Pamela Geller, Breitbart News: “1001 Muslim Myths and Historical Revisions”

1001_Inventions_ShopBreitbart, by Pamela Geller, July 26, 2015:

CNN last Wednesday ran a viciously mendacious “article” dragging out the “Muslim inventions” myth – yet again.

This is hardly new; I wrote of it in 2012. CNN is pushing a new book that is based on 1001 Muslim Inventions, a traveling museum exhibit that has appeared all over the West to huge acclaim from the likes of Prince Charles. It has indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of children into a rosy and romanticized view of Islam that makes them less appreciative of their own culture’s achievements and more complacent about Islamization in the West.

1001-inventions-800x450

And now we see historical revisionism take on a new life, as history is scrubbed and manufactured Muslim myths are presented as fact. “1001 Muslim Inventions” is almost unfailingly dishonest. It touts surgery as one of the top 10 Muslim inventions, but in reality, surgery began in the Neolithic era and was widely practiced in ancient Greece. Likewise, the coffee plant was discovered in Christian Ethiopia.

Next on CNN’s list is flight: “Abbas ibn Firnas was the first person to make a real attempt to construct a flying machine and fly.” Abbas ibn Firnas was a man who threw on a pair of manmade wings and attempted to fly, but only ended up breaking his back. That makes him the father of the flying machine?

Fourth in CNN’s top ten Muslim inventions is the university: “In 859 a young princess named Fatima al-Firhi founded the first degree-granting university in Fez, Morocco.” The first university? Tell it to the Jews, a people 6,000 years old, with education as the cornerstone of their culture. And Nalanda University of India dates back to the fifth century.

Then comes algebra, and this claim, as well as the others, is utter nonsense. A Muslim, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Musa, is often described as the originator of algebra. But Abu Ja’far lived between 780 and 850 AD; algebra initiated in ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Athens, 2,500 years before Abu Ja’far was born.

Next is optics, which also began long before Islam, in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, where lenses were developed by artisans working from theories the Greek philosophers.

CNN even has the audacity to claim music as a Muslim invention, despite the fact that Islamic law forbids music. Are they kidding? Where are the Muslim Bachs, Beethovens, and Gershwins? What about Jewish music, which goes back over 5,000 years? Muhammad wasn’t even a twinkle in his father’s eye.

CNN also claims the toothbrush for Islam, saying that Muhammad, whom they refer to, of course, as “the prophet,” “popularized the use of the first toothbrush in around 600. Using a twig from the Meswak tree, he cleaned his teeth and freshened his breath.”

Muhammad was the first man to use an object to clean his teeth? Color me laughing. In reality, the bristle toothbrush wasn’t invented until 1498, in China. And the crank, the next item on CNN’s list (which was compiled by a crank indeed), dates back to Spain in the fifth century BC. The hospital, the last item on CNN’s list, goes back to ancient Rome.

With the advent of now daily jihad terror plots, arrests, and attacks, the Islamic/leftist machine is in fifth gear. Teen Vogue, the BBC, the Huffington Post, the New York Times,Newsweek and all the mainstream media outlets are churning out lies, myths and Islamic supremacist narratives to counter reality. Damn the truth, full speed ahead.

It’s endless, this sharia scrubbing of history. It’s why our children are not taught true Islamic history in the public schools: the jihadi wars, cultural annihilations, and enslavements or why the hundreds of millions of victims of Islamic wars have disappeared from world history courses.

Many of the inventions the Muslims take credit for are the inventions of the peoples, countries and lands they conquered. The booty from their conquests wasn’t only tangible gold, women, and monies, but intellectual theft as well.

The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate — not by a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian. A pioneering medical school was founded at Gundeshapur in Persia — by Assyrian Christians. The bottom line: the inventions and discoveries attributed to the Muslim world were actually stolen from conquered peoples.

CNN, by spreading this nonsense, shows itself yet again to be more interested in politically correct fiction than news. “1001 Muslim Inventions” is not history, but propaganda – and par for the course for the mainstream media these days.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga is an Enemy Outpost

Islamic-Society-of-Greater-Chattanooga3Understanding the Threat by John Guandolo, July 24, 2015:

This 5 minute video reveals the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga – like all “Islamic Society of” organizations – is a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood organization and, therefore, supports jihadi operations like the killing of 4 Marines and 1 sailor on July 16, 2015.

The US v HLF (Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development) (Dallas, 2008) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history. The evidence revealed the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are controlled by Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood. The list of Hamas/MB groups includes the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Centers, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), American Muslims for Palestine, EMERGE, US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), and many others.

Also see:

So the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga announced in 2009 that it openly aligned its views of Jihad with the views of Qaradawi and Maududi, and told its Muslim congregants that donating to the construction of ISGC was permissible, because it represented funding jihad.

Information about the Chattanooga Shooter is Disappearing from the Internet

Abdulazeez-delete-WMInsite Blog, by Rita Katz, July 23, 2015:

A week after Chattanooga shooter Mohammad Abdulazeez’s attack, very little is known about his motives, path to radicalization, and network of affiliations. Immediately after the attack, Islamic State (IS) fighters and supporters hailed Abdulazeez as a “soldier of the Islamic State,” but no official messages from IS claiming the attack have yet been made. This silence is noteworthy considering the case of the shooting in Garland, Texas: Not only did IS fighter Junaid Hussain bluntly indicate his connection to this attack, but in less than two days, IS officially announced the shooters to be “two soldiers from the soldiers of the Caliphate.”

So why all the confusion surrounding Abdulazeez?

Because he was prepared. Abdulazeez did what jihadists are asked to do prior to execution of their attacks: delete important information that could provide insight into their networks. Jihadi recruiters often advise prospects to “delete your social network accounts or stay inactive,” as well as “all the nasheed [Islamic chants], videos, pictures, messages” prior to their attacks or migration to jihad.

For this reason, some have claimed that Abdulazeez didn’t maintain a high profile on social media. However, Abdulazeez maintained accounts on various social media sites, including at least two on Facebook as well as others on WordPress, Photobucket, Daily Motion, YouTube, and other platforms.

Abdulazeez’s social media information purge has proven effective. Despite all these accounts belonging to him, almost nothing is known about him. Thus far, we know almost exclusively what Abdulazeez wanted us to know.

A blog left behind by Abdulazeez illustrated his calculated social media presence. Just three days before the shooting, he posted two entries foreshadowing his coming attack, stating that “life is short and bitter” and that Muslims should not let “the opportunity to submit to allah…pass you by.”

One of his Facebook accounts, under the name, “Mohammed AbduAzeez,” was taken down—most likely by him to prevent investigators and others from learning about his social life and connections. The second Facebook account, though not taken down, showed no posts.

Small traces of information remaining on these pages may still provide some valuable insights into Abdulazeez’s interests, though. His second Facebook account showed only one friend: a user who also claimed to live in Chattanooga, have originated from Syria’s Daraa governorate, and worked for the pro-rebel activist news organization, Shaam News Network (SNN).

Still, finding online discussions by him or about him is a challenge. Even others who appear to have known him continue to remove comments from their social media accounts. The day after the shooting, Mazzen Haj Ali, an alleged Palestinian in Nablus and Facebook friend of Abdulazeez’s father, shared a news video about the shooting and added a short eulogy in Arabic:

May Allah have mercy on you and grant you paradise.

and may Allah not forgive anyone who talks badly about you…

Muhammed Youseff AbdulAzeed Haj Ali

b2ap3_medium_FB-postThe post was liked 49 times, with dozen users also giving well wishes to Abdulazeez. One user wrote: “Whoever will talk badly about him is a Jew,” while another, also from Nablus, wrote:

By Allah, O Mazen, I became one of those people; I am intending to be Da’ish [IS] for their presence. May Allah protect [conceal – cover] it, and Allah is Higher and knows best than all the people.

Notable is that the user, Mazzen Ali Haj, shares the same last name as Abdulazeez’s uncle, Asaad Ibrahim Abdulazeez Haj Ali, who hosted Abdulazeez on his last visit to Jordan. The uncle had been detained by Jordanian authorities amid investigations.

However, this post—the first of any significance that I was able to find by his family and/or associates—was deleted 17 hours after it was made. Thus, yet another set of potentially informative comments and likes disappeared, creating another empty space to the puzzle. 

