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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

mosques_mapThe Challenge: Jihad-Linked Mosques

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

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

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

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

The Solution: ‘Sandboxing’ Islam in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Also see:

A Time To Confront Our Enemies At Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A denier is a denier.

An appeaser is an appeaser.

An enabler is an enabler.

A betrayer is a betrayer.

And President Obama is all of these.

And so are those who follow his lead.

The West’s War Against Jihadi Terrorism Is Just Beginning

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then and now.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then and now.

Gatestone Institute, by Guy Millière, July 19, 2015:

  • “I’ll see you guys in New York.” — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self-declared “Caliph” of ISIS.
  • On May 23, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama declared that the “war on terror” was over.
  • In a public opinion survey conducted in 2006, in Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia, two third of respondents supported the idea of ​​”uniting all Muslim countries in a new caliphate.”
  • On June 8, 2015, President Obama said his administration had “no strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. The Islamic State does have a strategy.
  • For now, Western countries are, at best, on the defensive. They dare not even identify the enemy. Rather than cautionary vigilance in the face of danger, today’s Western leaders are choosing willful blindness and appeasement.

Saint Quentin Fallavier, France, June 26. A man, Yassin Salhi, decapitates another man, Hervé Cornara, his boss. He lifts the head he has just severed, takes a selfie, sends the picture to one of his jihadi friends in Syria, and pins the head to a fence, next to the black flag of the Islamic State. He then attempts to trigger a deadly explosion in a factory manufacturing industrial gases, but fails. Had he succeeded, he could have caused a regional disaster akin to the accident that occurred in Seveso, Italy, in 1976.

The same day, another man, Seifeddine Rezgui, goes to a beach in Sousse, Tunisia. He unearths an assault rifle he earlier had buried in the sand. He kills thirty-nine tourists, mainly British, and wounds forty others. He is shot and killed by the police. Before the shooting spree, he had sent a selfie, smiling, rifle in hand, next to the black flag of the Islamic State. He sends the picture to a jihadi friend in Syria, just as Yassin Salhi did.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber kills twenty-seven people when he blows himself up in a Shiite mosque in Kuwait City.

The Islamic State issues a statement claiming responsibility for the three attacks, and stating that June 26 was the first anniversary of the caliphate proclaimed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

In one year, the Islamic State has come to control half of Iraq, more than half of Syria, and occupy an area the size of Great Britain. It seized important towns, such as Ramadi and Palmyra. It destroyed monuments that had been preserved since ancient times. It killed thousands of people, mostly Christians, often in the most atrocious manner. It restored slavery. It spread well beyond its original territory and secured promises of allegiance from other Islamic groups: Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jund al-Khilafa in Algeria and in Yemen, and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in Egypt. It is now present in fourteen countries. It releases bloody videos, and awakens religious callings. It welcomes thousands of recruits from Sunni Arab countries, from Europe, and from America. It calls on all “authentic Muslims” to kill the “disbelievers” (Christians and Jews) and “impure infidels” (Shi’ites) in all possible ways, and in all possible places.

On the first day of Ramadan, June 17, one of its leaders, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, renewed the call to kill “infidels”. Yassin Salhi, Seiffeddine Rezgui and the author of the suicide bombing in Kuwait City followed the directive.

Three days after the attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, the Islamic State killed Hisham Barakat, Attorney General of Egypt in a bomb attack in Cairo. At the same time, it launched an offensive against the Egyptian army in Sinai, in El Arish. Israeli intelligence believes that the offensive was organized in cooperation with Hamas in Gaza.

The Islamic State is present in Egypt’s larger cities, in the Gaza Strip, in Judea and Samaria, and in the territories occupied by the Palestinian Authority. The French police estimate that it has sleeper cells in France and throughout Europe. The Islamic State controls the city of Derna in Libya and the coast of Cyrenaica, whence boats carrying thousands of illegal immigrants are sent to Sicily and southern Italy.

The Islamic State is minting its own coins bearing a world map and the words “The Islamic State – A Caliphate based on the doctrine of the Prophet.” It appears to have global ambitions.

It does not have the means to realize all its ambitions. Nevertheless, it has unprecedented resources for a jihadist structure. It is the first jihadist structure to organize as a state, and the first to produce oil. It works as both a state and as an informal global network.

It is the main incarnation of the global jihadist threat of our times. It does not yet have nukes, but it could have access to nuclear bombs through Pakistan.

It is now the main incarnation of the jihadist war launched against the West and its allies several years ago.

Rather than cautionary vigilance in the face of danger, today’s Western leaders are choosing willful blindness and appeasement. They speak of the Islamic State as if it were a cult and as if it promoted a “perverse ideology.” They therefore cannot understand its attraction for so many young Muslims. They do not grasp how it establishes for young Muslims a return to the original Islam and to what Muslims consider the “words of God” dictated to Muhammad. They also do not understand the nostalgia for the caliphate, ever present in the Sunni world, since the departure of the last Caliph, orchestrated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924.

In a public opinion survey conducted in 2006, in Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia, two thirds of the respondents supported ​​”uniting all Muslim countries in a new caliphate.”

Many Muslim commentators in the Western world encourage blindness; they declare that the Islamic State is not Muslim. The flag of the Islamic State bears the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith. The Quran used, and cited constantly, by the Islamic State is the Quran used and cited by all Muslims, all over the world. Muslim organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Fiqh Council of North America, have published texts claiming to “refute” the Islamic State’s Islamic legitimacy, however, none of those texts asserts that the Islamic State does not respect Islamic principles.

After the killings in Tunisia, David Cameron said the fight against the Islamic State is the “fight of our generation.” He did not say how he would lead the fight. He then repeated that the ideology of the Islamic State is not Islamic.

After the beheading in Saint Quentin Fallavier, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls spoke with a little more clarity, and said that the enemy is “jihadism.” He added that the world must pursue a “war against terrorism.” He did not say how the war should be conducted.

France has neither the means nor the will to wage a global war. President François Hollande immediately mitigated the “harshness” of Manuel Valls’s remarks and simply referred to France’s “determination.” Manuel Valls’s remarks resembled other remarks, pronounced fourteen years ago.

On September 20, 2001, nine days after the attacks of September 11, U.S. President George W. Bush spoke of a “global war on terror.” He designated targets and implemented a strategy. Most Western leaders strongly criticized him at the time. Despite mistakes, by the autumn of 2008, Islamic jihadism and terrorism had largely receded and seemed on the edge of defeat.

In March 2009, the U.S. Defense Department officially changed the name of operations from “Global War on Terror” to the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

On May 23, 2013, President Obama declared that the “war on terror” was over.

In January 2014, in an interview given to The New Yorker, Obama downplayed Islamic State power, and compared it to a “jayvee” (junior varsity) team.

Eighteen months later, on June 8, 2015, he said his administration had “no strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State. It seems his administration still does not have one.

The Islamic State does have a strategy. The jihadist war against the West and its allies is growing.

The West’s war against jihadist terrorism is only beginning. For now, Western countries are, at best, on the defensive. They dare not even identify the enemy.

In 2009, when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi walked away from a U.S. detention camp in Iraq, he said, “I’ll see you guys in New York.” He is not in New York — yet.

