover for Russia’s backing of Assad. We need to spend a lot more money on national defense and stop pretending as if advanced technology or mere “smart” diplomacy can make up for military weakness.

Above all, we must choose confrontation (mostly diplomatic, but in the case of ISIS, military) wisely but deliberately. We must be very careful about picking our fights—but when we do, we must win them. In choosing confrontation, we should think not only about the specific tactical problems involved, but whether they serve some larger strategic purpose. Think of them as inflection points that can bend a strategic curve in our favor. We must always keep the overall curve in mind, and how all the points fit together.

There are four such inflection points. First and foremost is the destruction of ISIS’s capability to make war, inflict terror and control territory. That is what defeating ISIS means. Its total defeat is necessary, not only to protect the homeland from terrorist attacks but to reverse the trajectory toward more war and chaos in the Middle East. This goal can be achieved only by interjecting a substantial increase of U.S. combat forces into the fight against ISIS.

Second is to arrange for the defeat of Putin’s adventure in Ukraine. So much is riding on whether he succeeds or not. If he pulls it off, he will likely move onto other low-hanging fruit, possibly in the Baltics. But if he fails, it will prove his gambit to change the international order in Europe has miscarried and show the Russian people that adventurism doesn’t pay. Under those circumstances, Putin could end up facing the same misfortune as Soviet leaders did after the failure of the Afghanistan invasion in 1979.

How to do this? By dramatically increasing lethal assistance to Ukraine. A year ago, such a move looked risky because Putin was on a roll and in a strong position at home. Now he faces not only a potential quagmire in Ukraine, but increasing criticism for poorly handling the economic crisis. Politically, Putin is weaker, which means he no longer enjoys the easy escalation dominance he once did.

Third, we must reverse Obama’s strategic tilting in favor of Iran. It is upending a region already roiled by bitter sectarian and state power rivalries. If not reversed, it will lead to more war and bloodshed and possibly a nuclear arms race. This will require the next president to reverse the Iran nuclear deal as soon as possible. America’s allies, who salivate over renewed commercial ties with Iran, will have to be told they must choose between Iran and the United States. If given no other choice, they will choose us.

Fourth, we need to make clear to Beijing that China’s territorial expansionism will not be accepted as part of rules for a “new type of major power relations,” which is Chinese code for accepting a more dominant role for China in East Asia. This will entail a more forceful policy against China and substantial new naval deployments in East Asia—much more than those that accompanied Obama’s paltry “rebalancing” or “pivot” to Asia. It will also necessitate stronger support for friends and allies in the region in resisting China’s maritime territorial claims.

Some conflicts are simply intractable. That’s true not only for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also for the ongoing nuclear drama with North Korea. These and other conflicts cannot be ignored, and they do need to be managed. But we should not expect that any new U.S. diplomatic initiative would make any significant difference. In fact, trying to do so could backfire, giving the Palestinians and the North Koreans new openings to exploit the differences of opinion we have with our friends and allies. Nevertheless, we should be moving briskly to build a missile defense system to deal with the North Korean threat. In addition, we should not rule out military preemption as an option if the North Koreans posture their nuclear weapons in a threatening manner.

Taking these actions could dramatically alter the diplomatic terrain left by Barack Obama. They would show a new style of U.S. leadership. They would reveal a new strategic focus on the most important issues facing us and our friends. They would show our friends that we are reliable and our foes that we should not be crossed.

Most importantly, they would demonstrate that the Obama experiment tried is over, and that the United States is back in the superpower business. The trajectory of American decline that once looked inevitable will have been reversed. America’s traditional leadership role, so derided and neglected by Obama, will be back. Only then can we begin the long and arduous process of restoring some sense of order and stability to a world unsettled by some of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in U.S. history.

Kim R. Holmes, a former Assistant Secretary of State, is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation. His latest book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind” (Encounter Books), will be published in April.

20 Threats a Day Leading Up to Super Bowl Sunday

(Photo © Jeffrey Beall / flickr)

(Photo © Jeffrey Beall / flickr)

San Jose Police Dept. will investigate up to 20 threats a day in the week leading up to the 2016 Super Bowl, to be held in Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California, home to the San Francisco 49ers.

Depending on the threat, security officials will decide whether to send in a SWAT team bomb sniffing K-9’s, or one of the many security apparatus in place.

Here are some of the ways the security at Super Bowl 50 is panning out:

  • 90 Canine Teams of bomb-sniffing dogs will be employed. The dogs have also K-9 Corps training for the Superbowlbeen familiarized with sounds and vibrations of three different military helicopters that might need to be used to evaculate players in case of an incident.
  • 80 FBI bomb technicians with a mobile command vehicle operating remote-controlled robots that can analyze threats.  Bay Area bomb squads on stand-by.
  • Sniffer Box – a high tech sensing device that can detect a biological attack.
  • No Fly Zones over the stadium, F-15 on standby to escort a plane out (182 Cessnas were used to simulate a trespassing in weeks of training).
  • 24-hour/7-day ops – Security starts today, one week before the Super Bowl when the teams arrive. Every event leading up to the big game will be monitored. Sweeps for explosives will be made before each event.
  • Elite Merge Team from San Jose Police Department has trained for a month with rifles and Bearcat Rescue vehicle.
  • FBI operating from an operations center An air team member training for Superbowl 50at a secret location. They will be joined by dozens of local, state and federal agencies including the FAA, which will watch for rogue drones operating in closed air spaces.
  • To get into the stadium, all spectators will have to pass through airport-style metal detectors and will not be allowed to bring bags larger than 18 (inches) by 18, alcohol, coolers, pets, drones, bikes, skateboards, hoverboards.