Read more

Also see:

 

New Developments in Chattanooga Terror Attack As Killer’s Family, Media Pushes ‘Loon Wolf’ Narrative

untitled-313PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 21, 2015:

On Sunday I reviewed the reported evidence here at PJ Media on what we knew about Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the killer who gunned down four Marines and one Navy sailor in Chattanooga last Thursday as both investigators and the media puzzled over his possible motive.

For many in the media, the motive remains elusive:

chattanooga mystery

And as our friends at the Washington Free Beacon have chronicled, this is a point that the media is at great pains to let you know.

But the killer’s family has given the media the narrative they’ve been searching for: Abdulazeez was mentally ill, depressed, drug addled, a troubled youth with financial debts.

This was pushed out yesterday by ABC News after the family presented the killer’s diary:

Four days after the shooting, the FBI has not found any connection to overseas terrorist groups, but Mohammod Abdulazeez’s diary says that as far back as 2013, he wrote about having suicidal thoughts and “becoming a martyr” after losing his job due to his drug use, both prescription and non-prescription drugs, the family representative said.

In a downward spiral, Abdulazeez would abuse sleeping pills, opioids, painkillers and marijuana, along with alcohol, the representative said.

Most recently, the 24-year-old was having problems dealing with a 12 hour overnight shift, and had to take sleeping pills, according to the representative. The young man was also thousands of dollars in debt and considering filing for bankruptcy.

Three months before the shooting, Abdulazeez was arrested on April 20 — a day celebrated annually by marijuana users — and charged with drunk driving. The arresting officer noted a smell of marijuana in the car.

But wait a second. Did they just say that going back to 2013, he wrote about “becoming a martyr,” which ABC News quickly translates into him having “suicidal thoughts”?

Well, that’s one way to spin it, I guess.

They also quickly leap over this important point:

The gunman who killed five American troops in a Chattanooga shooting spree last week did online research for militant Islamist “guidance” on committing violence that he may have believed would wipe away in the afterlife his sins on earth including drug and alcohol abuse, an arrest and a lost job, officials said on Monday.

The Internet searches were discovered on electronic devices such as his smartphone analyzed over the weekend by the FBI Lab in Quantico, Virginia, several counter-terrorism officials confirmed to ABC News.

So since 2013 he had written about “becoming a martyr,” and also he had conducted online research for Islamic “guidance” for committing violence.

But it wasn’t just any “guidance” he sought, but the teachings of Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who the U.S. killed in a drone strike in September 2011, the New York Timesreports:

The authorities who were examining Mr. Abdulazeez’s computer found that he had viewed material connected to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was killed in Yemen by an American drone strike in 2011, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation.

And yet that tidbit was also buried by the New York Times underneath the family’s claims of mental illness, clinical depression, drug use, financial problems, etc.

It is important to note that the only source for these claims are the killer’s family. And many are quick to buy the narrative they’re peddling:

#loonwolf

Reuters also reports that in addition to trips that Abdulazeez had recently taken to both Jordan and Yemen, he had also made a mysterious trip to Qatar:

The man suspected of killing five members of the U.S. military in Tennessee last week was in Qatar at least once during a 2014 trip to the Middle East, according to two U.S. government sources who said reasons for the stopover were still unknown.

U.S. investigators are trying to piece together Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez’s travels to the region to see if he was radicalized by a militant group such as Islamic State. But they have no evidence he was in contact with militant groups or individuals.

On a seven-month trip to visit family in Jordan, it is uncertain how long he may have spent in the Qatari capital, a political crossroads in the region. Qatar is home to jihadist supporters as well as a U.S. air base…

Abdulazeez returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene, according to two friends who had known him since elementary school.

Abdulazeez went to the Middle East in 2010 and visited several countries, one of his friends told Reuters. He then went to Jordan in 2014 to work for his uncle, and lived with his uncle and his grandparents there, he said. Both friends spoke with Reuters on condition they not be named because they feared a backlash.

The killer’s family assured ABC News that his trip had nothing to do with his radicalization:

A seven-month trip to Jordan last year was an effort to “get him away from bad influences in the U.S.,” not part of a path to radicalization, the family told agents.

And yet his friends told a different story about his change in behavior after returning from his recent travels:

Abdulazeez’s friends said he had returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene.

He later purchased three assault rifles on an online marketplace and used them for target practice, the friends said.

“That trip was eye-opening for him. He learned a lot about the traditions and culture of the Middle East,” said the close friend who received the text message.

Abdulazeez was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza and the civil war in Syria, he said. “He felt Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia were not doing enough to help, and that they were heavily influenced by the United States.”

Another friend said, “He had always talked about it, but I’d say his level of understanding and awareness really rose after he came back.”

And immediately upon his return he began purchasing long guns:

According to Abdulazeez’s friends, he purchased three guns on Armslist.com after returning from Jordan, including an AK-74, an AR-15, and a Saiga 12. They said he also owned 9mm and .22-caliber handguns.

So just as a matter of review for those still searching for motive in Abdulazeez’s killings last week, we have evidence that:

But his motive is a complete mystery that we may never know, say officials close to the investigation.

Conversely we have his family and their anonymous representative pushing mental illness, depression, drug use and financial pressures as motive.

Again, all of the media reporting pushing this narrative is sourced to the family and their representatives, or officials who had talked to the family. Of course, the family would have no ulterior motive floating this story line at all.

And then there’s this from last night:

search

No doubt investigators will continue to piece together the events that led to this horrific terror attack. Meanwhile, none of us should be surprised as the media grinds its preferred narrative.

***

Also see:

A Time To Confront Our Enemies At Home

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A denier is a denier.

An appeaser is an appeaser.

An enabler is an enabler.

A betrayer is a betrayer.

And President Obama is all of these.

And so are those who follow his lead.

No, the Chattanooga Shooter Really Does Appear to Be a Jihadist


National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, July 18, 2015:

In the immediate aftermath of Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez’s killing of four Marines and wounding of at least three other people, there was a noticeable effort to portray the jihadist as an all-American boy from small-town Tennessee. With just a bit of digging, however, a different picture is emerging. The New York Times reported Friday morning that Abdulazeez had spent about seven months in Jordan last year.

As is their wont in cases where Muslims kill Americans, investigators hastened to point out that overseas stays in a region rife with Islamic radicalism are not necessarily suggestive of terror ties . . . even if the traveler, on his stateside return, promptly shoots up military installations while the Islamic State and al-Qaeda urge Muslims to shoot up military installations.

Abdulazeez was technically a Jordanian national when his parents brought him to the United States from Kuwait as an infant in 1990. Sometime during his childhood, he became a naturalized American citizen. Yet the family appears to self-identify as Palestinian, a conclusion I’ll explain in due course.

Extensive and mostly flattering information already abounds about Abdulazeez’s upbringing in Colonial Shores, a subdivision of Hixon, a small town across the Tennessee River from Chattanooga. “He seemed to have been an all-American boy,” reports the Times, “handsome, polite, normally in a T-shirt and jeans.”

RELATED: It Wasn’t a ‘Lack of Opportunity for Jobs’ That Motivated the Chattanooga Shooter

The 24-year-old jihadist was finally killed in a shootout with Chattanooga police Thursday morning. He had first opened fire on a military recruiting office, shooting out the windows. He then drove to a U.S. Naval Reserve Center about six miles away, where he murdered the four Marines. Also wounded in the spree were a Marine recruiting officer, a police officer, and Navy sailor who, as this is written, is still fighting for her life after a night of surgery.

Abdulazeez’s family — father, mother, and at least two sisters — is described by the media as “devout” and “conservative” Muslim. Abdulazeez is said to have had a mostly normal American childhood, playing ball in the street with the local kids; his sisters, to have been everyday American girls who happened to wear headscarves. Neighbors appear to have thought the children polite and well behaved.

Yet, there is plainly more to the story. According to one Israeli press outlet, the shooter’s father, Youssef Abdulazeez, is a Palestinian, notwithstanding his holding of a Jordanian passport.About 4.5 million Palestinians live in Jordan, about three-quarters of them holding Jordanian citizenship. Whatever his ties to Jordan, Youssef resided in Samaria — i.e., in the virulently anti-Israeli and anti-Western territory of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank — before relocating to Kuwait. The Israeli press outlet relates:

The Palestinian connection was demonstrated by pictures posted on Facebook recently by [an unidentified family member] who put up an image featuring a fist grasping a loudspeaker in the colors of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) flag with the words: “speak for Palestine!”