Also see:

Jihadi Kills 4 Marines in TN – FBI “Not Sure” of Motive

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 17, 2015:

It is clear to all who have functioning cerebral cortexes what the problem is.  Jihadis are on the march.  Law enforcement and military personnel are being openly targeted.  They say it is a command from Allah to wage jihad in order to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) under Sharia (Islamic Law).

mohammedabmug1Yesterday a 24 year old Muslim male named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez killed four Marines and injured several others in a shooting at a reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Abdulazeez had a blog page on which he wrote:  “Don’t let the society we live in deviate you from the task at hand.  Take your study guide, the Quran and the Sunnah, with strength and faith, and be firm as you live your short live in this prison called Dunya.  Because Islam is a comprehensive religion we need to know everything from its message.  The more comprehensive our knowledge of it is, the better our understanding of it will be and what goes on around us.”

Another misunderstander of Islam.

We see the playbook open again.

1. The jihadi makes clear why he is doing what he is doing.  It’s Islamic jihad stupid.

2. The news tells us they cannot understand why he would do this because he is a recent college graduate with a “well-paying job” as an electrical engineer.

3. The FBI and DHS tell us they have not found any “direct ties to terrorist organizations like ISIS.”

4. The FBI/DHS and the media tell us Abdulazeez is a “classic lone wolf.”

5. DHS Response:  Enhance security at federal facilities.

6. Hamas, doing business as “CAIR” tells us they condemn this attack and the media dutifully regurgitate the Hamas talking points.

7. The President asks for prayers for the family, but doesn’t follow it up with going after the root of the problem, and continues to openly support the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas.

8. The problem – the massive Islamic network in the U.S. supporting, financing, training, recruiting, and teaching jihad and the destruction of anything but nations under sharia – is left untouched.

9. No one mentions that core Islamic doctrine mandates jihad until the world is under Islamic rule (even though it is taught to first grade Islamic students across the globe).

Bill Killian. Photo by Alex McMahan Photography (423) 504-642310. US Attorney Bill Killian in Tennessee, who has a long history of snuggling up to Hamas and MB organizations while condemning those who speak truth about this threat, won’t be questioned, indicted, or in anyway made to answer for his role in failing to go after the jihadis in his area under his watch.  (Same guy who condemned UTT training and then the week after we left TN had a joint FBI/DHS training program with the local MB organizations).

11. America is still in grave danger from the Islamic Movement here.  No change (but expect more sensitivity training so we don’t offend the Muslims by reporting this “incident”).


Also see:

Fear Tactics Have Proven Successful For ISIS


CSP, by Julian Fleischman, June 26, 2015:

Another horrifying video has emerged from ISIS, depicting 15 accused spies being murdered brutally and bizarrely. Some are executed in a car by an RPG fired by an ISIS soldier, while others are decapitated by an explosive necklace. The most unusual and disturbing method of execution shown in the video is a scene in which five prisoners are drowned in a cage. An expensive underwater camera is even used to capture the final agonizing moments of the prisoners’ lives.

While ISIS is certainly upping the ante in both the production and shock value of their publications, these videos are nothing new. In August 2014, ISIS released their first beheading video of American journalist James Foley. They released more footage of beheadings, including that of Israeli-American Steven Sotloff and the murder of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh who was burned alive in a cage in a strikingly sophisticated and sickening production.

With each video more barbaric than the last, ISIS is clearly sending a message to the world. However, there have been numerous interpretations as to what exactly this message is.

Experts such as Ryan Mauro of the Clarion project claim that the videos are used by ISIS militants to warn “enemies” of Islam based on their distorted interpretation of the Koran:

“These executions are chosen to show their compliance with sharia law,” said Mauro, “ISIS is acting upon doctrines that say spies and apostates, those who leave Islam, are to be executed.”

However, this high-budget propaganda machine most likely has an even greater purpose than to portray themselves as “legitimate followers of Islam;” ISIS is employing the age-old political strategy of fear tactics. The SS used it to consolidate control of their citizens in Nazi Germany, as did Mao in China and Stalin in Russia. Currently, North Korea carries out public executions, sometimes in front of victims’ families.

The purpose of such cruelty is to deter the enemy by creating horror and panic so that the enemy, regardless of military capacity, would be paralyzed to fight ISIS by the mere image of falling in the hands of people who practice such barbarism.

This strategy of terror has proven successful as evidence in fleeing Iraqi soldiers and upwards of 500,000 Mosul residents in the Northern Iraq offensive of June 2014.

Since this offensive, ISIS’s thirst for domination has only grown and the people of the Middle East have turned increasingly fearful. In the aftermath of the fall of Ramadi in May, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter told CNN that Iraqi forces had no will to fight ISIS in that city. The Iraqi forces were not only provided with superior military training and equipment by the U.S., but they vastly outnumbered the ISIS forces. It is reasonable to assume that fear played an important role as millions of people continue to flee from the areas threatened by ISIS, namely, Iraq and Syria.

Furthermore, such fear has also created the so called “ “astronaut phenomenon”: that is,regular soldiers who bribe commanders to leave danger zones, such as Anbar, Salahaddin and Diyala, where they are expected to see combat against ISIS. This has significantly reduced many military units from 500 men to about 300 men.

This problem is not likely to improve, regardless of foreign aid.

This “visual” strategy is a powerful tool for ISIS, particularly in view of the fact that ISIS aspires to gain influence and power in areas where the state has collapsed and anarchy prevails. Yemen and Libya are two embattled countries where ISIS has aspirations and where such tactics can serve the Islamic State well. It was reported just last week that an ISIS car bomb exploded near a Shiite mosque in Yemen’s capital. Earlier this month, 88 Eritrean Christians were kidnapped by ISIS in Libya. And just today, ISIS carried out at least two more attacks: a car bomb in a Shiite mosque in Kuwait and an attack on a Tunisian beach, killing a total of at least 63, and injuring hundreds more. Many of those killed in Tunisia were western tourists.

The only sign of hope is that of the Kurdish forces, who have proven to be the most effective weapons against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

It is in this sense that the U.S planning has to take this into account in order to generate a strategy that would enable major blows against ISIS. The idea is to strike ISIS up to the point where people will again dare to fight them without fear.

How to do it is for the generals and strategists to decide. However, watching these videos and not granting them strategic and military importance would be a huge mistake. Psychological issues play a huge role, and most totalitarian bodies and regimes I mentioned above have understood that well.


Also see:

Brigitte Gabriel Speaks at 2015 Watchmen on the Wall Conference


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

State Department: Terror Attacks Increased 35% Between 2013 and 2014

French riot police officers run past a burning truck in Paris suburb, Aulnay-sous-Bois, early Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005. Britain's struggle to contain Muslim extremism points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad. From the squalid suburbs north of Paris to the gritty streets of Sarajevo, young disaffected Muslims are increasingly receptive to hard-liners looking to recruit foot soldiers for holy war, European counterterrorism officials and religious leaders warn. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

French riot police officers run past a burning truck in Paris suburb, Aulnay-sous-Bois, early Thursday, Nov. 3, 2005. Britain’s struggle to contain Muslim extremism points up a chilling trend across Europe: the rise of radical Islam, and with it, a willingness among a small but dangerous minority of young people to answer the call to jihad. From the squalid suburbs north of Paris to the gritty streets of Sarajevo, young disaffected Muslims are increasingly receptive to hard-liners looking to recruit foot soldiers for holy war, European counterterrorism officials and religious leaders warn. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

Washington Free Beacon, by Blake Seitz, June 19, 2015:

The Associated Press reported Friday that terror attacks have increased 35 percent between 2013 and 2014. Deaths due to terrorist attacks have spiked by 81 percent.

