Published on Dec 16, 2014 by act4america
History News Network, By Walid A. Phares, Dec 15, 2014:
The jihadi hostage taker of Sydney has been mutating from one state of mind to another over the years. He is a citizen of Iran under his original name Manteghi Bourjerdi. There is no information as to why he sought political asylum to Australia in 1996. He either used the process of asylum to enter Australia or he was opposed to the Iranian regime. However, as soon as he was granted asylum and became a legal resident, he engaged in open activism for a radical global jihadi ideology. He focused on an anti-Western, anti-U.S. agenda, launching political attacks on Australia’s policies and on its military. His narrative was global and could fit the goals of any jihadi movement in the world, whether it be Salafi or Khomeinist. Being a Shia, he was originally identified as linked to al Qaeda or ISIS, but being opposed to the Iranian regime, he was not linked to Hezbollah. Then new information appeared—basically from his own web site—that he abandoned the Shia faith and moved to the Sunni faith. He used the narrative of Salafi Sunni jihadists when he announced he abandoned the Shia. He called them “rafida,” a term used by al Qaeda and ISIS.
My colleague Adam Savit has already taken the BBC to task for their write up of a recent report on Jihadist violence in the month of November, which neglected to include the murder of Israelis. This led me to drill down deeper into the report by the International Center for the Study of Radicalisation and Political violence. Not only did the report neglect to include Hamas violence in its study of jihadi attacks, but it does so explicitly and intentionally. The report notes:
This definition excludes Shia militant groups such as Hezbollah that justify fighting in the name of jihad but are located outside the Sunni tradition. Indeed, the jihadists of al Qaeda, the Islamic State and like-minded groups regard Hezbollah as ‘apostates’ and have been among the most vociferous opponents of Shia militant groups in places like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
The definition also excludes the Palestinian group Hamas which advocates ‘jihad’ and – unlike Hezbollah – is widely recognized as Sunni. Its religious, social and political doctrine, however, is not Salafist.
Jihadist groups such as al Qaeda have repeatedly condemned Hamas for recognizing man-made laws and becoming involved in democratic elections, while Hamas, in turn, has repressed – and fought against – jihadist groups.
This justification is at best ignorant, and at worst mendacious.
While it is true that Hezbollah is fighting Islamic State and Al Qaeda in Syria, Hezbollah also has a long history of cooperation with Al Qaeda. Are the authors of this report unaware that it was Hezbollah which introduced Al Qaeda to the truck bombing techniques used in the Africa Embassy bombings (a role for which they have been held responsible in court) and that relationships between Iran’s terrorist facilitators the IRGC, Hezbollah and AL Qaeda were forged during the Pan Arab and Islamic Conference held by Sudan in the 1990s? Perhaps they are equally unaware that Hezbollah’s patron, Iran, has been held responsible for its role in 9/11 in federal court, due to its role in facilitating the movement of the hijackers, and that the 9/11 Commission notes the role of Hezbollah’s master terrorist Imad Mugniyeh in assisting the 9/11 attacks? One supposes that given its narrow justification the ICSR would not consider the Embassy bombings or the 9/11 attacks “jihadist” violence either.
Then there is the ICSR’s statement on Hamas. Hamas is the wing of the Muslim Brotherhood responsible for engaging in jihad terror against Israel. Hamas is completely open about this connection, having documented it in its original founding charter. Hamas was perhaps best described by leading Hamas representative Ismail Haniyeh who remarked that Hamas is the “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.” From its earliest foundation, The Muslim Brotherhood’s own founder Hasan Al-Banna described his movement as consisting of “a Salafiyya message…” Prior to founding the Brotherhood Al-Banna was himself a member of the Salafi groups, including the Society for the Prevention of the Forbidden.
Further more, Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb’s most important work “Milestones”, was a major inspiration for Osama Bin Laden (according to the 9/11 Commission report again) and consists entirely of a discussion regarding how to restore the world to Islam, while using the methods of the early Muslims (i.e. Salaf). The original founder of the MAK (Afghan Service Bureau) Abdullah Azzam together with Osama Bin Laden, and the author of “In Defense of Muslim Lands” the doctrinal work which best established Jihad as an fard al-ayn (individual obligation), was both a Muslim Brother and a co-founder of Hamas. Azzam’s picture is still visible in the offices of Hamas today.
Besides Sayyid Qutb and Abdullah Azzam, other Muslim Brotherhood members have also played a key role in creating the very doctrine of Al Qaeda, such as Abdul Mjid Aziz Al-Zindani, the leading cleric of the Yemeni branch of Muslim Brotherhood, was a close mentor of Osama Bin Laden and a contact of the AQ-linked Ansar al-Islam. Al-Zindani was also a board member of the specially designated entity the Union of the Good, an organization run by Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi, whose primary purpose is to fund Hamas.
