WaPo Op-Ed: ISIS Fighters Are Human Beings Too

150215-isis-still-blurred_9b8a9cc8975da8cc97fa8399d2ab6637.nbcnews-fp-1200-800

Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Feb. 9, 2016:

Last Friday a Washington Post contributor penned an op-ed with the provocative title, “ISIS kidnapped my best friend. But when I met its fighters, I couldn’t hate them.” The op-ed seems intended to convey a poignant, emotional insight about the tragic human cost to everyone trapped in the hell that is ISIS-controlled territory. But the end result is moral equivalence.

Photojournalist Sebastian Meyer relates that his best friend was kidnapped in 2014 by ISIS militants. Meyer can’t say much more than that, he claims, without further endangering his friend, who presumably then is still being held captive somewhere even after all this time. Given the opportunity months later to question an ISIS captive, Meyer – eager to get some answers and some catharsis – was surprised to find himself becoming sympathetic to the fighter for having been recruited into service with the Islamic terror group at what we in the West would consider the tender age of 13.

Meyer detailed the captive fighter’s background:

Ali was born in 1995 and joined the Islamic State in 2008, at the age of 13, he told me. He was trained as an assassin and given his first mission two years later. He and three friends were sent to kill four Iraqi police officers in Mosul. The group tracked the men down, executed them with shots to the back of their heads and buried them where they fell. Ali said he had killed eight or nine men in battle, not including the five he’d beheaded.

I asked him to tell me about the peshmerga soldier whose head he cut off. In a soft, compliant voice, he told me he had pushed the Kurdish soldier belly-first onto the ground in front of him. He placed his knee in the man’s back and then severed the neck with a bayonet.

“If all of that is true,” Meyer continued, “then Ali had indeed been a dangerous terrorist, and the world is safer with him behind bars.” Actually, if all of that is true, the world is safer with Ali dead. Putting him behind bars in an Islamic country is no guarantee that he will not be released to kill again by authorities or cohorts who are sympathetic not just to Ali personally, but to the ISIS cause itself.

But when Meyer asked if the butcher had a message for the Kurdish victim’s family, the terrorist who was so brave as he executed many helpless captives broke down tearfully. This softened Meyer:

But he had also been a child soldier, a vulnerable boy coerced into becoming a terrorist. I interviewed many other fighters like him, some just 14 years old when the Islamic State came to their villages and compelled them at gunpoint to join.

Meyer does not elaborate as to how he knows that such teenage fighters were coerced at gunpoint, other than their word. Some very possibly were; it is true that a Muslim who refuses to fall in line with his fundamentalist co-religionists is likely to face threatening accusations of apostasy. But there is abundant evidence that ISIS has a flood of more-than-willing recruits from all over the world, even from the West. These recruits were not coerced at gunpoint or even necessarily indoctrinated as youths. Call me cynical – I prefer “realistic” – but what is more likely here is not that Ali feels remorse for the murders Meyer is suggesting he committed against his will, but that he regrets being captured and called on his crimes. Were he still free, it is more than likely that he would be racking up more victims rather than wracked with guilt.

Meyer concedes that “[t]he Islamic State commits despicable acts of cruelty,” but notes that “the men who carry out these crimes are not the two-dimensional caricatures they’re painted to be.” Painted by whom? Certainly not the leftist media, who reserve their caricaturizing for white males, Christians, and law-abiding gun owners. “They are human beings,” Meyer insists, “many indoctrinated at the most impressionable age and coerced into service.”

Meyer went on to say that after this revelation he felt only heartbreak, not retaliatory satisfaction, over a later photo of a dead 16-year-old terrorist.

First of all: yes, it’s heartbreaking and tragic that Islamic fundamentalists worldwide warp their children to hate Jews, nonbelievers, and apostates with a murderous intensity, and train them to act on that hatred. But let’s keep things in perspective: the real victims are the innocents who are butchered or enslaved by those youth who may be indoctrinated or who may just enjoy having their depravity legitimized by a hateful ideology. And the perpetrators may, technically speaking, be human beings, but their actions are inhuman, and that is what matters. It is perfectly just, not hateful, to feel “retaliatory satisfaction” at the death of a 16-year-old guilty of unconscionable acts of cruelty and violence. Save your heartbreak for his victims.

Second, when Meyer confesses that he cannot bring himself to hate the terrorists he met, he is missing the point. “Hate” is not the issue. Since the relativistic left has no moral center, it is incapable of making the distinction between “moral condemnation of” or “moral opposition to” and “hate.” When the right condemns Islam on moral grounds, the left calls it “hate.” When the right expresses moral opposition to, well, anything, the left calls that “hate” too. They are not the same thing. Conservatives don’t want to eradicate ISIS because they “hate” the terror group’s members or Muslims or Arabs, but because ISIS commits horrifically evil acts and must be stopped. By calling a sense of moral standards “hate,” the left is attempting to de-legitimize the right’s moral arguments and spin their objects of moral condemnation, like jihadists, into victims of the right’s “intolerance.”

Meanwhile the left never, ever labels acts of actual hatred as “hate,” which is a term the radical left has weaponized against the right. Palestinian Jew-hatred is never described as such by the left, only as, say, “resistance to occupation.” The left never calls LGBT militants’ lawfare against Christian mom-and-pop bakers as “hate.” The left created the category of “hate speech” but never finds itself guilty of it.

Sebastian Meyer does not have to hate the ISIS fighters who have held his best friend in captivity since 2014. He is even allowed to recognize the tragedy that ISIS’ indoctrination wreaks on the souls of its own. But none of this abrogates the necessity for clear-eyed perspective and moral judgment.

Mark Tapson is the editor of TruthRevolt.org and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

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

cx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming the Muslim Brotherhood a National Security Threat

mb (1)

Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Dec. 28,2015:

The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what a virus is to disease. Major terrorist leaders from the Caliph of ISIS to Arafat have the Muslim Brotherhood on their resume. And the current leader of Al Qaeda led a Muslim Brotherhood splinter terror group. But its linkages to Islamic terrorism are only a secondary aspect of the organization whose focus is on Islamizing nations through more subtle means.

Paradoxically the Brotherhood has met with far less success in the Muslim world than in the West. Its greatest victories in the Arab Spring would not have happened without Obama’s backing and its takeovers of Egypt and Tunisia were rolled back by popular uprisings while its efforts in Libya, Syria and Yemen were stymied by armed conflict with other Muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt these days. It’s also unpopular with Americans.

In one poll, 61 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 11 percent had a positive view of the Islamic supremacist organization. Only 5 percent of Americans saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt as a positive development.

Unfortunately Obama is at odds with the views of most Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood may have lost power in Cairo, but it still wields a great deal of power in Washington D.C. Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA have open access to the media and dominate all discussions about Islam. The MSA dominates American campuses despite its history of terror ties.

As David Horowitz has warned, “The principal institutions of Islam in this country, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, to name a few — are all fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

But not every country is equally willing to roll over for the Muslim Brotherhood’s hate network.

The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was in London, but while Washington D.C. panders to the violent Islamic supremacist organization, the UK decided it did not want to host its Jihad. Last year, the British government authorized a report on the Muslim Brotherhood by veteran diplomat Sir John Jenkins. The report has been submitted to parliament and it’s making waves.

The British government report defines “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics” as “contrary to our national interests and our national security.”  It’s a striking contrast with a White House where the Muslim Brotherhood has its own revolving door and a rogue’s gallery of operatives.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States have been allowed to dismantle our counterterrorism training and replace it with Islamist propaganda. Even now, Obama pushes Countering Violent Extremism programs that encourage law enforcement to partner with Brotherhood front groups. Secretary of State Kerry urges including the Muslim Brotherhood in the political process.

Meanwhile the UK government has stepped forward to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the solution to terrorism, instead it’s the source of the problem.

The Jenkins report rejects the “moderate” label so often slapped on the hate group by lazy media hacks. Instead it describes the Brotherhood as a clandestine group organized into a “secretive ‘cell’ structure” seeking to create a “Caliphate under sharia law” using a doctrine that allows “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society”. That ideology inspired “Al Qaida and its offshoots”. The most obvious offshoot to employ this Takfiri approach is ISIS.

It’s quite a contrast from the claim by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence”.

The British report rejects the idea that the Brotherhood is peaceful. Instead it states that it is prepared to engage in violence, but prefers “incremental change on the grounds of expediency” because it believes that the “political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete”.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate or peaceful. It just thinks long term. Its endgame is the same as ISIS. It just has a slower and surer way of getting there. As fellow Islamist dictator Erdogan once said in Turkey, democracy is “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

The British report takes a hard look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hamas and its local organizations in the UK. It notes that, “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes” but that its front groups “which have claimed to represent Muslim communities” wield “an influence here which is disproportionate to their size”.

It’s a vital observation that can’t even be voiced in the Senate here, let alone in the media or the White House. It is utterly inconceivable that Obama and Hillary, who have fought wars on behalf of the Brotherhood, would ever be willing to authorize the creation of a similar report on the Brotherhood.

And yet such a report is desperately needed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups have hijacked our foreign policy, involved us in foreign wars, endangered our national security and undermined our ability to fight terrorism. They promote a program of mass Muslim migration while pushing anti-American agendas with the ultimate aim of destroying the Constitution and replacing it with Islamic law.

Changes are already taking places in the UK after the release of the Brotherhood report. The Board of Deputies of the Jewish community distanced itself from the Brotherhood’s Muslim Council of Britain. While the government will not currently ban the Brotherhood, Prime Minister Cameron has stated that “membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism”. That may sound mild, but it should be contrasted with the position of Democrats and even some Republicans in this country that the Muslim Brotherhood is our best friend.

Prime Minister Cameron warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.” He stated that “it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism.” He concluded that aspects of its activities “run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

This is a major development not only for the UK, but for the US where any criticism of the Islamic hate network has been banished as Islamophobic. The British finding is an important weapon in our own struggle with the Brotherhood and its collaborators on the left and the right.

Cameron has warned that the UK will keep a close watch to see “whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.” This is a clear warning to the Brotherhood not to abuse the hospitality of the UK or face government action. By taking this step, the UK is joining a diverse group of countries, from Egypt to the UAE to Israel, in confronting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama insists that his critics are isolated, but his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the elements that isolated his foreign policy even in the Muslim world. Western countries are beginning to wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and his CVE policy will one day go down in history as a shameless whitewashing of a violently bigoted organization that has endangered our national security.

The UK has found that the Muslim Brotherhood is a national security threat. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start speaking the truth about the Brotherhood.

ISIS RECRUITS FREELY IN THE UNITED STATES- Two Reports Show the Threat Continues to Grow

Video Shot

Video Shot

Breitbart, by Sam Nunberg, Dec. 6, 2016:

The San Bernardino massacre was the worst terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. As the investigation continues to grow from California to Pakistan, it is clear that ISIS is a domestic threat on the homeland. Less than a month after ISIS terrorized Paris, the trans-national Islamist organization has proven to be a fully-fledged insurgency that spans the West, Middle East into Asia. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has “nearly 1,000 active probes” and this past May ISIS threatened more attacks, claiming to have “71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire.”

The American public should be vigilant and keep its eyes open for possible recruits who will carry out more attacks. Two reports are excellent resources to learn of the domestic ISIS threat and the Islamist terrorist organizations recruiting methods.

Immediately after ISIS’s attack in Paris, the Threat Knowledge Group released “ISIS: The Threat to the United States” (Special Report) authored by its Chairman Dr. Sebastian Gorka and President Katherine C. Gorka. The Special Report is the strongest and most concise primer available on the domestic ISIS threat. In the Executive Summary, Dr. and Ms. Gorka shows “key evidence” that ISIS has recruits with the “intent on executing domestic attacks here in America” including the following:

82 individuals in the United States affiliating with ISIS have been interdicted by law enforcement since March 2014 (including 7 unnamed minors and 4 killed in the course of attacks).

Ali Shukri Amin, a 17 year-old Islamic State (IS) supporter from Manassas, Virginia, recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide support to ISIS, had nearly 4,000 Twitter followers, under the alias, ‘Amreeki Witness.’

Ahmad Musa Jibril, an Arab-American Islamist preacher living in Dearborn, Michigan, had 38,000 Twitter followers before his site went silent. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found that 60% of surveyed foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria followed Jibril on Twitter.

The Special Report contrasts Al Qaeda and ISIS, explaining that the evolution of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was led by Abu Masib al-Zarqawi, into ISIS. The Special Report illustrates that when on July 5, 2014 Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the creation of the Caliphate “he did so not from a cave and not in the dress of a military commander” making al Baghdadi “a religious leader, not just a military commander.” The Special Report, using a word cloud of Baghdadi’s speech, demonstrates that ISIS’s priorities are “Allah, the caliphate, and the ummah – the global community of Muslim believers.”

The Special Report shows ISIS’s recruiting of Americans and westerners is more successful than Al Qaeda because Syria is easily accessible as opposed to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, ISIS casts a “much wider net” with its “slick, multi-million dollar media campaign.” Another key component to ISIS is its focus on youth which it has described as “Lions of Tomorrow” and “have set up special schools to teach the youth about Islam and military skills.” Of the 82 Americans which law enforcement has arrested, “52 (or 63%) are between the ages of 15 and 25 years old; the remaining 30 are between the ages of 26 and 47 years old.”

ISIS mostly uses peer-to-peer recruiting with 64% of the US ISIS recruits acting in 15 clusters, the largest being a group of 11 men and women from Minneapolis “who were in contact with Abdi Nur, a fellow Minnesotan who has joined ISIS in Syria.” While social media is key to recruitment ISIS has also evaded attention by using encryption devices and/or directing communications through wives “as a way to avoid detection by the U.S. intelligence.”

The Special Report gives a list of indicators of radicalization from a federal criminal complaint of an American ISS recruit that included:

Posting Facebook images of ISIL’s flag and the flag of the ISLAMIC caliphate.

Growing out one’s bear and dying it red which mimics Mohammed.

Praying five times a day.

Wearing traditional Muslim attire in place of Western clothing.

However, these changes also are difficult to use as evidence because these “are signs of increased religiosity and do not necessarily indicate radicalization.” Families are essential to deciphering whether these changes are real signs of an ISIS recruit.

Dr. and Ms. Gorka conclude their Special Report with the following common-sense steps to the “heightened threat environment”:

Stop downplaying the seriousness of the threat so that individuals and law enforcement can be properly prepared.

Recognize that ISIS is targeting youth, and do more to protect youth from radicalization. Educate those who work with youth about the indicators of radicalization. Hold parents criminally liable for not preventing their children from supporting ISIS where it can be established that they were aware of it.

Target the ideologues. Recognize the link between rhetoric that calls for death of the infidel and acts of terrorism and interrupt the flow of such communication.

Better utilize open-source intelligence.

Screen refugees because “ISIS and other terrorist groups may use the refugee track as a way to gain access to the United States with the purpose of carrying out an attack.

George Washington University’s Program on Extremism has also released a report titled “ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa” (GW Report) authored by Lorenzo Vidino and Seamus Hughes. The GW Report’s Executive Summary explains that “American ISIS sympathizers are particularly active on Twitter, where they spasmodically create accounts that often get suspended in a never-ending cat-and-mouse game.” However, ISIS recruitment is not exclusively based on social media as “U.S.-based individuals initially cultivated and later strengthened their interest in ISIS’s narrative through face-to-face relationships.”

The GW report provides an in-depth analysis of the 82 law enforcement arrests. It also explains that “authorities estimate that several thousand Americans consume ISIS propaganda online creating what has been described as a ‘radicalization echo chamber,’” while showing examples of social media postings. In an ominous warning to possible future attacks, the GW Report further explains that “while American ISIS supporters tend to be male, nearly one third of the accounts examined are purportedly operated by women. Additionally, supporters broadly divided into two sets: those who locate themselves in Syria and Iraq and those still in America but aspiring to assist ISIS in a number of ways.”

The GW Report’s conclusion calls for “robust funding” to “counter violent extremism.” The GW Report next drifts into a softened approach compared to the Special Report in stopping American recruiting such as message “intervention” of ISIS recruits and allowing US citizens who have fought for ISIS abroad to return home in order to “dissuade would-be recruits.” While the GW Reports falls into the P.C clap trap, it is an excellent resourcefor legal records related to ISIS radicalization and recruitment in the United States.

It is clear that we are under a wide domestic threat by ISIS, a group which seeks to cause mayhem as opposed to Al-Qaeda like spectacular attacks. These reports provide Americans two easily accessible opportunities to educate themselves on this asymmetric threat.

Americans killed by Islamic jihad and Loretta Lynch says her main concern is possible backlash against Muslims?

LLBy Justin O. Smith, Dec. 5, 2015:

One more horrific and heinous Islamic terror attack, in a long list of many others, was perpetrated against America by Chicago born Syed Farook and Pakistan born Tashfeen Malik, on December 2nd 2015 at approximately 11:00 am PT. They opened fire on a Christmas party inside the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA using modified variants of .223 AR-15s, and eighty-five rounds later, fourteen decent Americans __ mothers, fathers, sons and daughters __ lay murdered, with 21 more wounded, as many others placed desperate cellphone calls for help and thought these were their last moments of life.

The discovery of three bombs in the IRC, that failed to explode, slowed the search for the terrorists, who were initially thought to still be in the building. Five hours later, the terrorists were found and killed near their home in Redlands in a firefight, as they fired 76 rounds and the police responded with 380 rounds; in the aftermath, 2500 more rounds of ammunition and twelve more bombs wired for remote detonation, in a manner similar to the Boston bombs, were found in their home.

FBI reports reveal that Malik had passed Homeland Security screening, and she had returned with Farook from his second trip to Saudi Arabia on a K-1 “fiancee” visa and a Pakistan passport. Farook had also made a trip to Pakistan, and he had been in contact with Muslims abroad who are persons of interest to U.S. authorities; he was also in touch with islamofascists in the Los Angeles area.

Imagine the sinking feeling felt by authorities, when they discovered that Malik had pledged her allegiance to the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on Face Book, as the attack was ongoing. This made many security analysts suggest since, that she was Farook’s trainer, and she had planned from the start to meet someone online, who was willing to bring her to America, for the sole purpose of harming America.

Any logical thinking person didn’t need to hear FBI Director James Comey call this “an act of Islamic-inspired terrorism”, once news reports indicated multiple shooters were in the facility. How many cases has anyone ever witnessed of a disgruntled employee recruiting another person to help them attack a business?

On December 4th, the FBI Director announced on C-SPAN that none of Farook’s contacts “were of such significance that it raised the level of alert at the FBI.” Really? This should keep people awake at night.

Although the FBI refused to name Muzzamil Siddiqi, as one of the islamofascist “jihadists” in contact with Farook, for the New York Times’ December 3rd story, anyone following the terrorist networks knew Farook and Malik were Islamic terrorists immediately, when Hussam Ayloush, executive director for CAIR-Los Angeles, and Farhan Khan, Farook’s brother-in-law, made a disingenuous televised statement. They condemned the attack and offered “heartfelt condolences to the families and the loved ones of all those killed or injured.” Standing there beside both men and also offering empty words was Muzzamil Siddiqi, who is a known active supporter of Islamic terror in America and abroad.

Siddiqi is the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County and a former president of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood organization. He is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing plot, and he released the Muslim Brotherhood memo, ‘Civilization – Jihadist Process’, to followers in May 1991, that calls for the destruction of Western civilization from within and “sabotaging its miserable house.” One of Siddiqi’s close associates was Sheik Omar Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and, one should also note that Adam Gadhan, former spokesman for Al qaeda and fellow terrorist, is a product of the ISOC.

Siddiqi wrote in the ‘Pakistan Link’ on October 18th 1996: “We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Adding insult to injury on December 3rd, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Reverend Welton Gaddy delivered a load of manure in their unbelievably insensitive, disgusting and despicable statements at the Muslim Advocates Annual Dinner, in the wake of the murders of fourteen Americans by Islamic terrorists. Their main concerns were focused on any possible “backlash” from the San Bernadino attack against Muslims and Muslims being “free in America”, when they should have been asking these Muslims what, if anything, they proposed to do in an effort to stop future terror attacks that emanate from the ranks of their damnable brethren __ these Sons and Daughters of Mohammed.

Why was Loretta Lynch appeasing this group of Muslims, instead of demanding they take all measures to stop the ever increasing Islamic terror attacks in America?

Why did Rev. Gaddy exclaim, “If Muslims aren’t free in America, no one is”, when fourteen Americans just had their freedom __ their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” __ taken from them?

Muslims are free in America. They just aren’t free to wantonly murder their way across America. Their rights in America end, when they act against the U.S. Constitution and their actions violate the rights of others, endangering and ending the lives of U.S. citizens.

This administration and future administrations must target Muslim communities with deep surveillance, and don’t tell America how offensive and “islamophobic” this will seem to Muslims. The cold hard reality is that Baptists, Catholics and Jews aren’t gunning down people and blowing them up, and frankly, I find Americans killed at the hands of Islamic terrorists offensive.

Maybe it’s time U.S. Muslims felt the consequences __ backlash __ from their failure or unwillingness to cut out the violent heart of the Islamic ideology. Let’s advocate the deportation of all non-citizen Muslims and refuse to allow any Muslim into America: This will not stop all acts of terror, since Muslim citizens are acting against the nation too, but perhaps it is a start for now.

I am sick of seeing Our Beloved America attacked repeatedly by these islamofascists, with barely a cough coming from the Oval Office. Obama and Attorney General Lynch aren’t protecting us from “enemies foreign and domestic” effectively and forcefully, doing just the bare minimum. Their continued denial of an Islamic terrorism problem in America is only emboldening Muslims, who hate us, and laying the groundwork for a certain devastating and massive terrorist attack, especially in light of recent successes by the Islamic State. Consequently, whether or not our communities exhibit San Bernadino’s same level of training and professionalism, all Americans must help their community stay vigilant and prepare to defend themselves or die, in the face of the next deliberate terrorist attack on our homefront, even if it entails carrying one’s personal weapon daily.

***

Also see:

***

Dec. 5, 2015 (The Blaze) Former Congressman Unleashes on Attorney General in Rant Against Islam: ‘Go Ahead and Prosecute Me. I Dare You.’

A former U.S. congressman urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to arrest him after she warned on Thursday that her office would take a more aggressive approach to those spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric.

“I think Islam has a real freaking problem, alright?” Former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh said in a video posted to his Facebook page. “There is a cancer in Islam, and if they’re not going to learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.”

“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail,” Walsh, a conservative talk show host, argued. “I think Islam is evil. I think Islam has a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want them here.”

Walsh continued to slam Lynch in his video for the comments she made at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner one day after law enforcement officials say two people opened fire at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, leaving 14 people dead and more than one dozen injured. According to reports, the wife pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on her Facebook page just moments before the attack.

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” Lynch said at the banquet. “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

Walsh, who now hosts his own radio program, served in Congress from 2011 to 2013.

In text that included some stronger language accompanying his video, which has been viewed more than 110,000 times as of Saturday morning, Walsh continued to argue that “most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism and/or support Sharia Law.”

“Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed,” Walsh wrote. “If ‘Moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”

“Is that ‘anti-Muslim rhetoric’ that ‘edges toward violence,’” he continued. “Go ahead and prosecute me. I dare you.”

‘Homeland’ Speech Tells it Like it Is About ISIS

Truth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, Oct. 7, 2015:

In last Sunday’s opening episode of Season 5 of Showtime’s terrorism show Homeland, CIA agent Peter Quinn delivers a speech that stands out as uncommon sense on a show that has largely wallowed in moral equivalence between the West and Islamic terrorism.

Quinn (played by Rupert Friend) is introduced to a room of important people as an agent on the ground in Syria for two years, including Al-Raqqah, the de facto capitol of the Islamic State. When asked if our side’s strategy is working, Quinn asks, “What strategy?” No one is able to answer him, and Quinn points out that therein lies the problem. ISIS has a strategy which includes beheadings, crucifixions, and the revival of slavery, and it all derives from “their f*cking book, the only book they ever read.”

“They’re there for one reason and one reason only,” he continues, “to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That’s their strategy and it’s been that way since the 7th century.”

Asked what he would do, Quinn suggests 200,000 soldiers on the ground and an equal number of doctors and teachers. Told that that is not feasible and asked for another solution, Quinn says, “Hit reset — pound Raqqah into a parking lot.”

How very Islamophobic of him.

Islam’s Dangerous Degrees of Devotion

Cartoon for 3/23/06American Thinker, By Carol Brown, Feb. 20, 2015:

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories.  There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

  • Upon what do you base your assertion?
  • Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?
  • Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?
  • Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapiro did, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

They need to learn the truth.

Who will tell them?

That would be us.

Denying the real motivation for Islamist terrorism

Illustrations on the violent implications of the Koran by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Illustrations on the violent implications of the Koran by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

– – Sunday, February 8, 2015:

Islamists are winning their war to silence critical commentary in the West about Islam. So says Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the now-infamous images of Muhammad, in his recent book, “The Tyranny of Silence.”

Whether motivated by a cowardly nature or by an obsequious desire to be nice, much of the media and the Obama administration now adhere to a common vocabulary when discussing violence motivated by Islamist theology. There is simply no reference to the theological motivations so relevant to the perpetrators of religiously inspired terror.

We are told that The Islamic State is not Islamic (rather a terrorist “jayvee team”), the Taliban is not an Islamist terrorist group (rather an “insurgency”), the Charlie Hebdo massacres were not coordinated by radical Islamists (rather “individual terrorists”), the Fort Hood murders were not acts of terror (rather “workplace violence”), the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya was not instigated by imams preaching Islamic blasphemy laws (rather by our own exercise of free speech) and so on.

In fact, the U.S. government has purged the worlds “Islam” and “jihad,” and any language deemed “Islamophobic,” from counterterrorism training manuals, thereby neutering the ability of U.S. law enforcement to identify the motivational factors behind Islamist terrorism.

However, the ad nauseam repetition that “Islam is a religion of peace” every time a terror attack is carried out in the name of Islam no longer has any traction. Even some who, in the past, felt impelled to employ fatuous statements about the lack of Islam’s responsibility for Islamist terrorism seem recently to have constrained themselves. For instance, at a recent panel discussing the “Causes of Radicalization” at the National Press Club, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution commented that he no longer feels comfortable employing this phrase. Muslims must admit that for many, terrorist violence has become Islam, he said, adding, “ISIS has emerged out of a particular context.”

No matter how much the White House wants to deny it, the Islamic State group version of Islam is very real for its crucified and decapitated victims. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is very much a reality for the homosexual teenagers publicly hung for defiling Wahhabi Islam. Boko Haram’s version of Islam is very real for the children slaughtered while attending schools deemed too westernized for the group’s convictions. And the Taliban’s version of Islam is very real for the women put to death for being raped or walking without a male escort, both violations of the Pushtun traditional social code of honor as encapsulated by Shariah law. These violent versions of Islam, prevalent in the Muslim world to varying degrees, must be studied, debated and taken very seriously, especially within our counterterrorism apparatus.

Nevertheless, the administration is persistent in its efforts to obscure the theological motivations of self-described Islamist terrorists. Washington’s latest use of this obfuscating tactic is its declaration that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Rather, the Taliban is an insurgency, a mere rebellion against an authority. Yet one can be a terrorist group and be engaged in acts of insurgency at the same time — the two are not mutually exclusive.

In contrast to the White House’s misleading rhetoric, both the Treasury and the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center list the Afghani Taliban as a global terrorist group, and the State Department designated the Pakistani Taliban a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The White House’s semantics appear calculated to lessen the blow as President Obama hands over Afghanistan to the Taliban, the very terrorist group that too much American blood and treasure have been spent attempting to defeat. We’re supposed to buy into Mr. Obama’s “end of conflict” narrative, except anyone sensible would acknowledge that as long as the Taliban exists, there will be violence and conflict in the region. That is because the Taliban is a terrorist group that kills innocent civilians for both religious and political purposes, and does so on a consistent basis.

The United States has effectively adopted the same policy as Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera English, which has banned the use of the terms “terrorist,” “militant” and “Islamist,” and describes terrorist attacks in the context of a geopolitical dimension rather than as having been generated by religious motivations.

Those who seek to rationalize the violence of Islamist terrorists have shifted the blame away from a literal reading of the Koran to discriminatory social polices of European societies, lack of economic opportunity, and political exclusion of Arab citizens in EU countries. Commentators on “the radicalization process” have created a sociological construct that proceeds through a pseudo-scientific progressive series of stages before a believer becomes an actor. Some apologists for these “disaffected youth,” such as John Esposito of Georgetown University, suggest that among the causative factors are the West’s support of dictators in the Mideast, American policies in the region, and, of course, perceived U.S. support for Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinian territories.”

Other more “objective” observers prefer to employ less polemical, rational reasons for the horrific acts of Islamist terror: a sense of victimhood, feelings of disenfranchisement, a search for identity, peer pressure and a deep desire for belonging. Linked with this narrative is the recently proffered concept that many of these perpetrators are only superficially conversant with Islamic theological concepts.

While such factors can contribute to the likelihood of recruitment, proffering them as the sole motivational factors in radicalization, while ignoring the theological justifications of their recruiters, is nothing more than a cop-out designed to spread a disingenuous narrative while stigmatizing the counterterrorism community for addressing the real, immediate and unique threat of Islamist terrorism.

Brooke Goldstein is a New York City-based human rights attorney, and the founder and director of the Lawfare Project. She is the author of “Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech” (Center for Security Policy, 2011).

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) Interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday

Published on Feb 8, 2015 by Steve Laboe

Our enemy has doubled or even more over the past decade; and we don’t have a coherent strategy in place to combat Islamic Extremism says Lt. General Michael Flynn to Chris Wallace in a Fox News Sunday Exclusive Interview

Also see:

Charlie Rose interview of Lieutenant General Michael Flynn on Hulu

ISIS Purifies Islam Through Fire

jpb-450x253Frontpage, by Dawn Perlmutter, Feb. 4, 2015:

On Tuesday February 3, 2015 the Islamic State released a video showing Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, 26 being burned alive while locked in a metal cage. The 22 minute video includes footage of Jordan’s King Abdullah II declaring his support for the anti-ISIS coalition. It shows Lt. Al-Kaseasbeh, who was captured by the Islamic State in December after his aircraft crashed over Syria, being interrogated, paraded in front of heavily armed men, walking towards the cage, and then standing inside the cage wearing an orange jumpsuit that is doused in flammable liquid. The executioner uses a torch to light a trail of gasoline that leads to his feet. Lt. Al-Kasasbeh is engulfed in flames and remains alive for over 1 minute and half and collapses to the floor. Militants pour broken masonry and other debris over the cage which is then flattened with a bulldozer with the body still inside. Despite the surprise and shock of seeing a young man burned alive, this is not a new tactic. In fact it is a common method of ritual murder in Iraq and other countries particularly in honor killings and the murder of Christians. The significant difference is that the Islamic State media films the execution using sophisticated editing and highly choreographed techniques turning the killing into a scripted reality show.

Hundreds of women in the Muslim world have been murdered by fire in honor killings. The murders were often disguised as suicides or accidents. In the first six months of 2007, in Iraqi Kurdistan, 255 women were killed, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier report cited 366 cases of women who were the victims of so called fire accidents in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before. In Irbil, there were 576 burn cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths. In 2006 in Sulaimaniyah, Iraq there were 400 cases of women burned. In Tunisia in May 2014 a father burned his 13 year old daughter to death for walking home with a boy. In October 2013 a 15 year old Yemeni girl was burned to death by her father for communicating with her fiancé. In March 2009, a sixteen year old Muslim girl suspected of having a relationship with a boy was burned to death by four male neighbors in her village in Ghaziabad, North India. They came to the girl’s house and demanded to know why the young man frequently visited her, and then the men beat her, doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. There are numerous more examples of women burned alive. This form of punishment is not just reserved for women. In April 2011 three men were set on fire in Iraq for being gay. A video of that incident is easily accessible online. In June 2008, the Taliban burned three truck drivers of the Turi tribe alive for supplying the Pakistan Armed Forces. There have been numerous reports of Christians burned alive by Islamist jihadists. In November 2014 a Christian couple in Pakistan Sajjad Maseeh, 27, and his wife Shama Bibi, 24, were burned alive in a brick furnace after it was rumored that they had burned verses from the Quran.”Bibi, a mother of four who was four months pregnant, was wearing an outfit that initially didn’t burn…… The mob removed her from over the kiln and wrapped her up in cotton to make sure the garments would be set alight.” These incidents are rarely reported by the mainstream media and were difficult for most people to comprehend as real until ISIS started filming documentaries of their ritual murders.

Fire is symbolic of the destruction of evil. Symbolically people who are burned alive are human sacrifices that are expiating evil from the community. Tainted victims are purified through fire. Fire is considered a powerful transformer of the negative to the positive. Because of such properties, fire is commonly found in purification rites throughout the world. In other cultures polluted persons may be required to walk around, jump over, or jump through fire. Historically, burning a person to death was reserved for the most threating evil, such as heresy or witchcraft and considered an extreme form of purification. In the context of honor killing the use of fire is not only symbolic but practical. Practical in Iraq because most of the homes do not have electricity so every house has a large supply of oil which makes it easier to conceal honor killings under the guise of suicide or kitchen accidents. In the context of the murder of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh fire is an Islamic purification ritual that serves vengeance and restores honor and purity to the community of believers.

Islamist jihadists from different movements, countries, sects, and factions all emphasize the need to cleanse Islam of its impurities. Al Qaeda’s ideological belief is the purification of Islam through violent struggle. Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri have continually called on supporters to purify Muslim holy lands of infidels, un-Islamic beliefs, and practices. The Islamic State cleanses Islam of its impurities while protecting its territory in the same manner as Mexican cartels, using brutal tactics that are justified as vengeance.

The title of the video, Healing the Believers’ Chests, is a quote from the Quran: “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you over them, heal the breasts of Believers.” (Qur’an 9:14). It was reported to mean ‘giving them pleasure’ – interpreted as a reference to achieving revenge. That is one interpretation, however healing is symbolic of purification, the title Healing the Believers’ Chests can be understood as cleansing the community of the contamination of impurity. Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh’s alleged crimes symbolically unleashed an epidemic of contagious evil. The function of the burning ritual is a communal act of expiation, expelling the contagious evil of an infidel enemy through fire. Having ISIS fighters participate and watch makes it a communal sacrificial ritual. Ritualizing the violence justifies it and makes it sacred. Once the transgressor is ritually killed the impurity is removed, the evil has been expelled, taboo has been ameliorated and justice is served. The body is immediately buried under the earth, another purifying element, restoring honor and purity.

Filming and disseminating the ritual killing strikes fear into the hearts of enemies and attracts new recruits. Similar to an arsonist that is fascinated with fire, disaffected young people will be attracted to this ritual burning. Like moths to a flame.

Surrender: BBC Arabic and Al Jazeera English want to ban the word “terrorist” from reporting

Slide111-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 28, 2015

Is anyone still talking about Charlie Hebdo? I wondered how long the response would last. We saw world leaders come together – well, one was missing — to denounce the violence and stand for free speech.

Everyone was saying this would be the turning point and perhaps finally there would be global and widespread condemnation of militant Islamic jihadism.

Well, the only sustained response has come from the Islamic terrorists themselves– from the Philippines, to Yemen, to Kabul, and just recently in Tripoli. And all you have to do is listen to the words of Turkish President Erdogan, who blamed the cartoonists and the violent protests from across the Islamic world — because you’re not allowed to “mock” Muhammad. And if you didn’t know, that’s one of the traditions of Muhammad, since he killed those who mocked him.

So here we are, what — two, three weeks later after the horrific massacre in Paris? And what is the response from Western media?

Surrender.

As reported by the UK Telegraph, a senior executive at the BBC said “the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris should be not be described as “terrorists” by the BBC as the term is too “loaded.”

“Tarik Kafala, the head of BBC Arabic, the largest of the BBC’s non-English language news services, said the term “terrorist” was seen as “value-laden” and should not be used to describe the actions of the men who killed 12 people in the attack on the French satirical magazine.”

“We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist,” Mr Kafala told The Independent.“What we try to do is to say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine’. That’s enough, we know what that means and what it is.” He added: “Terrorism is such a loaded word. The UN has been struggling for more than a decade to define the word and they can’t. It is very difficult to.”

The BBC is not alone. The Washington Times reports that “Al Jazeera English executive Carlos van Meek banned his news employees from using words like “terrorist,” “Islamist” and “jihad,” explaining that it’s important to realize that some might take offense — that one person’s idea of terrorism is simply another person’s fight for freedom.”

Yes, one person’s savage beheading of a civilian, is just…well, a savage beheading – but it’s ok, because it’s in the fight for freedom.

It just never ceases to amaze me how the Islamapologists will just break their necks to play nice and not offend the enemy. They’ll come up with the most inane excuses to basically say there’s no reason to refer to the enemy in the manner in which they refer to themselves.

Not only are Islamic terrorists killing us, they’re making us too scared to even call them who they are — the ultimate in forced censorship. How could this happen?

Think of the battles Western civilization has fought against Islamic jihadism. Charles Martel in 732 at the Battle of Tours. The Venetian fleet in 1571 at Lepanto. The Germanic and Polish Knights at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Or how about a young America which crushed the Barbary pirates of North Africa in the early 1800s? When did we become so cowardly — and folks, that is exactly what this is. Oh, excuse me, not all of us — when did the leadership in the West become so doggone skittish?

“Of the Paris case, Mr Kafala said: “We avoid the word terrorists. It’s a terrorist attack, anti-terrorist police are deployed on the streets of Paris. Clearly all the officials and commentators are using the word so obviously we broadcast that.” Mr Kufala’s stance is in line with the BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting “terrorism” which state: “[The BBC] does not ban the use of the word. “However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the perpetrators.”

You gotta be kidding me. It appears the Patriots football team isn’t the only place you’ll find deflated balls.

Folks, if I were the Islamic terrorists, I’d press the attack as well. Weakness is so enticing and has a sweet aroma for those who sense fear. Can any of you imagine Sir Winston Churchill going on the air during the Battle of Britain and imploring the Brits not to speak ill of the Nazis?

“The value judgements frequently implicit in the use of the words ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist group’ can create inconsistency in their use or, to audiences, raise doubts about our impartiality. “It may be better to talk about an apparent act of terror or terrorism than label individuals or a group.” When reporting an attack, the BBC guidelines say it should use words, which specifically describe the perpetrator such as “bomber”, “attacker”, “gunman”, “kidnapper” or “militant.”

In other words, try to find anything to call the enemy something palatable — not to the enemy, but for us. This goes beyond PC, it is abject dismissal and reflects a cowardly reticence to confront the “boogeyman.”

Some say we don’t need to define the enemy. Then how do you defeat them when you refuse to acknowledge the ideology that fuels them and is the core of their belief system? When Western media outlets run away in fear and report in a fearful manner, we will never see the enemy for who they are – because the media reports are in effect censored.

What this means is that the Islamic jihadists are winning the propaganda and information war.

You want an example of how insidiously pandering we appear? Read this closing statement: “A BBC spokesman said: “There is no BBC ban on the word ‘terrorist’, as can be seen from our reporting of the terrorist attack in Paris, though we prefer a more precise description if possible – the Head of BBC Arabic was simply reflecting BBC editorial guidelines and making a general point about the nuances of broadcasting internationally.”

There is no nuance when someone is being beheaded — and there should be no nuance in reporting such savage and barbaric behavior.

The Imaginary Islamic Radical

iraqstill-450x281Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 28, 2015

The debate over Islamic terrorism has shifted so far from reality that it has now become an argument between the administration, which insists that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS, and critics who contend that a minority of Islamic extremists are the ones causing all the problems.

But what makes an Islamic radical, extremist? Where is the line between ordinary Muslim practice and its extremist dark side?

It can’t be beheading people in public.

Saudi Arabia just did that and was praised for its progressiveness by the UN Secretary General, had flags flown at half-staff in the honor of its deceased tyrant in the UK and that same tyrant was honored by Obama, in preference to such minor events as the Paris Unity March and the Auschwitz commemoration.

It can’t be terrorism either. Not when the US funds the PLO and three successive administrations invested massive amounts of political capital into turning the terrorist group into a state. While the US and the EU fund the Palestinian Authority’s homicidal kleptocracy; its media urges stabbing Jews.

Clearly that’s not Islamic extremism either. At least it’s not too extreme for Obama.

If blowing up civilians in Allah’s name isn’t extreme, what do our radicals have to do to get really radical?

Sex slavery? The Saudis only abolished it in 1962; officially. Unofficially it continues. Every few years a Saudi bigwig gets busted for it abroad. The third in line for the Saudi throne was the son of a “slave girl”.

Ethnic cleansing? Genocide? The “moderate” Islamists we backed in Syria, Libya and Egypt have been busy doing it with the weapons and support that we gave them. So that can’t be extreme either.

If terrorism, ethnic cleansing, sex slavery and beheading are just the behavior of moderate Muslims, what does a Jihadist have to do to be officially extreme? What is it that makes ISIS extreme?

Our government’s definition of moderate often hinges on a willingness to negotiate regardless of the results. The moderate Taliban were the ones willing to talk us. They just weren’t willing to make a deal. Iran’s new government is moderate because it engages in aimless negotiations while pushing its nuclear program forward and issuing violent threats, instead of just pushing and threatening without the negotiations. Nothing has come of the negotiations, but the very willingness to negotiate is moderate.

The Saudis would talk to us all day long while they continued sponsoring terrorists and setting up terror mosques in the West. That made them moderates. Qatar keeps talking to us while arming terrorists and propping up the Muslim Brotherhood. So they too are moderate. The Muslim Brotherhood talked to us even while its thugs burned churches, tortured protesters and worked with terrorist groups in the Sinai.

A radical terrorist will kill you. A moderate terrorist will talk to you and then kill someone else. And you’ll ignore it because the conversation is a sign that they’re willing to pretend to be reasonable.

From a Muslim perspective, ISIS is radical because it declared a Caliphate and is casual about declaring other Muslims infidels. That’s a serious issue for Muslims and when we distinguish between radicals and moderates based not on their treatment of people, but their treatment of Muslims, we define radicalism from the perspective of Islamic supremacism, rather than our own American values.

The position that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate and Al Qaeda is extreme because the Brotherhood kills Christians and Jews while Al Qaeda kills Muslims is Islamic Supremacism. The idea of the moderate Muslim places the lives of Muslims over those of every other human being on earth.

Our Countering Violent Extremism program emphasizes the centrality of Islamic legal authority as the best means of fighting Islamic terrorists. Our ideological warfare slams terrorists for not accepting the proper Islamic chain of command. Our solution to Islamic terrorism is a call for Sharia submission.

That’s not an American position. It’s an Islamic position and it puts us in the strange position of arguing Islamic legalism with Islamic terrorists. Our politicians, generals and cops insist that the Islamic terrorists we’re dealing with know nothing about Islam because that is what their Saudi liaisons told them to say.

It’s as if we were fighting Marxist terrorist groups by reproving them for not accepting the authority of the USSR or the Fourth International. It’s not only stupid of us to nitpick another ideology’s fine points, especially when our leaders don’t know what they’re talking about, but our path to victory involves uniting our enemies behind one central theocracy. That’s even worse than arming and training them, which we’re also doing (but only for the moderate genocidal terrorists, not the extremists).

Secretary of State Kerry insists that ISIS are nihilists and anarchists. Nihilism is the exact opposite of the highly structured Islamic system of the Caliphate. It might be a more accurate description of Kerry. But the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood successfully sold the Western security establishment on the idea that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism was by denying any Islamic links to its actions.

This was like an arsonist convincing the fire department that the best way to fight fires was to pretend that they happened randomly on their own through spontaneous combustion.

Victory through denial demands that we pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. It’s a wholly irrational position, but the alternative of a tiny minority of extremists is nearly as irrational.

If ISIS is extreme and Islam is moderate, what did ISIS do that Mohammed did not?

The answers usually have a whole lot to do with the internal structures of Islam and very little to do with such pragmatic things as not raping women or not killing non-Muslims.

Early on we decided to take sides between Islamic tyrants and Islamic terrorists, deeming the former moderate and the latter extremists. But the tyrants were backing their own terrorists. And when it came to human rights and their view of us, there wasn’t all that much of a difference between the two.

It made sense for us to put down Islamic terrorists because they often represented a more direct threat, but allowing the Islamic tyrants to convince us that they and the terrorists followed two different brands of Islam and that the only solution to Islamic terrorism lay in their theocracy was foolish of us.

We can’t win the War on Terror through their theocracy. That way lies a real Caliphate.

Our problem is not the Islamic radical, but the inherent radicalism of Islam. Islam is a radical religion. It radicalizes those who follow it. Every atrocity we associate with Islamic radicals is already in Islam. The Koran is not the solution to Islamic radicalism, it is the cause.

Our enemy is not radicalism, but a hostile civilization bearing grudges and ambitions.

We aren’t fighting nihilists or radicals. We are at war with the inheritors of an old empire seeking to reestablish its supremacy not only in the hinterlands of the east, but in the megalopolises of the west.

***

Published on Jan 23, 2015 by Associated Press

Violent extremists may cite Islam as a justification, but the West should be careful about calling them Islamic radicals, Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience of opinion leaders Friday at the World Economic Forum. (Jan. 23)

***

A little dark humor is called for…

Refusing to Name the Enemy in the War on Terror

Published on May 22, 2012 by American Freedom Law Center

SNL skit parodies the Obama administration and mainstream media’s failure to identify radical Islam as the enemy in the War on Terror.

Fight Them Over There

U.S. Marines fight the Taliban in Afghanistan / AP

U.S. Marines fight the Taliban in Afghanistan / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Matthew Continetti, January 16, 2015

Argue about the limits of free speech, the definition of “true” Islam, whether terrorists are lunatics or rational, or the social and political repercussions of terrorism as much as you’d like. The truth is that such debates are irrelevant to the core security problem: There is a growing and energetic movement of radical Muslims dedicated to killing as many people as they can and imposing their will on the rest.

And there is really only one way America can respond to this challenge. We need to kill them first. We need to kill them on a field of battle whose contours are determined not by the terrorists but by us. We need to kill them over there—in the Middle East—before they reach the West.

I realize that for at least the next two years what I propose is wishful thinking. American policy has reverted to a defensive condition in which Islamic terrorists set the terms of conflict. We have been here before. Until 2001, the United States treated Islamic terrorism as a matter of law enforcement. When our embassies were raided or bombed, when our barracks were destroyed, when our soldiers and sailors were murdered, when our World Trade Center was attacked, when our destroyer was damaged, we treated the assailants as members of an Arabic-speaking mafia, as criminals to be apprehended, tried, and punished.

Didn’t work. The jihad grew. It even found a base in Afghanistan, where it could equip and train and plot. In 2001, in a single fall morning, the World Trade Center was destroyed, the Pentagon bludgeoned, and more than 3,000 innocent people were killed.

America rethought its approach to terrorism. No longer were the terrorists considered felons. They were now unlawful combatants. Surveillance, interrogation, and detention policies became more aggressive. We invaded Afghanistan, we toppled the Taliban, and we sent al Qaeda leadership into hiding.

When America invaded Iraq in 2003, al Qaeda and its followers—joining forces with Saddam’s former commanders and marginalized Sunni tribes—designated the Tigris-Euphrates plain the main battleground of the global jihad. Aspiring jihadists, enemies of the West, traveled to Iraq where they encountered, and were killed by, heavily armed and expertly trained U.S. pilots, soldiers, and Marines.

The point of the war on terrorism was not merely to “decimate” the “core of al Qaeda.” The objective was also, in the course of a long struggle, to delegitimize the Qaeda movement and deter its fellow travelers by revealing Islamism as an evolutionary dead end. The unstated message of the strategy was this: If you choose jihad against the West, you will spend your life in Guantanamo or you will die.

Look what happened. By May 2008, plagiarist and emcee Fareed Zakaria could report: “If you set aside” the war in Iraq, “terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years.” And soon one did not have to “set aside” Iraq. When the change in strategy and surge of troops Bush ordered in 2007 began to take effect, violence in Iraq went “way down” too.

With the election of President Obama, however, the conflict between Islamism and America entered a third phase. Our troops were removed from the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving Special Forces and drone pilots to do most of the fighting. The defense budget was cut. Harsh interrogation was curtailed, and Guantanamo Bay slowly emptied. Surveillance practices were disrupted. The words “Islamic terrorism” would not be uttered, for that somehow legitimized extremists. As for the terrorists themselves, they were once again treated like criminals.

What has resulted is a dramatic uptick in Islamic radicalism. In January 2014 the RAND Corporation found that “the number of Salafi-jihadist groups and fighters increased after 2010, as well as the number of attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates.” Attacks including the Ft. Hood massacre; the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi; the Boston Marathon bombing whose victims included an 8-year-old boy; and the public beheading of British Fusilier Lee Rigby.

The absence of American troops in Iraq created an opportunity for ISIS, the Islamic army born of the Syrian civil war. Last summer, from its base in Raqqa, Syria, ISIS invaded Iraq. It captured and imposed sharia law on Mosul, a city of more than a million people, beheaded journalists, and threatened Baghdad, the Kurds, and minority sects with extermination.

ISIS “controls more land and has more weapons than any other jihadist organization in history,”according to experts at the American Enterprise Institute. ISIS is said to possess “more than $2 billion in assets” and command an “estimated 40,000 fighters.” ISIS is expert at “propaganda by the deed”: the spectacular use of public violence to provoke fear in your enemies and loyalty in your friends. There is even an ISIS gift shop. A global movement cowering in fear does not sell tchotchkes.

Nor is ISIS the only jihadist group on the offensive. Yemen has collapsed into a civil war between Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Iranian-backed Houthi militants. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb operates freely in Libya and Algeria and Mali. Boko Haram slaughtered thousands while expanding its holdings in Nigeria. Al-Shabaab runs central and southern Somalia. Hamas kills Jews from its Gaza satrapy. The Taliban is ready for its comeback in Afghanistan. This swelling of radical Islam—in territory, in resources, in adherents, in scalps—extends to Muslim communities around the world, and to disturbed and alienated men and women hungry to join a winning fight.

The central front of the war on terror is no longer Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. It is the West, and all lands associated with the West. So the radicals strike Israel, they kill in Sydney, they gun down cartoonists and Jews in Paris, they plan to strike the U.S. Capitol with pipe bombs and rifles.

Such a pattern of destruction ought to force a reevaluation of American strategy. But that has not happened. Instead our response to jihadism has been confusing, contradictory, insipid, self-destructive, and inane.

The administration not only skips a solidarity march in Paris. It won’t call the Charlie Hebdo and kosher market attacks Islamic terrorism. The favorite newspaper of the White House is more concerned with the “fear and resentment” of European populations tired of being killed than it is with terrorism. The error-ridden blog edited by one of the president’s favorite pundits says discussions of free speech “often seem more about justifying Islamophobia against everyday Muslims, who are just as overwhelmingly peaceful as every other religious group, than they are about protecting rights that are seriously endangered.”

Guantanamo inmates are released to Oman, which borders Yemen, on the same day an American jihadist is arrested for plotting an attack on the nation’s Capitol. The State Department says it’s okay for Iran—a radical theocracy that is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world, that sows upheaval from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Bahrain to Yemen, that originated the idea of assassinating Western authors who blaspheme Mohammed—to build additional nuclear plants.

The means by which the president reluctantly has attempted to take the fight to the terrorists are not succeeding. Micromanagement by White House officials of the air campaign against ISIS has resulted in a stalemate. American advisers to Iraq say it will take a minimum of three years to prepare the Iraqi army to roll back the Caliphate. Meanwhile our soldiers are subjected to mortar rounds launched from ISIS positions. So passive-aggressive is the president’s war on ISIS that Iraqis are beginning to suggest that “ISIS is a U.S. creation.” One Iraqi told the Wall Street Journal: “The international coalition against ISIS is a comedy act. America can destroy ISIS in one day only, but it does not do it.”

What about Yemen, which President Obama has held up as a model of intervention? Michael Crowley of Politico reports, “Since mid-September, the U.S. has conducted just three drone strikes in Yemen, down from 19 last year, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation. And that was a fraction of the 2012 peak of 56 drone and air strikes.” Yemen and Syria are the key nodes of a global network of financing, training, and planning for jihadist operations. The United States has allowed this network to persist, indeed to grow in complexity and reach.

Only by extinguishing ISIS can the United States begin to reassert its authority and put the jihadists on the defensive. But increasing the number and pace of drone and air strikes will not be enough. The number of U.S. ground forces in Iraq must be dramatically increased, and America seriously must work to remove the cause of the Syrian civil war: the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, whocontinues to use chemical weapons, has entered into a de facto alliance with our terrorist adversary, and is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.

Above all, America must cease pretending that Muslim rage is something the United States can ignore and avoid or is powerless against or cannot fight over there. We must fight it over there, or be resigned to terrorist attacks over here. Again and again and again.

Also see: