How Western Media Enable Islamic Terrorism

la-epa-egypt-unrest2-jpg-20130819-450x300Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, December 19, 2014:

If the West is experiencing a rise in the sort of terror attacks that are endemic to the Islamic world—church attacks, sex-slavery and beheadings—it was only natural that the same mainstream media that habitually conceals such atrocities, especially against Christians and other minorities under Islam, would also conceal the reality of jihadi aspirations on Western soil.

As The Commentator reports:

[T]he level of the [media] grovelling after the tragic and deadly saga in Sydney Australia over the last 24 hours has been astounding.

At the time of writing, the lead story on the BBC website is of course about that very tragedy, in which an Islamist fanatic took a random group hostage in a cafe, ultimately killing two of them.

He did this in the name of Islam. But you wouldn’t get that impression if you started to read the BBC’s lead story, which astoundingly managed to avoid mentioning the words Islam, Islamic, Islamist, Muslim, or any derivations thereof for a full 16 paragraphs. The New York Times, which led by calling the terrorist, Man Haron Monis an “armed man”, waited until paragraph 11.

In the Guardian’s main story – whose lead paragraph simply referred to a “gunman” — you had to wait until paragraph 24.

If you’d have blinked, you’d have missed it.

….

In the wider media, reports about Muslim fears of a “backlash” have been all but ubiquitous.

If these are the lengths that Western mainstream media go to dissemble about the Islamic-inspired slaughter of Western peoples, it should now be clear why the ubiquitous Muslim persecution of those unfashionable Christian minorities is also practically unknown by those who follow Western mainstream media.

As with the Sydney attack, media headlines say it all. The 2011 New Year’s Eve Coptic church attack that left 28 dead appeared under vague headlines:“Clashes grow as Egyptians remain angry after attack,” was the New York Times’ headline; and “Christians clash with police in Egypt after attack on churchgoers kills 21” was the Washington Post’s—as if frustrated and harried Christians lashing out against their oppressors is the “big news,” not the unprovoked atrocity itself; as if their angry reaction “evens” everything up.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times partially told the story of an Egyptian off-duty police officer who, after identifying Copts by their crosses on a train, opened fire on them, killing one, while screaming “Allahu Akbar”—but to exonerate the persecution, as caught by the report’s headline: “Eyewitness claims train attacker did not target Copts, state media say.”

A February 2012 NPR report titled “In Egypt, Christian-Muslim Tension is on the Rise,” while meant to familiarize readers with the situation of Egypt’s Christians, prompts more questions than answers them: “In Egypt, growing tensions between Muslims and Christians have led to sporadic violence [initiated by whom?]. Many Egyptians blame the interreligious strife on hooligans [who?] taking advantage of absent or weak security forces. Others believe it’s because of a deep-seated mistrust between Muslims and the minority Christian community [what are the sources of this “mistrust”?].”

The photo accompanying the story is of angry Christians holding a cross aloft—not Muslims destroying crosses, which is what prompted the former to this display of Christian solidarity.

Blurring the line between victim and oppressor—recall the fear of “anti-Muslim backlashes” whenever a Muslim terrorizes “infidels” in the West—also applies to the media’s reporting on Muslim persecution of Christians.

A February 2012 BBC report on a church attack in Nigeria that left three Christians dead, including a toddler, objectively states the bare bone facts in one sentence.  Then it jumps to apparently the really big news: that “the bombing sparked a riot by Christian youths, with reports that at least two Muslims were killed in the violence. The two men were dragged off their bikes after being stopped at a roadblock set up by the rioters, police said. A row of Muslim-owned shops was also burned…”

The report goes on and on, with an entire section about “very angry” Christians till one confuses victims with persecutors, forgetting what the Christians are “very angry” about in the first place: nonstop terror attacks on their churches and the slaughter of their women and children.

A New York Times report that appeared on December 25, 2011—the day after Boko Haram bombed several churches during Christmas Eve services, leaving some 40 dead—said that such church bombings threaten “to exploit the already frayed relations between Nigeria’s nearly evenly split populations of Christians and Muslims…”  Such an assertion suggests that both Christians and Muslims are equally motivated by religious hostility—even as one seeks in vain for Christian terror organizations that bomb mosques in Nigeria to screams of “Christ is Great!”

Indeed, Boko Haram has torched 185 churches—to say nothing of the countless Christians beheaded—in just the last few months alone.

Continuing to grasp for straws, the same NYT report suggests that the Nigerian government’s “heavy-handed” response to Boko Haram is responsible for its terror, and even manages to invoke another mainstream media favorite: the poverty-causes-terrorism myth.

Whether Muslim mayhem is taking place in the Islamic or Western worlds, the mainstream media shows remarkable consistency in employing an arsenal of semantic games, key phrases, convenient omissions, and moral relativism to portray such violence as a product of anything and everything—political and historical grievances, “Islamophobia,” individual insanity, poverty and ignorance, territorial disputes—not Islam.

As such, Western mainstream media keep Western majorities in the dark about the Islamic threat, here and abroad.  Thus the “MSM” protects and enables the Islamic agenda—irrespective of whether its distortions are a product of intent, political correctness, or sheer stupidity.

LEFTIST JIHADI DENIALISM GROWS IN WAKE OF NEW TERROR ATTACKS

sydney-siege-police-AFPBreitbart, by THOMAS ROSEDec. 18,  2014:

In reacting to Tuesday’s bloodcurdling terrorist murders of at least 132 school children by Taliban terrorists, once again President Obama could not bring himself to mention the Taliban perpetrators by name.
Rather than waking up to the mounting existential threat of Jihadist terror, much of what presents itself as leadership in today’s Western world seems to be falling ever deeper into denial. Terror plot after foiled terror plot; successful terror attack after successful terror attack; nothing seems to arrest or even slow the descent into cultural suicide.
Even before Monday’s deadly jihadist attack on patrons at a Sydney coffee shop was over, ‘polite’ Australian society raced to show solidarity not with the victims of the terrorist attack, but rather with the Muslim community from which the jihadist murderer came. By the time the standoff had ended, tens of thousands of Australians had embraced the #illridewithyou social media campaign. A prominent Australian academic received great accolades for characterizing the social media campaign as “a blue print for how we should deal with terrorism.”
On the very day of last October’s terrorist attack against Canada’s parliament, the head of the Toronto Police Service reached out to reassure not the leaders of any of the communities targeted by Islamist terrorists in Canada, but rather Canada’s Muslim community. “We as a service are aware,” the statement read, “ that your Mosques may be vulnerable to a backlash.” Justin Trudeau, the flamboyant leader of Canada’s left-wing Liberal Party, has made himself into a media and cultural darling by attending Islamic conferences conspicuously attired in Muslim garb.  proclaimed that the man who murdered the soldier guarding Canada’s fallen soldiers while shouting “Allah Akbar” was in fact not even a Muslim.
The practice of pretending not to notice things that scream for our attention— things like suicide bombings, the targeted murders of innocent school children, beheadings, honor killings, subjugation of women, and the transformation of community mosques into Jihadist command posts– has been practiced to the point of perfection. The time was long ago reached where free peoples find themselves facing the most basic of all social tests. Do we value our way of life to take steps–any steps– necessary to defend it, or don’t we?
Canadian columnist Mark Steyn has been warning for more than a decade that it is the unprecedented affluence and physical security experienced by Western society since the end of World War II itself that has generated the very conditions that will soon put us all to the ultimate test.
Our multicultural embrace has transformed Western society into a vacuous nullity that stands for nothing and believes in nothing except our own cultural and moral inferiority. When the values and symbols of Western culture are denuded of all meaning, as modern multiculturalism has done with remarkable success, is it any wonder that those looking for something positive to affirm look someplace other than Western civilization? Those who continue to maintain the pretense that all cultures are equally worthy of respect bear ever increasing guilt for legitimizing the medieval death cult that glorifies the murder of innocent Muslim children inside Muslim schools, enslaves women, beheads hostages, burns churches, crucifies Christians and murders all who oppose them. ‘War’ has been the word used throughout human history to describe the response against hostile forces plotting the destruction of one’s society.
 
Yet, we can’t bring ourselves to admit what our enemies can’t stop admitting. The terrorists can’t stop talking about the Islam that motivates while our leaders can’t stop pretending that there are no such admissions. While we circle the wagons to deny the Islam of our enemies, our enemies won’t shut up about their Islam. For them, Islam is not a religion in the Western sense. It is an all encompassing human experience. Wouldn’t it be easier if we acknowledged what they acknowledge?
Our enemies understand perfectly well why they are chopping off our heads. They know why they gun us down and send suicide bombers against us. They know that, unless we change, we will soon lose our freedom, our civilization and our world.
How is it that we refuse to identify our attackers when our attackers have no problem identifying themselves? Islamic State, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram— none of them hide their goals or objectives and go to great lengths to broadcast their claims of credit for their murderous exploits. As so often in the past, President Obama labelled the Canadian terrorist attacks “senseless violence”.
Islamist terrorism is many awful, depraved, and evil things, but one thing it is not is senseless. Jihadist-inspired attacks are direct assaults against the very essence of Western society. It is the ideology of Islamist Jihad that must be targeted directly. Therefore, they are anything but “senseless.”
Do we as free people cherish our freedom enough to protect it, or don’t we? Are we willing to defend and protect our own daughters from the decades of systemic rape, forced prostitution and unspeakable abuse suffered by at least 1,400 young white girls at the hands of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England without anyone in any position of authority saying or doing a thing about it for fear of being labelled Islamophobic? Are we too more fearful of being labelled racists than we are committed to protecting our own daughters from violent sexual abuse?
When called upon to do, will we even be able to summon the base primal skills of survival that for so many generations our culture has been trying breed out of our species? Whether we continue to pretend not to notice what threatens us will determine whether we remain free Americans, Canadians, or Australians.
***
Also see:

Robert Spencer on Man Haron Monis’s taking of hostages in Sydney, Australia

Published on Dec 15, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

Robert Spencer, Faith Goldy and Jerry Agar discuss the hostage taking by Man Haron Monis at a Lindt chocolate shop in Sydney, Australia on Dec 15-16, 2014.

‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome: Sydney Hostage-Taker Is Yet Another Case

5969244-3x2-340x227PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On December 15, 2014:

With the hostage situation resolved — hopefully with no innocent lives lost (reports just coming in – UPDATE: Reports say that one hostage as well as the gunman are dead) — and the release of the name of the hostage taker, Iranian-born Islamic cleric Man Monis aka Shiekh Haron, this seems to be yet another case of what I termed here at PJ Media several weeks ago as “Known Wolf Syndrome.”

In that article, following two separate terror attacks in Canada in which the suspects were already well-known to authorities, I noted that in the U.S., too, in many of the domestic terrorism cases the culprits had already been identified to law enforcement as problems. In the present case, not only was the suspect well-known, but he was out on bail on murder charges related to the stabbing and setting on fire of his ex-wife, with whom he was in a heated custody dispute.

Monis came to Australia in 1996 from Iran and his immigration status was that of political refugee. He has since had other well-known run-ins with law enforcement. In 2009, he sent a series of hate messages, which he deemed as “flowers of advice,” to the families of Australian military members who had been killed in action. He likened their deaths to the deaths of Hitler’s soldiers, as well as to families of Australian victims of international terrorism attacks. He was given 300 hours of community service.

In another case, Monis was charged with 50 counts of sexual assault, where it was claimed that he lured victims in and assaulted them claiming it was a “spiritual healing technique.”

We’ll undoubtedly learn more in the days to come about the intentions and motives of the suspect in the case. The evidence at hand clearly indicates that Monis was another example of the two-faced Islamic cleric. In this case, Monis claimed that he was “an Australian who wanted a safe future for our country” (HT: Stewart Bell) while simultaneously — and openly — hating the very country that gave him refuge.

Yet again, we have a case in the West in which a domestic terrorist was well-known to law enforcement authorities and yet action sufficient to prevent the tragedy at hand was never taken despite the opportunity to do so (in this instance, he was out on bail).

Nonetheless, this will be yet another case where so-called terrorism “experts” will be trotted out by the media and political officials to claim that Monis was a case of “lone wolf syndrome.” Or that his actions were entirely unpredictable, and the government will need more money for terrorism programs that won’t work, and for outreach to the very extremists who continue to murder, rape, and maim innocents. And the “voxsplaining” has begun, distancing the suspect from any known extremist group.

We’ve already seen the Islamic grievance machine rolled out and signs of “backlashphobia” are already beginning to appear. Leaders of the Australian Muslim community, including the “Grand Mufti” of Australia, are denouncing “acts of violence.” Yet these same leaders, including the Grand Mufti, were openly attacking the government just a few months ago when stronger anti-terrorism laws were being considered. The previous Grand Mufti came under firefor his comments saying that women not dressed Islamically were “uncovered meat,” hinting their complicity in any sexual assault.

As I pointed out in my previous article, this situation was entirely preventable. Any deaths are on the hands of authorities who, like their counterparts throughout the West, are unable or unwilling to take the necessary action to protect the public for fear of political correctness.

Imagine There’s No Islam — It’s Easy If You Try!

by Baron Bodissey:

The following excerpts are from a speech given on the floor of parliament by Machiel de Graaf, a member of parliament for Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) in the Netherlands.

What an exhilarating, energizing, astounding speech this is! Geert Wilders was prosecuted twice, and is about to be prosecuted again, for saying things that were far more circumspect and far less inflammatory to Muslim sensibilities than these frank statements of fact and opinion by Mr. de Graaf. Presumably the speaker is enjoying the protection of his parliamentary immunity while speaking.

I hope this one goes viral on the Internet. Many thanks to SimonXML for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript at Gates of Vienna

Profs Blame ISIS on ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Grievances’

reza-450x241By Cinnamon Stillwell:

President Obama’s infamous proclamation that ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is “not Islamic” was received sympathetically within the ranks of Middle East studies. While many scholars of Islam and the Middle East have condemned ISIS’s heinous actions, a stubborn refusal to acknowledge their theological underpinnings lingers. Those who do concede ISIS’s Islamic supremacism are branded “Islamphobes.” Others attribute ISIS’s rampage of mass murder, beheadings, rape, slavery, and strict Sharia law in pursuit of a caliphate to Western-inspired “grievances” or “root causes.”

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is at the forefront of such obfuscation. Disregarding ISIS’s adherence to Quranic literalism, Esposito declared:

I do not think that this is a very Islamic vision at all. . . . Theirs is a kind of religion that is extraordinarily full of violence and abuse that is not in accordance with the Quran, the traditions of the Prophet or even with Islamic Law.

Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley, lived up to his title by invoking victimhood. Bazian claimed that:

When Islamophobes point to the Koran and Islam as the problem, they are epistemically reinforcing ISIS’s claims and also pushing every Muslim into the same categorization. . . . For me, religion is a rationalization rather than the root cause.

Responding to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s public acknowledgement that British Muslims are joining ISIS, University of Michigan history professorJuan Cole ranted, “It’s just a way of beating up on the Muslims in the UK. . . . Cameron is grandstanding about this and it’s Islamophobia, it’s just racism.” Perhaps Cole is unaware that Cameron, speaking at a reception for British Muslims, kowtowed to political-correctness by declaring that ISIS has “nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace.”

Meanwhile, Sahar F. Aziz, Texas A&M University law professor, condemned those who are “blindly blaming religion . . . rather than root causes,” lamenting that, “Thousands of miles away from the Middle East, it is tempting for Americans to view the atrocities committed by the Islamic State (ISIS) as further evidence that something is wrong with Islam.” Instead, she asserted, “The politics of authoritarianism, rather than religion, explain the rise of ISIS.” Given that ISIS arose in a power vacuum, there is little basis for blaming authoritarianism.

Going to ridiculous lengths, Omid Safi, director of Duke University’s Islamic Studies Center, faults humanity itself:

I am mindful of the fact that much of the Islamophobic discourse of today holds Muslims in the West accountable for atrocities of ISIS. In that context, it makes a fundamental mistake. . . . All of us, Muslims and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and people of no faith and people of occasional faith, we are all responsible.

That is, since everyone is responsible for ISIS, no one is responsible.

After conceding that “Muslims have a responsibility to speak out against ISIS,” Safi then entreated,

[A]ll of us to speak out with the same vehemence . . . about the victims of the American drones, about the victims of the allies of the United States? Can we mourn Palestinians? Can we mourn Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin? Can we mourn the 2.5 million Americans caught in a penal industrial complex?

A better question for Safi would be whether there is any unrelated societal ill that cannot be associated with condemning ISIS?

University of California, Riverside creative writing professor Reza Aslan denied that ISIS has any appeal whatsoever to devout Muslims, marveling over “how little religion plays a role in this group, how little the idea of reading the Koran or praying or those kinds of things play a significant role on the ground among these militants.” Granting that “religion is the sort of underlying, unifying aspect of it,” Aslan then contradicted himself: “But the idea that ISIS is drawing excessively religious people to it is factually incorrect.” Elsewhere, he alluded to the “grievances . . . that a lot of Muslims around the world have” and warned that ISIS’s appeal would remain, “unless those grievances can be addressed.”

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, suggested that Muslim scholars respond to ISIS by proclaiming:

What you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called “Sharia” or the so-called “Islamic State”, this is against everything that is coming from Islam. . . . It is not a caliphate. It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources.

While it is indeed necessary for Muslim moderates—a group that does not include Ramadan—to condemn ISIS, it is self-defeating to deny the Islamic basis for its behavior.

Read more at Frontpage

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

NATIONAL CATHEDRAL DEAN: BREITBART ‘EXTREMIST’ FOR CHALLENGING MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TAKEOVER OF NATIONAL CATHEDRAL

national-cathedral-muslim-prayer-AFPBreitbart, by JORDAN SCHACHTEL, Nov. 15, 2014:

(Washington, D.C.)– 100 years ago today, on November 14, 1914, the last “Caliph” of the Islamic world declared a holy war on all non believers. Just a few months later, a jihadist genocide of Christians occurred on a massive scale, resulting in the deaths of millions.

On the 100th anniversary of the religiously-motivated genocide of Christians, several Islamic groups, all of which have alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, hosted the first Muslim prayers ever at Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral.

As Breitbart’s Dr. Sebastian Gorka reported earlier, two of the Islamic groups who organized the event–CAIR and ISNA–were documented by U.S. federal officials as unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorism financing trial in United States history. Additionally, evidence exists that each of the five Islamic groups who helped organize the event have deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, according to federal prosecution documents, is to wage a “grand jihad [holy war] in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within…”

Breitbart News was on the scene at Washington’s National Cathedral, hoping to get some answers to concerns about Islamic prayers being hosted at the Cathedral on such a painful anniversary and why the event was sponsored by alleged members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Breitbart News asked Dean of the National Cathedral, Gary Hall, whether it was appropriate to host Muslim prayers on the 100th anniversary of the last Caliph’s call for Jihad against nonbelievers, which resulted in the slaughter of innocent Christians.

Hall responded, “I did not know that it was that anniversary. But knowing it now, it actually seems to be more appropriate to have an event that is on an anniversary of a hard time… There have been atrocities on both sides. There have been extremists on both sides.”

He added: “The second thing, is that, the Christian church… a few centuries before was doing similar kinds of things in the holy land with the Crusader states and the Crusades themselves. Almost every religious tradition is guilty at some point of fostering violence in the name of that religious tradition.

Breitbart News asked Hall whether he knew that all of the Islamic organizers of the interfaith prayer event have been associated or direct members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“No, I’m not aware of that,” said the Dean of the Cathedral. “We’re a faith community… This essentially was the time to come together and pray. I have not heard those allegations. I don’t think that they are germane to an event that is just essentially a prayer event.”

This reporter asked Mr. Hall whether he was troubled by the possibility that the organizers of the interfaith event have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, when the MB has previously been connected to prominent terrorists such as Osama Bin laden and Abu Bakr.

Hall responded, “No more so that it would alarm me that people in my own faith and tradition have links to other kinds of… inappropriate or unethical or immoral kinds of behavior. In other words, if I have a congregant that I would find unseemly, that’s guilt by association… I hear people’s concern, but it seems to be that the role of a faith leader is to try to bring people together.

“We always have to remember that Menachem Begin was a terrorist,” said the Dean of the National Cathedral. “Many of the early generations of Israel’s government were terrorists,” he added.

“Everyone’s hands are dirty at some point… There’s no one in the world who has absolutely clean hands,” Hall alleged.

Breitbart News questioned Hall about whether he knew about the Muslim Brotherhood’s extensive history of subversion in order to achieve their ends.

“I’m aware that they are the legitimately elected government of Egypt,” Hall stated.

When questioned whether he knew that the Muslim Brotherhood was started by devout Hitler admirer Hassan al-Bana, Hall said, “This event is not about the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“The kinds of things you are bringing up are the kinds of extremism that we are actually trying to disassociate with,” he said, accusing this reporter of being an ‘extremist,’ simply for mentioning the roots of the group who organized in his Cathedral.

Hall then accused this reporter of being a “McCarthyite,” because this was nothing more than “guilt by association,” he concluded.

Watch video of the interview at Breitbart. Jordan Schachtel really did a good job exposing interfaith dupe Gary Hall.

Here is a video of the entire service:

Published on Nov 16, 2014 by Kenneth Sikorski

 

Gates of Vienna got an Arab translator to review and assess what was said: Taqiyya and Kitman in Washington D.C. 

Also see:

“Freedom of Speech, Go to Hell”

20141105_theresamaybritL

“Extremism” is what novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept intended to suppress discussion of fundamental principles in order to prevent conflict or open dissension. It is an essentially meaningless term that stands for what she called “blank-outs.” It is anti-mind, an act of deliberate evasion of facts, of reality.

by EDWARD CLINE:

We’ve all seen in the newspapers and on blog sites those cardboard signs carried by maddened, sweaty, screaming Muslims in London and elsewhere on which is scrawled, Freedom of Speech Go to Hell. But now that same sign is being brandished by a political milquetoast, Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary. John Bingham’s report in The Telegraph of October 31st, “Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn,” is disturbing, to say the least.

Anyone who criticizes Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an “extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission…..

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”. He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

This particular milquetoast – let us dub her Mother Theresa – is proposing out-and-out, blanket censorship which she would enforce with the heavy hand of the police, the courts, and the slimy accusations of informants and those whose “feelings” have been hurt. “I want” figures prominently in her speech. She delivered her speech, in contrast to the chanting and ranting of Muslims who also inform us that Sharia will dominate Britain (and the West), at a Conservative/Tory Party conference in typical wallflower style, from a printed text at the podium (well, at least she didn’t use a teleprompter), with less charisma than Barbara “Let’s go walkies!” Woodhouse giving advice on how to train one’s dogs. Here she condemned “extremists” of all breeds as possibly infected with rabies and she let it be known that they should all “sit” and “heel” and “stay” in their own speech lest they be served with the blackjack of an “Extremism Disruption Order” (EDO) and isolated in a kennel.

Surely the coiner of that awkward, euphemistic nomenclature for “preemptive censorship” could have come up with something a little less depersonalized and antiseptic. Like “Taser”? The purpose of such political tasers, wielded by police or the courts, would be “to prevent conflict, protect life and resolve disputes with personal safety equipment that makes communities safe….” And surely that description is copasetic with Mother Theresa’s agenda of preventing conflicts and resolving disputes, especially if the conflicts concern Muslims, gays, trannies, and other odd bodkins.

I’ll bet not many Britons ever expected to be accosted, manhandled, cuffed, and tossed into a cell by an aggressive milquetoast with a little help from the bully boys for having indulged in their freedom of speech, or for what they might have said. But, there you are. If you’re on her “no barking” list of “extremists,” you’d better confine yourself to whining, whimpering, or pouting. You may be seen, but not heard.

A court, however, could not forbid an “extremist” to speak or broadcast or even “tweet” on Twitter unless his name was on a Vatican-like Index of Prohibited Books. Let us call it instead Index Librorum Prohibitorum Novissimarum Orator, or the Index of Prohibited Extremist Speakers. One must first be a known and red-flagged “extremist” speaker to earn a place on that list.

That’s quite a job for a government practiced in police-state surveillance as Britain’s already is. It even monitors what trash is put in wheelie bins. We have the NSA. Britain has Mother Theresa and her minions. They’re fighting the “war on terror” by promising “extremists” a night in the box. They will be watched, monitored, and even “disrupted.” I think there was a science fiction TV series that featured “disrupter” ray guns. How appropriate a choice of words.

After congratulating herself on fighting crime and dousing the fires of “extremism” with the current tools at hand, Mother Theresa went on:

But we must continue to do more. Soon, we will make Prevent a statutory duty for all public sector organizations. I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Emma West was put through the judicial wringer for expressing her anger about what was happening to Britain. Paul Weston was arrested for quoting Churchill in public, the quotations expressing Churchill’s estimate of Muslims and Islam. Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders were banned from Britain because they’re famous (or notorious) for their anti-Islamic “hate speech.”

So, what is “extremism”?

For one thing, it’s the “extreme” dhimmitude displayed by Mother Theresa throughout her speech. Several times she stated emphatically that ISIS, the al Nusra Front, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, like-minded groups in Libya, Al Shabaab in East Africa, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan all have nothing to do with Islam. Just as the salute, Sieg Heil!, has nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, Allahu Akbar! has nothing to do with flying planes into skyscrapers or the mass executions of non-Muslims and rival Muslims.

Or so Mother Theresa would have you believe. This is a species of denial bordering on psychosis. For example:

This hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world….

Well, no, they don’t reject it. They’re merely the “silent majority” who have no opinion about what their “violent” brethren do in the way of acting out the violent verses in the Koran (about 164 of them, at last count; see Answering Islam’s extensive list of them here). Or they don’t dare frown upon “violent” Islam lest they be subject to violence themselves. After all, it’s all in their “good book,” the Koran, and who are they to question its contents? Those non-participatory, “silent” Muslims have a ho-hum attitude about Islamic terrorism: “Oh, well, there’s another train blown up, more filthy infidels killed in a shopping mall. What’s the latest soccer score?” Some 80% of London Muslims don’t mind the violence one iota.

Mother Theresa conspicuously identifies that what she claims isn’t Islam is also a “hateful” ideology, which proves that some synapses are crackling in her brain. But then a politically correct circuit breaker kicks in, and the current stops flowing. What has nothing to do with Islam is, at the same time, a “radical ideology” or an “extremist” ideology. Can she answer the question: If it is “radical” or “extremist,” what ideology is it a “radical” or “extremist” version of? Has it an identity? What is the thing? Does it have a name? If she saw a half-assembled table, would she object to its completion because she could forecast that at one point it would become an “extremist” table and not a carburetor?

Of course she knows what it is and what it will be. But because the subject is Islam, denying Islam’s essential identity helps her (and fellow dhimmi David Cameron) “prevent” the ruffling of Muslim feathers. Muslim values are now British values.

Read more: Family Security Matters

“Call it Jihad: ‘Terrorism’ Just Doesn’t Define This Threat”

2423016604CSP, By Clare Lopez, Oct. 28, 2014:

2014’s spate of Islamic terror attacks against Western targets leaves observers grasping for words to describe what’s happening. President Obama doesn’t want to deal with it at all, so after a Muslim convert beheaded a woman in Oklahoma, he thought it appropriate to send the beheader’s mosque (the Islamic Center of Greater Oklahoma City) warm greetings about “shared peace” and “a sense of justice.” (The occasion was the Muslim feast of Eid Ul-Adh, but the timing was awful.) U.S. national security agencies are no help either—under the tutelage of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were purged long ago of any vocabulary useful for dealing with jihad. “Lone wolf” gets a lot of play with the media, but as Michael Ledeen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Poole (here, here, and here) have all pointed out, there’s nothing ‘lone’ about Muslim warriors, self-selected or otherwise, engaging in fard ‘ayn (individual jihad) in obedience to the doctrine of their shared faith.

Nor are these attacks simply “terrorism” in any way that is uniquely descriptive. As Ledeen noted, the Unabomber was a domestic terrorist. The FBI calls the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) terrorist. The Black Liberation Army was accused of murdering more than a dozen police officers in its day. But none of these operates today in obedience to a 1400-year-old ideology that claims a divine commandment to conquer the earth. Nor is any of these other ‘domestic terrorists’ the 21st century embodiment of a force that already has overrun many powerful civilizations, including the Buddhist, Byzantine, Middle East Christian, Hindu, and Persian ones.

It’s time to call this what it is: Jihad.

Jihad is a unique descriptor: it is motivated solely by one ideology—an Islamic one. It encompasses any and all tactics of war, be they the kinetic violence of terrorism, the stealthy influence operations of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian intelligence agencies, or funding, speaking, teaching, and writing. Importantly, the term ‘jihad’ is the one used by its own practitioners—the clerics, scholars, and warriors of Islam. Arguably the most valid qualification of all is that Islamic Law (shariah) defines jihad as “warfare to spread the religion [Islam].” Warfare encompasses many things, though, and not all of them are violent.

Katharine Gorka, President of The Council on Global Security, has an astute new essay entitled “The Flawed Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy” in which she skewers the Obama administration’s misguided policy it calls “Countering Violent Extremism.” She explains how America’s counter-terrorism ‘experts’ have tried haplessly to apply Social Movement Theory to what actually is a totalitarian ideology cloaked loosely in a handful of religious practices. A decade or more of attempting to apply the language of grievance, poverty, and unemployment laid at the door of Western colonialism or secular modernity has achieved little but the neutering of America’s national security defenses. Yet, even this dead-on analysis doesn’t quite get us where we need to be.

Just as Obama’s bland “violent extremism,” deliberately devoid of meaning identifies neither the enemy nor the ideology that animates him, so in its way, ‘terrorism” likewise falls short. For if “terrorist” can and does mean anyone from a nut job like Ted Kaczynsky to assorted tree huggers, neo-Nazi skinheads, as well as Islamic warriors committing atrocities in the name of Allah, then its scope is just too broad to define precisely the paramount threat to global stability in the 21stcentury: jihad.

The magnitude of the jihad threat demands its own category. Neither Kaczynsky nor animal and environmental activists nor neo-Nazis could threaten the very existence of our Republic. Certain 20th century totalitarian ideologies arguably did, though, and that’s why the U.S. marshaled every resource at its disposal to fight them to defeat. Islamic totalitarianism is such an ideology, albeit one that has survived cyclical periods of defeat and resurgence for many centuries. We constrain ourselves both conceptually and legally, however, when the only way to label an act of violence ‘terrorism’ is when it is carried out against civilians for a political purpose and the perpetrator(s) can be tied to a designated terrorist organization, with no consideration for the ideology that so many of them—and others not on such lists—share.

Islamic terror attacks of recent decades typically involved identifiable Islamic terror groups such as al-Qa’eda, Ansar al-Shariah, HAMAS, Hizballah, and the PLO, but were often funded and supported by jihadist nation states such as Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. As Katharine Gorka described in her white paper, though, the Obama administration’s willfully amorphous term, “violent extremism,” ensured that no enemy threat doctrine called ‘jihad’ that unifies these diverse yet similarly-motivated actors and that actually may threaten the Republic, was ever permitted to be articulated—or confronted.

Now, after the overwhelming post-9/11 Western retaliatory offensives, both al-Qa’eda and more recently, the Islamic State, increasingly have called for acts of ‘individual jihad’ (fard ‘ayn, according to Islamic doctrine). Such attacks by Islamic true believers against armed service members, civilians, and law enforcement officers as well as ordinary citizens duly are proliferating across the West, but the U.S. national security establishment grasps for any term—lone wolf, violent extremist, workplace violence—to avoid saying either ‘terrorism’ or ‘jihadist.’ Granted, as Daniel Pipes noted in his 24 October 2014 essay, “Terrorism Defies Definition,” there are legal consequences under the U.S. Legal Code for “formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist.” But as we see, it’s more than that – and it’s why we need to use “jihad” more often and “terrorism” less.

To properly identify individual jihad attacks is to acknowledge that there is an established ideology behind them that derives its inspiration from Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture. To acknowledge that would mean the threat actually is existential, at a minimum in its objective: universal conquest and enforcement of shariah. Until and unless the entire American citizenry, federal bureaucracy, Intelligence Community, law enforcement, and the U.S. military understand that failing to acknowledge, confront, and defeat the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah indeed do endanger the very existence of our Republic as we know it, and mobilize to meet this challenge, the inexorable advance of shariah will continue. As Pipes notes with some understatement, the current “lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge.

The term “terrorism” will continue to provide useful applications in security categories and lists. But it is much too inclusive and yet restrictive to offer a precise definition of the Islamic threat. The forces of Islamic jihad and shariah are mounting a whole of civilization assault against liberal, modern, representative, secular civil society. Nation states, sub-national terror organizations, transnational alliances, academics and scholars, media conglomerates, networks of mosques and Islamic Centers, so-called ‘charitable foundations’ and their donors, battlefield fighters, and too many individual Muslims are united in a jihad that is not only violent but insidious, inexorable, and sophisticated. Unless we learn to resist in the same way—a whole of civilization way—that list of subjugated civilizations may yet include one more: ours.

FREE FIRE ZONE- A PACK OF LONE WOLVES

By Jim Hanson:

How many lone wolf attacks will it take to get the media, liberals and our fearless leaders in DC to admit they are connected and they are all committed by Islamist extremists. That’s right they are Muslims, buy their own shouted declarations. This doesn’t mean all Muslims are to blame, but it is long past time to admit that something about Islam is causing many of its followers to slaughter innocents. And it is also time for us to stop pretending this isn’t so.

The second in my series for the Center for Security Policy.

Canada’s Jihad Denial

michael-zehaf-bibeauBy Robert Spencer:

Canada has experienced two murderous jihad terror attacks in the last three days, not long after the Islamic State called for such attacks – but the denial and obfuscation are as thick as ever.

On Monday, Ahmad Rouleau, a convert to Islam, hit two Canadian soldiers with his car, murdering Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then he led police on a high-speed chase, during which he called 911 and explained that he was doing it all “in the name of Allah.” The chase, and Rouleau’s jihad, ended when he flipped his car and then, brandishing a knife, charged police, who shot him dead. One of Rouleau’s close friends said: “It was a terrorist attack and Martin died like he wanted to. That’s what happened….He did this because he wanted to reach paradise and assure paradise for his family. He wanted to be a martyr….The caliphate called all the Muslims on earth to fight. He listened to what they had to say and he did his part here.”

Then on Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, who has been widely reported to be a recent convert to Islam but whose father is a veteran of the jihad in Libya and who has been a Muslim for at least three years, went on a shooting rampage in Ottawa, murdering military reservist Corporal Nathan Cirillo and engaging in a gun battle inside Canada’s Parliament building. Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said that there was “no evidence at this stage” that Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to any jihad groups, but CNN reported that “according to a U.S. counterterrorism source, Zehaf-Bibeau was connected to Hasibullah Yusufzai through social media. Yusufzai is wanted by Canadian authorities for traveling overseas to fight alongside Islamist fighters in Syria.” And “other radicalized people connected to Zehaf-Bibeau are still believed to be living in Canada, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.”

So Zehaf-Bibeau had connections to at least one jihadist who went to Syria to wage jihad, and Rouleau listened to what the Islamic State was saying, and “did his part” in Canada. What was the Islamic State saying? Late in September, the Islamic State’s spokesman, Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, urged Muslims to murder non-Muslims in the West. “Rely upon Allah,” he thundered, “and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Do not ask for anyone’s advice and do not seek anyone’s verdict. Kill the disbeliever whether he is civilian or military, for they have the same ruling.” He also addressed Western non-Muslims: “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses, and thereafter we will strike you in your homeland, and you will never be able to harm anyone afterwards.”

Al-Adnani told Muslims to murder non-Muslims with any weapon at hand, or anything that could be used as a weapon: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” Zehaf-Bibeau found a bullet. Rouleau found a car.

Yet despite the indications that Rouleau and Zehaf-Bibeau were heeding the Islamic State’s call to wage jihad at home by any means possible, the mainstream media was ready before the blood had dried to swing into the usual denial and obfuscation about the motives and goals of their attacks. Before Zehaf-Bibeau’s identity was known, CBC’s Doug Stoffel tweeted: “Amid the speculation in the #OttawaShooting in #Canada, it’s important to remember #ISIS hasn’t shown interest in attacks abroad.” Once Zehaf-Bibeau was identified as the shooter and was known to be a Muslim, ABC News one-upped Stoffel’s flagrantly counter-factual statement with the claim that “authorities in Canada are trying to understand what motivated a gunman to kill a soldier in the country’s capital Wednesday.”

In reality, what motivated him was blazingly obvious, but it was the one thing most Western government officials and all of the mainstream media have determined to ignore, and so the search was one for some other remotely plausible motive that could be sold to a public that is increasingly suspicious of what the government and media elites are telling them. Toronto’s Globe and Mail quoted a friend of Zehaf-Bibeau saying, “I think he must have been mentally ill,” although the only evidence for this that the paper presented was that “his friend frequently talked about the presence of Shaytan in the world – an Arabic term for devils and demons” – in other words, that Zehaf-Bibeau spoke frequently of what are standard beliefs of mainstream Islam.

Read more at Frontpage

*********

Michael Coren – Liberal denial over Islamic terror attacks in Canada

Published on Oct 24, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

**********

Ezra Levant – Liberal whitewashing of Islamic terrorism in Canada

Cruz: Time to Drop the ‘Illusion’ That Latest Terror Attacks Are ‘Random Acts’

Ted Cruz / AP

Ted Cruz / AP

By Adam Kredo:

Recent terror attacks in Jerusalem and Canada are not isolated events, and American policy leaders must drop “the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said.

Whether the Islamic State or Hamas is behind the attacks, the extremist ideologyremains the same–and it poses a direct threat to democratic values across the globe, Cruz said in pointed comments to those who might claim the attacks were unrelated.

Following the Hamas terror attack Wednesday in Jerusalem–which injured several American citizens, including a child–both Hamas and the more moderate Fatah ruling party praised the terrorist responsible for the attack.

The same day, IS supporters worldwide took to Twitter to celebrate the fatal shooting of a Canadian soldier by a radicalized man that attacked the country’s Parliament building.

“We have to get away from the illusion that these are random acts of senseless violence unrelated to our national security,” Cruz said.

Cruz said the attacks are both strains of the same extremist virus.

“Deliberations over our foreign policy have gained a new clarity in recent days,” Cruz said. “Yesterday, an innocent, beautiful baby in Jerusalem was murdered by Hamas.”

“Terrorist organizations Hamas and Fatah both celebrated the destruction of this precious life just months after they relished in the slayings of Jewish teens,” Cruz said. “They did not care that the baby was American or one of the teens was a dual Israeli-American citizen. Their campaign of death is indiscriminate.”

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

Obama Terrorism Advisor’s Book Confuses and Distorts

By Raymond Ibrahim:

Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book, Militant Islamist IdeologyUnderstanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from “understanding the global threat”; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.

book2According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is “a top adviser at the Joint foIntelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism” and “has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community.”

What advice does he give?

He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood), are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”

This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the “nuanced” differences “between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists”—permeates the book.

Of course, what all Islamists want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.

Whereas most of the book is meant to portray nonviolent Islamists in a nonthreatening light, sometimes Aboul-Enein contradicts himself, for instance by correctly observing that “the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women” and other anti-Western aspects.

How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?

The book’s foreword by Admiral James Stavridis clarifies by stating that the book is a “culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein’s essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions.” In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas cobbled together, and the author’s contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.

His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer “unconditional apologies,” and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: “I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,” followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and “ceremoniously” presenting it to Muslims.

Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.

Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:

  • He asserts that “militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning].” In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
  • He insists that the Arabic word for “terrorist” is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers “to terrorize the enemy,” also known as non-Muslim “infidels.”
  • He writes, “when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance.” This is wrong on several levels: a fard kifaya is not an “optional obligation”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a “communal obligation”; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not “when Muslims are a persecuted minority.”

Islamic State Worried Media Will Cover Up its Terror Attacks as “Random Killings”

it-is-ok-they-died-for-diversity-450x299Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield:

I’m honestly not sure things can get any stranger.

Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Jihadist, can only get FOX News to report his terror statements in support of ISIS because the rest of the media still keeps pretending that it was a case of workplace violence.

Meanwhile ISIS is urging its supporters to kill people in its name and make sure that it gets the credit because it knows that the media will do its best to pass off the attacks as random violence.

We’re in a deeply strange place in which the people trying to kill us are also trying to get past the media’s digital wall of denial about them. Imagine if Japan kept bombing America during WW2, only to have the media refuse to recognize that it was happening.

All terrorist attacks should clearly be attributable to “patrons” of Islamic State so they cannot be described by media as “random killings”, the new article said.

“It is very important that attacks take place in every country that has entered into the alliance against the Islamic State, especially the US, UK, France, Australia and Germany,” an article in the magazine said.

“Every Muslim should get out of his house, find a crusader, and kill him.

“It is important that the killing becomes attributed to patrons of the Islamic State who have obeyed its leadership … otherwise, crusader media makes such attacks appear to be random killings.”

Not that it will make much of a difference. At this point nearly any Islamic act of terror will be attributed by the media to personal pathology, economic problems or airborne PTSD.

When top politicians deny that the Islamic State is Islamic, it’s not hard to deny that its killers are Islamic. It’s a race between the butchers and the deniers.

How many people can Muslim terrorists kill and how hard can the media and its liberal followers deny what happened?