The claim by ICSR that Hezbollah and Hamas should be excluded from an accounting of Jihadist violence merely because they (at times) have disagreed with Al Qaeda or other jihadist groups is utterly inane. After all Al Qaeda and ISIS are currently locked in a struggle themselves (see for example this video released today by MEMRI featuring ISIS members interrogating Jabhat al Nusra members and denouncing them as apostates), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked militias in the Syrian civil war fight alongside Al Qaeda, and yet the ICSR can’t quite bring itself to declare that Al Qaeda is not a jihadist group.
Jihad as religiously-obligatory warfare to establish Islamic law remains a concept which extends across both Sunni and Shia sects, and amongst all schools of Islamic law. There is no legitimate justification for excluding these groups, and to do so is to reduce the term “jihad” or “jihadist violence” until it is becomes meaningless. The reality is that Jihadist violence is a threat larger than simply just the “Salafi-jihadi” matrix which some insist on shoving it into.
As the U.S. and coalition forces continue to conduct airstrikes against the Islamic State, an alarming trend of increasing violence towards westerners is occurring in the Middle East. In recent weeks, there have been multiple attacks on abroad citizens of western coalition nations in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. IS ideology and influence has been seen in dozens of countries around the world, more notably countries in Europe and North America taking part of the anti-IS coalition force.
The United States, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Austria, Australia, and many others have all been dealing with the security threats posed by Islamic radicals inspired by IS to conduct domestic attacks. There is also the threat of experienced foreign IS fighters returning to their home countries to conduct operations on behalf of IS. While these threats remain pertinent, the threat to abroad citizens of coalition countries is increasing in light of recent events.
In the UAE, an unidentified woman wearing a full niqab stabbed an American school teacher to death in a public restroom at an Abu Dhabi mall. The unidentified woman also planted a makeshift explosive device at the residence of an Egyptian-American doctor. The device was discovered and disarmed by police before it was able to cause any damage. Though the woman’s connections are still unknown, it is clear that these attacks were meant to specifically target Americans. The presence of a makeshift explosive device may indicate that the detained suspect was not acting alone. This incident is particularly alarming since it is very rare for terrorist attacks of this nature to occur in the oil-rich emirates.
In Saudi Arabia, two separate incidents occurred where a Danish and Canadian citizen were targeted. Last month, a gunman pulled up alongside the vehicle of a Danish man and opened fire. The Danish citizen was only treated for minor injuries. The perpetrators of the attack remained unknown until a recent video was released by Saudi supporters of IS claiming responsibility. The video seems to show a gunman pulling up next to a vehicle and firing multiple shots directed at the driver. The video has not yet been authenticated by authorities but seems to be consistent with attack. The video also included audio clips of IS leaders calling for attacks within Saudi Arabia.
Another incident occurred at a shopping mall in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich Eastern Province where a Canadian man was stabbed. The assailant was arrested but the motive behind the attack is still unknown. Given the current trend and timing of the attack, it seems likely that the man was targeted because of his nationality. In Egypt, a Sinai-based terrorist group originally called Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM) but have recently changed their name to the Islamic State in Sinai, have claimed responsibility for the death of a 58-year old Texas native William Henderson. Henderson is reported to have been working for his oil company at one of their locations in Egypt and died on August 6th of this year.
The investigation into the specifics of his death is ongoing but it appears that he has been murdered solely for being an American citizen. The Islamic State of Sinai or ABM is an interesting group since they have deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood along with their recent pledge of allegiance to IS. Egyptian authorities allege that ABM has long been funded by the Muslim Brotherhood but it is unclear under whose direction they are currently operating under.
The similarities between these separate incidents demonstrate that as the coalition fight against IS continues, western citizens visiting or living in the Middle East will continue to be targeted. It is becoming increasingly necessary for potential targeted citizens living abroad to be vigilant and aware of this very real threat. Companies and corporations who have employees at potentially dangerous foreign locations should also be aware and take the necessary steps to increase security measures to protect their facilities.
Confusion Due To Faulty Assumptions
Consider the assumptions that underlie the current U.S. National Security Policy toward the Middle East and the wider Islamic world:
1. The Westphalian nation-state concept imposed on the Middle East by the Sykes-Picot Agreement in the aftermath of World War I is still an operative approach to partition peoples and territories into political entities, while ignoring the reality of the culture and history of religious, tribal, and geographical divisions.
2. The Sykes-Picot creation of the state of Iraq can function viably with a combined Shia-Sunni-Kurd government, while the similarly created state of Syria will also be viable with a combination Alawite-Sunni-Shia-Kurd polity functioning together.
3. The territorial sovereignty represented by the Iraq-Syrian border is still valid.
4. The U.S. can maintain simultaneous, balanced, effective alliances with Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and the various regional minor sects like Alawites.
5. The Khomeinist-Shia mullah government will negotiate discontinuation of their nuclear weapons development program and additionally will serve as a U.S. partner in maintaining political stability in the area of the Persian Gulf.
6. The Saudi, Egyptian, and Gulf Arab Sunnis will compliantly acquiesce to the new U.S.- Khomeinist-Shia Iranian alliance.
7. The absence of a two state Israel-Palestine solution is the driving force of Middle East instability, and it is the Israelis that are responsible for the impasse.