REPORT: Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror

UA-Report-2Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Jan. 27, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin has written a new Unconstrained Analysis report entitled, Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror.”

This strategic overview argues for how the War on Terror should be visualized alongside the processes that seek to obscure it and reflects analyses undertaken over the years to explain the nature of the threat in light of emerging Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) protocols, how the enemy envisions the war, and how he understands victory.

The metaphor is a house engulfed in a crucible of flames. Where the people burning in the house see three players, it is long overdue to understand them as one. Where people see civilization jihad disassociated from assaults from the left, it is time to recognize alliance. The enemy believes he has enjoyed success in the war and, indeed, believes he is winning. This view has merit.

The strategic picture painted by this overview is based on the enemy’s self-identified threat doctrine when mapped against the authorities he relies on to legitimize his activities and guide his operations. For this analysis, a decision was made to exclude all bureaucratic programmatics and academic models.

It is based on who the enemy in the War on Terror says he is, not on how others define him. The enemy states repeatedly that he fights jihad to impose Islamic law (shariah) and to re-establish the Caliphate. He does not say he fights jihad to force conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. He never states that he fights in furtherance of “root” or “underlying” causes.

From a legal perspective, the threat’s stated fidelity to shariah as the law of the land suggests that the threat does not raise First Amendment issues so much as it raises concerns regarding Article VI of the Constitution (“This Constitution shall be … the supreme law of the land”). It turns out that Islamic law, with unsettling precision, supports “violent extremists” to a degree that true moderates cannot match and that faux moderates seek to suppress.

This explains why “moderates” of all stripes avoid talking about Islamic law when discussing Islamic terrorism. This overview does not delve into defining doctrines when discussing the threat’s strategic reality. However, it is hoped that the concepts identified here, viewed as a whole, will offer clarity and shed important light on the most serious threat facing the United States today.

While all elements of U.S. national power are engaged in kinetic operations against “violent extremists” in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary threat actually defines itself as mujahids, views kinetic operations as a support activity tasked with either sustaining strategic distractions or supporting narratives, and seeks victory against the United States through ideological subversion directed against senior leadership and media elites. This analysis challenges the current conceptual and operational framework and calls for its dramatic reconsideration.

A diagram (see page 3) is used to illustrate the three lines of operation along which the United States has come under sustained assault in the War on Terror in much the way that a house can be engulfed in flames. All of these lines of operation, only one of which is kinetic, will be associated with a real-world entity to show how it orients on the objective.

diagram of threat

This strategic overview is the product of extensive research that in recent years has informed and supported numerous papers, presentations, a thesis (To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad), and the book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Its purpose is to explain how the enemy understands and orients to his universe.

A further objective is to advocate a return to true intelligence analysis and urge the abandonment of current analytical processes that sustain the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) narrative at the expense of a real threat-focused fact-based analysis.

Read the Report:

Burning Down the House: A Strategic Overview of the Threat, the CVE, and Strategic Incomprehension in the War on Terror (pdf)

UN Plan to Prevent “Violent Extremism” Ignores its Primary Cause

cx

Frontpage, by Joseph Klein, Jan. 19, 2016:

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is operating from the same playbook as President Obama when it comes to addressing the threat of global jihad. They both deny that such a religiously-based threat exists. Just like Obama, Ban Ki-moon uses the euphemism “violent extremism,” without linking it to its primary ideological source – Islam.

The global terrorist scourge is driven by Islamic supremacy and the jihadist war against the “infidels” that are embedded in sharia law. That is not to say that the jihadists are the only terrorists in the world. However, to diffuse responsibility by contending that violent extremism is found in all faiths ignores the fact that the only global terrorist network threatening our way of life today is bound together by the teachings of Islam.

In the Secretary General’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on January 15th introducing his “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,” he said that “the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.” Obama said essentially the same thing last February at his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, lamenting that it is “especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.”

Both Ban Ki-moon and President Obama omitted to say that the killers are also primarily Muslims. Moreover, they left out entirely any mention of the ongoing genocide being conducted by Muslims in the name of Allah against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East.

When I asked the spokesperson for the Secretary General why the Secretary General did not acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of global terrorists today are Islamists, the spokesperson responded that “the Secretary‑General’s focus is not on targeting or pointing finger at one ethnic group, one religious group, or people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion.”

This begs the question as to why the Secretary General took pains to assert that Muslims constitute the majority of terrorists’ victims but refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators are also Muslims.

The Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism describes what it calls the “drivers of violent extremism.”  These drivers include, according to the UN document, lack of socioeconomic opportunities, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance and violations of human rights, prolonged and unresolved conflicts, radicalization in prisons, collective grievances, and exploitation of social media.

Obama offered essentially the same explanation for the growth of violent extremism put forth by Ban Ki-moon. A key problem, he said, was lack of economic opportunity that trapped people –especially young people – “in impoverished communities.”

Obama added: “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism.”

Ban Ki-moon and President Obama both have argued that Islam itself is blameless. It is, in Ban Ki-moon’s words, the “distortion and misuse of beliefs” that are to blame. At his February 2015 Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama called out what he described as “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.”