Indicators of the Palestinian roots of the Abdulazeez family are corroborated by the Instagram account of one of Youssef’s daughters, Yasmeen. In it, she describes herself as a “Palestinian Muslim living in good old Tennessee.”

After moving to Kuwait, Youssef married his wife, Rasmia. Mohammod was born in 1990. They left for America after the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War — the war in which President George H. W. Bush liberated Kuwaiti Muslims from the occupying Iraqi army of Saddam Hussein . . . although Kuwait remains a hotbed of radical Islam and a major source of anti-American jihadist funding.

RELATED: Jihad against U.S. Troops Is Not a ‘Circumstance’

Youssef was on a Federal Bureau of Investigation terrorist watch list for some unspecified period of time, on suspicion of donating money to an organization suspected of being a terrorist front. He was even reportedly questioned by or at the behest of American law enforcement during a trip outside the U.S. But he was eventually removed from the list. Now he is not only employed by the Chattanooga City Department of Public Works; he also was appointed an unarmed “special policeman” in 2005 by the Chattanooga City Council.

In the hours right after the shooting, local federal officials stated the obvious: the jihadist killing of our Marines was an act of “terrorism.” By nighttime, the government was walking that back.

The Abdulazeez children attended Red Bank High School. The Washington Post reports that, in her years at there, as well as at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (where Mohammod also attended), Yasmeen drew attention for her forward and at times confrontational expression of Islam — wearing her headscarf even on the volleyball court, and chiding fellow students, “Do you really know what Islam is? . . . There’s this misconception that Islam is a violent religion. Muslims are actually peaceful.”

Another sister, Dalia, eventually became a well-regarded young elementary-school teacher. Quite abruptly, however, she left the school and the United States. A former teaching colleague indicates that the move was made in order to be with a man who was leaving the country. Her strict Islamic parents wanted to choose her husband, and they disapproved of the beau she’d chosen for herself.

Mohammod, meanwhile, is said to have been a popular, smart, witty high-school student and athlete — a formidable wrestler who grew into a muscular six-footer and later took up mixed martial arts for a time. He interrupted wrestling practices for prayer breaks. He was also eerily quoted as follows in his senior-yearbook entry: “My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do?”

RELATED: Ted Cruz: Chattanooga Shooting Shows Need for Immigration Overhaul, Arming Military on Bases

Of course it is still early in the investigation, but little seems to be known so far about Mohammod’s college years at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The UT system has active chapters of the Muslim Students Association. As I’ve previously recounted, the MSA is the primary building block of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American infrastructure, and several of its leaders have gone on to become prominent Islamist activists and even violent jihadists. Thus far, though, I’ve seen no reporting about whether Abdulazeez was a member of, or in any way active in, the MSA.

It is clear that he had recently become a regular attendee of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga, where his family prayed at the mosque. Mohammod had not been seen there in a while before he began attending again two to three months ago — information that is consistent with lengthy travel overseas. The Islamic Society describes itself as moderate and, out of respect for the Marines killed by Abdulazeez, it canceled an end-of-Ramadan celebration that was scheduled for Friday evening. A founding board member of the Society told the Timesthat Abdulazeez had shown no signs of “extremism.”

So for now, we do not know much about Abdulazeez’s activities and influences during his college years — the time when Islamic supremacism grips many young Muslim men. We know that he earned a degree in electrical engineering in 2012. (Interestingly, many terrorists and Islamist activists have studied engineering at American universities). We know that he eventually interned at the Tennessee Valley Authority (the federally owned utility that provides electricity and flood control for millions of Americans in the South). And we know, finally, that the clean-cut Abdulazeez — the high-school senior with close-cropped hair — somehow became the bearded zealot who created an Islamic website on the eve of his jihad.

The American press has naturally focused on a recent drunk-driving arrest; obviously, it could cut against the picture of a committed Muslim extremist and thus suggest that some other motive — any other motive — explains the attack. But the arrest could equally suggest a person in the throes of an inner conflict between the life he knew and the beliefs he harbored. Better than reading tea leaves would be reading his own words. On the website, whose only two entries were posted on Monday, three days before the shooting spree, he warned fellow Muslims that “life is short and bitter and the opportunity to submit to allah [sic] may pass you by.”

The other entry, on “Understanding Islam,” refers to the example of the prophet Mohammed’s companions: the notion that “almost every one of them was a political leader or an army general[.] Every one of them fought jihad for the sake of Allah.” Abdulazeez concluded:

We ask Allah to make us follow their path. To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the [sic] live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.

In the hours right after the shooting, local federal officials stated the obvious: the jihadist killing of our Marines was an act of “terrorism.” By nighttime, the government was walking that back. President Obama described the “assault” as a “heartbreaking circumstance.” Attorney General Loretta Lynch prefers “national-security investigation” to the word “terrorism.”

After all, who knows what the motive could have been?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

***

Also see:

Chattanooga Shooter’s Mosque Fundraised on Behalf of Jihad in 2009

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga

Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga

Center for Security Policy,by Kyle Shideler, July 18, 2015:

As we reported Friday, the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga (ISGC) is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood through the Hamas-linked North American Islamic Trust (NAIT.) Now new evidence has been revealed showing that ISGC actually raised funds for the building of their new mosque in 2009, by referencing jihad and key Muslim Brotherhood figures.

According to a 2009 Iftar fundraising dinner slide show, first apparently noticed by Twitter user @alimhaider, contained an overt reference to key Muslim Brotherhood figure Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The title of the slide, “In the cause of Allah” is an English translation of Fi Sabil Allah, as in the phrase “Jihad Fisabilallah”, which means violent jihad against unbelievers. Classic Islamic law reference book, the Reliance of the Traveller, notes in its index, “Fisabilallah: See Jihad”. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase in context.

The reference to jihad in the fundraiser related to the Mosque, was done as a means of explaining that a contribution to the building of the mosque qualified under “Zakat” (annual tithe which is obligatory in Islam), under the category of funding Jihad.

ISGCZakat-300x225

Reliance of the Traveller notes, “The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration)…”

The slide “Cause of Allah” references Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and S.A.A. Maududi, founder of Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami. Both Qaradawi and Maududi are prolific on the subject of Jihad.

Qaradawi has been noted for his avid support for the terrorist group Hamas and their jihad against Israel, including issuing fatwas authorizing suicide bombing, and has supported jihadist movements in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and most recently in Egypt. Qaradawi is the leader of the Hamas financing network known as the “Union of the Good”, which utilizes Zakat funds received by its charities in order to support Hamas.

In his work, “Islamic Education and Hassan Al Banna,” Qaradawi discusses how it was the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) which revitalized the classical concept of Jihad for a modern age:

The aspect of Ikhwani training which makes it eminent and unique is Jehad or crusade i e. : Crusader·like training…The real implication of · Jehad (crusade) had been dismissed from Islamic training and way of life, before its conception among the lkhwans.

And in his “Priorities of the Movement in the Coming phase” Qaradawi says:

…it is a duty to defend every land invaded by infidels, stating that such jihad is imperative for Muslims in this land as an individual obligation and that all Muslims must support them with money, arms and men as required until all their land has been liberated from any aggressor who usurps it. Therefore, the Islamic Movement cannot stand idle and watch while any part of Muslim land is occupied by a foreign aggressor.

The other modern Islamic scholar referenced by the document, Maulana S.A.A. Maududi, was famous for successfully merging classical Islamic concepts of Jihad with a modernist language of revolution. He noted the following in his work “Jihad in Islam”:

It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of the Islamic ‘ Jihād’ is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the State system of the countries to which they belong, but their ultimate objective is no other than to effect a world revolution.

So the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga announced in 2009 that it openly aligned its views of Jihad with the views of Qaradawi and Maududi, and told its Muslim congregants that donating to the construction of ISGC was permissible, because it represented funding jihad.

Chattanooga shooter Mohammed Yusuf Abdulazeez and his family were regular attendees as ISGC. Despite claims by the mosque leadership that Abdulazeez was a rare attendee or little known there, a photo from a family Facebook account shows that Abdulazeez held his graduation party at the mosque, and that it was well attended, indicating they were well known regulars.