8. Turkey is a secular ally and is not pursuing a Sunni Islamist agenda.
9. Islamic jihad is not a politico-theocratic, imperialistic doctrine that is the organizing principle of Islam as mandated in the Quran, the Hadith, the Sira, and the Sharia and that those Muslims engaged in jihad are merely an isolated fringe.
1. The nation-states created by Sykes-Picot have never functioned as intended and instead have been just geographical cauldrons for life-and-death, religious-tribal warfare for the political power to exploit religious-tribal enemies.
2. The reality of #1 above has been violently the case in Iraq and Syria where tribal-sectarian warfare has been what has masqueraded as “national politics” since their foundings.
3. The Sunni Islamic State has forever erased the Sykes-Picot political boundary between Iraq and Syria restoring cultural-historical, religious-tribal territorial hegemonies.
4. The Islamic world is on the brink of a total sectarian Sunni-Shia war for leadership of the Islamic jihad movement. The U.S. would be insane to get involved on one side or the other because the U.S. loses regardless which sectarians prevail.
5. It defies all sensibility to honestly believe that, after the Khomeinist-Shia mullah government of Iran has sacrificed so much national wealth and endured economically debilitating international sanctions, they will forego acquiring the nuclear means to their Khomeinist-Shia jihadist goals, as well as to regional hegemony over neighboring Sunnis.
6. With the Islamic world is on the brink of a total sectarian Sunni-Shia war and the Iranian mullahs on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, the Saudi, Egyptian, and Gulf Arab Sunnis will not hesitate to follow courses of action that are sectarian-religious and tribal motivated, which inevitably will be at cross purposes with U.S. interests.
7. A two state Israel-Palestine solution can never be achieved because it is written in the Islamic Sharia that once a territory is ruled by Sharia law (as Israel was under the Ottomans), it can never again be under the domination of non-Muslims. Therefore according to Sharia, it is obligatory that Muslims fight jihadist war until the territory is once again under Islamic control (such is the essence of the Hamas founding-purpose charter).
8. The Ataturk secularization of Turkey has failed, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (“AKP” in Turkish) have been slowly and deceptively introducing a Sunni Islamist political agenda piecemeal, while changing the Turks’ orientation from secular to Sunni Islamist. The Turks are no longer the reliable Cold War allies they once were.
9. Mohammad clearly stated to Muslims and is quoted in Islamic scripture: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay zakat [which is charity only for fellow Muslims, and/or funding for jihad].” The first part of this condition is the Shahada, or profession of faith in Islam that a non-Muslim must say in converting to Islam. Furthermore, it is clear that violence is sanctioned until the victims embrace Muhammad’s religion. Mohammad was not addressing “the fringe.” He was establishing the overriding dictum for all Muslims to follow.
It is small wonder why the Obama Regime’s National Security Policy is in total disarray. The assumptions undergirding it have no relationships with reality. Were the Obama regime to change its assumptions, how could it recast the National Security Policy?
First, it is necessary to recognize that Iraq is already lost influence-wise to Iran. When Obama pulled U.S. troops out in 2011, Iran moved in and we will never again have the influence in Iraq that we had in 2011 (such as it was). That fact is not going to change as long as the Khomeinist-Shia mullah government rules Tehran, and Baghdad and Damascus by proxy. Therefore, we should not live in a fantasyland that “2011 Iraq” can or even should be recreated.
The purpose of President Bush’s war to democratize and nation-build an American ally in the middle of “Jihadistan” was very misguided, but the limited, tenuous ascendancy over the various Islamic forces in Iraq he gained with “the surge” and “Anbar Awakening” was lost when Obama forfeited Iraq to Iran by complete withdrawal of US forces, absolutely removing our political influence/power in Iraq. In Jihadistan, only force commands political power/influence.
Obama is truly a fool not to understand that fact of life in dealing with international affairs. Mao’s dictum that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” applies in day-to-day politics throughout the world with the current exceptions of the U.S., Western & parts of Central Europe, Australia, and Japan (and some other isolated polities around the world)! Any fool who denies the veracity of the Maoist political power dictum has no business being in charge of the fate of this nation! The Obama-variety utopian foolishness has prevailed in various forms in Democrat Party foreign policy since the McGovernites captured the Democrat Party in 1972.
A policy that would be in accord with reality would be to withdraw everything but U.S. diplomatic presence, along with the military force to protect it and to evacuate it, from Iraq. Let the Iranians have the lead in fighting the Islamic State, just as the Iranian mullahs have demanded. When the U.S. attacks the Islamic State, it is foolishly entering into the Salafist-Sunni/ Khomeinist-Shia religious-sectarian war. Taking military actions that would benefit Iran by removing the threat of the Islamic State from them makes no sense from the standpoint of U.S. national interests.
Another factor to consider in recasting policy is that the Islamic State is an existential threat to the House of Saud, which it wants to overthrow and replace as the true Salafist guardians of Mecca and Medina. The Islamic State’s physical presence on the borders of Iran and Saudi Arabia poses an existential threat to both regimes. If we remove ourselves as a buffer, they will both be forced to contend with the Islamic State for their own national security reasons.