The news comes from the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which will be officially released later on Friday.

Terror attacks in 2014 were “exceptionally lethal,” with 20 attacks claiming more than 100 victims.

The AP reports that “increased terror activity has been observed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Nigeria,” with the highest number of attacks occurring in Iraq, where the Islamic State has capitalized on the power vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

CNN reports that the publication singles out Islamic State and Boko Haram as terrorist groups gaining momentum, stealing recruits from traditional terror groups like Al Qaeda.

The report claims that the four-year-old Syrian civil war, which has claimed over 200,000 lives and displaced 40 percent of the country’s population, was a catalyst for terror and unrest elsewhere in the Middle East.

According to the report, more than 16,000 foreign fighters entered Syria in 2014, most of whom went to fight for IS.

The report claims that this number “exceeded the rate of foreign fighters who traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia at any point in the last 20 years.”

The Islamic State’s strength is a matter of much debate, but some analysts estimate the group has more than 50,000 fighters—enough to replace battlefield casualties it has sustained from intense fighting in Syria and Iraq.

While much of the increased terrorist activity has occurred in the disorderly Middle East, Americans traveling abroad were not safe from harm. Twenty-four Americans were killed by terror attacks in 2014.

Also see:

ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the West

The famous photograph of Abdulaziz ibn Saud meeting with President Franklin Roosevelt in February 1945 aboard the U.S.S. Quincy symbolizes the incongruity of the Saudi-American "special relationship." (Image source: U.S. Navy)

The famous photograph of Abdulaziz ibn Saud meeting with President Franklin Roosevelt in February 1945 aboard the U.S.S. Quincy symbolizes the incongruity of the Saudi-American “special relationship.” (Image source: U.S. Navy)

Gatestone Institute, by Salim Mansur, June 14, 2015:

  • What principally mattered in accepting Christian support was whether such support served the followers of Islam in spreading the faith. The same thing could also apply to an alliance with the Jews and Israel in defending Saudi interests.
  • In the age of totalitarianism — which in the last century flourished under the various headings of Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Hitler’s National Socialism and Maoism — Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb added Islamism. Shariah, as God’s law, in covering and monitoring every detail of human conduct, as Qutb insisted, is total; its enforcement through jihad made for an ideology — Islamism — consistent with the temperament of the totalitarian era.
  • American support in the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after 1945 was crucial. The transformation of imperial and militaristic Japan into a peaceful democracy was testimony to how American support can make for a better world. In the Korean Peninsula, American troops have held the line between the North and South since the end of the Korean War in 1953; this has made the vital difference in turning South Korea into a democracy and an advanced industrial society.

In a hard-hitting essay on ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) for The Daily Mail, the 2001 Nobel Prize winning author, V.S. Naipaul, wrote: “ISIS could very credibly abandon the label of Caliphate and call itself the Fourth Reich.” Among the writings on Islam and Muslims in recent years, Naipaul’s, as in the books Among the Believers and Beyond Belief, have been perhaps the most incisive and penetrating in exploring the extremist politics of the global Islamist movement from inside of the Muslim world. And that ISIS on a rampage, as Naipaul observed, revived “religious dogmas and deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shi’as, Sunnis and Jews and Christians is a giant step into darkness.”

Ever since the relatively obscure Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stepped forth on the pulpit of the Great Mosque in Mosul, Iraq, on June 28, 2014 to announce the rebirth of the Caliphate (abolished in 1924 by the Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk), with al-Baghdadi himself assuming the title of Caliph Ibrahim, the ruling head of the ummah, or worldwide community of Muslims, many might agree with Naipaul, despite the hyperbole — he has left out a potentially nuclear Iran — that “ISIS has to be seen as the most potent threat to the world since the Third Reich.”

It is baffling to read about or watch the sweep of terror spawned by ISIS in the name of Islam — a world religion with a following approaching two billion Muslims. It is insufficient merely to point out that the barbarism of ISIS reflects its origins in the fetid swamps of the Sunni Muslim insurgency of post-Saddam Iraq. But ISIS is neither a new presence in the Arab-Muslim history, nor is the response to it by Western powers, primarily Britain and the United States, given their relationship with the Middle East over the past century.

We have seen ISISes before, and not as al-Qaeda’s second coming.

The first successful appearance of an ISIS in modern times was the whirlwind with which the Bedouin warriors of Abdulaziz ibn Saud (1876-1953) emerged from the interior of the Arabian Desert in 1902 to take hold of the main fortress in Riyadh, the local capital of the surrounding region known as Najd. Some twenty-four years later, this desert warrior-chief and his armies of Bedouin raiders defeated the ruling Sharifian house in the coastal province of Hejaz, where lie Islam’s two holy cities, Mecca and Medina.

Husayn bin Ali (1854-1931), Sharif of Mecca and Emir of Hejaz, had joined his fate with the British against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. One of his sons, Prince Feisal, led the “Arab Revolt” for independence from Ottoman rule made famous by T.E. Lawrence (1888-1935). But in the aftermath of the Great War, which brought the Ottoman Empire to its ruin, Bedouin tribes in the interior of the Arabian Desert were jostling for power, and the House of Sharif Husayn proved inept at maintaining its own against threats posed to its rule over Hejaz, and as the khadim [steward] of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Another Englishman, a counterpart to T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), was Harry St. John Philby (1885-1960), sent as a British agent during the Great War into the interior of the Arabian Desert. Philby would get to know Abdulaziz ibn Saud; eventually he worked for Ibn Saud as the warrior-chief rose in power and prominence. Philby chronicled the emergence of Abdulaziz ibn Saud as “the greatest of all the kings of Arabia,” and wrote the history of Ibn Saud’s tribe and people under the title Arabia of the Wahhabis. In the West, ironically, Philby is better known as the father of Kim Philby, the Soviet double agent, instead of the confidant of the founder of modern Saudi Arabia. Philby apparently became Muslim, took the name of Abdullah, and lived among the Arabs.

The defeat of the Sharifian forces in Hejaz in 1925 cleared the path for Abdulaziz ibn Saud’s eventual triumph in creating the eponymous Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The fall of Mecca to the Bedouin warriors known as the Ikhwan, or the Brethren (to be distinguished from the movement known as Ikhwan al-Muslimin [Muslim Brotherhood] founded by the Egyptian Hasan al-Banna in 1928), ended the ambition of Sharif Husayn and his sons to rule Arabia with the support of the British. The Sharifian defeat also meant that Britain would not have to referee the conflict between two of its allies — Sharif Husayn and his sons on one side, and Abdulaziz ibn Saud and his Ikhwan warriors on the other — competing for mastery over Arabia.

Philby’s loyalty to Abdulaziz ibn Saud restrained him from mentioning the terror and havocIkhwan warriors perpetrated in the occupation of Hejaz and the capture of Mecca and Medina.[1]But he was effusive in describing what he viewed as the renewal of Islam’s original revolution in the desert soil of its birth. He became the premier salesman of Abdulaziz ibn Saud and his family to the outside world, as T.E. Lawrence was of Prince Feisal and the Sharifian claims to rule the Arabs.[2] Philby wrote,

“Ibn Sa’ud made it clear from the beginning that he would tolerate no criticism of or interference with God’s law on earth… On Friday, January 8th, 1926, in the Great Mosque of Mecca after the congregational prayers, Ibn Sa’ud was proclaimed King of the Hijaz with all the traditional ceremony prescribed by Islamic precedent. It was at once an act of faith and a challenge to the world: to be made good in due course, without deviation from the principle on which it was based, to the glory of God, of whose sustaining hand he was ever conscious amid all the vicissitudes of good and evil fortune, which in the long years to come were to lead his people, under his guidance, out of the wilderness into a promised land flowing with milk and honey. The great fight, of four and twenty years almost to the day, was over; and a greater span, by nearly four years, yet lay before him to develop the fruits of victory for the benefit of generations yet unborn: generations which ‘knew not Joseph’, nor ever heard the war-cry of the Ikhwan.”[3]


The objective of the ISIS is apparently to remake the map of the Middle East, which was drawn by Britain and France as victorious powers in World War I, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The goal is to unite the Fertile Crescent — the region between the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf — under the newly resurrected Caliphate’s rule, where “God’s law” will rule without anyone’s interference — much Saudi Arabia’s founder, Abdulaziz ibn Saud, announced in 1926 on entering Mecca.

ISIS’s self-proclaimed leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in announcing the re-establishment of the Caliphate, have set for ISIS a hugely ambitious program, even if it seems anachronistic for Muslims in the twenty-first century.

But ISIS’s gamble to engineer the creation of the Caliphate and obliterate the post-WWI settlement is not entirely far-fetched when considered in the context of the making of Saudi Arabia.

There is also the shared doctrine of the Wahhabi-Salafi interpretation of Islam, which Abdulaziz ibn Saud insisted, and ISIS insists, is the only true Islam; all other versions and sects of Islam among Muslims are denounced as heresy or, worse, as apostasy, to be violently punished.

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire let loose forces in the Middle East, some of which were contained by Britain and France, as victorious powers, in accordance with their Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

In the Arabian Peninsula, Britain kept in check the forces let loose, preventing their spillover into the Fertile Crescent, until one coalition of Bedouin warriors led by Abdulaziz ibn Saud emerged as clear winner over the territories previously held by Turkey in the Fertile Crescent.

The deep forbidding interior of the Arabian Peninsula consists of the highlands and desert of Najd, far removed from what were once the major centers of the Islamic civilization at its peak. Inhabited by Bedouin tribes, deeply conservative in their customs and manner of living, and disapproving of the ways of the outside world, Najd was a primitive backwater of the Middle East and was left on its own.

The emergence of Abdulaziz ibn Saud as the ruler of Najd and Hejaz in the 1920s, and then as the monarch of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the watchful eyes of Britain as the hegemonic power in the Middle East after the World War I, was not merely the result of one coalition of Bedouin tribes trouncing its opponents for the spoils of war. It was also the victory of a doctrine — of Wahhabism,[4] to which Abdulaziz ibn Saud was wedded as a legacy of his family and tribal history, and which provided the religious and ideological legitimacy for the so-called “conservative revolution” or the Wahhabi version of Islamic “reform” he heralded in establishing his kingdom.

Read more

The Hour Is Later than We Think


Migrants disembark from British Royal Navy ship HMS Bulwark at Catania’s port, Sicily, Italy, Thursday, May 14, 2015. The Bulwark, which takes part in the Frontex’s Triton Operation patrolling waters off Italy, disembarked over 600 migrants that were rescued at sea Wednesday. Triton currently has 10 patrol vessels, three offshore patrol ships, three aircraft and two helicopters at its disposal. (AP Photo/Carmelo Imbesi)

PJ Media, By David Solway On May 22, 2015:

The migratory invasion of Europe, uncannily but presciently foreseen in Jean Raspail’s much derided [1] 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints, [2] is now taking place with near-irresistible force on the shores of that beleaguered continent. As National Post columnist Matthew Fisher reports [3], “Europe is in a deep quandary over how to respond to a huge and growing influx of desperate migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa.” Fisher writes as a compassionate liberal whose sympathies go out to these poor wretches, victims of human traffickers, trusting their lives to rickety boats that frequently capsize. It is hard not to feel sympathy for these hapless multitudes.

At the same time, one must also remember that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers form part of a vast transfer of Muslim populations to Europe, and that Christians in their midst have been thrown overboard [4]. Equally distressing is the likelihood that as many as one million “would-be migrants [are] gathering on the Med’s southern shores” to make the crossing. At this rate it will not take long before Europe, already burdened by large, clamorous and disruptive Muslim enclaves, becomes the island of Lampedusa [5] writ majuscule.

Fisher, like many of his congeners, frets over Europe’s “niggardly response” to  migrants experiencing “extreme religious and ethnic persecution and the economic paralysis that are causing convulsions in Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Horn of Africa and West Africa.” Many European leaders are now contemplating military action to stem the flood, including, as Fisher notes, an armada of warships and attack helicopters “to block the migrants at source” by destroying transport vessels in their home ports. Repatriation programs are also underway. Fisher has no compunction in condemning a “previously open-minded and open-hearted Europe” for its belated accession to realpolitik.

And neither do “50 former European leaders [who] described the calamity unfolding in Italian, Maltese and Greek waters as a ‘stain on the conscience of our continent.’” Liberal ideology clearly cares little for the social and physical integrity of the very nations where it has come irresponsibly to flourish. One thinks of former Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt [6] who, flying over a country where fully 17% (and climbing) of the population is foreign-born, asserted there was more than enough room to house untold numbers of immigrants — chiefly Muslim immigrants, of course. The naivety of a political airhead floating serenely above the intractable economic problems and social dysfunction besetting the country is beyond risible. But such an attitude is typical of the political and intellectual classes, advocates of the unsustainable, not only in Sweden but throughout the increasingly febrile West.

Our intellectual milieu is so “progressive” that we are progressing straight toward civilizational extinction. The spectacle of a Europe undergoing its own species of social, political and economic “convulsions,” its inability to assimilate the millions of Muslims who are transforming Europe into what Oriana Fallaci in The Rage and the Pride [7] regarded as an abattoir-in-the-making, its impotence before the spiralling Muslim crime rate and appalling rape statistics, its evident helplessness in the face of Sharia enforcement and  ongoing terrorist atrocities, and its presiding over the depletion of its welfare budgets exploited by a parasitical Islamic presence — all this counts for little to the liberal/left constituency. Europe’s moral duty, apparently, is to mutate out of all recognition, to betray the legitimate rights and normative expectations of its own native citizens, and ultimately to abolish itself.