However, the truth is that Islam itself contains the seeds for the violence that is such a prominent part of jihad. Jihadists using violence as a tactic to impose Islam as the world’s only “legitimate” belief system are following the path laid down by Prophet Muhammed himself and his early followers, according to their literal words and acts.

The proposed actions to address the problem of “violent extremism,” both Ban Ki-moon and Obama agree, include better education, more opportunities for women, better governance, and respect for human rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief.  The UN Secretary General and President Obama base their common strategy on their shared utopian belief that peoples from every country and culture embrace a common set of “universal” human rights, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration’s preamble states:  “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, despite its enlightened vision of the inherent dignity and fundamental rights of all human beings, is far from being a truly universally accepted creed. Muslims reject it to the extent that it conflicts with sharia law.

While Muslim member states of the United Nations, with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia, signed the Universal Declaration, they disavow its Western, secular-based principles. Islamists refuse to be ruled by any human rights document that deviates from what they regard as the divinely-inspired sharia law.

As the Islamic response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation foreign ministers adopted The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. After reciting a litany of human rights that it pledges to protect, the Cairo Declaration subjects all of its protections to the requirements of sharia law. “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

By making Islamic law the sole authority for defining the scope of human rights, the Muslims’ Cairo Declaration sanctions limits on freedom of expression, discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and a prohibition against a Muslim’s conversion from Islam. Such restrictions on freedoms directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, the leading Muslim majority countries today representing the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam respectively, may be at odds with one another regarding certain sectarian and geopolitical issues. However, they both purport to govern according to sharia law, which is used to justify their religious intolerance, brutal suppression of dissent, misogyny and capital punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and homosexuality. It is Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism which has helped fuel the jihadists inside and outside of Saudi Arabia seeking to forcibly purify Islam from the influence of “infidels.” And Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as it seeks to fulfill the vision of Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Iranian Islamic revolution, to kill the infidels and ensure “that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which he claims is reflective of a “culture of dominance.” Instead, he said “the answer is return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation.” He called for the use of “Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters.” Presumably, what the Supreme Leader described as the “Islamic mode of thinking in society” would explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s arbitrary imprisonment, torture and the killing of political dissidents and members of minority groups. The “Islamic sources in legal matters” evidently serve as the basis for the regime’s discriminatory laws against women, among other repressive laws.

In 2013, Iran was rewarded by the UN for its vows of global conquest with a seat on the General Assembly’s disarmament committee. Last year Iran was rewarded for its horrendous record of abuses against women with membership on the executive board of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. And as of January 16, 2016, Iran has been welcomed back into the international community with the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets worth approximately $150 billion.

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, expressed back in 2008 the religious intolerance that lies at the heart of the leading Sunni country’s practice of Islam: “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).” With the help of the Islamic State and al Qaeda that receive funding from Saudi Arabia, this ambition is on its way to being realized, and even expanded to reach throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The same Saudi sheikh and head of the Supreme Judiciary Council also said: “Women who are raped by men are themselves to blame. They provoke men by the way they dress or walk.”

Last year Saudi Arabia was rewarded for its horrendous human rights record with a seat and leadership position on the UN Human Rights Council.

Coddling the leading jihad exporting countries and pretending that sharia law can ever be reconciled with so-called “universal” human rights values will render all plans of action to prevent “violent extremism” an utter failure.

NYPD ordered to purge info on Islamic terror

AP

AP

American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Jan. 19, 2016:

A U.S. District Court has ordered the NYPD to purge extensive documentation that outlines the rise of Islamic terror in the West and threats to the United States. The report, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, focused on providing law enforcement and policy-makers with vital intelligence on domestic terror operations. A key component of the document outlined how jihadists get into the country and carry out terror attacks. Many experts have described the report as “critical” to our national security. The court order is a huge victory for the ACLU (who spearheaded the effort two-and-one-half years ago) and Islamic supremacists.

The Free Beacon reports on key areas reached in the settlement, including the following mandates:

  • The NYPD must purge the report on the department’s understanding of “radical Islam” along with how best to police the threat.
  • The NYPD must “remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future” and that they will not open or extend investigations based on it.
  • The NYPD must implement measures to “mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups,” such as those in the Muslim-American community.

Needless to say, many legal experts have pointed out that this action “could hamper future terrorism investigations.”

The court ties law enforcement’s hands behind their back, blindfolds them, and performs a lobotomy.

While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement. (snip)

The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.

The department will additionally incorporate into the guidelines “police policies against religious profiling” and insert an additional “provision for considering the impact investigations have on people who are not targets of investigations,” according to the statement.

John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, maintained in a statement that the settlement would not “weaken the [department’s] ability to fulfill its steadfast commitment to investigate and prevent terrorist activity in New York City.”

Naturally, experts are already weighing in, not that we need “experts” to know this is a deplorable and dangerous court ruling. But, ok. The experts.

Benjamin Weingarten, writer and national security analyst, covered the court case and said that now more than ever local police departments need the NYPD report. “To pursue a see-no-Islam counter-jihadist strategy is not only absurd and contradictory on its face, but its [sic] a severe dereliction of duty—ignorance is not an excuse, and it represents a failure to do everything necessary to defend against an ideology that seeks to undermine the Constitution and subvert and destroy Western civilization again, according to Islamic supremacists themselves,” he said.

“Dereliction of duty.” Precisely. And it’s shoving Americans into harm’s way. Far too many have already paid the ultimate price.