We should encourage our three enemies — Iran/Islamic State/House of Saud (make no mistake, the Saudis are our covert Wahabbi enemies funding jihadist mosques throughout the world) — to war against each other and expend their resources in the fight. All three are more immediate threats to each other than the Islamic State is to us because of physical proximity. The three cannot coexist bordering each other, and they will have to deal with their immediate enemies before they can effectively concentrate jihad against us.
Once the latest Sunni-Shia battle reaches its conclusion, we should be mentally and physically prepared to fight and destroy the winner, when they emerge as a credible threat, which they will. In the meantime, we should invest in building Kurdistan into an independent, militarily capable separate nation-state that could be “our base of operations” for future activities in Jihadistan. Kurdistan could also serve as a safe-haven for Christians and other persecuted minorities that the Islamic State and the Khomeinist-Shiites target. Also, should the Sunni-Shia sectarian war force U.S. nationals to be evacuated from Iraq, Kurdistan could fulfill the role of first stage evacuation destination and way-station.
The Central Principle Guiding All Policy Changes
We have no “friends” in Syria, Iraq, or Jihadistan in general with the exception of the Israelis and Kurds. The current fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon is a Salafist-Sunni/ Khomeinist-Shia religious-sectarian war — we don’t win regardless which sect prevails. So, we should stay out of it. Our immediate national counter-jihad priorities regarding the Islamic State, Iran, and the entire Jihadistan should be:
- Aiding our Israeli-Kurdish allies protect themselves
- Providing humanitarian assistance/protection to religious and racial minorities persecuted by the Salafist-Sunni and Khomeinist-Shia jihadists
- Preparing to counter either Salafist-Sunni or Khomeinist-Shia jihadists when they expand their operations beyond Jihadistan into Europe and the U.S.
- Closing our borders and improving our visa/immigration administration, while cancelling further Muslim immigration into the U.S.
- Increasing our national efforts to become carbon energy independent
Aside, from the great power, geopolitical competition emanating from Russia and China, we must acknowledge that the current international disarray in the world stems from Islamic jihad. Whether the terror and death is committed by jihadist “lone wolves,” the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, al-Nusra, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Taliban, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Hezbollah, or al-Quds Force, to name a few of the more well-known Islamic terror organizations, there is no denying that the genesis of the terror is the Quran, be it a Sunni or Shiite putting the Quranic murder mandates into practice. All U.S. National Security Policy decisions must be made with that undeniable fact as a primary consideration.
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan, working with Pakistani military intelligence. During his year in Vietnam he daily scheduled 130 U.S. Army and Air Force intelligence collection aircraft. In his final overseas tour he was the U.S. Air Attaché behind the Iron Curtain in Warsaw, Poland. In total, Col. Snodgrass was variously an Intelligence Officer or an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving duty tours in seven foreign countries, as well as teaching military history and strategy at the Air War College, US Air Force Academy, and USAF Special Operations School during a thirty-year military career.
Additionally, he was awarded an Air Force scholarship to get a history master’s degree in revolutionary insurgent warfare at the University of Texas, as well as being granted a year’s educational sabbatical to teach and to write about international relations as an Air Force Research Associate in the graduate school at the Center for Advanced International Studies, University of Miami, Florida. Following the Air Force, Col. Snodgrass was an adjunct professor of military history for ten years at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Arizona.
(Washington, D.C.): On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the start of one of history’s most horrific acts of genocide, a group of prominent figures in the religious, national security and human rights communities have written a letter to the leadership of Washington’s National Cathedral. They urged the Cathedral not to allow a group of Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations to utilize its house of worship on November 14th, 2014 for a prayer service that will inevitably – given the nature of the sponsors, their traditional service and the occasion – be a highly symbolic demonstration of Islamic supremacism.
The group’s letter notes:
November 14th, 2014, will be the 100th anniversary of the last sitting Caliph of the Ottoman Empire’s call for jihad against non-believers. The call for violent jihad against non-believers directly resulted in a genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek residents of Turkey. And while for most westerners the November 14th Jihad declaration is little more than a footnote in the annuls of World War I, for Islamic supremacists like those associated with Muslim Brotherhood, it is a date pregnant with meaning. To permit such a public display, and permit such groups to occupy the National Cathedral of the United States on this date represents an affront to the memories of those who were killed as a result of this genocide, and an affront to those Christians across the Middle East who are currently under threat by those who seek to emulate it.
Among the signatories of the letter, which was organized by the Center for Security Policy, were:
- Lieutenant General William G. Boykin, Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
- Dr. Ron Crew CH (COL) USAR, (Ret.), Executive Director, Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty
- Pastor Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor, Skyline Church
- Reverend Dan Cummins, Founder, Come Pray with Me
- Pastor Paul Blair, Fairview Baptist Church
The group offered to meet with the leadership of the National Cathedral and to provide additional evidence regarding how the groups involved in the November 14th event have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The signatories called to mind that, as proven in federal court, the stated goal of the Brotherhood in America is to “destroy Western civilization from within.”
The letter also notes how the Muslim Brotherhood has “…repeatedly targeted Middle Eastern Christians,” including “bombing places of worship” as well as attacking “fellow Muslims who do not meet the Brotherhood’s strict Shariah standards.” Such atrocities and other acts of violent jihad are not things of the past; they are happening currently.
Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:
The National Cathedral was recently rocked by an unusual earthquake, causing millions of dollars in damage to its exquisite structure. The act of opening its doors to top members and front groups of the Muslim Brotherhood – an organization that epitomizes and practices the worst of Islam’s intolerant Shariah code – on a day that will always be associated with genocidal jihadism should rock the conscience of every member of the Cathedral’s community. If this outrageous event is not cancelled, the damage that will assuredly be caused to the reputation of the institution’s leadership and, by association, the Cathedral itself will likely be far more severe and difficult to repair than any caused by the tremor.
CSP, By Kyle Shideler:
Last week in the Wall Street Journal it was reported that the Obama administration sought an agreement on fighting ISIS with Iran:
The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important—whether in a potentially constructive or negative role—to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months. Mr. Obama’s letter also sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, according to another person briefed on the letter. It states that the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.
It is now being reported that the same administration believes ISIS cannot be defeated without overthrowing Assad:
President Barack Obama has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, senior U.S. officials and diplomats tell CNN. The review is a tacit admission that the initial strategy of trying to confront ISIS first in Iraq and then take the group’s fighters on in Syria, without also focusing on the removal of al-Assad, was a miscalculation. In just the past week, the White House has convened four meetings of the President’s national security team, one of which was chaired by Obama and others that were attended by principals like the secretary of state. These meetings, in the words of one senior official, were “driven to a large degree how our Syria strategy fits into our ISIS strategy.”
The contradiction between these two policies should be obvious, as Iran has expended ample time, funds, and men (primarily through proxy forces like Hezbollah and other Shia militias) to keep Assad in power. In fact overthrowing Assad would by necessity require the targeting and destruction of some of the very same forces that the Obama administration envisioned fighting ISIS on our behalf in Iraq.
The administration’s utter strategic incoherence is founded on an unwillingness to comprehend what drives both the Iranian aims (through proxies in Iraq and Syria), as well as the forces arrayed against them. As we have repeatedly pointed out here on the Free Fire blog (See here, here, and here), the Syrian opposition is dominated by Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-allied Islamist militias connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Obama Administration’s policy for Syria has involved alternatively partnering with these Islamists, while also bombing certain units of them during the course of the air campaign against ISIS. All sides in the current regional conflict are motivated by the same ideological agenda, establishing their hegemony in the region in order to extend (their particularly sectarian brand) of Islamic law, and to use future gains as a base for further jihad against their enemies, including principally the United States. Whether the U.S. attempts to partner with Iran against ISIS, or Al Qaeda against ISIS, or the Muslim Brotherhood against Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood against Iran, every permutation will result in the same eventual outcome. Victory for enemies of the United States.
The Obama administration has prided itself on it’s attention to “nuance”. In its dealings in the Middle East, it has repeatedly attempted to tease out differences and distinctions that are at best irrelevant, leading to the construction of a world view that is ultimately divorced from reality in any meaningful way. The result is that this Administration finds itself simultaneously on all sides, and still the wrong sides, of every strategic challenge.
CSP, By Clare Lopez, Oct. 28, 2014:
2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.
Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.
It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.
Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.
Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.
Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21stcentury: jihad.
The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.
Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.
Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.
To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.”
The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.
The self-radicalized madman who attacked four rookie Queens cops with a hatchet had more than just jihad on his mind — he also wanted to kill white people.
“He wanted white people to pay for all that slavery and all that racism,” the father of slain hatchet loon Zale Thompson, 32, told The Post Saturday. “I think he committed suicide — and he was taking one of y’all with him,” his father, Ralph Thompson, said, speaking through the screen door of the two-story Queens Village house where his unhinged son also once lived.
Asked if “one of y’all” meant white people,” the father said, “Yeah.”
“He just said, ‘They have to pay for all their unfairness,’ ” the father added. “Unfairness for the way they treat black people.”
Zale Thompson, 32, was shot dead on a Jamaica, Queens, sidewalk Thursday after he lunged with a blue-handled hatchet at four rookie cops, striking Officer Joseph Meeker, 24, in the arm and Officer Kenneth Healey, 25, in the back of the head. Both those officers are white, as is the third cop. The fourth cop is a light-skinned Hispanic.
“I didn’t know it would get that serious,” the father said wearily of his son, a Navy veteran described by former friends as “bright” but radically pro-“black power” in his youth and a Muslim convert in recent years.
“I didn’t know he was going to carry on a mission on his own,” added the father.
Unconnected to any terror group or even any mosque, and with no criminal record in New York, Zale Thompson was unknown to law enforcement as a potential threat, police sources said.
But over the last several years, he was quietly becoming an ardent devourer of violent Islamic propaganda, police said.
Video: Devon McCarthy
“This guy spent every waking moment on the Internet,” said one law-enforcement source. Police are looking back as far as five years to see whether anyone else Thompson communicated with is a threat.
“He Googled the words ‘jihad against police,’ ” the source said of Thompson’s more recent activity. “He also looked up [news stories on] the two Canadian attacks” last week, the source added, referring to so-called “lone wolf” jihadist shooting of a ceremonial guard in Ottawa and a fatal attack on a soldier in Quebec.
ISIS extremists have been urging lone-wolf attacks on police and soldiers in Europe and the United States.
Following the attack, police brass on Friday ordered that foot patrols citywide be conducted in pairs.
“Strike their police, security and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents,” ISIS spokesman Aub Mohammad al-Adnani posted on Sept. 21. “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him or poison him.”
Read more at New York Post
TORONTO (AP) — A gunman who shot and killed a soldier at Canada’s national war memorial and then stormed Parliament before he was gunned down had prepared a video recording of himself that police say shows he was driven by ideological and political motives, police said Sunday.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Bob Paulson said in a statement they have “persuasive evidence that Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack was driven by ideological and political motives.”
A detailed analysis of the video was being conducted and Paulson said they cannot release the video at this time.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has called Wednesday’s shooting a terror attack, and the bloodshed raised fears that Canada is suffering reprisals for joining the U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State extremists in Iraq and Syria.
Police are investigating Zehaf-Bibeau’s interactions with numerous individuals in the days leading up to the attack and whether they could have contributed or facilitated it.
Paulson said a knife carried by Zehaf-Bibeau was taken from his aunt’s property in Mont Tremblant, Quebec, and they’re looking into how he got the rifle. Paulson called it an old, uncommon gun that police suspect he could have also hidden on the property.
Paulson said investigators also identified where he got his money for the car he bought and his pre-attack activities. He said Zehaf-Bibeau has been employed in the oil fields in Alberta, saved his money and had access to a considerable amount of funds.
“The RCMP is confident we will have an authoritative and detailed account of the shooting, including a complete reconstruction of the heroic actions of those involved, in the weeks to come,” said Paulson, who also said the Ontario Provincial Police will investigate the shooting inside Parliament.
Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, shot to death Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, 24, who was assigned to the honor guard at the national war memorial. Zehaf-Bibeau was eventually gunned down inside Parliament by the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers.
The attack in Ottawa came two days after a man described as an “ISIL-inspired terrorist” ran over two soldiers in a parking lot in Quebec, killing one and injuring the other before being shot to death by police. The man had been under surveillance by Canadian authorities, who feared he had jihadist ambitions and seized his passport when he tried to travel to Turkey.
Unlike the attacker in the Quebec case, Zehaf-Bibeau was not being watched by authorities. But Paulson said last week Zehaf-Bibeau, whose father was from Libya, may have lashed out in frustration over delays in getting his passport. Paulson said his mother told police that her son had wanted to go Syria. Susan Bibeau later denied that in a letter published by Postmedia News, saying her son told her he wanted to go to Saudi Arabia where he could study the Qu’ran.
New York (AFP) - A hatchet attack on New York police officers was a “terrorist act” carried out by a self-radicalized Muslim convert who had been in the military and browsed Al-Qaeda websites, police said Friday.
“This was a terrorist act,” police commissioner Bill Bratton told a news conference on Friday, one day after the attack, saying he was “very comfortable” describing it as a “terrorist attack.”
Police said Zale Thompson, who was 32, unmarried and unemployed, appeared to have acted alone and was not affiliated to a particular group, but that the investigation was ongoing.
A loner who spent hours locked away in his bedroom, he had looked at websites about groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, and watched beheadings and Wednesday’s deadly attack in Canada.
Officer Kenneth Healy, 25, is in hospital in a critical but stable condition after being injured in the back of the head during Thursday’s broad daylight attack in a busy shopping area.
Another officer was hit in the arm in the assault in New York’s borough of Queens. The group of four young police officers had graduated from the police academy only months before.
In an attack that lasted just seven seconds, Bratton said Thompson charged with a hatchet in his hand, striking two officers before he was shot dead by the two other officers, who were uninjured.
A graphic video of the attack has been released, showing a bearded Thompson dressed in a green jacket, running towards his victims and swinging the hatchet in both hands.
A 29-year-old female bystander was accidentally shot and is also in hospital in a critical but stable condition, Bratton said.
Police said Thompson converted to Islam two years ago and that relatives described him as a “recluse” and “lately depressed.”
An axe and a large hunting knife were recovered from his home and Thompson made anti-Western, anti-government and in some cases anti-white statements on social media, police said.
He visited websites that focused on terror groups such as Al-Qaeda, the IS organization and the Shebab Islamists in Somalia.
Police said Thompson’s Internet browsing history included the fence-jumping incident at the White House this week and Wednesday’s shooting in Canada.
- Online history -
“It appears… this is something he has been thinking about for some time and thinking about with more intensity in recent days,” chief of detectives Robert Boyce said.
Police believe that Thompson acted alone and was self-directed.
“The investigation is hoping to determine as quickly as possible if there were any other actions that he was engaged in with others that might indicate a continuing a threat,” Bratton said.
Police said they were investigating whether Thompson was affiliated with any mosque or association, but said most of his activity and exposure appears to have been through the Internet.
“The father described that he spent extensive amounts of time by himself in his bedroom and by all accounts was a true proverbial loner,” said Bratton.
Thompson had no police record in New York but had come into contact with the force as a victim of assault when he was 16, and was arrested six times in California in 2003-04.
He spent three years in the military but was involuntarily discharged in 2003, most likely due to drugs, police said.
SITE, a private terrorism monitoring group, said that Thompson displayed “extremist leanings” in an array of statements on YouTube and Facebook.
Bratton said the issue of a lone wolf, self-radicalized assailant was one of “increasing concern” to counter-terrorism officers.
SITE said Thompson described “jihad as a justifiable response to the oppression of the ‘Zionists and the Crusaders'” in a comment posted to a pro-Islamic State video on September 13.
Queens residents said that they were disturbed by the attack.
“A thing like that isn’t supposed to happen, children can be on the streets,” said a woman who gave her name as Helena.
“Anyone could get caught in this incident and I don’t think that’s right, it’s not right,” she told AFP.
Published on Oct 24, 2014 by Washington Free Beacon
NYC Hatchet Attacker’s Facebook Page Featured Islamic Warrior (October 24, 2014)
- Zale Thompson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know (heavy.com)
By Adam Kredo:
Recent terror attacks in Jerusalem and Canada are not isolated events, and American policy leaders must drop “the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said.
Whether the Islamic State or Hamas is behind the attacks, the extremist ideologyremains the same–and it poses a direct threat to democratic values across the globe, Cruz said in pointed comments to those who might claim the attacks were unrelated.
Following the Hamas terror attack Wednesday in Jerusalem–which injured several American citizens, including a child–both Hamas and the more moderate Fatah ruling party praised the terrorist responsible for the attack.
The same day, IS supporters worldwide took to Twitter to celebrate the fatal shooting of a Canadian soldier by a radicalized man that attacked the country’s Parliament building.
“We have to get away from the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Cruz said.
Cruz said the attacks are both strains of the same extremist virus.
“Deliberations over our foreign policy have gained a new clarity in recent days,” Cruz said. “Yesterday, an innocent, beautiful baby in Jerusalem was murdered by Hamas.”
“Terrorist organizations Hamas and Fatah both celebrated the destruction of this precious life just months after they relished in the slayings of Jewish teens,” Cruz said. “They did not care that the baby was American or one of the teens was a dual Israeli-American citizen. Their campaign of death is indiscriminate.”
Read more at Washington Free Beacon
PJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy, October 22, 2014:
Within three days there have been two jihadist attacks in Canada, carried out by Canadian citizens who recently converted to Islam. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility, at least as yet. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed no reluctance in calling the terrorists … terrorists.
Whether the attackers were incited by the summons to jihad from groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, or were actual members of such groups, there should be no question thatthese were terrorist attacks. The Obama administration’s practice of denying that terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks has been profoundly foolish – and it was good to hear the president seem to inch away from it today.
The point of this cockamamie denial approach is part political correctness and part plain politics.
President Obama has repeatedly claimed to have “decimated” al Qaeda and put it “on the path to defeat.” Actually, the terror network is on the rise. Furthermore, it is now rivaled by ISIS, a jihadist organization that may be even stronger. Denying obvious instances of terrorism, such as the jihadist mass-murder at Fort Hood, is a transparent effort to conceal the obvious falsity of the president’s claims. If these attacks are not really terrorism, the reasoning goes, then there must be less terrorism; therefore, the pretense of defeating terror networks can be spun as validated. As I’ve said before, it is a way of miniaturizing the threat.
It is more than that, though. Terrorism is fueled by an ideology. It is rooted, quite literally, in Islamic scripture. To cite one of many examples, in the Koran’s sura 8:12, Allah instructs Muslims: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.” Thus, Omar Abdel Rahman, the infamous “Blind Sheikh” I prosecuted for terrorism in the nineties, used to exhort followers:
Why do we fear the word “terrorist”? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. . . . The Koran mentions the words “to strike terror,” therefore we don’t fear to be described with “terrorism.” . . . We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.
The United States government tried to portray Abdel Rahman as deranged and representative of no mainstream current of Islamic thought. In point of fact, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni learning for over a millennium. His capacity to command terrorists, although he was physically incapable of committing terrorist acts, stemmed from his indisputable mastery of sharia and Islamic doctrine – subjects I daresay he knew a good deal more about than President Obama. He was spokesman for a well-known interpretation of Islam that, as the Iraqi Shiite cleric Ayad Jamal al-Din recently acknowledged, has existed for 1,400 years.
A Muslim who commits an atrocious act with the purpose of becoming Allah’s instrument for “instilling terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” has committed terrorism. A Muslim who employs violence with the intention of “intimidating or coercing a civilian population; influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affecting the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping,” to borrow from the federal statutory definition of international terrorism, has engaged interrorism. He need neither be wearing an al Qaeda team jersey nor be formally sworn in as a member of ISIS for us to state this palpable fact with confidence.
Shouldn’t we be able to agree on at least that much?
By SHREEYA SINHA:
Canadian authorities identified the gunman in the deadly shooting Wednesday of a soldier guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982. Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau, who had a criminal record, recently converted to Islam, senior American law enforcement officials said. He was shot and killed in the attack.
The episode was the second deadly assault on a uniformed member of Canada’s armed forces in three days, and the latest in a growing list of attacks in the West against soldiers, and in some cases civilians, by individuals who have professed their affinity for radical Islam or sympathy to militant ideology.
Oct. 20, 2014: Hit-and-Run Kills Canadian Soldier
Martin Rouleau-Couture, the owner of a small power-washing business, drove his car into two Canadian soldiers, killing one of them, at a strip mall in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec. The authorities suggested it was a terrorist attack, but little had emerged about the motives of Mr. Rouleau, who converted to Islam last year.
Mr. Rouleau’s Facebook postings had extolled Islamic State violence, expressed anti-Semitic sentiments and denigrated Christianity. His family became increasingly concerned about his possible radicalization and contacted the police and the imam at the mosque where Mr. Rouleau prayed. He was fatally shot by the police during the attack.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police told NBC News that Mr. Rouleau was “one of the 90 individuals the government had already announced it was monitoring.”
Sept. 25, 2014: Woman Is Beheaded in Oklahoma
A man beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another employee at a food processing plant in Oklahoma before he was shot and wounded by a company executive. The suspect was identified as Alton Nolen. Mr. Nolen, who has a criminal history, had just been fired from the company, Vaughan Foods, and “he recently started trying to convert some of his co-workers to the Muslim religion,” said Jeremy Lewis, a spokesman for the police in Moore, Okla.
Law enforcement officials said that Mr. Nolen had recently converted to Islam, but that the F.B.I. had found no connection between him and the Islamic State or other terrorist groups.
Sept. 26, 2014: ISIS Lieutenant Tries to Coordinate Attacks in Australia
Mohammad Ali Baryalei, a former Sydney nightclub bouncer who is now an Islamic State lieutenant, made a phone call from Syria to a 22-year-old Sydney man and asked him to carry out a beheading in Australia on camera, the police said.
It is one of the few known attempts by the Islamic State to carry out a terrorist act outside the Middle East.
Days after the Sydney man was arrested, an 18-year-old man stabbed two counterterrorism officers outside Melbourne before one of the officers shot and killed him. The police described the man as a “known terror suspect” who had been seen carrying an Islamic State flag at a local shopping center.
Read more at MSN
- The 268-page manual is called The Management Of Savagery
- Template for terrorism was written by influential jihadi Abu Bakr Naji
- It has been carefully studied by the terrorist commanders in Syria and Iraq
- Reveals IS’s intention to target tourists at locations across Islamic world
- Suggests method to kill hostages should maximise shock value in the West
By MARK NICOL:
Islamic fanatics are planning to infiltrate Britain’s Army and police forces to carry out brutal attacks, a chilling manifesto for terror used by Islamic State (IS) reveals.
The jihadi manual explains how the atrocities committed in the Middle East – including the brutal murders of British hostages David Haines and Alan Henning – are part of a wider strategy that includes plans to wreak mayhem in the UK.
The development comes after security sources revealed yesterday that thousands of terror suspects are being monitored in the UK. The Association of Chief Police Officers has also warned police officers about their personal safety in light of the threat from IS.
Neither the Metropolitan Police nor the Ministry of Defence were willing last night to discuss the security procedures in place.
The 268-page terrorism guide called The Management Of Savagery reveals IS’s intention to:
- Target tourists at locations across the Islamic world
- Exploit the propaganda value of targeting Western journalists, and to try to capture oil workers
- Strike the same strategic targets repeatedly in a bid to expose weaknesses in Western security.
The handbook also revealed that infiltration operations have been going on for years – meaning that a sleeper cell may already have get inside the MoD or a police force.
Written by influential jihadi Abu Bakr Naji, the guide has been carefully studied by the terrorist commanders in Syria and Iraq, who he tells: ‘Our battle is long and still in its beginning… However, its length provides an opportunity for infiltrating the adversaries. [We] should infiltrate the police forces, the armies, private security companies, sensitive civil institutions.’
He added that there were ‘exuberant youth in large numbers seeking jihad. Their desire for martyrdom indicates a proper condition of faith; all that is required is instructional polishing within the movement. It is possible to divert some of them to work in the security apparatus for infiltrating institutions.’
The template for terrorism states that the method chosen to kill hostages should maximise shock value in the West.
Read more at Daily Mail