Europe’s looming catastrophe was already foreseen by former Algerian President Houari Boumediene, who gloated in a speech [8] at the UN in 1974, “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Daniel Pipes regards [9] as “outrageous” the claim of a Belgium-based imam [10] to the effect that “soon we will take power in this country. Those who criticize us now, will regret it. They will have to serve us. Prepare, for the hour is near.” In light of current events, the prediction does not seem altogether farfetched.

None of this should surprise us. The courageous and prescient statesman Winston Churchill had the measure of Islam in his 1899 book The River War [11] (“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world”). In his Reflections on History [12], the great historian Jacob Burckhardt alerted us to the danger of Koran-inspired jihad. Insightful novelists have read the writing on the wall, for example, G.K. Chesterton’s The Flying Inn [13], Jean Raspail’s aforementioned The Camp of the Saints, Michel Houellebecq’s Platform [14] and Submission[15], and Christian scholar William Kilpatrick’s  recent and provocative Orwellian fable Insecurity [16]. They knew (and know) what is at stake, not for Europe alone but for Western civilization in general, soon to be inundated by an Islamic tidal wave. Our best political thinkers, like Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Caroline Glick, Raymond Ibrahim, Geert Wilders, Bruce Bawer, Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, Mark Durie and others too numerous to mention, have warned us repeatedly that if we persist in ignoring the theo-political virus of canonical Islam, we may not recover from the affliction.

But one does not need to read the literature to stimulate awareness. Nothing prevents us from using our wits to observe and understand what is going on beneath our very noses. The savage Muslims launch terrorist attacks against Western interests and civilians while the clever Muslims insinuate themselves into the political and social infrastructures of the countries they have come to inhabit. One might assume that the latter may even object to the tactics of the former as actually impeding their subversive agenda by alienating their formerly complacent hosts. But both are equally barbarians at large, whether in ski masks and keffiyas or perfectly tailored Armani suits. In the long run the stealth jihadists are infinitely more effective. The Islamic politico-cultural incursion currently in place is working, owing not just to the wiliness and patience of the Muslim infiltrators but to the pathological extent of Western compliance.

There are no doubt many reasons for such complicity: politicians and academics have been bought off — vendus, as the French say; far too many of us are constitutively feeble-minded or proudly ignorant; others adhere to the liberal sedative that all cultures are equally worthy (except, perhaps, for our own); still others naturally gravitate to the “strong horse”; and the intellectual “elite” is committed to the belief that we are morally compelled to expiate a colonial guilt, as if the flagrant and unremittingly vicious colonial history of Islam never existed. Moreover, the pervasive sense of spiritual emptiness which vitiates the communal life of the West demands to be filled. For a people, no less than nature, abhors a vacuum. If Freud was right in proposing that every individual seeks his own path to the grave, the same is surely true of civilizations. Every civilization seeks its own way to die, and Islam is the form in which we administer the coup de grâce to ourselves — what James Burnham called, in his book [17] of that title, the “suicide of the West.”

Reflecting on the Cold War engagement with Communism, Burnham believed that only a policy of anti-totalitarian pushback would lead to victory. It is no different for the conflict with Islam (not “militant” Islam, for Islam is militant by definition). A morally disarmed liberalism, Burnham concludes, is now “the typical verbal systematization of the process of Western contraction and withdrawal; that liberalism motivates and justifies that contraction, and reconciles us to it.” There are other factors at work, of course, contributing to the decline that Burnham identified and mourned: non-replacement birth rates, civil fractures involving race, the therapeutic hedonism of popular mores, the “culture wars” splitting nations into contending ideological camps and devastating a once-sound educational institution. But Islam completes the death of the Western mind, beheading intelligence from the body politic and dancing on the severed corpse.

In the transnational EU, where borders have effectively ceased to exist, the refugee invasion, aided by hassle-free internal transit, is virtually unstoppable, despite the newly stringent measures adopted by the governing apparatchiks. It looks like midnight there. Although Europe is probably a lost cause, it may still have a purpose, namely to serve as an object lesson and advance warning system from which the rest of us may yet learn and act accordingly — however implausibly, given political, academic and media collusion with supremacist Islam. The United States is confronting a European-like dilemma as millions of illegal immigrants are pouring across an undefended southern border, among whom, as an added menace, Islamic jihadists are reportedly embedded. No less disturbing, as Judicial Watch [18] reveals, ISIS is operating a training camp in Mexico just eight miles from the Texas border. Commonwealth nations like Canada and Australia are marginally better off, but open-door immigration policies are also beginning to wreak social and cultural havoc, abetted by a soft-minded and blinkered officialdom mired in political correctness and multiculti myopia. Here, the reckoning has just been shoved into a relentlessly foreclosing future.

A telling example of the cultural temper in my own country, Canada, is provided by our largest-circulation newspaper the Toronto Star, which has recommended [19] that convicted terrorist and killer Omar Khadr be awarded the prestigious Order of Canada; and by Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau, clearly lobbying for Muslim votes, who has dismissed [20]former CSIS [21] Director and National Security Adviser Richard Fadden’s warning about Muslim radicalization as “fear mongering.” The mind boggles. As Roger Kimball asks [22]rhetorically, “Who can reliably distinguish between satire and reality these days?” The political-and-media world has become its own unintended parody. Our liberal torch-bearers have morphed into cultural flame-throwers.

Dispassionate analysis of Islam and its destructive inroads into non-Islamic countries is in no way an instance of that egregious canard “Islamophobia”; quite the contrary, it betokens what American Thinker blogger Greg Richards calls [23] “Islamorealism,” a means of dealing with facts, not myths, with concrete details, not beguiling narratives. Those who claim otherwise, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace, have consulted neither the Koran nor the Hadiths. Nor have they familiarized themselves with the blood-drenched history of Islam from the seventh century onwards. Nor have they examined the off-the-charts terror statistics of the last decade, a sign of the sacralised depravity we shrink from bearding in its cave.

Referring to the recent attack by Muslim gunmen at the Mohammed Art Exhibit (“Draw the Prophet” contest) in Garland, Texas, Richards points out “how much security is now necessary to hold an event that would be unremarkable if it involved Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other organized religion.” Obviously, those who argue that Muslims offended by satiric representations — or, for that matter, any representations — of the Prophet, who go on murder sprees to avenge the honor of their faith, must somehow be understood and coddled are living in a state of abject cowardice and cognitive dissonance. Christians and Jews who may feel similarly offended do not routinely set off bombs and fire AK-47s. As a letter writer [24] to the National Post reminds us, Jews who felt offended by the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri’s sponsoring of the annual Holocaust cartoon competition “did not board a plane and shoot up the offices of Hamshahri” — or, put more reasonably, did not shoot up Iranian embassies and community organizations.

One thing is undeniable. Media outlets and establishment figures [25] that blame the targets of Muslim violence, whether these are exercising their First Amendment rights or merely going about their daily business, are soft in the head, if they are not wholly catatonic. They pose as great a threat to our way of life, our norms and traditions, and our common domestic assumptions as do both the extremists and the furtive jihadists. These enablers refuse to see that Ishmael is now invading the tents of Abraham with a vengeance; indeed, they are welcoming the marauders not only with “open minds and open hearts,” but with open arms.

Are we then to accept that refusing to publish books or cartoons in a free society out of fear or coercion is normal, that being forced to live or travel with an entourage of bodyguards is perfectly tolerable in a liberal culture, that being threatened with violence or legal action by the communicants of a particular faith for speaking our minds is standard practice and that we should properly hold our tongues? Or should we put our enemies on notice that such a state of affairs in a free and democratic society will be resisted with every means at our disposal? That such questions even need to be posed shows how much we have already conceded, how far down the road of groveling surrender we have gone.

The psychology behind the perfidy and timorousness of our journalists, opinion makers, talking heads, political leaders and intellectual clerisy is not mysterious. Frightened people tend to cover for their failings by affecting an “enlightened” affinity with their tormenters, whether by joining them or, as in the current situation, justifying them — the Stockholm Syndrome comes in various shades. (Aside from those, be it said, who have been lucratively suborned.) Analogously, stupid people pretend to a wisdom ineffably beyond the ordinary and an erudition beyond the informed — like Joe Biden instructing [26] Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the true nature of Islam.

“The world is everything that is the case,” said the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein with disarming simplicity in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [27]. The unwillingness to recognize, let alone absorb, what is happening in the world will often lead the morally and intellectually compromised to create a parallel world which is manifestly not the case in order to spare themselves the hard necessity of admitting the inadmissible, that is, of acknowledging both an impinging reality and their quailing deficiency before it. And they will almost invariably disguise their pusillanimity as human sensitivity and ethical duty.

Mercy and commiseration for strangers, which Matthew Fisher and his counterparts feel in spades, are noble sentiments. But they should not trump the instinct for survival or the empathy one extends to one’s neighbors and fellow citizens whose lives are irremediably changed for the worse by an orgy of extraneous charity. In such cases, resolute action to avert an indigenous catastrophe is an expression of moral courage. But there is little that will curb or retard the present debacle except for a profound and long overdue re-thinking on the part of our leaders, a willingness to face up to the reality of approaching cultural destitution, the re-instatement of rigorous border protocols, and the unabashed installation of prudent immigration procedures. As we have seen, European politicians are belatedly contemplating military intervention before the entirely predictable results of their accommodationist policies alter the face of Europe forever. Although I suspect they may soon renege on their commitment. And why not? All that may be possible at this advanced stage is a botox injection.

The fact remains. It is time for the non-European West to act decisively before it arrives at so disastrous a historical juncture as have our European compatriots. The Belgian imam is right. The hour is later than we think.

See Something, Say Something about Jihad

sharia1 (1)CSP, May 11, 2015:

Secure Freedom announces the launch of our new CounterJihad campaign with an ad calling for free people everywhere to speak their minds about the encroachment of Islamic law, known as shariah.

With jihadists on the march worldwide – including here – truth-tellers about Islam’s anti-constitutional shariah doctrine should be commended, not slandered.

Two armed jihadists were shot dead before they could murder proponents of free speech meeting in Garland, Texas. After the attack, some commentators have taken to blaming its targets, claiming they are “racists,” “bigots,” and “Islamophobes” who provoked the Islamic supremacists by drawing pictures of and denouncing their prophet Mohammed.

It is not racism or bigotry, let alone an unfounded fear of Islam that prompts courageous freedom fighters like Pamela Geller and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to defend our civilization against those determined to destroy it. They are willing to challenge a threat to freedom of speech that not just Islamists but others, including Hillary Clinton, insist must be accommodated.

So join the CounterJihad and stand up for the freedoms that make America, and all of our allies in the free world, beacons of liberty to oppressed people everywhere.

CounterJihad is a combination of education, advocacy and action designed to stop the spread of The Global Jihad Movement (GJM). Muslims declared holy war, jihad, on non-believers long ago. They have been killing, enslaving, torturing and putting more territory under their dominion every day. It is long overdue for the free world to stand up and fight back.

We call our enemy the Global Jihad Movement because regardless of how they name themselves, they share a common goal: The global supremacy of Islam. We advocate harnessing the full range of powers of the United States and our allies including Military, Diplomatic, Intelligence, Cyber and Economic forces. We must also champion and promote the power of our culture which values individual liberty and government by man-made, not religious law.

The GJM comprises two identifiable and mutually-supporting lines of endeavor: Violent Jihad and Civilization Jihad.

Violent Jihadists include al Qaeda, the Islamic State (IS), Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah and any of their ideological comrades who fly the black flag of jihad. The Violent Jihadists ply their deadly trade all around the world. The alliance between IS and Boko Haram creates a trans-continental Caliphate in the Middle East and Africa and it is expanding daily.

They are Hostis Humani Generis, Enemies of all Mankind, and we must defeat them.

Civilization Jihadists, as they refer to themselves, use a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to denote a stealthy jihad in its pre-violent stage of societal infiltration. They include the MB and its many associated organizations and front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and others who follow the same ideology as the violent ones, but use covert means to advance it.

The Civilization Jihadists comprise perhaps an even more dangerous threat to US national security interests, culture. They convert and indoctrinate new generations to become the next violent jihadists, and they finance, and provide political cover for their violent brethren. They infiltrate in seemingly innocuous ways and use our own freedoms to advance their agenda of Shariah law and the eventual creation of Islamic states where democracies now exist.

Victory over the Civilization Jihadists requires government and citizens working together to counter the threat.

  • We must counter their lawfare by enshrining the supremacy of US laws
  • We must end government outreach to jihadist groups of all types
  • We must declare the Muslim Brotherhood, and affiliates, terrorist groups
  • We must investigate and close radical mosques that preach jihad
  • We must stop the infiltration of groups that promote Shariah

Join us in the CounterJihad to Secure Freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

Islamic Terror in an Age of Individual Jihad

20150504_texassuspectsshotmohammed.siFamily Security Matters, by Clare Lopez, May 7, 2015:

Anyone who thinks that what happened at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX on 3 May 2015, when two Muslim terrorists tried to attack a “Draw Muhammad” art contest, was an isolated incident, needs to think again. Although the two jihadist shooters, both affiliated with the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (a Muslim Brotherhood-linked mosque), were quickly shot dead by security at the site, it’s their modus operandi that we need to understand. This is what the future jihad in America is going to look like. It is called ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn) and it is not just doctrinally-authorized in Islam, but is aggressively being encouraged, even commanded, by the Islamic State (as the Caliphate) through its online magazine, ‘Dabiq,’ as well as a flurry of other statements and videos by both IS and al-Qa’eda.

As the Center’s Senior Fellow (and author of the newly-released “Catastrophic Failure”), Steve Coughlin, points out, 2015 is the final year of the “10 Year Programme of Action” for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The top action item for that decade has been criminalization of the criticism of Islam – that is, pushing for legal measures to bring U.S. and other Western societies into compliance with Islamic blasphemy and slander laws. Those laws impose the death penalty for anything considered ‘offensive’ to a Muslim. Some think that just avoiding anything that might remotely be thought ‘offensive’ to Muslims is the best way to deal with the situation. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton certainly did all she could during her tenure to collaborate with the OIC through the Istanbul Process and UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. But it’s never enough and never going to be enough until all of humanity is subjugated to shariah; so now, in this final year of the ‘Programme,’ we are beginning to see the physical enforcement of those Islamic speech codes across the Western world, including in our own homeland. That enforcement increasingly is taking the form of individual acts of jihad terrorism.

Prior to 9/11, as al-Qa’eda took aim at ‘the far enemy,’ the key perpetrators-Usama bin Laden and other top leaders of AQ, Hizballah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban-met to plot, plan, and direct that attack. It was very much a top-directed operation. Today, the Global Islamic Movement is dispersed, institutionalized, and operationalized. Myriad jihad groups as well as unaffiliated individual jihadis seek to instill terror across the world, even as AQ and IS compete with Iran for leadership of the kinetic vanguard role. The OIC functions at the Islamic head-of-state institutional jihad level. And the Muslim Brotherhood provides the civilization jihad indoctrination, infiltration, and subversion operations within target governments and societies.

These three jihad levels – kinetic vanguard, Islamic institution, and civilization jihad – work in synergistic tandem to undermine the West, sap our will to resist, and play the siren song of submission as the easiest, most reasonable way out of this nightmare. Violent jihad attacks by Muslim terrorists against Western free speech targets have proliferated throughout the first half of 2015. In early January 2015, two Muslim gunmen murdered twelve staff members of the French satirical magazine, ‘Charlie Hebdo.’ Three police officers were executed as well and another four people were killed by a third jihadist shooter who targeted a Jewish deli market in Paris. Then, in February, a jihadist gunman attacked a Copenhagen event called “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression” where Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks was speaking, killing one civilian and injuring two law enforcement officers (although Vilks himself escaped harm). And now they’ve taken aim at Pamela Geller, the courageous founder of Stop Islamization of America, also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The body count is rising, but that’s not really the objective: free speech is. Free society and free-thinking individuals governed by consent of the governed under rule of man-made law are. Simply by existing, such individuals and such societies block the forces of jihad from achieving their obligatory shariah objective, which is the global imposition of shariah. Free speech is the most important, first line of defense against that onslaught because shariah cannot reign unchallenged as long as free people may speak their minds.

Taking shape, then, is a concerted jihad campaign to instill terror among those who dare to resist shariah. Especially via online messaging and social media, the Islamic State has been urging faithful Muslims to make the hijrah to Middle East battlefields but specifically encourages those who cannot or choose not to, to wage individual jihad in place, wherever they live. Thanks to misguided federal refugee resettlement policies that are channeling thousands of all-too-often poorly-vetted Muslim immigrants into the U.S., combined with official refusal to recognize Muslim Brotherhood operatives, groups, and Islamic Centers as the jihadist threat they actually are, there is a now a ready pool of indoctrinated jihad recruits living among us, whose numbers the FBI admits it has no way to manage or even monitor. From this pool in coming weeks and months will emerge the individual jihadis, converted, inspired, and trained by Brotherhood imams and mosques who will answer the IS call to jihad issued by recruiters lying in wait for them all over the Internet.

Understanding and confronting this dynamic that is taking direct aim at the American right to free speech is imperative for both the engaged citizen and an informed law enforcement community. It is the only way to stay free.

The Jihad At Home

284D2BE800000578-3066779-image-a-9_1430750082947ISIS strikes in Texas.

City Journal, by Judith Miller, May 6, 2015:

Fortunately, no innocent people died in the militant Islamic terror attack Sunday night in Garland, Texas, where an anti-Islamist organization was holding a Mohammed cartoon-drawing contest. The two wannabe Jihadists, armed with assault rifles and body armor, proved no match for an off-duty Texas traffic cop, who shot them dead with his pistol. But had the “homegrown” terrorists been more numerous, better trained, or better armed, the attack might have proved as deadly as that on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine where 12 people were murdered in January. Mitchell Silber, the former director of counterterrorism research for the New York Police Department and now with K2 Intelligence, a consulting group, called the Garland strike the “first ISIS-inspired terror attack on U.S. soil.”

On Tuesday, ISIS embraced the assailants in a statement on its radio station for the Garland attack, calling them “soldiers of the caliphate,” and expressing hope that they would be granted “the highest rank of paradise” for their attack. “In another message posted on JustPasteit, an anonymous message board, the group claimed credit for the assault and warned Pamela Geller, the head of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which sponsored the cartoon contest, that it would not rest until she was dead. Boasting that it has “71 trained soldiers in 15 different states,” among them Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan, and California, “ready at our word to attack,” ISIS vowed to send “all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.” The attack in Garland, the message states, was “only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah (authority or governance) in the heart of our enemy.”

While the authenticity of this message has not been independently confirmed, ISIS has frequently used that message board to publish propaganda. And terrorism analysts and law enforcement officials alike take seriously its warning that the Garland attack is only the start of a sustained effort to create havoc and fear through such strikes. According to a report published in April by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and other forms of religious, racial, and ethnic discrimination, this year has seen a dramatic spike in such attacks and plots by individuals inspired by ISIS and other militant Islamic groups. Since the beginning of the year, the report notes, 31 people in 11 U.S. states have been linked to “plots, conspiracies and other activity on behalf of foreign terrorist groups motivated by Islamic extremist ideologies.” The pace of arrests—unprecedented, notes the ADL report—is a “stark reminder of the varied extremist threats we face in this country,” warned Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. While most of the attacks and more serious plots were hatched in other countries—most notably in Canada, France, and Denmark—“the U.S. is far from immune from the global reach of Islamic extremism,” he said.

Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism, said that the “alarming” number of mostly young people drawn to jihadist causes demonstrates the “impact foreign terrorist groups have on this generation of homegrown extremists,” mainly through terrorist propaganda or communication on social media. ISIS, the report says, is the largest inspirer, accounting for 29 of the 31 individuals. Terrorism may well be a family enterprise, the ADL report suggests. Nine of the 31 have family members who have also been implicated in militant Islamic activity. Just over half are believed to have traveled or planned to travel to join terror groups abroad. Eleven of the 31 were engaged in domestic terrorist plots. Five of those arrested were female, which brings the number of women linked to Islamic militancy since the start of last year to a total of 14. At least seven of those arrested were converts to Islam—a trend first identified in a controversial 2007 report coauthored by Silber and published by the NYPD.

Considerable debate is underway about what is prompting the dramatic rise in such plots and attacks. Silber says that greater decentralization is an important factor. ISIS has issued a standing order to attack Western targets, “as in Nike’s old tag line: ‘Just do it!’ ” he said. Unlike al-Qaida, whose chief of external operations had to approve a plot in advance, aspiring jihadis can interpret mere “contact with ISIS and its supporters through Twitter and other social media as an order to mobilize.” At least one of the attackers in Texas had a history with terrorist groups and causes: Elton Simpson, who lived in Arizona, was indicted in 2010 for lying to the FBI about having discussed travel to Somalia, which he denied. In 2011, he was found guilty and received three years of probation.

The explosion of social media concerns terrorism and law-enforcement terrorism experts alike. “If the current rate of arrests continues,” Segal said, “the number of Islamic-extremist-related terror arrests in 2015 will exceed that of any previous year.” The best defense against such radicalization, he and others say, is an informed community.

But educating Americans about the danger increasingly posed by homegrown radicals may not be easy. Some analysts have spent almost as much time denouncing the anti-Islamist group that sponsored the event in Texas as they have the two dead attackers. The Southern Poverty Law Center called Geller, a free-speech advocate who has been highly critical of Islam, an “anti-Muslim propagandist.” The ADL, too, has branded Geller’s group an organization that spreads “virulent anti-Muslim bigotry and conspiracy theories.” Many of the group’s critics have suggested that Geller’s event provoked the attack by offering $10,000 to the person who drew the best caricature of Mohammed, an offense to many pious Muslims who believe that the Koran forbids depictions of their prophet. While spokesmen for both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center stress that such provocative action in no way justifies a resort to violence, both have criticized conduct by Geller as offensive to Muslims.

Geller is having none of it. Continuing to portray herself as an advocate for free speech, she denies that she is anti-Muslim, but rather “anti-jihadi” and “anti-Sharia,” a reference to Islamic law. She also defends her controversial contest in Garland, saying that it is precisely the kind of event protected by the First Amendment. “Inoffensive speech doesn’t require legal protection,” she says. “Offensive speech does.”

The Watchman Show: World on Fire

jihad 2Terrorism experts Erick Stakelbeck, Patrick Poole and Ryan Mauro to discuss Iran, ISIS, Yemen and Syria–and why it matters for Americans.

Terrorism in Africa: The Imminent Threat to the United States

Ansar al Sharia recruits receive training at a camp near Benghazi.

Ansar al Sharia recruits receive training at a camp near Benghazi.

Long War Journal, April 29, 2015:

Editor’s note: Below is Thomas Joscelyn’s testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence on the threat posed by jihadist groups in Africa. 

In preparing today’s testimony, I reviewed the history of al Qaeda’s plotting against the West. A number of facts demonstrate that al Qaeda’s presence in Africa has been tied to these efforts. For instance, declassified documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound show that he ordered al Qaeda’s branches in Africa to select candidates capable of striking inside the U.S. Bin Laden also ordered al Qaeda’s African branches to coordinate their work with his “external operations” team, which was responsible for plotting attacks against Western interests. Some of al Qaeda’s most senior leaders, including those who have overseen al Qaeda’s planned attacks in the West, have come from Africa. Senior al Qaeda leaders embedded in Shabaab have also trained operatives to attack in Europe. I discuss this evidence in detail in the final section of my written testimony.

Complex tribal, ethnic, and religious dynamics mean that any summary of the situation in Africa will be necessarily incomplete.  However, I will attempt to distill some themes that are important for understanding the rising jihadist threat in the continent. While there are important differences between ISIS and al Qaeda, and the two are at odds with one another in a variety of ways, they are both inherently anti-American and anti-Western. Thus, they constitute a threat to our interests everywhere their jihadists fight.

Since the beginning of the year, the ISIS branch in Libya has repeatedly attacked foreign interests. The group has bombed and/or assaulted with small arms the Algerian, Moroccan, Iranian, South Korean and Spanish embassies in Tripoli. Fortunately, these attacks have caused only a few casualties, as foreign governments pulled most of their diplomatic personnel out of Libya months ago. But these incidents show the organization’s followers are deeply hostile to any foreign presence.

Other ISIS attacks on foreigners in Libya have been more lethal and at least two Americans have been killed by ISIS’ so-called “provinces.” In January, the group’s fighters launched a complex assault on the Corinthia Hotel in Tripoli. Ten people, including David Berry, a former U.S. Marine serving as a security contractor, were killed. In August 2014, jihadists from the ISIS province in the Sinai killed William Henderson, an American petroleum worker.

Some of ISIS’ most gruesome acts in North Africa have come with pointed threats against the West. In February, the jihadists beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts. The propaganda video showing the murders was entitled, “A Message Signed with Blood to the Nation of the Cross.” ISIS explicitly threatened Italy in the video and also made it clear that they would target Christians simply for adhering to a different faith. Earlier this month, ISIS’ branch followed up by killing a large group of Ethiopian Christians.

In March, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis. More than 20 people were killed in the assault, which targeted foreign tourists. Citizens of Britain, France, Colombia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, and Spain were among the victims. Although ISIS was quick to lay claim to the museum slayings, the reality is more complicated. The Tunisian government has blamed the Uqba ibn Nafi Brigade, which is part of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), an official branch of al Qaeda. Based on publicly-available information, it appears that the attackers may have joined ISIS, but the operation itself was planned by the AQIM brigade’s leadership.

Al Qaeda’s international network continues to launch high-profile attacks across the continent. Some of these operations directly target foreigners. Earlier this month, Shabaab, al Qaeda’s official branch in Somalia, killed more than 140 people at the Garissa University College in Kenya. The gunmen reportedly separated out non-Muslims for killing, letting many Muslims go. This shows that the organization, like other parts of al Qaeda, is very concerned about the impact of its violence in the Muslim-majority world. In this respect and others, the Garissa attack was similar to Shabaab’s siege of the Westgate shopping mall in September 2013. More than 60 people were killed, with Shabaab’s gunmen singling out non-Muslims. Shabaab’s attacks in Kenya and other neighboring countries are part of what the UN has identified as the group’s “regional” strategy. Shabaab has undoubtedly suffered setbacks since the height of its power in East Africa, but it still operates a prolific insurgency inside Somalia, while also seeking to expand its capabilities in the surrounding countries. In fact, America’s counterterrorism efforts in East Africa seem to be principally aimed at the part of Shabaab tasked with exporting terrorism throughout the region.

As we’ve seen over the past several years, al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa will attack American and Western interests when the opportunity presents itself.  The September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Mission and Annex in Benghazi and the raid on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis three days later were carried out by al Qaeda-linked groups. The Ansar al Sharia organizations in Libya and Tunisia, both of which are tied to AQIM, were involved in these assaults on America’s diplomatic presence in North Africa. In early 2013, terrorists commanded by Mokhtar Belmokhtar killed dozens of foreign workers during the siege of the In Amenas gas facility in Algeria. Belmokhtar, who is openly loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri, claimed responsibility for operation on behalf of al Qaeda.

There is no doubt, therefore, that both ISIS and al Qaeda pose a threat to Western interests in Africa. Below, I explore current trends within both organizations, highlighting some ways these international networks may threaten Americans both home and abroad. But first, I briefly look at the different strategies ISIS and al Qaeda are employing to build up their networks.

Read more


Subcommittee Hearing: Terrorism in Africa: The Imminent Threat to the United States


Dr. J. Peter Pham
Africa Center
Atlantic Council
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Mr. Thomas Joscelyn
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Dr. Daniel Byman
Research Director
Center for Middle East Policy
Center for Security Studies
Brookings Institution
Witness Statement [PDF]
Witness Truth in Testimony [PDF]

Archival – Hizb Al-Tahrir in Chicago Founder Calls for Caliphate: Islam Won’t Coexist with Democracy

Published on Apr 26, 2015 by MEMRITVVideos

Dr. Mohammed Malkawi, a.k.a. “Abu Talha,” said, during a speech delivered at the International Muslim Khilafah Conference, held at Wembley Arena in London in August 1994, that “slam is a “supreme system” that “will not coexist in the same place as democracy.” “Islam is a system that Allah revealed to dominate all other religions,” he said.