Maj. Stephen Coughlin, retired Army officer and leading expert on Islamic law and counter-terrorism, also weighed in: “I am greatly concerned with the imposition of [the case] which, I believe, exists to replace counter-terror efforts. This is a continuation of a purging of evidentiary based counter-terror analysis first initiated in 2011.”

Meanwhile, when The Free Beacon contacted the ACLU for comment, the ACLU directed them to an editorial published in the Guardian that celebrated the decision. Here are two little gems from the co-authors of the editorial:

“Bias-based policing legitimizes religious discrimination, It can pave the way to copy-cat approaches by other agencies and set the stage for hate crimes nationwide,” wrote Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, and Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York.

“We hope the settlement announced this week pulls our city and its police department out of a downward spiral by reaffirming core values and principles, ones just as necessary to a local police force as they are to a rational debate on civil rights and liberties nationally,” they wrote.

This is Islamic supremacy in action. The more time passes, the less critical useful idiots will be as Islamic supremacists supplant them in organizations across the country, as with Hina Shamsi at the ACLU (here, here, here, and here).

To read more about the court ruling, see Daniel Greenfield’s recent article, here.

***

Also see:

Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists Inside U.S.

51ZqUtFkvzL._SX385_BO1,204,203,200_

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Jan. 18, 2016:

The New York Police Department has been directed by a U.S. court to remove from its online records an investigation pertaining to the rise of Islamic extremists in the West and the threats these individuals pose to American safety, according to legal documents.

As part of a settlement agreement reached earlier this month with Muslim community advocates in U.S. District Court, the NYPD will purge from its website an extensive report that experts say has been critical to the department’s understanding of radical Islam and its efforts to police the threat.

The court settlement also stipulates that the NYPD make a concerted effort to mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups, according to a copy of the court documents published by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the case since June 2013.

Legal experts and critics of the settlement maintain that it could hamper future terrorism investigations and view it as part of a larger campaign by Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States to dismantle surveillance programs encompassing that community.

Critics expressed particular concern about the case in light of a recent surge in attacks on U.S. citizens committed by individuals pledging allegiance to terror groups such as ISIS.

A key portion of the settlement focuses on the NYPD’s purported use of a document produced by the department’s intelligence division to examine how radicalized individuals make their way to the United States and carry out terror attacks.

The document, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” aimed to provide local law enforcement and policy makers with information about domestic terrorists and their operations.

As part of the settlement agreement, the NYPD will be forced to remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future.

The NYPD and New York state government agencies included in the case “represent that they do not, have not, and will not rely upon the Radicalization in the West report to open or extend investigations,” according to the settlement. “Defendants will remove the Radicalization in the West report from the NYPD website.”

The settlement further affirms that the NYPD will be “committed to mitigating the potential impact” of future investigations on political and religious groups, such as those in the Muslim-American community.

While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement.

The NYPD and relevant New York state agencies will “provide additional guidance to police officers as part of a settlement of lawsuits accusing the NYPD of improperly investigating Muslim groups,” according to the Jan. 7 press release. “While the City did not admit to engaging in any improper practices, the changes represent an effort to provide more detailed guidance to NYPD personnel within the existing Handschu Guidelines,” which govern how authorities investigate political activities.

The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.

The department will additionally incorporate into the guidelines “police policies against religious profiling” and insert an additional “provision for considering the impact investigations have on people who are not targets of investigations,” according to the statement.

John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, maintained in a statement that the settlement would not “weaken the [department’s] ability to fulfill its steadfast commitment to investigate and prevent terrorist activity in New York City.”

However, some experts have cast doubt on this statement, claiming that the decision to delete the anti-terrorism handbook will impact officers’ ability to understand how terrorists organize and operate in the United States.

Benjamin Weingarten, a writer and national security analyst who has covered the court case, said that local police departments should be relying more heavily on the now-banned counterterror analysis.

Referring to the recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a radicalized individual who allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, Weingarten noted that the assailant followed the “‘four stages of radicalization’ detailed in the NYPD report.”

The information about radical terrorists provided in “the NYPD’s analysis may have at the least led Philadelphia authorities to dig deeper and flag him,” he said.

The settlement further reflects a larger cultural shift in America that shuns terms such as “war on terror” and “Muslim terrorism,” Weingarten said.

“To pursue a see-no-Islam counter-jihadist strategy is not only absurd and contradictory on its face, but its a severe dereliction of duty—ignorance is not an excuse, and it represents a failure to do everything necessary to defend against an ideology that seeks to undermine the Constitution and subvert and destroy Western civilization again, according to Islamic supremacists themselves,” he said.

Stephen Coughlin, an attorney and intelligence officer, expressed concern about what he described as a widening attempt by local and federal authorities to redefine the nature of domestic counter-terror efforts.

“I am greatly concerned with the imposition of [the case] which, I believe, exists to replace counter-terror efforts,” Coughlin said. “This is a continuation of a purging of evidentiary based counter-terror analysis first initiated in 2011.”

The ACLU and Muslim community advocates initially filed the lawsuit following reports after the 9/11 terror attacks that the NYPD was running a domestic spy operation centered on the American-Muslim community.

The ACLU, which would not comment on record for this report, directed the Free Beacon to a recent editorial published in the Guardian celebrating the court decision.

“Bias-based policing legitimizes religious discrimination, It can pave the way to copy-cat approaches by other agencies and set the stage for hate crimes nationwide,” wrote Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, and Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York.

“We hope the settlement announced this week pulls our city and its police department out of a downward spiral by reaffirming core values and principles, ones just as necessary to a local police force as they are to a rational debate on civil rights and liberties nationally,” they wrote.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America

us-fallschurch-va-dar-al-hijrah-islamic-center-jpg_095911Politically Short, by Nick Short, Jan. 14, 2016:

While much has been written on the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood, for the most part the majority of Americans continue to remain unaware of this nefarious organization as it operates freely in America under a litany of various front organizations posing as charities and civil rights groups. Although terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS), and Hamas have clear tactical differences, they both share the exact same ideology and goals. In fact, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and ISIS would not exist today if it wasn’t for the Muslim Brotherhood which birthed these groups through the teachings of ideologues like Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutd. It is no understatement to say that the Muslim Brotherhood has inspired the entire modern Islamic terrorist enterprise.

Yet, too much attention has been given to groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS as they seek to bring about their ultimate goal of establishing Sharia law via the “Caliphate” through violence. The spotlight has been virtually ignored on the Muslim Brotherhood though as they seek the same goal of Sharia but through a gradual, termite-like approach that burrows deeply into a host society by eating away it’s institutions slowly from within. These are the two tactical differences that Americans need to become aware of as the former has virtually controlled the narrative while the latter is whitewashed away as not irrelevant. The Muslim Brotherhood in America has acquired positions of influence behind the scenes in the government, academia, and even the media with little to no resistance. For the Brotherhood, it all begins with the establishment of various innocuous sounding Islamic organizations created at the grassroots level which eventually serve the purposes of evolving into breeding grounds for radicalization.

More than thirty years ago the Muslim Brotherhood laid out a twelve point strategy to put up a false front of peace while acting covertly to subvert the Western world in a document that came to be known as “The Project“. The document was recovered by Swiss authorities as they raided the lakeside villa of the Brotherhoods’ then foreign minister Youseff Nada shortly after the September 11th attacks on the United States. The document was written in 1982 and it outlines a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood to “establish an Islamic government on earth.”

Patrick Poole, a counter-terrorism consultant and National Security and Terrorism Correspondent for PJ Media, notes that “what makes The Project so different from the standard ‘Death of America! Death to Israel!’ and ‘Establish the global caliphate!’ Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the ‘cultural invasion’ of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood master plan.”

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, and various other terrorist organizations, the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. Poole highlights a few of the following tactics and techniques that are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”.

Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals.

Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers.

Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements.

Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”.

Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support.

Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world.

While these are just a few of the key bullet points outlined in the document, one only needs to look towards a 2005 report conducted by the Dutch on the Muslim Brotherhood clandestine infiltration in the Netherlands to get an idea of how the strategy operates within western society. The report, titled From Dawa to Jihad: The various threats from radical Islam to the democratic legal order explains that their exists in the Netherlands “radical branches of the Muslim Brotherhood which employs covert dawa (propagation of radical Islamic ideology and appeal to convert people to become Muslim) strategies that seek to gradually undermine it (the State) by infiltrating, and eventually taking over the civil service, the judicature, schools, local administrators, etc.”

Aiming at a clandestine infiltration of political and social institutions, the 2005 report goes on to state that their are also conceivable, for example, “attempts to infiltrate community-based organisations with the aim of monopolising them (thus obstructing the proper functioning of ‘civil society’). But in the long run, more serious forms of such covert subversion are also conceivable, for example attempts by radical Islamic organisations to infiltrate local administration, the judicature et cetera, whilst concealing their actual objectives and loyalties.”

“While the instigators themselves do not wish to openly present themselves as jihadists or even be associated with armed jihadists, they wish to promote violence in a covert way,” concludes the report. As we can see the influence of “The Project” not only matches exactly what is happening in the Netherlands, but also aligns identically to the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America. This memo, meant for Brotherhood operatives working within the United States, explains the strategy behind the establishment of an Islamic Center in every city.

The memo notes, “The center we seek is the one which constitutes the ‘axis’ of our Movement, the ‘perimeter’ of the circle of our work, our ‘balance center’, the ‘base’ for our rise and our ‘Dar al-Arqam’ to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the ‘niche” of our prayers. This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small Islamic society’ which is a reflection and a mirror to our central organizations.”

For an example on how this works in America, Erick Stakelbeck in his book The Brotherhood: America’s Next Great Enemy illustrates how the Brotherhood goes about establishing their Centers in the following illustration:

An Islamist organization—usually linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and flush with cash from Saudi Arabia and/or the Gulf states—spends big bucks to buy up several acres of property in a town where hardly any Muslims reside. Plans are announced to build an ‘Islamic Cultural Center’ where all faiths are welcome and diversity will be celebrated in a new, multiculti mini-utopia. But blindsided local residents, after doing some research, quickly learn of the nefarious connections of the mosque’s leadership and see a potential hub for terrorist plotting in their midst—one with financial backing from overseas radicals to boot.

Yet, when these same neighbors demand to know where the money is coming from to pay for the planned mega-mosque, smooth-talking Muslim spokesmen involved with the project just smile and calmly reassure all comers that the funds have been “locally raised.” The local city council, petrified of being called racist, ultimately approves the so-called Islamic center against the will of the people. On cue, the mainstream media and Islamic groups then team up to condemn critics of the mosque as “bigots” and “Islamophobes.” Neighbors are left feeling demonized, abandoned, angry, and alone. And the mosque is built—even though its leadership has been exposed as having ties to the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, a hatred for Israel, and a fondness for sharia law.

Examples such as this can be seen virtually everywhere throughout the United States and represent a direct threat to Americans as the mosque nexus to terrorism can be found in the majority of cases in which the arrest or the attack of a “homegrown jihadist” hits the news. The reason for this is because these mosques are operating in the exact way described by both “The Project” and the 1991 memorandum.

In what should have been a major wake up call to law enforcement and those working within national security, a 2011 study originally published by the  Middle East Quarterly and examined in depth by Perspectives on Terrorism ,the correlation between sharia adherence and violent dogma in U.S. mosques is found to be shockingly high. In a random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S., the Shariah Adherence Mosque Survey found that 80% provide their worshipers with jihad-style literature promoting the use of violence against non-believers and that the imams in those mosques expressly promote that literature.

The study explains that the texts were selected for scoring based on the fact that they either called for violent jihad against non-Muslims or because the texts called for hatred of “the other.” For example, Reliance of the Traveller by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-NaqibThe Fiqh-us-Sunnahand Tafsir Ibn Kathirand authors including Maulana Maududi and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayed Qutb  were selected because their texts make explicit demands for jihad against non-Muslims. As the study states, “texts authored by Maududi and Qutb and similar materials, such as pamphlets and texts published and disseminated by the Muslim Brotherhood, were selected in part because these materials strongly advocate the use of violence as a means to establish an Islamic state.” Remember, 80% of mosques surveyed carried such material, directly indicating that the Brotherhood is more than influential and flourishing within these mosques.

The study found that when a mosque imam or its worshipers were “sharia-adherent,” as measured by certain behaviors in conformity with Islamic law, the mosque was more likely to provide this violent literature and the imam was more likely to promote it. Moreover, the study also found that of the 80% of mosques that contained severe materials:

100% were led by an imam who recommended that worshipers study violent materials;

100% promoted violent jihad;

98% promoted the financial support of terror;

98% promoted the establishment of the Caliphate in the United States;

100% praised terror against the West;

and 76% invited guest speakers known to have promoted violent jihad.

171-1120-1-pb

The survey’s results help to provide insight into the role that Sharia-adherent behaviors play in defining group identities, creating an us-versus-them outlook, and projecting violence against the West and non-Muslims, which is mirrored by the Sharia literature found in the mosques prone to violent literature. Ultimately, the survey concludes by suggesting that “Islam, at least as it is generally practiced in mosques across the United States, continues to manifest a resistance to a sufficiently tolerant religio-legal framework that would allow its followers to make a sincere affirmation of Western citizenship. This survey provides empirical support for the view that mosques across the U.S., as institutional and social settings for mosque-going Muslims, provide a milieu resistant to, the legal, theological, or political arguments that make political, civic, and social cooperation within a secular constitutional political order ideal.”

By providing the ideological breeding grounds for terrorists, mosques and various Islamic centers within the U.S. serve as a critical starting point in which the radicalization, justification, and resources for committing jihad is prevalent. So where are these mosques and Islamic centers located and can it be shown that they are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood and have produced jihadists?

To answer both questions all we need to do is look at a few examples of various instances in which either a jihadist has been arrested, carried out an attack, or joined a terrorist organization and note which mosque or center they attended as well if its linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The first mosque examined is the notorious Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). The ISB is owned and operated by the Muslim American Society (MAS) which federal prosecutors described in a 2008 case as being an “overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” So far at least 8 former attendees to the mosque have become jihadists including the following; The boston marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev; Abdurahman Alamoudi, the mosque’s founder and first president, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years in prison for plotting terrorism. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying Alamoudi raised money for al Qaeda in the U.S.; Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT scientist-turned-al Qaeda agent, who in 2010 was sentenced to 86 years in prison for planning a New York chemical attack; Finally, there’s Ahmad Abousamra, who was eventually killed in 2015 but not before becoming one of the top media propagandists for the terrorist group known today as the Islamic State or ISIS.

[Also see: ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF BOSTON HOSTS PREACHERS WHO ADVOCATE SEX SLAVERY]

Next, we have the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP) whose own website declares that it is “entrusted with the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The importance of this cannot be understated as NAIT’s status as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity was confirmed by federal prosecutors during the 2009 prosecution of another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity named the Holy Land Foundation. The Justice Department designated NAIT as an unindicted co-conspiratorin that case. So far at least 4 former attendees to the Islamic Center in Phoenix are known jihadists. The most notorious are Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi who were killed last year while attempting to execute people holding a draw Mohammed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Yet, as Patrick Poole of PJ Media notes, “two other previous ICCP mosque attendees — Hassan Abu-Jihaad and Derrick Shareef are currently in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.”

Most recently, and unfortunately tragically, is the Islamic Society of Corona/Norco (ISCN) which was attended by the San Bernardino jihadist Syed Farook and his friend as well as financier and arms supplier Enrique Marquez. According the federal complaint filed against Marquez he was charged with conspiring with Farook in 2011 and 2012 to commit crimes of terrorism, as well as unlawfully purchasing two assault rifles used in the San Bernardino massacre and defrauding immigration authorities by entering into a sham marriage conducted at the ISCN. The federal complaint also states that in 2012 Marquez and Farook were planning on carrying out an attack on a busy California freeway as well as a local community college but scrapped their plan as Marquez stated that he “distanced himself from Farook and ceased plotting with him after 2012 for a variety of reasons, including the arrest of Ralph Deleon and others on material support [for terrorism] charges in November 2012.” This statement by Marquez indicates that he knew whoRalph Deleon was, this is important to note because Deleon along with three others were charged on November 16, 2012, for conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists. All four men in that case were from the Riverside/San Bernardino area and according to the federal complaint, one of the informants for the FBI was told by Deleon that there were “a couple of brothers from the mosque who wanted to [travel abroad] for jihad.” While the FBI doesn’t identify which mosque, one can guess which one Deleon & his “brothers” were attending.

Finally, we have the example of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center (DAH) located in Falls Church, Virginia. “Dar al-Hijrah, which fittingly means Land of Migration, is where the Brotherhood has settled in America,” writes former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in his book The Grand JihadMcCarthy elaborates on Dar al-Hijrah explaining that, “in the shadow of the White House and Capitol Hill, it is the optimal location as the $6 million complex was established in 1991, the same year the Brotherhood playbook was written…The Dar al-Hijrah complex was purchased in the 1980s by the North American Islamic Trust. The Islamic Affairs Department of the Saudi embassy in Washington chipped in for the construction and the trustee was the Muslim Brotherhood operative Jamal Barzinji.” Supporting McCarthy’s claim, according to a 2002Customs and Border Protection document, DAH is stated as “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” while a December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

Some of Dar al-Hijrah’s most infamous congregants have included Omar Abu Ali, who is now serving life in prison for joining al-Qaeda while also having plotted mass murder attacks against the United States and conspiring to murder former President George W. Bush. Then we have Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, who are now better known for crashing Flight 77 into the Pentagon, just a short distance away from the Land of Migration. Adding to the list is probably the most infamous and, thanks to a drone strike in 2011, now deceased former Imam by the name ofAnwar al-Awlaki. Before going on to become the leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, al-Awlaki was the spiritual leader of Dar al-Hijrah and in 2001 the mosque just so happened to feature a worshiper by the name of Nidal Hassan. Hassan, now known as the Ft. Hood jihadist, went on a killing spree in a 2009 attack as he opened fire on his fellow soldiers killing 13 and wounding 30 at the Texas military base.

From Boston to California and Phoenix to Virginia, these four examples alone epitomize the threat posed to America by the ideological machinery of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet, in the face of such evidence none of these mosques or Islamic Centers have been investigated let alone shut down for their ties to terrorism. Instead we are told by various Brotherhood front organizations such as theCouncil on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that these mosques and centers in no way, shape, or form serve as the ideological springboard for the promotion of violence. This, of course, serves the purposes of obfuscating the truth as the facts have repeatedly shown that the first step on the road to jihadist terrorism is the instruction in Islamist ideology.

The Islamist threat is very real and is the result of decades of networking, infrastructure building, and intellectual as well as ideological preparation. It is advancing at an unprecedented speed as it actively and openly creates a fifth column of activists, jihadists, and apologists who work tirelessly to undermine the very foundations of America with the establishment of new mosques and Islamic centers. It cannot be stressed enough that the very ideology that the Muslim Brotherhood supports is at the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today and without acknowledging the ideology America itself stands no chance in even beginning to fight.

So the next time a jihadist attack happens on American soil and representatives from organizations like CAIR immediately crawl out of their holes in an attempt to act as apologists for the jihadist, remember that they themselves are directly responsible for supporting the ideology that promotes jihad.

As the Brotherhood creed goes, “Allah is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”

Nick Short, a graduate of Northern Arizona University with a Bachelors in Criminal Justice. Politically Short offers a millennials perspective over today’s news outside the beltway of Washington D.C. Follow Nick on Twitter , LinkedIn and Google+ You can also email him at Nds56@nau.edu

5 Critical Takeaways from the Islamic ‘Radicalization Report’ the NYPD Is Deleting From Its Website

Screen-Shot-2015-04-16-at-8.27.55-PM.sized-770x415xcPJ Media, by Ben Weingarten, Jan. 13, 2016:

New York City has caved to the demands of Muslim groups in connection with its intelligence and surveillance activities of the Islamic community. In a politically correct move, the city is resorting to self-censorship over safety.

As part of its settlement with plaintiffs in the cases of Raza v. City of New York and Handschu v. Special Services Division — coincidentally, the settlement was released within hours of the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett by a self-identified American jihadist — the NYPD will be removing Radicalization in the West, the groundbreaking 2007 report on the “homegrown” jihadist threat, from its website.

Plaintiffs in the Raza case argued that the report reflected the “analytic underpinnings” of New York’s so-called “Muslim surveillance program.” The plaintiffs deemed the report unlawful on account of its alleged “religious profiling and suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers” based on a “false and unconstitutional premise: that Muslim religious beliefs and practices are a basis for law enforcement scrutiny.”

Supposedly, the NYPD radicalization report “stigmatizes an entire faith community and invites discrimination. It specifically singles out Muslims for profiling and suspicionless surveillance because of their religious beliefs and practices.”

In spite of the fact that New York did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in its practices nor disavow the “radicalization report” on its analytical merits, the city is pulling the report. Further, the city also represented in the settlement that it does not, has not, and will not rely upon the report to open or extend investigations.

Yet much of what is contained in Radicalization in the West would appear to have value in a world in which Europe’s violent Islamization continues apace. Americans are awakening from their post-9/11 slumber to realize that perhaps something is awry in light of the jihadi carnage wrought in Boston by the Tsarnaev brothers, by San Bernardino shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, by would-be Philly cop-killer Edward Archer, and by many others nationwide — not to mention the suspected jihadis in the more than 900 active investigations of ISIS-linked individuals across the 50 states.

The report, which analyzed almost a dozen cases of “homegrown” jihadis across the U.S. and Europe in order to provide “a conceptual framework for understanding the process of radicalization in the West,” contained a variety of still-relevant and oft-ignored findings.

Here are five of its most critical takeaways.

———————————-

1. Jihadis are chiefly animated by their theo-political Islamic supremacist ideology.

Radicalization in the West draws forth a fundamental insight that our national security and foreign policy establishment — under administrations Republican and Democrat — continues to ignore to America’s great detriment.

The report explicitly states:

Radicalization in the West is, first and foremost, driven by:Jihadi-Salafi Ideology. What motivates young men and women, born or living in the West, to carry out “autonomous jihad” via acts of terrorism against their host countries? The answer is ideology. Ideology is the bedrock and catalyst for radicalization. It defines the conflict, guides movements, identifies the issues, drives recruitment, and is the basis for action. In many cases, ideology also determines target selection and informs what will be done and how it will be carried out.

The report notes that there is a religious and political dimension to this ideology:

The Religious Dimension. Jihadi-Salafi ideology is but one stream of the broader Salafi movement. The general goal of this Sunni revivalist interpretation of Islam, is to create a “pure” society that applies a literal reading of the Quran and adheres to the social practices that prevailed at the time of 7th century Arabia.Implementation of sharia law and replacement of the system of nation states with a worldwide Caliphate are the ultimate political aims. While other Salafi currents encourage non-violent missionary or political activities to achieve these religious/political goals, jihadi-Salafis utilize endorsements of respected scholars of Islam to show that their aims and violent means are religiously justified.

  • Contemporary Saudi (Wahhabi) scholars have provided the religious legitimacy for many of the arguments promoted by the jihadists.1
  • Extreme intolerance and hostility towards unbelievers, including Jews, Christians, Hindus and Shiites, is a core doctrine provided by Wahhabi religious thought. It provides the primary theological foundation for jihadi-Salafi causes and reduces the barriers to violence.

The Political Dimension. The political aspect of jihadi-Salafi ideology is heavily underpinned by the work of Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian author, Islamist, and the leading intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He believed that Islam was under attack from the West and divided the world into the Muslim and the non-Muslim. To Qutb, democracy challenged the sovereignty of God’s divine law and should be resisted. Moreover, he also contended that militant jihad had to be used to attack institutions and societies in order to overthrow non-Islamic governments and to bring about a “pure” Islamic society. [Emphasis mine]

2. Ideology trumps materialism.

Moreover, Radicalization in the West directly challenges our enlightened materialist political establishment with its “jobs-for-jihadis” and global warming gobbledygook.

The report includes the following among its findings:

Despite the economic opportunities in the United States, the powerful gravitational pull of individuals’ religious roots and identity sometimes supersedes the assimilating nature of American society which includes pursuit of a professional career, financial stability and material comforts.

This is why, as noted elsewhere, jihadis yell “Allahu Akbar,” not “Workers of the world unite!”

3. The “jihadization” process has everything to do with Islam.

This assertion may seem to be a truism, given that jihad is an Islamic concept, but the four-stage process that the report lays out from “Pre-Radicalization” through “Jihadization” follows a similar pattern of increasing adherence to Islam as understood by Islamic supremacist adherents:

RadicWest

Radicalization in the West, Page 75.

To think that future jihadists will not exhibit these same behaviors and follow these same courses of action, and that such fact patterns may not be helpful in preventing future jihadist plots would seem to be not only the height of folly, but a dangerous dereliction of duty on behalf of America’s law enforcement and intelligence officers.

4. Contrary to those who would pooh-pooh the momentum and strength of the jihadist threat, Islamic supremacist ideology has been growing for years.

The report — again, published back in 2007 — notes:

This [jihadist] ideology is proliferating in Western democracies at a logarithmic rate. The Internet, certain Salafi-based NGO’s (non-governmental organizations), extremist sermons /study groups, Salafi literature, jihadi videotapes, extremist – sponsored trips to radical madrassas and militant training camps abroad have served as “extremist incubators” for young, susceptible Muslims — especially ones living in diaspora communities in the West. [Emphasis mine]

The notion that the “homegrown threat” is something new ignores reality.

5. Islamic supremacists who do not become violent jihadists still pose a significant threat.

The report notes:

It is useful to think of the radicalization process in terms of a funnel. Entering the process does not mean one will progress through all four stages and become a terrorist. However, it also does not mean that if one doesn’t become a terrorist, he or she is no longer a threat. Individuals who have been radicalized but are not jihadists may serve as mentors and agents of influence to those who might become the terrorists of tomorrow.

In Islamic supremacism’s war against the West, in some respects the stealth, “peaceful” jihadists pose the greatest threat in their aiding, abetting, and enabling of violent jihadists. This is especially true in a liberal society like ours that values freedom of speech and religious pluralism. In a war, different enemies call for different tactics, and from the Islamic supremacist’s view, we in the West are ripe for subversion by covert and subtle means — especially when you consider our superior military strength.

As the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Exploratory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America stated:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believersso that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal. [Emphasis mine]

That destruction of Western civilization from within can be accomplished by kinetic and non-kinetic means.

Read the full report here. Download and share it before it’s gone.

***

Also available at Amazon

51ZqUtFkvzL._SX385_BO1,204,203,200_