This fundraising document was publicly available information, three years before U.S. District Attorney William Killian attended the grand opening in 2012 and expressed his friendship with a mosque leadership who built their mosque with a promise that funding them represented an investment in jihad.

Now that investment appears to have matured.

U.S. District Attorney William Killian should recuse himself from this case, because of his association with ISGC, and the investigators must begin to conduct a detailed and through investigation of ISGC itself, and what role its support for violent jihad may have played in the attack in Chattanooga which claimed the lives of five servicemen.

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

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

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

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

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

Another misunderstander of Islam.

We see the playbook open again.

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

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

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

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

5. DHS Response:  Enhance security at federal facilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Also see:

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA’S IRAN DEAL

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool

Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, July 14, 2015:

The deal the Obama administration cut today with the Iranian terrorist regime signals once and for all that the Obama administration considers both the United States and Israel to be the key threats to peace in the world.

Why else would the American president have lifted sanctions and granted the Iranian mullahs decades of American cover in the face of overwhelming evidence they support anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-Sunni terror across the region and the globe?

President Obama’s statements today about the strength of this deal carry no weight, given that he has coordinated with the Iranian regime – which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans over the past few years – in Iraq, has allowed them to prop up Bashar Assad in Syria, has allowed them to continue their subjugation of Lebanon, watched in silence as they flexed their muscle in Yemen, and attempted to cut off weapons shipments to Israel in the midst of its war with Iranian proxy terror group Hamas.

Obama wants Iran to be a regional power, because Obama fears Israel more than he fears Iran. The same day that Obama announced his deal, “moderate” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani tweeted, “To our neighbours: Do not be deceived by the propaganda of the warmongering Zionist regime. #Iran & its power will translate into your power.”

Obama’s counting on it.

Obama had one motivation in this deal: he believes that any Western attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear development with force is more dangerous and less moral than Iran’s elevated terror support and even its eventual nuclear development.

America and the West, in Obama’s global worldview, are so dangerous that he wouldn’t even make minor requests of Iran, such as releasing American prisoners, if that meant the minute possibility of actual Western action on the horizon. Obama doesn’t care if Iran is lying. To him, that risk is acceptable when compared with the certainty of Western action, no matter how constrained, against Iran.

Obama consistently posed the choice about his nuclear deal as one between diplomacy and war, as though a military strike against Iran would have precipitated World War III. But this deal is far more calibrated to provoke World War III than any targeted strike by Israel, the United States, or anyone else.

The deal pats itself on the back with wording about ensuring that “Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful,” and how the deal will be a “fundamental shift” in the international community’s relationship with Iran. Then it gets to details. And the devil isn’t just in the details; the devils in Iran wrote them.

The deal “will produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme, including steps on access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.” Those sanctions end on the first day of the deal: “The UN Security Council resolution will also provide for the termination on Implementation Day of provisions imposed under previous resolutions.” The EU “will terminate all provisions of the EU Regulation.”

Money will now move between “EU persons and entities, including financial institutions, and Iranian persons and entities, including financial institutions.” Banking activities will resume abroad. Full trade will essentially resume. After five years, the arms embargo against Iran will end. After eight years, the missile embargo against Iran will end.

The deal explicitly acknowledges that Iran is gaining benefits no other state would gain under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In terms of its nuclear development, instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, that program is now protected:

Iran will continue to conduct enrichment R&D in a manner that does not accumulate enriched uranium. Iran’s enrichment R&D with uranium for 10 years will only include IR-4, IR-5, IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges as laid out in Annex I, and Iran will not engage in other isotope separation technologies for enrichment of uranium as specified in Annex I. Iran will continue testing IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, and will commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years, as detailed in Annex I.

We have no way of knowing what Iran has done additionally, however, since the deal has no provisions forcing them to turn over information about what they’ve already done.There is no baseline.

So who will implement this deal? A “Joint Commission” comprised of the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States and Iran is charged with monitoring all developments under the agreement – meaning that all the signatories, all of whom have an interest in preserving a deal they signed, will be the “objective” monitoring agents.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor and verify Iran’s nuclear program. But not everywhere. Only at key nuclear facilities will the IAEA have access – military sites were not included in the deal in any real way – and even then, the process for access is extraordinarily regulated:

74. Requests for access pursuant to provisions of this JCPOA will be made in good faith, with due observance of the sovereign rights of Iran, and kept to the minimum necessary to effectively implement the verification responsibilities under this JCPOA. In line with normal international safeguards practice, such requests will not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities, but will be exclusively for resolving concerns regarding fulfillment of the JCPOA commitments and Iran’s other non-proliferation and safeguards obligations. The following procedures are for the purpose of JCPOA implementation between the E3/EU+3 and Iran and are without prejudice to the safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocol thereto. In implementing this procedure as well as other transparency measures, the IAEA will be requested to take every precaution to protect commercial, technological and industrial secrets as well as other confidential information coming to its knowledge.

75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.

76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.

77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.

78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wrote into the deal provisions designed to hamstring Congress and local authorities:

If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

And if Iran cheats, the United States and EU will have to take the matter to dispute resolution rather than re-implementing sanctions, as Obama has lied:

The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions…

Obama is already moving on this front. While calling for an open conversation on the Iran deal, President Obama has already said he will veto any attempts to curb the deal by Congress. So feel free to chat, gang, so long as you don’t attempt to do anything.

In brief, the agreement trades enormous amounts of cash for Iran’s pinkie swear that they will not develop nuclear weapons now, and the blind hope that Iran’s regime will magically moderate over the next five to ten years – a hope made even more distant by the fact that this deal reinforces the power and strength of the current Iranian regime. The West has no interest in holding Iran to an agreement since, to do so, they would have to repudiate the deal they cut in the first place. Anything short of actual nuclear aggression will draw no response from the West. No wonder Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a “historic mistake for the world,” explaining:

Far-reaching concessions have been made in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability. In addition, Iran will receive hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe… One cannot prevent an agreement when the negotiators are willing to make more and more concessions to those who, even during the talks, keep chanting: ‘Death to America.’ We knew very well that the desire to sign an agreement was stronger than anything, and therefore we did not commit to preventing an agreement.

So here’s what happens next in the region.

Israel Waits. The chances of an Israeli strike on Iran are now somewhere between slim and none. Obama’s deal prevents Israel from taking action without risking sanctions from the European Union and the United States for endangering this sham deal.

Nothing would make Obama happier than to levy sanctions against the Jewish State – and should Israel act in its own interests, undercutting Obama’s Epitaph Achievement, Obama will react harshly. Israel will be busy enough handling all the Iranian proxies on its borders who will now see cash and resources flow to them, all sponsored by the West.

Hezbollah and Hamas Are Strengthened. Terrorist groups across the Middle East rejoice today, knowing that the money Iran just gained through lifting of sanctions will end up restocking their rocket supply. Hezbollah has already destroyed Lebanon as Iran’s arm; Hamas has already taken over Gaza. Both routinely threaten war on Israel, firing ordinance into Israeli territory.

Now they will not only be emboldened – after all, what happens if Israel retaliates against them, Iran threatens to get involved, and the world, seeking to preserve its newfound magical relationship with Iran, puts pressure on Israel? – they will be empowered. Obama just made the next war between Israel and its terrorist neighbors a certainty.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt Go Nuclear. President Obama came into office touting “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Given that Iran is months from a bomb, and that there are no real verification techniques and no real consequences for violation, Iran’s enemies will quickly seek to go nuclear in order to establish a deterrent, not just to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but to their expanded conventional capabilities.

Iran has the largest active military in the Middle East, along with its massive paramilitary terror groups. They’ve built that in the midst of heavy sanctions. With Iran getting active on the borders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, those regimes would be foolhardy not to attempt to develop a nuclear capacity – especially given that Obama has shown there are no detriments to doing so. What’s he going to do, threaten Egypt’s General Al-Sisi? He’s been doing that for years already.

Bashar Assad Stays In Power. Remember the time Obama said Syrian dictator Bashar Assad needed to go? That’s not happening anytime soon, given that Assad is Iran’s tool in Syria. When Obama drew a red line against Syria based on Assad’s use of chemical weapons, he apparently meant that Assad should stay forever, and that his sponsor state should be rewarded with billions of dollars in relieved sanctions. No wonder Assad called the deal a “major turning point” in world history, adding, “We are confident that the Islamic Republic of Iran will support, with greater drive, just causes of nations and work for peace and stability in the region and the world.”

Iraq Splits Permanently Between Iran and ISIS. Supposedly, the United States opposed Shia exclusionary policy against Sunnis in Iraq, and blamed such policy for the breakdown of security there. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has now taken over the southern half of the country; the new Iraqi Prime Minister is an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, Sunnis, seeking some sort of security against the Iranians and having no secular American-backed regime to rely upon, have been turning in increasing numbers to the barbarians of ISIS. President Obama has made ISIS a permanent feature of the world landscape, and has turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state, just like Syria and Lebanon.

Iran Will Foray Into Iran, Afghanistan. Iran’s expansionist ambitions have been increased exponentially by this deal. The deal does nothing to demand Iran stop its military activities abroad, of course, which means that their sponsorship of the Houthis in Yemen and terrorist groups in Afghanistan will continue apace. Al Jazeera has evenspeculated at sectarian unrest in Pakistan.

Obama’s defenders today ask his detractors, “If the deal works, isn’t it a good deal?”

Sure. If the Munich Agreement had worked, it would have been a masterpiece of diplomacy.

But promising a unicorn in a diplomatic negotiation isn’t quite the same thing as delivering one. And delivering billions of dollars, international legitimacy, and a protective shield around a terrorist regime in exchange for that unicorn makes you either a fool or an active perpetuator of that terrorist regime.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

***

Also see:

Whitewashing Islam: Egypt’s Grand Mufti and Muhammad’s Transformation in Medina

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images

ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, July 13, 2015:

On July 2, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Shawki Allam, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, who claimed that “violent extremists” are distorting the true purpose of fatwas and thereby, the true meaning of Islam. He goes on to extoll the virtues of Muhammad’s many roles – calling him a divine inspiration, social reformer, military leader, statesman, and also a Mufti.

Shawki Allam claims that among the many fatwas issued by Muhammad were included those that “banned burying baby girls alive; asserted a woman’s right to choose her husband and to seek divorce; and emphasized women’s rights of inheritance.” He goes on to state that Muhammad “established a safe environment for religious minorities and laid out principles for equality and citizenship.” Allam claims these fatwas were offered as guidelines for later Muslim clerics to follow on the path of mercy, justice and compassion. Breathtaking!

Aside from what might charitably be called the Mufti’s rather loose treatment of actual Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture, what he also fails to mention is that most of these so-called fatwas (or pronouncements of Muhammad recorded in the hadiths) were issued before the hijra, when Muhammad moved from Mecca to Medina, where he expanded his forces until they were strong enough to annihilate all opposition to his new teaching, including three entire Jewish tribes of the Peninsula. Here, as all too often, slyly deceitful Islamic explanations for Westerners are strictly limited to an incomplete understanding Islam in its early, pre-violent Mecca phase, when, for lack of capability, the early Muslims were limited to preaching. Clearly, the Mufti’s intent is to support the wishful claim of many Western leaders that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Therefore, the atrocities and barbarism we are subjected to by the Islamic State (IS) as reported by the mainstream and other social media are a perversion of Islam. If it were only true.

The actual biography of Muhammad aside (which is a veritable litany of rape, pillage, and plunder), there are at least 109 verses in the Koran that sanction violent acts against the “unbelievers” or “infidels.” For example, Koran 2:191 compels Muslims to “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” IS and its affiliates demonstrate this on a daily basis in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Koran 5:33 lays out the penalties for those who “wage war against God and His Apostle” [i.e.,fail to submit to Islam] or commit “mischief through the land”: “execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.” The Istanbul Process, a campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy law on all non-Muslim societies, is led by the 57 Muslim members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has sponsored (with U.S. support) a UN resolution insisting that all countries “criminalize” what it calls “defamation of religions” (code for Islam).  The OIC rejects our First Amendment rights of free speech and religion.

While calling for UN resolutions to limit speech, the Muslim OIC nations withdrew from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1990, replacing it with the Cairo Declaration, which states that the only human rights they would recognize are those granted under Islam’s shariah (Islamic law).

Koran 9:12 condemns Muslim apostates: according to both hadiths and the shariah, one who leaves Islam, whether to convert to another religion or not, must be killed. Regrettably, shariah is as actively enforced today in places under Muslim rule as it was 1,300 years ago. It is this penalty of death more than anything else that prevents more Muslims from leaving Islam. It should be noted that in Sura 2 verse 106 (on abrogation), the Koran makes it clear that all the later violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent ones. Actually, it is nearly impossible to understand the full import of Islam without mastering the doctrine of abrogation and its associated doctrine of progressive revelation.

Islam is generally acknowledged to be a “complete way of life” and at the core of this code is Islamic law or shariah. Of course, shariah is incompatible in the most fundamental ways with the United States Constitution.

Mufti Allam goes on to claim that ill treatment of women is forbidden. He states that Islam in its true form is also adamant about finding balance with religious minorities. He states that people of differing faiths are not to be treated as second-class citizens, and that their right of religious freedom and worship is to be respected. Of course, this conflicts completely with the so-named “Sura of the Sword (the 9th Chapter).” The doctrine is clear for Christians and Jews (aka ‘People of the Book’): they must either convert or die, or accept the third choice and pay the jizya (blood tax), then willingly submit to live under Islamic law as dhimmis (9:29). So much for tolerance.

Finally, Koran 3:85 states that “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him…” It should be clear to any thinking person that Islam is a totalitarian political movement bent on world domination (same as communism), but masquerading as a religion.

In view of the above, how can the Mufti of Egypt stand by his claims that Islam is being distorted and perverted? In my opinion, clearly the propaganda the Mufti is promulgating falls under the well-known Islamic principles of “Taqiyya” and “Kitman” – “lying” to advance the cause of Islam. The Mufti, if he wants to advance the cause of Islam and bring it into the twenty-first century, should embrace President al-Sisi of Egypt’s call on January 1, 2015, before the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar, for the reformation of Islam, which has not occurred in over 1,300 years. “That corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world,” Sisi said then, asserting that a “religious revolution” is needed.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior
U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

I Am An Islamophobe

CI7-0c8VEAAs6BX

By George Garbow

I am an Islamophobe, I’m proud to be an Islamophobe and you should be proud to.

You should be proud of the fact that you criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts the Quran and the Hadith’s tells it’s followers to not take non-muslims as friends, to lie to and deceive non-muslims in order to advance the spread of Islam and that there will never be any peace in the world until every single person on this planet either by persuasion or violent force becomes a Muslim. You should be proud to criticise a religion that in it’s most important and fundamental texts condones and encourages the cruel treatment of animals for Halal meat, the beating of disobedient wives and the taking of non-muslim women and children as sex slaves by muslim men. You should be proud of the fact that you speak out about a religion that instructs it’s followers in the Quran and Hadith’s to terrorise and force all non-muslims to live as subservient slaves under their Muslim masters, to crucify and behead any non Muslims who disobey their masters in any country in the world where Muslims live and to make war on anyone who tries to stop them doing this. You should be proud to oppose a religion that considers Mohammed to be the most perfect man, a man who in the Muslim Hadith’s is praised and revered for being a thief, a peadophile and a murderer. You should be proud that by being an Islamophobe you are standing up to Western politicians and the Western media who out of fear and cowardice and for their own personal greed are trying to stop you telling the undeniable truth about what Islam teaches to it’s followers and the crimes against humanity that it is responsible for throughout history and that we see happening all around the world today.

You should be proud of the fact that the use of the word Islamophobe by our politicians and the media will not silence you and will not make you live in fear as they do. Be proud of the fact that by being an Islamophobe shows you care about the victims of this religion, you care about the muslim women who are forced to wear the Burqa and are treated as second-class citizens under Islamic law, you care about the non-muslim women who are taken as sex slaves by muslim man, you care about the children who are raped by Muslim men as they follow the teachings an example of their prophet, you care about the victims of Muslim terrorism and violence who are being shot, stoned, crucified and beheaded in the name of this religion all around the world today. So be proud to be called an Islamophobe by cowards and liars because it shows that in this world you choose right over wrong and good over evil and that you will not live your life on your knees.

So be proud of the fact that you are an Islamophobe.

***

SIX SURE SIGNS SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS AN ISLAMOPHOBE by Eric Allen Bell

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history of an Islamic “charity.” This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum.” In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America declared a “Civilization Jihad.”  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated its intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia.” In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is. But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas/CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes.”

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are six ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word “liberty” means “freedom” and that the word “Islam” literally means “submission.” And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamophobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God-given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor.”  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grassroots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popular opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes,” however, do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such is the job of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – “Islamophobes” tend to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Sharia), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe.”

The word “Islamophobia” literally means an irrational fear of the ideology known as Islam.  It is misapplied, as this is in fact the intention of the word. Someone with an irrational fear of Islam would more likely make a statement such as, “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”  And really, what kind of a spineless coward would say something so utterly ridiculous? (Barack Hussein Obama, addressing the United Nations, October 2012.)

Those who are called the “Islamophobes” are generally anything but. However, they are strong enough not to allow cheap name calling to stop them from honoring their moral convictions.  The “Islamophobes” are our best and our brightest.  These are the people who can see around corners, connect the dots, spot a pattern, and are true to their moral intuition – even when it is inconvenient.

The so-called “Islamophobes” have the courage to speak out.  It has been said that “liberty is paid for in installments, one generation at a time.”  If you feel in your heart that you are ready to make your payment, to continue the legacy of freedom and liberty that has been paid for dearly by those brave men and women who have gone before us, then now is your time.  Now is our time.  Be willing to be branded an “Islamophobe.”  And if you are already a semi-active “Islamophobe” may I suggest becoming a “Raging Islamophobe.”  A word of caution: This could result in some people not liking you.  But if that is all that is being asked of us, for now, to stand up for liberty, to champion the cause of freedom — then being labeled an “Islamophobe” is a small price to pay.  In fact, to be an “Islamophobe” is an honor.

***

Picture-16 (1)

Download the pdf:

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By: David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

ISIS’ Sinai Attacks Show Real Threat to Hamas

Hamas fighters (Photo: Video screenshot)

Hamas fighters (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 3, 2015:

The attacks on Egypt in the Sinai Peninsula by the Islamic State (ISIS) this week shows why its new vow to topple Hamas in the Gaza Strip should be taken seriously. Polls show that Palestinians have the highest level of sympathy for ISIS in the Arab world with the possible exception of Syria.

ISIS has killed at least 17 Egyptian security personnel (13 soldiers and 4 police officers) and injured 30 in coordinated attacks that reflect increasing sophistication.  The Egyptian military said 70 Islamist terrorists participated and five checkpoints were assaulted. ISIS claims it struck 15 sites all at once.

The Egyptian government immediately accused the Muslim Brotherhood of involvement as it has in the past. Egypt also claims Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, is secretly supporting ISIS operations in the Sinai Peninsula. It has even threatened to attack Hamas in Gaza in response.

The Egyptian claims are questionable because of the open animosity between the two groups and ISIS’ new video pledging to conquer the Gaza Strip, but the Israeli military confirmed the links after Wednesday’s attacks. It identified two senior Hamas officials who advise ISIS and covertly arrange for hospital visits in Gaza for its injured operatives.

The Brotherhood denies involvement and its website has a statementurging Egyptians to reject violence, but the group’s double-talk is well-documented. It is simply false that the Brotherhood is completely non-violent and Brotherhood media outlets explicitly call for violence like that perpetrated by ISIS this week.

However, there does appear to be a division within the Brotherhood.Youth leaders and elements outside the country are advocating violent jihad, while the older generation repeatedly reaffirms the group’s non-violent stance in Egypt. It’s possible this is all a calculated deception. It’s also possible the rift is real and a faction would be willing to support ISIS against a common enemy.

One Brotherhood official, Mohamed Gaber, said it “seeks to use all expertise inside and outside the Brotherhood to achieve its goals at this stage,” referring to toppling the Egyptian government.

The Egyptian government’s crackdown on the Brotherhood makes it tempting for Hamas to support ISIS operations in the Sinai. Hamas may prefer a situation where its southern border is a battlefield between ISIS and Egyptian forces instead of a base for either. Plus, the Brotherhood uses every death as proof that Egypt’s crackdown is counter-productive and should end.

There are three possibilities: Claims of Hamas/Brotherhood links to ISIS in Sinai are simply wrong; the two groups simultaneously collaborate and fight with each other depending on circumstances; or there are elements within Hamas/Brotherhood that work independently with ISIS against the wishes of the leadership.

Whatever the truth is, the attacks in the Sinai show the threat to Hamas should be taken seriously.

A November 2014 poll found that the Palestinians are the most sympathetic population to ISIS in the Arab world. Only 4% view ISIS positively but if you include those who view it somewhat positively, it grows to nearly one-quarter of the population. However, another poll found that only 3% of Palestinians view ISIS’ gains positively and 88% view it negatively.

ISIS could capitalize on widespread dissatisfaction with Hamas and the situation in Gaza. ISIS’ message that Gaza is in bad shape because Hamas is not sufficiently implementing Sharia could resonate with Islamists who are struggling to understand why Hamas’ rule has not been blessed by Allah. The video also slams Hamas for being too soft on Israel.

A poll released last month shows that 50% of the population in Gaza—and an astounding 80% of the youth—want to leave. About 63% favor continuing rocket attacks on Israel. Another poll found that almost 25% would not vote if elections were held today.

Should a full-blown war between Hamas and ISIS break out that makes Gaza look like Syria, the West mustn’t embrace Hamas as the better alternative. The minute differences between them should not be exaggerated out of a desire for a side to pick. They are the two manifestations of the same enemy.

Also see:

Tallying Right-Wing Terror vs. Jihad

WHY NOT COUNT THE BELTWAY SNIPERS AS ISLAMIC TERRORISTS? PHOTOGRAPHER: DAVIS TURNER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

WHY NOT COUNT THE BELTWAY SNIPERS AS ISLAMIC TERRORISTS? PHOTOGRAPHER: DAVIS TURNER-POOL/GETTY IMAGES

Bloomberg View, by By Megan McArdle, June 30, 2015:

How much should we worry about Islamic terrorism? How much should we worry about other kinds?

There’s no exact right answer to this question. Who is out there in dark places plotting murder most foul? We can only guess, using imperfect information. Of course, there’s “imperfect” and then there’s downright distorted.

The New York Times highlighted one data set recently, in an article headlined “Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11.” “Since Sept. 11, 2001,” the article says, “nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center.” The article goes on to cite a nationwide survey of police and sheriffs departments, noting that “74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed ‘Al Qaeda-inspired’ violence, according to the researchers.” Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Ah, no. You’ve been reading this column too long to believe that. Statistics are useful, but fragile. How you handle them makes a big difference.

The most obvious thing to note is the choice of start date: Sept. 12, 2001. That neatly excludes an attack that would dwarf all those homegrown terror attacks by several orders of magnitude. Ah, you will say, but that was a one-time event. Sort of. It is no longer possible to destroy the World Trade Center, but we can’t be certain to never again have a large-scale terror attack that kills many people. If you have high-magnitude but low-frequency events, then during most intervals you choose to study, other threats will seem larger — but if you zoom out, the big, rare events will still kill more people. We don’t say that California should stop worrying about earthquake-proofing its buildings, just because in most years bathtub drownings are a much larger threat to its citizens.

The other thing to ask is how we’re defining a terror event and classifying the motivation. I took a little stroll through the underlying data, and on the “jihadist violence” side, the definition is pretty clear: with the exception of one case in which a Muslim who seemed fond of jihadist propaganda beheaded a coworker for reasons that are not entirely clear, the rest of the attacks involved someone with an ideological commitment to radical Islam trying to kill a bunch of people in a way that made it clear that this was about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Counting the other types of extremist terrorism is a little murkier. Some of them are fairly obvious: When a white supremacist starts shooting people at a Sikh temple, I don’t think we need to wonder too hard what his motives were. On the other hand, the data set The Times relies on also includes Andrew Joseph Stack, who you may remember piloted a small plane into an IRS building in Austin. Stack left a manifesto behind, and it doesn’t exactly read like an anarcho-capitalist treatise. Oh, he’s mad at the government, all right, but he’s mad about … the 1986 revision to Section 1706 of the tax code, which governs the treatment of technical contractors. Here are some other things Andrew Stack was angry about:

  • The bailouts of GM and Wall Street
  • Drug companies and health insurers (Obamacare was then stalled in Congress)
  • The Catholic Church and the “monsters of organized religion”
  • The Pennsylvania steel bankruptcies that gutted steelworker pensions
  • Now-defunct accounting firm Arthur Andersen
  • Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (because of Section 1706)
  • The California base closings of the early 1990s
  • The 1980s S&L crisis
  • Government aid to airlines after 9/11
  • His accountant
  • George W. Bush

Its closing lines are “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” Labeling this as a “deadly right-wing attack” is beyond a stretch; it’s not even arguably correct.

Nor is this the only questionable inclusion. Consider Raymond Peake, who was convicted of shooting someone at a firing range, apparently in the course of stealing his gun (it was not the first time Peake had stolen a gun, but it was the first time he’d shot anyone); he appears to be on the list on the basis of a single vague statement from law-enforcement that Peake had been stealing guns for an unidentified organization aimed at overthrowing the United States government. His “co-conspirator,” whose lawyer denied that he had any knowledge of Peake’s alleged crimes, ultimately plead guilty not to conspiracy to overthrow the government, but to receiving stolen property. Maybe there was a shadowy plot to overthrow the U.S. government with the four guns they found in the co-conspirator’s home. On the other hand, maybe a suspect just started rambling when he was arrested for murder.

Then there was Joshua Cartwright of Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, who shot two deputies when his wife called the cops to stop him from hitting her. This was elevated to a “deadly right-wing attack” because, according to New America, “Cartwright had a history of non-compliance with the police and Cartwright’s wife told police that he held anti-government views and was ‘severely disturbed’ by President Obama’s election.” All this may be true. But it’s dangerous to profile so that every person with vaguely stated right-wing views, or even not-so-right-wing views, becomes an avatar of that group, rather than an individual who happens to be a member of that group, and also happens to have done something bad.

The case of Robert Poplawski is similarly questionable. He ambushed three officers who responded when his mother called the police on him. He also frequented white supremacist websites and espoused anti-government racist views, according to the database. He alsowrote his grandmother’s name in his own blood on a bedroom wall on the day of the shooting, and told the police negotiator “You know, I’m a good kid, officer. … This is really an unfortunate occurrence, sir.” Which does not exactly sound like a crazed right-wing terrorist determined to take down the government By Any Means Necessary.

Add to the list of “not clear what he was thinking, but probably not domestic terrorism” Curtis Wade Holley, who set fire to his own home and then shot at the first responders. The timeline suggests he was upset because his ex-girlfriend finally had his utilities shut off and he was worried about being evicted or losing his car, something he’d vowed not to endure without a fight. The evidence for him as a “right-wing attacker,” rather than just a paranoid and broke marijuana grower, seems to be that someone, possibly the ex-girlfriend, had called police to say that he had anti-government views and would shoot cops if they came to his place. Would a similar situation with someone known to be an Irish nationalist be an example that The Troubles had crossed the Atlantic to the United States?

I find it very hard to understand why these cases were included, except to pad out the count of “deadly right-wing attacks.” Presumably we are looking for political terror for a political purpose, not every violent crime by a Muslim or a right-winger. This means the acts must include some amount of premeditation, some intent to pursue an ideology, not a flash shootout precipitated by a completely unrelated event, like beating your wife or getting your utilities shut off. Restricting the count to attacks that seem to have had a political purpose, and an ideology that could be convincingly described as “right wing,” drops the tally of right-wing terror to 41 or less.

I’m also somewhat dubious about Albert Gaxiola, Shawna Forde and Joshua Bush, who killed a man and his 9-year-old daughter while robbing their house.  The database says “The three conducted the robbery to help fund their anti-immigrant organization.” But prosecutors told jurors that “it was Gaxiola who suggested Forde and Bush ought to rob and kill Flores. Gaxiola wanted Flores dead because he was a rival drug smuggler.” Forde and Bush were, according to prosecutors, seeking money to fund their Minutemen organization, but once you start to bring black-market assassinations into this, things start looking a little murkier than a case of “deadly right-wing attacks.”

To be generous and round up the numbers for right-wing terror, I could argue for including the Gaxiola trio and Peake. However, once you start throwing in the gray cases on the right-wing side, shouldn’t we be similarly permissive on the Islamic terror side? In prison, one of the Beltway snipers penned rambling anti-American screeds in which the Baltimore Sun said that “the most recurring theme is that of jihad – or holy war – against America.” The Beltway snipers killed 10 people, which all by itself would bring the number of jihadist killings up to 36. Then the story becomes less “right-wing terror is much more dangerous than jihad” and more “Muslim terrorists have killed some people in the United States, and other kinds of ideological murderers have too.”

What’s the takeaway? Never think that because you have a nice, hard-sounding number, that number tells you what you want to know. Numbers don’t just grow in the wild; they are chosen, by parameters that the researchers decide. The parameters these particular researchers chose might not be the criteria you would use; they are certainly not the ones that I would have chosen. And even if you agree that these are absolutely the right and proper numbers, that stilldoesn’t tell us that right-wing terror is more dangerous to us, the living, than to the people during the time period they studied. To know that, you would need to know who remains out there, plotting dark things.

 

Birthday for A Caliphate

Reuters

Reuters

Breitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 29, 2015:

After Friday’s deadly jihadist attacks in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, Prime Mister David Cameron has stated that ISIS is an existential threat to the West. Today’s anniversary of the re-establishment of the Caliphate give us good cause to assess the threat to America in this, the first part of a two part piece by Dr. Sebastian Gorka.

One year ago, a man unknown to most of the world achieved a feat that has eluded Islamic extremists for the previous 90 years.

On June 29, 2015 Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, after almost a century of absence, formally reestablished the theocratic empire of Islam in a sermon from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul. In the last year, his terror group, ISIS, which today we should call by its new name of the Islamic State, has grown to become the most dangerous insurgency of the modern era.

On September 10th, 2001 it would have been impossible to imagine that humans would soon be crucifying each other again, or that there would be an anti-American terrorist group able to capture and hold territory in multiple nations of the Middle East without Washington or her allies and partners being able to stunt its growth. We are now living in such a world. A world where innocent prisoners are burnt or drowned alive, or unbelievably decapitated with the use of detonating cord. A world in which hundreds of thousands have been killed in a civil war in Syria and an insurgency in Iraq, both together driving millions of survivors into refugees camps or into the hands of human traffickers.

The Islamic State that is at the center of this tragedy is a unique threat for four reasons:

  • Firstly, it is the richest group of its kind in modern history. No other sub-state actor has the resources available to IS. Since capturing city after city in Iraq it has netted close to a billion dollars from state coffers, augmenting this stupendous sum with illicit oil salesransoms, and the sale of plundered antiquities. This income will allow IS to continue operations for years to come, and not just in Iraq and Syria. (Note: according to the official 9/11 commission report, that stupendous attack only cost Al Qaeda $500,000).
  • Second, it is the first ever transnational insurgency. In the modern era of guerrilla warfare, the insurgent force was defined by its desire to defeat an incumbent government and replace it. This was true of Mao Tse Tung in China, or the FARC of Colombia, and all the other insurgencies of the 20th century. The Islamic State is an international insurgency recruiting as it does from Muslim communities all around the world and enjoying the sponsorship of more than one foreign government. However, it is also a transnational insurgency. Not only does it hold territory in both Iraq and Syria, with the intent of displacing both the Assad government and the government in Baghdad, it has the goal of destroying all regimes that it deems to be un-Islamic. The fact that Nigeria’s Boko Haram was recently accepted into IS and subsequently changed its name to The West Africa Province of the Islamic State means that Abu Bakr is now technically the Caliph or emperor of not only all IS land in the Middle East, but also former Boko Haram territory in Africa.
  • Third, in its ability to recruit jihadi fighters, the Islamic State has out surpassed Al Qaeda in every measure. Exact figures are impossible, but the best estimates are that, in the space of less than a year, the Islamic State has drawn 20,000 foreign fighters from around the globe, including Western Europe, Australia and North America. Al Qaeda, the original jihadi group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, did manage to attract foreign recruits, but never in the tens of thousands.
  • Lastly, and most problematically for any hope we may have for defeating IS, the Islamic State has built a global Social Media-based propaganda platform that is very sophisticated and effective and that the nations its wishes to destroy – America included – have been impotent to combat.

Alone, these four attributes would make any irregular threat like IS/ISIS a formidable enemy. Where it is located makes it a strategically deadly one.

Just like Judaism and Christianity, Islam has a very deep eschatology. The Sunna, or traditions of Islam, go into great detail about how the world will end and how all humans will be finally judged on the final day by Allah. Before that end comes, the religion is explicit that there will be a great final holy war, or Jihad, in the land of Al Shaam, the Arabic word for Greater Syria and the Levant, or the territory in which Abu Bakr has successfully established his new Caliphate. In fact, between its origins as Al Qaeda in Iraq and its current name of the Islamic State, the group specifically referred to itself as The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham. As a result, Abu Bakr, the leader of the new Caliphate, has the eschatology of a faith followed by over 1 billion Muslims on his side. He knows that, by being successful on the ground that all Muslims know is the site of the last holy war before judgement day, he can rely on a steady stream of recruits for as long as there is no opposing ground force set against him in Al Sham.

Plainly put, in the last 12 months since he declared the new Caliphate, Abu Bakr has achieved more than Al Qaeda did in the preceding 13 years. Also, instead of being the “JV team” to Ayman al Zawahiri’s professional team, it is America that has presented itself as the amateur foe.

After Abu Bakr and his Al Qaeda in Iraq franchise was kicked out of the original terror group by Zawahiri for disobeying his orders, he took his small terrorist force in Syria from Iraq and used the civil war there to train and expand his force. As the bloodshed mounted both there and in an Iraq increasingly divided by the corruption and brutality of the Maliki regime, hundreds of thousands of local residents fell victim to the depredations of the competing fighting forces. Yet America decided not to respond. Having pulled our forces out of Iraq in 2011, we were unready and unable to respond to the growing threat. At the same time, President Obama made repeated statements about “red lines” that President Assad was not to cross. The lines were crossed but without triggering a US response. Not until thousands of Yazidis were hounded by ISIS up to the top of Mount Sinjar did the President decide to act by deploying air assets to target ISIS units on the ground.

The delay in an American response has cost America’s reputation in the Gulf dearly, perhaps more dearly than anything done by the administration of George W. Bush. As it was recently explained to me by a very senior U.S. General with responsibilities in the region: “Our Sunni allies just don’t trust us anymore. The region already runs on conspiracy theories, but after the Sunni see more than 200,000 of their people murdered in the last three years and we do nothing until a minority sect is attacked, they draw the conclusion that we are on the side of the mullahs and the Shia revival.”

If one agrees with the summary by Prime Minister Netanyahu that the violence on the Middle East and North Africa cannot be understood unless seen as “a game of thrones” for the crown of the caliphate between the Shia and Sunni extremists, then it is obvious that giving the impression that we have already chosen sides will only feed the flames of war. Especially when this impression is apparently confirmed by every additional concession made by the White House to Tehran in the hopes of closing a nuclear deal with the Revolutionary Republic.

Nor can these threats any longer be relegated to events happening far away. As the targeting of Pamela Geller’s free speech event in Garland, Texas by two armed jihadis demonstrates, those who wish to impose a puritanical and violent version of Islam upon America and her citizens are already here. And Garland is not a one-off. The FBI has confirmed that the Bureau already has ongoing IS-related investigations underway in every state of the Republic. Recently, the first IS recruiter was arrested in New Jersey. And in preparation for this article I had a research assistant simply collect all open-source reports of IS arrests and plots uncovered in the US in the last 24 months. We found 56!

When will America take the threat of a hyper-violent organization with tens of thousands of adherents who wish to destroy America seriously? When did we take Al Qaeda seriously? On September 12th, 2001. At the moment, short of a mass-casualty attack occurring on US soil in a way that links the perpetrators directly to the Islamic State, it seems highly unlikely that the Obama administration will truly take the fight to IS. Of the 400+ troops the White House has decided to deploy to Iraq to help train the trainers, less than 150 will in fact work on that mission, with the rest providing security to the trainers. The Islamic State has more than 30,000 active jihadis, more than half of whom were recruited from abroad. And the most powerful nation in the world can only spare an extra 150 trainers? As another senior officer recently commented in front of a meeting of US generals: “Every day that ISIS still exists and the most powerful nation in the world does nothing, we can chalk another propaganda victory up to the jihadis.”

Consequently, it seems unavoidable that IS will continue to grow and spread its barbarity until a new Commander-in-Chief is sworn in. The good news is that in an election campaign that is already underway and which almost each day sees the cornucopia of at least the Republic candidates increase, national security is at last back on the front burner, or rather both front burners. As a result we may have a chance after November 2016 to engage our newest enemy in the way the jihadists deserve.

The details of a possible strategy that could be used to measure the candidates will follow in Part Two.

Sebastian Gorka Ph.D. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University. You can see his briefing from the Global Counterterrorism Summit on Why ISIS is Much More Dangerous than Al Qaeda here and follow him on Twitter at: @SebGorka.

Liars and Lunatics

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 28, 2015:

In the wake of the jihadi attacks last week in France, Kuwait, and Tunisia, the reality of the Islamic threat is as clear as it could possibly be, yet our enemies continue to use the same tactics and the leadership in the West regurgitates the obvious lies fed to them.  Western leaders continue to delude themselves and their nations about the darkness sweeping over the planet leaving bodies, human decency, liberty, and reasonable thought in its wake.

After the two jihadis were killed a few weeks ago in Garland, Texas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organization where they were trained/radicalized – the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix – claimed neither the two shooters, nor the man who trained them were bad guys when he knew them.  The Phoenix media gave them all a pass, as have many of the religious leaders in Arizona.  The Boston Marathon bombers and the man FBI agents shot to death in Boston a few weeks ago, as well as quite a number of other jihadis (“terrorists” if you wish) have all been trained and supported by the ISB (Islamic Society of Boston) which was  founded by Al Qaeda financier Alamoudi, and is an MB/Hamas organization.  Yet, the FBI is still outreaching to the ISB for “help.”  The leaders of the ISB claim they reject violence, and media, government, and law enforcement officials believe them because they said it.

The mother of the jihadi in Grenoble, France said on French radio, “My sister-in-law said ‘put on the TV’. And then she began to cry. My heart stopped…We have a normal family life. He goes to work, he comes back. We are normal Muslims.  We do Ramadan. We have three children and a normal family. Who do I call who can give me more information because I don’t understand.”

Any police officer with more than ten minutes of experience can watch any of these folks on TV and tell you they are lying.  Where is the hungry media asking the tough questions?  Where are the law enforcement organizations turning these places inside and out using facts already in evidence to get search and arrest warrants?  Where are national leaders in Europe, Canada, and the United States calling for the boot to once again come down on the Islamic Movement before its power becomes so great, we will lose nations and millions of people fighting it?

cameron chamberlain

David Cameron, the leader of the United Kingdom, in response to the killing of dozens of Britons in Tunisia said the UK and others must do all they can to combat the threat.  This “means dealing with the threat, at source, whether that is ISIL in Syria and Iraq or whether it is other extremist groups around the world.  And we also have to deal, perhaps more important than anything, is with this poisonous radical narrative that is turning so many young minds, and we have to combat it with everything we have.  The people who do these things, they sometimes claim they do it in the name of Islam.  They don’t.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology that we have to confront with everything we have.”

Where is that peaceful “other” version of Islam taught Mr. Cameron?  Not in any of the Islamic schools in the UK.  They teach jihad is a permanent command on the Muslim world until Sharia is the law of the land.  How do you combat this Mr. Cameron?  I propose Britain begin with electing leaders who speak the truth.

It appears there is no amount of reason, evidence, facts or world events that is going to break Mr. Cameron from the narrative handed to him by the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis in the UK, like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Association of Britain.  Mr. Cameron appears to be fully surrendered to the bidding of the enemies of the West and, like Neville Chamberlain, is willing to bring Britain to the brink of destruction without even a whisper of courage to do otherwise.

The problem is there does not appear to be a Winston Churchill anywhere in England.

Is there a Charles Martel, Jan Sobieski, or Winston Churchill anywhere in the West?

Also see: