Once CAIR Supporters, U.A.E. Declares Them Terrorists

United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)

United Arab Emirates Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum inspects a guard of honor during a 2007 visit to India. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan, File)

CSP, by Kyle Shideler:

The United Arab Emirates has officially designated a list of over 80 organizations as terrorist groups. The list includes a large cross section of organizations connected to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Brotherhood organizations in the Middle East, Europe and North America, including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

While CAIR professed themselves “shocked” by the designation, the reality is that the group’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be legitimately disputed.

CAIR is listed as an organization of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s Palestine Committee, in a 1994 meeting agenda submitted as evidence during the Holy Land Foundation Trial. The stated purpose of the Palestine Committee is to support the terrorist group Hamas, with quote “media, money, men and all that,” according to a 1992 internal memo also submitted at the HLF trial.

Judge Jorge Solis, the federal judge in the case, stated that the government had supplied “ample evidence” of CAIR’s links to the Palestine Committee and Hamas.

CAIR executive director Nihad Awad, and its founding Chairman Omar Ahmad were both present at a 1993 meeting of the Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, where FBI surveillance audio revealed a plan to create a new organization to conduct media activities on behalf of Hamas. That organization was CAIR. The FBI formally cut ties with CAIR over these connections, while other U.S. government agencies have refused to do the same. Regarding the UAE’s terror designation, The State Department says it is “engaging the UAE on the issue.”

The irony is that the UAE has itself supported Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, at least regarding their activities in the United States.

A Deed of Trust recorded in 2002 indicated that the Dubai-based Al Maktoum Foundation had provided nearly a million dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group. In 2006, Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Deputy Ruler of Dubai and UAE Minister of Finance and Industry, agreed to a proposal to build a property to serve as an endowment for CAIR.

In 2009, the U.S. took an increasingly pro-Islamist stance towards the revolutions of the Arab Spring thanks in part to the success of influence operations conducted by U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups. The result was early Muslim Brotherhood victories in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. In 2010 U.A.E security forces arrested local Brotherhood operatives for allegedly forming a “military wing,” and expelled Egyptian and Syrian MB members from the country. UAE security forces stated that the Muslim Brotherhood sought to overthrow the Emirates as part of a wider plot by the Brotherhood to seize control of oil-producing Gulf States.

With Brotherhood groups preparing to target their rule, the Emirates appear to realize they badly miscalculated in their support for groups like CAIR, as U.S. policy came unmoored from it’s traditional support for the Gulf states and more in favor of Islamist opposition groups. In 2012, Dubai’s chief of police warned that U.S. policy had turned towards supporting revolutions in the Middle East, and that Muslim Brotherhood had turned against the Gulf States.

While the U.A.E’s decision to list CAIR as a terror group may be ultimate self-serving that doesn’t change the reality that it’s supported by the facts.

It’s well past time the U.S. followed suit.

 

Also see:

3 things you NEED TO KNOW about terrorists NOW that can save your life

 Feminine CollectiveOctober 2, 2014 by :

The thing about terrorists is that they like to brag—a lot. They need to feel powerful and important, so they talk big. But one thing I’ve learned is that they don’t bluff. They mouth off to show you that they are “plugged in” and cool enough to know what’s being planned.

With social media as prevalent as it is, it’s not hard to detect a spike in the online chatter that suggests these guys are up to no good. Because these takfiri thugs and their supporters love social media, thrive on it, and build support through it, their communications give a clear indication what they are up to. It’s hard NOT to recognize the patterns …

Here’s what I think these terrorists are up to:

In order to flex their muscle and show how strong they are, they are determined to carry out a well-coordinated operation on U.S. soil. The U.S. is the ultimate prize—as always. In addition to their desire to scare us, they want to prove to themselves that they have international reach, far beyond the bounds of Syria, Iraq and the Middle East region. Such an attack would “up their street cred.”

People who are already on the ground in the United States are working on plans for an attack in our country.

Unlike the targets al-Qa’ida chose for the 9/11 attacks that symbolized U.S. financial, military, and political power, I believe that today’s terrorists are more focused on attacks in public spaces. Over the years they have changed their focus from government-related targets to civilian targets. They want their efforts to be a spectacle. And those who carry out the assault are prepared to die in the process.

Because it is difficult to make a VBIED (car bomb) in the United States (the numerous chemicals you need to create one are hard to acquire in large quantities because their distribution is closely monitored by authorities), I believe terrorists will take the easier route and use hand-guns and assault weapons to come at us via an active-shooter scenario carried out by multiple assailants. Based on the modus operandi used in other spectacular international attacks, they might supplement their weaponry with grenades as well as IED (small bombs) to cause panic and sow confusion.

Some of the worst attacks by terrorists in the last few years have involved multiple locations and public spaces: For instance, the 2008 attack by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba in Mumbai, India involved two well-known hotels, a major train station, Jewish center, hospital, and small police stations. The September 2013 assault by al-Shabaab was carried out against the popular Westgate Shopping Center in Nairobi, Kenya. Terrorists believe that both operations were extremely successful. Both attacks took place over a period of three days and involved 10 attackers. Based on these attacks, I believe that terrorists would aim to carry out the operation in a place where they have easy access to victims (not out in the wide open) and might even try to take hostages.

The foreign fighters keep warning us that their “brothers” are planning attacks against the subway/metro systems inNew York and Paris (which could mean any kind of public transport, to include trains, rail systems, etc.). I would take this a step further by suggesting that the target would likely be a place where several forms of transport converge, such as New York’s Penn Station or Washington, D.C.’s Union Station. They are looking for a target-rich environment where there is freedom of movement, multiple entrances and exits, etc.

That’s great, now what do we do about it?

I don’t believe in scaring people, but rather educating and empowering them. Americans can handle the truth. We are a strong and self-sufficient bunch, so I firmly believe that we have the courage to do something when presented with a challenge like this.

Here’s what to look for:

1. Terrorists always case a target before carrying out the attack. Those in the best position to notice this are the “regulars” in these public spaces—that includes employees in shopping malls, store managers, security officers, etc. Keep your eyes peeled for people who are trying to gather information on back doors and secondary exits. You might see them in stairwells where you wouldn’t normally see shoppers. If you notice someone acting sketchy in these areas, take a good look at them bearing in mind that you need to obtain a good physical description. If you can, get the attention of security officer (you have their contact numbers, right?) and have them directly engage the individual saying, “Excuse me, can I help you?” If they shouldn’t be in that space, they needed to be confronted by proper authorities. If they suspect you’ve taken notice of them, they’ll bug out fast.

What Does Casing Look Like?  When people are casing, they show a level of discomfort which you can read in their body language. They try to avoid eye contact and they act nervous. They usually put on their best swagger, but aren’t able to interact in a natural way with the environment. They are not really perusing merchandise, but they dart from one space to another trying to collect intel on security officers (placement, location, weapons, skill level) and shopkeepers (number and attention level). They are trying to determine the location of security cameras, and they walk down employee hallways to find broom closets, secondary exits, etc. If you see people in areas they should not be in, do not ignore it. Reporting your observations to security is absolutely critical. In almost every terrorist attack, people come forward and admit that they saw things they couldn’t explain in the run up to the attack—unidentified individuals being too nosy about a building, taking pictures of it, and appearing to watch it (case it) in the months and weeks leading up to the attack.

2. Obtain Useful Descriptions: For all you security officers out there, it is hard to stay vigilant for long periods of time, but you have a huge responsibility right now. Take people seriously if they report seeing something suspicious. Share your incident reports with proper authorities. If possible, obtain the license plate numbers and vehicle descriptions of anyone who acts outside the norm—and you should have a baseline for what the norm is.

Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images.

3. Watch the Bags:  If you see someone leave a bag, backpack, or briefcase in a public place, I would draw attention to the object and clear the space immediately. This includes metro stations, subway cars, restaurants, malls, the street … anywhere. Terrorists have used this scenario repeatedly in Europe, particularly attacks on metros/subway stations/trains. The Boston bombers did it too.

We need you:

Oftentimes, it’s the off-duty cop, former military officer, or the Mom who has eyes in the back of her head, that sees things others don’t. We have loads of men and women who have a keen attention to detail and that beautiful thing called intuition—when you are able to look at someone and just know immediately that they’re up to no good. We need your eyes and ears to pick up on anomalies and report them to authorities. Good citizens can make a huge difference.

Small town folks, to be clear, your biggest concerns are lone wolf attackers, school shooters and disgruntled employees in the workplace. You need to be sure that your workplace and your children’s schools have a policy in place on how to deal with the worst-case scenario and all staff is fully trained on how to respond to crisis situations. More importantly, we need to know what the warning signs are and how to spot them before an attack is initiated. (More on that soon from the Feminine Collective.)

Big city folks, your concerns are terrorists who want to make a name for their group by hitting places where there are a lot of bystanders and casual observers. I know it’s normal to tune out your environment with your cell phones and iPods, but you can’t afford to do that right now. It’s time to plug back in and observe what is going on around you.

POTUS OBAMA SENT SECRET LETTER TO IRAN’S LEADERSHIP; SEEKING TEHRAN’S HELP AGAINST THE ISLAMIC STATE; PLEDGED NOT TO TAKE OUT ASSAD

ayattollah, November 7, 2014 · by R.C. Porter:

Disastrous and ill-conceived. From the very beginning of POTUS Obama’s first term in office, he and his ‘team’ have sought to offend our friends and appease our adversaries. One of POTUS Obama’s first foreign policy affronts against a long-time ally, was to send the bust of Winston Churchill back to England. Great start on how not to win friends and influence people. POTUS Obama’s view of the world and his perceived belief that America was in large part to blame for many of the world’s ills was naïve and perplexing. From his — can’t we all just get along speech in Cairo, to his failure to support the Iran uprising after a corrupt Presidential vote, his re-set with Russia, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq too quickly and without a tether, failure to check China’s aggressive posture in the western Pacific, backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now appeasing the Mullahs of Iran and the butcher of Syria — Obama’s foreign policy is breathtaking in its fecklessness and vacuity. The best way to defeat the Islamic State — is also take out Assad. The U.S. should have taken out Syrian military airfields — the minute we began bombing ISIS positions in northern Syria. And, we surely do not want to encourage the Mullahs in Tehran/Qum that they can still produce a nuclear weapon, or achieve a near-constant breakout capability with a deal more to their liking — because of a U.S. President’s desperation for a deal — at almost any price. Very, very disturbing. No wonder this letter was sent in secret, and without Congressional input, or knowledge. RCP.

 

Obama Wrote Secret Letter to Iran’s Khamenei About Fighting Islamic State

Presidential Correspondence With Ayatollah Stresses Shared U.S.-Iranian Interests in Combating Insurgents, Urges Progress on Nuclear Talks

By JAY SOLOMON And CAROL E. LEE, Nov. 6, 2014

WASHINGTON-President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.

The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.

Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say.

The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.

The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important-whether in a potentially constructive or negative role-to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

Mr. Obama’s letter also sought to assuage Iran’s concerns about the future of its close ally, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, according to another person briefed on the letter. It states that the U.S.’s military operations inside Syria aren’t targeted at Mr. Assad or his security forces.

Mr. Obama and senior administration officials in recent days have placed the chances for a deal with Iran at only 50-50. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is set to begin intensive direct negotiations on the nuclear issue with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, on Sunday in the Persian Gulf country of Oman.

“There’s a sizable portion of the political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference on Wednesday about Iran’s leadership, without commenting on his personal overture. “Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, foreground left, met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, background right, in Vienna in July. ENLARGE
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, foreground left, met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, background right, in Vienna in July. JIM BOURG

For the first time this week, a senior administration official said negotiations could be extended beyond the Nov. 24 deadline, adding that the White House will know after Mr. Kerry’s trip to Oman whether a deal with Iran is possible by late November.

“We’ll know a lot more after that meeting as to whether or not we have a shot at an agreement by the deadline,” the senior official said. “If there’s an extension, there’re questions like: What are the terms?”

Mr. Obama’s push for a deal faces renewed resistance after Tuesday’s elections gave Republicans control of the Senate and added power to thwart an agreement and to impose new sanctions on Iran. Sens. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) have introduced legislation to intensify sanctions.

‘There’s a sizable portion of the [Iranian] political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Americanism. Whether they can manage to say ‘Yes’…is an open question.’

-Barack Obama

“The best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to quickly pass the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk legislation-not to give the Iranians more time to build a bomb,” Mr. Kirk said Wednesday.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) expressed concern when asked about the letter sent by Mr. Obama.

“I don’t trust the Iranians, I don’t think we need to bring them into this,” Mr. Boehner said. Referring to the continuing nuclear talks between Iran and world powers, Mr. Boehner said he “would hope that the negotiations that are under way are serious negotiations, but I have my doubts.”

In a sign of the sensitivity of the Iran diplomacy, the White House didn’t tell its Middle East allies-including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates-about Mr. Obama’s October letter to Mr. Khamenei, according to people briefed on the correspondence and representatives of allied countries.

Leaders from these countries have voiced growing concern in recent weeks that the U.S. is preparing to significantly soften its demands in the nuclear talks with Tehran. They said they worry the deal could allow Iran to gain the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in the future.

Arab leaders also fear Washington’s emerging rapprochement with Tehran could come at the expense of their security and economic interests across the Middle East. These leaders have accused the U.S. of keeping them in the dark about its diplomatic engagements with Tehran.

The Obama administration launched secret talks with Iran in the Omani capital of Muscat in mid-2012, but didn’t notify Washington’s Mideast allies of the covert diplomatic channel until late 2013.

Senior U.S. officials declined to discuss Mr. Obama’s letter to Mr. Khamenei after questions from The Wall Street Journal.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday declined to comment on what he called “private correspondence” between the president and world leaders, but acknowledged U.S. officials in the past have discussed the Islamic State campaign with Iranian officials on the sidelines of international nuclear talks. He added the negotiations remain centered on Iran’s nuclear program and reiterated that the U.S. isn’t cooperating militarily with Iran on the Islamic State fight.

Administration officials didn’t deny the letter’s existence when questioned by foreign diplomats in recent days.

Mr. Khamenei has proved a fickle diplomatic interlocutor for Mr. Obama in the past six years.

Mr. Obama sent two letters to Iran’s 75-year-old supreme leader during the first half of 2009, calling for improvements in U.S.-Iran ties, which had been frozen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran.

Mr. Khamenei never directly responded to the overtures, according to U.S. officials. And Iran’s security forces cracked down hard that year on nationwide protests that challenged the re-election of then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .

Mr. Khamenei is believed to be the decision maker on the nuclear program. ASSOCIATED PRESS

U.S.-Iran relations have thawed considerably since the election of President Hasan Rouhani in June 2013. He and Mr. Obama shared a 15-minute phone call in September 2013, and Messrs. Kerry and Zarif have regularly held direct talks on the nuclear diplomacy and regional issues.

Still, Mr. Khamenei has often cast doubt on the prospects for better relations with Washington. He has criticized the U.S. military campaign against Islamic State, which is also known as ISIS or ISIL, claiming it is another attempt by Washington and the West to weaken the Islamic world.

“America, Zionism, and especially the veteran expert of spreading divisions-the wicked government of Britain-have sharply increased their efforts of creating divisions between the Sunnis and Shiites,” Mr. Khamenei said in a speech last month, according to a copy of it on his website. “They created al Qaeda and [Islamic State] in order to create divisions and to fight against the Islamic Republic, but today, they have turned on them.”

Current and former U.S. officials have said Mr. Obama has focused on communicating with Mr. Khamenei specifically because they believe the cleric will make all the final decisions on Iran’s nuclear program and the fight against Islamic State.

Mr. Rouhani is seen as navigating a difficult balance of gaining Mr. Khamenei’s approval for his foreign policy decisions while trying to satisfy Iranian voters who elected him in the hope of seeing Iran re-engage with the Western world.

A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency checks the enrichment process inside the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in January. ENLARGE
A team from the International Atomic Energy Agency checks the enrichment process inside the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in January. EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY

The emergence of Islamic State has drastically changed both Washington’s and Tehran’s policies in the Middle East.

Mr. Obama was elected on the pledge of ending Washington’s war in Iraq. But over the past three months, he has resumed a U.S. air war in the Arab country, focused on weakening Islamic State’s hold of territory in western and northern Iraq.

Iran has had to mobilize its own military resources to fight against Islamic State, according to senior Iranian and U.S. officials.

Tehran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has sent military advisers into Iraq to help the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, a close Iranian ally. The IRGC has also worked with Syrian President Assad’s government, and Shiite militias from across the Mideast, to conduct military operations inside Syria.

U.S. officials have stressed that they are not coordinating with Tehran on the fight against Islamic State.

But the State Department has confirmed that senior U.S. officials have discussed Iraq with Mr. Zarif on the sidelines of nuclear negotiations in Vienna. U.S. diplomats have also passed on messages to Tehran via Mr. Abadi’s government in Baghdad and through the offices of Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, among the most powerful religious leaders in the Shiite world.

Among the messages conveyed to Tehran, according to U.S. officials, is that U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria aren’t aimed at weakening Tehran or its allies.

“We’ve passed on messages to the Iranians through the Iraqi government and Sistani saying our objective is against ISIL,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on these communications. “We’re not using this as a platform to reoccupy Iraq or to undermine Iran.”

-Michael R. Crittenden contributed to this article.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com and Carol E. Lee atcarol.lee@wsj.com

Another Palestinian Terrorist Crashes Car Into Israeli Crowd, Killing One

Israeli policemen stand next to the body of Ibrahim al-Akri, a Palestinian man who was shot by Israeli police officers after he drove into a crowd of people(Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)

Israeli policemen stand next to the body of Ibrahim al-Akri, a Palestinian man who was shot by Israeli police officers after he drove into a crowd of people(Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)

by IPT News  •  Nov 5, 2014:

A Palestinian terrorist rammed his car into a crowd of Israeli pedestrians in Jerusalem, at two separate spots near the light rail, including one crowded station, killing a Border Police officer and injuring 14 other people, according to The Jerusalem Post. Israeli authorities were aware that the terrorist, Ibrahim al-Acri, was a Hamas operative, and the terrorist organization claimed responsibility for the attack, referring to al Acri as a “martyr” who conducted “a heroic operation.”

This attack comes in context of a string of terrorist attacks targeting Israelis in Jerusalem in recent weeks. On October 22, a suspected Hamas member similarly crashed his car into a crowd of Israelis exiting the light rail in Jerusalem, killing a three month-old American-Israeli girl, and a woman from Ecuador, and injuring eight others. Jerusalem is witnessing an increase in Palestinian attacks, including rock throwing and Molotov cocktails.

According to WAFA, an official Palestinian National Authority news agency, the terrorist in the latest attack is innocent who merely lost control of his car. The WAFA report omits the fact that after ramming his car over one person, the terrorist sped off to another nearby junction where he crashed into other pedestrians. The terrorist then allegedly exited the car with a metal bar and continued to attack more people before Israeli police killed him.

Click here to view security camera footage of the attack’s initial stage.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its Hamas partners of encouraging these latest terrorist attacks through incendiary rhetoric and incitement to violence.

“The vehicular terror attack today in Jerusalem, is the direct result of incitement by Abu Mazen [PA President Mahmoud Abbas] and his partner Hamas,” stated Netanyahu, speaking at the annual state remembrance ceremony commemorating assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Earlier this week, Abbas’ party Fatah called for a “Day of Rage” in Jerusalem and explicitly encouraged further clashes and attacks against Israelis in the city.

After claiming responsibility for today’s action, Hamas has called for more terrorist attacks against Israelis.

“We call on the people of Jerusalem and the West Bank and all of the Palestinians to carry out more of these activities with full force in order to defend al-Aksa,” according to a Hamas’ statement released today.

***********

Also see this incredible list:

October was quite an eventful month in Israel. Arabs committed terror attacks against Jews and rioted as a reaction to their own violence. One might think these riots were the response to something Israel had provoked, but as usual, that was not the case. It was simply violence feeding off of violence and motivated by Palestinian leaders. Yet people in the Obama Administration had no cross words for these Arab leaders, only for Israeli PM Netanyahu, who was called “chickensh*t” by someone who is supposed to be professional and diplomatic- but instead showed a true level of “maturity” and “class.”

There were many incidents not well-known in the Western world. Unfortunately, there is so much Arab violence, most Western newspapers do not report on it, either because they don’t want to paint Arabs in a negative light because that would put a damper on their political attacks against Israel, or because it has become so commonplace, that every little attack is just another one to add to the long list. - Rachel Molschky

RAND PAUL: IT’S AMERICA’S FAULT

Rand-Paul-GOP-maine-apBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

Clearly, for some, 2016 is just around the corner. For weeks now there is scuttlebutt about presidential candidate repeat-offender Mitt Romney running yet again, and now Rand Paul is drastically watering down his isolationist and conspiracy-laden past in the hopes of becoming a contender. The senator’s attempt to reinvent himself is largely superficial and points to deeper problems.

On Friday in New York, Paul gave his national security stump speech, unveiling as he did so his platform of “conservative realism,” and sounding in places as if he was reversing some of his key beliefs.

Like the “curates egg,” there were some bad parts and some positive elements to the speech. To begin with, when the politician most associated with the new version of libertarianism that favors a United States detached from the world says “America cannot disengage from the world,” that is news, indeed– and something to be welcomed by those who agree that we cannot realistically and safely disengage internationally.

But the omissions of the speech are strange and hard to fathom. No mention of Israel; no mention of the border or immigration; no mention of the NSA trammeling our privacy rights.

However, it is hard to disagree with the Senator that our forces were magnificent in the weeks after 9/11 as a small group of Special Operators with local assistance demolished the Taleban and routed Al Qaeda, and that afterward their success was progressively undermined by ever-increasing mission-creep.

And it is easy to agree with Paul’s utter contempt for the way in which, more recently, the Obama administration used force in Libya without a real strategy, let alone Congressional consent.

But then taken as a whole, the speech is neither an about-turn for the isolationist– sorry Paulites, I mean “non-interventionist”– politician, nor does it add up to a new plan under which the right will finally act coherently on national security issues.

On the contrary, it is confused and disingenuous. Let’s begin with the confusion.

In a week that saw two jihadist attacks in Canada and one in New York, one would expect a trenchant and forthright handling of the threat that has shaped our age. Instead Paul gave us this:

The world does not have an Islam problem, the world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments.

Sorry? A dignity problem? Who denied Osama bin Laden or Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, their dignity? Perhaps the Boston bombers were denied their dignity, but not because they lived in a Middle Eastern nation where the government treated them as property. On the contrary, if their dignity was undermined it was in the form of the Massachusetts state subsidies they received without having to earn them (something the younger Tsarnaev actually boasted about on social media).

So where could this newfound concern for the downtrodden of the world come from for Senator Paul? In truth, the old Rand Paul is lurking just beneath the surface, as this line reveals: “Many of these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid.” So, Islam is not to blame for jihadi terrorism. America is, because we support unjust regimes.

The fact that Paul uses this argument is not only disturbing in that it negates the responsibility of the jihadists – it’s their governments, and America that keeps them in power – but also because this is the fallacious reasoning behind the Obama’s administration’s counterterrorism strategy.

Senator Paul is not only channeling Chomsky with this speech, he has also reinforced the White House line that ideology is irrelevant in this war and that terrorism is understandably a result of the oppression of Muslims around the word.

Perhaps none of this should be a surprise. We are talking about a man who believes in Alex Jones’ one-world government conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group and thatevil masterminds want to create a unitary state out of America, Canada and Latin America. Hardly presidential material.

Sebastian Gorka PhD is the Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory, Marine Corps University, and National Security Affairs Editor for Breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter at: @SebGorka.

The Lone-Wolf Canard

20141025_axNYcterroristZaleThompsonNo one self-radicalizes. Terrorists are radicalized by a scripturally based doctrine.

By Andrew C. McCarthy:

In Modern Times, his sweeping history of the 20th century, Paul Johnson recounts how Einstein’s theory of relativity, a strictly scientific principle, was contorted into relativism, a loopy social phenomenon, through a permanent campaign of serpentine rhetoric. It is, as Roger Kimball explains in The Fortunes of Permanence, a classic example of how a sensible concept or term of art that helps us grasp some narrow aspect of reality can end up distorting reality when ripped from its moorings and broadly applied.

Another good example is “lone wolf.”

Since Thursday afternoon, newscasters have incessantly told us that the late and unlamented Zale Thompson was a “lone wolf.” Thompson was the 32-year-old Muslim from Queens who attacked four New York City police officers with a hatchet on Thursday, breaking one’s arm and critically wounding another with a gash to the head.

Reading off the familiar script, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton insisted that “nothing we know at this time would indicate” a connection to terrorism. This, despite Thompson’s Facebook page on which he portrayed himself as a mujahed warrior superimposed on Koranic verses and called for “guerilla warfare” against the United States. Evidently, it is just one of those “violent extremism” coincidences that this “lone wolf” strike – translation: non-terrorist strike – occurred soon after the Islamic State urged Muslims in the West to “attack the soldiers of the tyrants and their police force.”

In addition to Americans, Europeans, and Australians, the Islamic State lists the “infidels” of Canada among its enemy “tyrants.” Thompson’s “lone wolf” jihad followed hard upon two separate “lone wolf” attacks in Canada this week. First, Martin Couture-Rouleau plowed a car into two soldiers, killing Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Then, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo to death at the National War Memorial in Ottawa before spraying bullets inside Parliament (but fortunately killing no one else). Each “lone wolf” was killed in the aftermath, and each was reportedly a “recent convert to Islam.”

These latest atrocities follow last month’s decapitation of a woman at an Oklahoma food-distribution center by Alton Nolen, another “recent convert to Islam” whose Facebook page was a shrine to Osama bin Laden and the Islamic State. At the time, Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro noted that the Oklahoma attack was the latest of seven in the last few years by Muslim men acting alone. The count rises to eight if one accepts the Obama administration’s “workplace violence” rendition of the Fort Hood massacre, to wit: jihadist Nidal Hassan was a “lone wolf” – and therefore somehow not a terrorist – despite both his motive to prevent the U.S. soldiers he killed from fighting Taliban terrorists and his string of pre-massacre consultations with al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki (the imam who had ministered to the wolf-pack known as the 9/11 suicide-hijackers). At any rate, there are now so many “lone” jihadists we should probably start saying “clone wolf” instead.

So rote have the airbrushed news accounts of these incidents become that we could recite them in our sleep – which is exactly the condition those who write them hope to leave us in. We are to believe it is beside the point that the assailants happen to be Muslims. Sure, some may have been “inspired” by the Islamic State or al-Qaeda, but journalists, taking their cues from government officials, stress that the murderers lack “operational” ties to any recognized terrorist organization. So, presto, each is sloughed off as a “lone wolf.”

That once useful term of art is now used to convey two carefully crafted, politically correct narratives. For government officials and investigators, the “lone wolf” label has come to mean the atrocity in question cannot be categorized as “terrorism,” no matter how many “Allahu Akbars!” are shouted as bullets fly, bombs blast, or heads roll. For the commentariat, “lone wolf” signifies that the Muslim in question – whether a lifer or a “recent convert” – has “self-radicalized,” spontaneously becoming a wanton, irrational killer.

These two story lines transparently suggest that the government has quelled al-Qaeda and that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Though President Obama frequently makes both claims, they are delusional.

“Lone wolf” is actually a surveillance-law concept that signifies the antithesis of the government’s newfangled “no terrorism here” usage. Moreover, the term is utterly useless to our understanding of how, and by what, Muslims are “radicalized.”

The “lone wolf” concept goes back to the alarm that gripped the nation right after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed in al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks. That alarm was heightened by the discovery that incompetent surveillance practices prevented the government from interrupting the plot. So after 9/11, national-security surveillance law was overhauled.

Unlike ordinary criminal investigations, which focus on penal law offenses, national-security investigations target agents of “foreign powers.” Legally, an international terrorist organization qualifies as a foreign power. So if investigators can show a person is tied to an outfit like al-Qaeda, they can get court permission to eavesdrop on him.

As a practical matter, though, many terrorism investigations do not unfold that way. Sometimes, investigators develop evidence that someone is preparing to conduct terrorist activity (e.g., he buys explosive components, he cases a bridge) before they can figure out whether he is connected to a known terrorist organization. Since involvement by a foreign power was the necessary predicate for national-security surveillance, the government’s inability to establish al-Qaeda’s role in the plot would result in the denial of authority to eavesdrop on the apparent terrorist – even though he might be on the verge of striking.

To prevent such a critical intelligence gap, Congress enacted “lone wolf” surveillance authority as part of the PATRIOT Act (see here, pp. 5-6). Significantly, the statute makes precisely the opposite assumption that government officials now make when they label someone a “lone wolf.” The law says that if a person is engaged in what appears to be terrorist activity, the involvement of a foreign terrorist organization should be presumed and need not be established. So as conceived and codified, the lone-wolf designation means the government should regard a suspect as a terrorist, not strain against all evidence and logic to regard him as a non-terrorist.

Under the federal statutory definition, “international terrorism” happens when a person engages in activity intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” If a person’s actions fit this definition, that is terrorism. That he may not have sworn allegiance to al-Qaeda or the Islamic State is immaterial . . . and the fact that he is a Muslim is not a reason to look the other way.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Qatar Awareness Campaign – Letter to U.S. Chamber of Commerce #StopQatarNow

10444640_541029836027957_3198265898780002919_nThomas J. Donohue
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
1615 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20062-2000

Dear Mr. Donohue:

This letter is being sent to you on behalf of the Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.  The purpose is to inform you and the public of the activities of Qatar.  In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce opened a branch in Doha, Qatar – AmCham Qatar.  Qatar, while the wealthiest country per capita in the world, is at once the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood and also the world’s most prolific sponsor of terror, including: Hamas, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State.

AmCham Qatar is the “first legally established foreign Chamber of Commerce in Qatar.”  This is not a surprising fact, for Qatar is a business partner and client of several of America’s largest and longest established companies, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ExxonMobil, and others.

Considering the following statement: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is by far the largest lobbying spender in Washington ($136.3 million in 2012), has a growing, intimate, and working relationship with a sponsor of terrorism that profits from slavery, narcotics, and extortion.  Does this not stink of corruption, or incredible incompetence?  It certainly has the potential spawn numerous international inquiries as to what AmCham Qatar does for the Qatari Al-Thani monarchy, who once welcomed and employed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

As a businessman, you are familiar with the need for criminal organizations to wash, or launder, money.  The activities of the Qatari-backed terrorist groups include extortion, slaving, and drug trafficking.  Boko Haram, founded by a Qatari proxy now residing in Doha, routinely sells girls into sex slavery.  Meanwhile, the Qataris use “slaves” to build soccer stadiums in preparation for the 2022 FIFA World Cup.  These immoral businesses are highly profitable.

Sex trafficking alone has estimated annual proceeds of $32 billion.  Given the Qatari penchant for captive/abused labor, and their various links to narcotics cartels from Afghanistan to Argentina, this $32 billion represents only a fraction of the potential revenue from such activities.

Of course, businesses that are found to be laundering money for terrorists and cartels are subject to massive fines.  HSBC was fined $1.9 billion for various laundering charges; BNP Paribas was recently fined $8.9 billion for assisting blacklisted countries avoid sanctions.

The public is urged to consider these additional facts concerning American business in Qatar:

  • In 2010, S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice-President and COO David Chavern traveled to Doha and “officially commissioned the American Chamber of Commerce there (AmCham Qatar).”
  • Another business group, the US-Qatar Business Council, bills Qatar as “America’s Strongest Partner in the Gulf.” Its members include defense contractors Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, Doha-based media company Al Jazeera, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum (which was once a client of Al Gore Sr.), Colony Capital (which owns the production company Miramax with the Qatar Investment Authority), and the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton.
  • In October 2013, Qatar Holding announced it was building a $1 billion stake in Bank of America.
  • For business development overseas, the Chamber of Commerce is routinely assisted by the U.S. Department of State. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, was the keynote speaker at the Chamber’s annual meeting in July 2014.  The State Department, under Hillary Clinton, led the Arab Spring with Qatari guidance, resulting in the Muslim Brotherhood assuming power in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.

Additionally, Qatar is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell, and profits from operating a virtual slave state.  The Arab Spring, a Qatari and American-backed program to install Islamists across the Middle East and North Africa, has led to a veritable diplomatic “crisis” with Israel.  John Kerry’s attempt to force Qatar’s (who back Hamas) hatched peace terms on Israel has caused the only democracy in the region to question America’s allegiance to their security.

The QAC Coalition and petitioners ask that you consider the attached sourced report on Qatar’s activities.  The links cited are vetted and credible sources.  We hope you take the time to verify the truth of the statements for yourself.

After doing so, the Coalition of the Qatar Awareness Campaign calls on you to exert due influence on the Qatari government and the Muslim Brotherhood to cease any type of involvement in all forms of Islamic terrorism, slavery, and drug trafficking!

Sincerely,

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) – AllenBWest.com

Charles Ortel – Washington Times

Frank Gaffney, Jr. – Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller –  Atlas Shrugs

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret) – Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer – Jihad Watch

Walid Shoebat – Shoebat.com

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

Select signatures as of 9/27.  The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

CC: Bank of America.  U.S.-Qatar Business Council.  Blair Latoff Holmes, Executive Director of Media Relations, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Poison Tree

Arab protesters wave Islamic flags in front of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel / AP

Arab protesters wave Islamic flags in front of the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel / AP

By Matthew Continetti:

Last month, addressing the U.N. General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu made a connection between the Islamic State and Hamas. These terrorist entities, Netanyahu said, have a lot in common. Separated by geography, they nonetheless share ideology and tactics and goals: Islamism, terrorism, the destruction of Israel, and the establishment of a global caliphate.

And yet, Netanyahu observed, the very nations now campaigning against the Islamic State treated Hamas like a legitimate combatant during last summer’s Israel-Gaza war. “They evidently don’t understand,” he said, “that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree.”

The State Department dismissed Netanyahu’s metaphor. “Obviously, we’ve designated both as terrorist organizations,” said spokesman Jen Psaki. “But ISIL poses a different threat to Western interests and to the United States.”

Psaki was wrong, of course. She’s always wrong. And, after the events of the last 48 hours, there ought not to be any doubt as to just how wrong she was. As news broke that a convert to Islam had murdered a soldier and stormed the Canadian parliament, one read of another attack in Jerusalem, where a Palestinian terrorist ran his car over passengers disembarking from light rail, injuring seven, and killing 3-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, who held a U.S. passport.

Islamic State, al Qaeda, Hamas—these awful people are literally baby killers. And yet they produce a remarkable amount of dissension, confusion, willful ignorance, and moral equivalence on the part of the men and women who conduct U.S. foreign policy. “ISIL is not ‘Islamic,’” President Obama said of the terrorist army imposing sharia law across Syria and Iraq. “Obviously, we’re shaken by it,” President Obama said of the attack in Canada. “We urge all sides to maintain calm and avoid escalating tensions in the wake of this incident,” the State Department said of the murder of a Jewish child.

“Not Islamic,” despite the fact that the Caliphate grounds its barbarous activities in Islamic law. “Shaken,” not stirred to action. “All sides,” not the side that targets civilians again and again and again. The evasions continue. They create space for the poison tree to grow.

The persistent denial of the ideological unity of Islamic terrorism—the studied avoidance of politically incorrect facts that has characterized our response to the Ft. Hood shooting, the Benghazi attack, the Boston Marathon bombing, the march of the caliphate across Syria and Iraq, and the crimes of Hamas—is not random. Behind it is a set of ideas with a long history, and with great purchase among the holders of graduate degrees who staff the Department of Justice, the National Security Council, Foggy Bottom, and the diplomatic corps. These ideas are why, in the words of John McCain, the terrorists “are winning, and we’re not.”

A report by Katherine Gorka of the Council on Global Security, “The Bad Science Behind America’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy,” analyzes the soil from which the poison tree draws strength. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Gorka writes, U.S. policymakers have faced a dilemma: “how to talk about Islam in a way that is instructive in dealing with Muslims who are enemies but not destructive to those who are friends.” For decades, the preferred solution has been to declare America’s friendship with Islam, and to distinguish between jihadists and everyday Muslims.

One of Gorka’s earliest examples of this policy comes from former Assistant Secretary of State Edward Djerejian, who said in 1992, “The U.S. government does not view Islam as the next ‘ism’ confronting the West or threatening world peace.” Similar assurances were uttered by officials in the Clinton administration, by Clinton himself, and by President George W. Bush. The policy was meant to delegitimize terrorism by denying the terrorists’ claim that they are acting according to religious precepts. “Policymakers believed that by tempering their language with regard to Islam, they might forestall further radicalization of moderate Muslims and indeed even potentially win moderates into the American circle of friendship.”

George W. Bush, Gorka notes, combined his rhetorical appeals to moderate Muslims with denunciations of the immorality of terrorism and illiberalism. And yet, for the government at large, downplaying the religious and ideological component to terrorist activities became an end in itself.

The Global War on Terror was renamed the “global struggle against violent extremism.” In 2008 the Department of Homeland Security published a lexicon of terrorism that said, “Our terminology must be properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.” State Department guidelines issued in 2008 said, “Never use the terms jihadist or mujahedeen to describe a terrorist.”

Then came Obama. As a candidate, he stressed his experiences in Indonesia and Pakistan. He told Nick Kristof of the New York Times that the call of the muezzin is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” In one of his first major addresses as president, he traveled to Cairo to inaugurate a new beginning with the Muslim world. His counterterrorism adviser, now director of the CIA, called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam,” and referred to Jerusalem as “Al Quds.”

The change in the manner in which the government treated Islamism was profound. “Whereas the 9/11 Commission report, published under the presidency of George W. Bush in July 2004 as a bipartisan product, had used the word Islam 322 times, Muslim 145 times, jihad 126 times, and jihadist 32 times,” Gorka writes, “the National Intelligence Strategy of the United States, issued by the Obama administration in August 2009, used the term Islam 0 times, Muslim 0 times, jihad 0 times.” The omission is stunning.

Read more at Washington Free Beacon

Emerson on Fox News America’s Newsroom – Open Societies and Stopping Terrorism

 

Bill Hemmer: Police in Canada now say the gunman in the attack acted alone. Serious questions that remain about whether or not this was yet another instance of a so-called lone wolf attack. Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, with me now. Steve, how are you? And good morning to you. You have some sources up on Ottawa. What are you picking up now that we have not yet learned?

Steve Emerson: Canada is no different than the United States. For the last few years, last decade or so, they have experienced at least a dozen major aborted plots to attack major targets [in Canada] including government facilities as well as [other] facilities in [Canada and] the United States. All of them have been stopped with the assistance of either Canadian intelligence or US intelligence. The sound bite you played by Walid Phares was right on, was spot on. The issue is if the government can get inside our minds then they could stop acts of terrorism. But the issue is the point of activization. You can be radical but not cross the line; you are believing in a radical theology. Once you cross that line into carrying out a criminal predicate, then it’s illegal, then the government has the right to stop you. So taking away your passport isn’t going to stop you from carrying out an act of violence.

Hemmer: Yeah you’re precisely right about that. Just so our viewers know, this man’s passport was confiscated. So too are the passports of 90 other suspected Islamic radicals that the Canadians are watching right now. You mentioned Walid Phares. To our viewers who did not hear that, here’s what he said on the record last night.

Clip of Walid Phares: The pool of individuals who are like Rouleau and Bibeau, both in the United States and in Canada, is pretty big. How are we going to be able to determine which one is going to act is the real problem of counterintelligence services.

Hemmer: How we are able to determine which one will act is the real problem of counterintelligence. How do you address that Steve?

Emerson: That is the quintessential problem because when the government becomes too intrusive, when it starts listening to conversations, taking down your phone numbers, looking at the books that you read at the library, the public gets outraged, that’s invading your privacy. Yet those are all indicators, potential indicators of whether you are potentially going to carry out an act of terrorism or whether you’re interested in carrying out an act of terrorism. And yet the problem is that if you are not interested and yet the government does intrude on your privacy, everyone yells, well this is an invasion of your civil liberties. In a free society there’s always going to be this tension here. After 9/11 there was no controversy at all about passing the Patriot Act. I think it passed 99-1. Today if you had a vote in the Congress about the Patriot Act, I’m not so sure it would pass. Maybe it would pass today, but maybe it wouldn’t have passed last week.

Hemmer: It just has a way of rubbing off and the intensity we give the topic rubs off after time. We were speaking last hour with a great guest who was telling us that you need to raise the terror alert just to make sure the thing still work. They did this in Canada, I don’t know if that is something you would support here. Is that even necessary in our country?

Emerson: Well you remember we went through the color alerts. The issue of the alerts is a psychological thing; the purpose is to raise the public awareness. But the reality is, Bill, that the public awareness is raised really only through one thing – through fear. And that fear is engendered ironically through the success of attacks like the ones that were carried out in Canada over the last three days. When the FBI is successful in stopping attacks, the public doesn’t realize the magnitude of damage and death that could occur. So they’re almost victims of their own success. That’s the real irony in stopping attacks.

Hemmer: Steve, it is good to get your analysis here. Thanks for coming back with us today. Steve Emerson out of Washington, DC.

****

See videos with transcripts of all of Steve Emerson’s appearances here.

We Need to Call It Terrorism

Sources identify the suspected shooter as 32-year-old Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.

Sources identify the suspected shooter as 32-year-old Michael Zehaf-Bibeau.

PJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy, October 22, 2014:

Within three days there have been two jihadist attacks in Canada, carried out by Canadian citizens who recently converted to Islam. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility, at least as yet. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed no reluctance in calling the terrorists … terrorists.

Bravo!

Whether the attackers were incited by the summons to jihad from groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, or were actual members of such groups, there should be no question thatthese were terrorist attacks. The Obama administration’s practice of denying that terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks has been profoundly foolish – and it was good to hear the president seem to inch away from it today.

The point of this cockamamie denial approach is part political correctness and part plain politics.

President Obama has repeatedly claimed to have “decimated” al Qaeda and put it “on the path to defeat.” Actually, the terror network is on the rise. Furthermore, it is now rivaled by ISIS, a jihadist organization that may be even stronger. Denying obvious instances of terrorism, such as the jihadist mass-murder at Fort Hood, is a transparent effort to conceal the obvious falsity of the president’s claims. If these attacks are not really terrorism, the reasoning goes, then there must be less terrorism; therefore, the pretense of defeating terror networks can be spun as validated. As I’ve said before, it is a way of miniaturizing the threat.

It is more than that, though. Terrorism is fueled by an ideology. It is rooted, quite literally, in Islamic scripture. To cite one of many examples, in the Koran’s sura 8:12, Allah instructs Muslims: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.” Thus, Omar Abdel Rahman, the infamous “Blind Sheikh” I prosecuted for terrorism in the nineties, used to exhort followers:

Why do we fear the word “terrorist”? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. . . . The Koran mentions the words “to strike terror,” therefore we don’t fear to be described with “terrorism.” . . . We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.

The United States government tried to portray Abdel Rahman as deranged and representative of no mainstream current of Islamic thought. In point of fact, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni learning for over a millennium. His capacity to command terrorists, although he was physically incapable of committing terrorist acts, stemmed from his indisputable mastery of sharia and Islamic doctrine – subjects I daresay he knew a good deal more about than President Obama. He was spokesman for a well-known interpretation of Islam that, as the Iraqi Shiite cleric Ayad Jamal al-Din recently acknowledged, has existed for 1,400 years.

A Muslim who commits an atrocious act with the purpose of becoming Allah’s instrument for “instilling terror into the hearts of the unbelievers” has committed terrorism. A Muslim who employs violence with the intention of “intimidating or coercing a civilian population; influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affecting the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping,” to borrow from the federal statutory definition of international terrorism, has engaged interrorism. He need neither be wearing an al Qaeda team jersey nor be formally sworn in as a member of ISIS for us to state this palpable fact with confidence.

Shouldn’t we be able to agree on at least that much?

Attack on Canada’s Parliament – Gavin McInnes: “Western Liberals are to blame”

Published on Oct 22, 2014 by AlohaSnackbar01

“It’s time to get mad, Canada, it’s time to be irrational, it’s time to make rash decisions, OK? Let’s have some patriotism – let’s have some balls for once!”
- Gavin McInnes

Baby Killed When Suspected Terrorist Slams Car into Jerusalem Crowd

Police and rescue personnel at the scene where several people were injured when a car crashed into the Jerusalem light rail station on October 22, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90) Read more: Baby killed as car rams crowd in Jerusalem terror attack

Police and rescue personnel at the scene where several people were injured when a car crashed into the Jerusalem light rail station on October 22, 2014. (Photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Read more: Baby killed as car rams crowd in Jerusalem terror attack

by IPT News  •  Oct 22, 2014

A car driven by a suspected Hamas member crashed into a crowd at a light-rail station in Jerusalem Wednesday, killing a three month-old girl and injuring eight others.

Israeli officials confirmed that the suspect, Abdelrahman al-Shaludi, is a former Palestinian prisoner from Silwan who may be a Hamas member. Security camera footage apparently recorded the car as it drove onto the platform of the rail station and struck innocent Israeli civilians.

Click here to watch the video on YouTube.

Al-Shaludi was shot and killed by police as he tried to run away.

Hours later, dozens of masked Palestinians clashed with police forces in Silwan and Issawiya, setting tires ablaze and reportedly injuring a police officer following a fire bomb attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas of inciting violence that encouraged the suspected terrorist attack, the Jerusalem Post reports.

“This is how Abbas’ partners in government [Hamas] act. This is the same Abbas who, only a few days ago, incited toward a terrorist attack in Jerusalem,” he said.

This comes amid increased Palestinian attacks in Jerusalem, including rock throwing and Molotov cocktails.

A Hamas spokesperson said that if the incident at the rail station was a terrorist attack, it was justified.

Canadian Soldier Shot in Attack at Parliament Hill in Ottawa

 23OTTAWA-3-master675Paramedics transported a victim of the shooting. CreditAdrian Wyld/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press

OTTAWA — At least two gunmen traumatized the heart of the Canadian government on Wednesday, with one shooting a soldier guarding the National War Memorial and then entering the adjacent Parliament building, where multiple rounds were fired. Shooting also was reported at a nearby shopping mall.

Police officers rushed to secure the Parliament building and move occupants to safety as they hunted for what Canadian news reports said were possibly two or three assailants, in what had the appearance of a coordinated attack.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that one assailant was killed. The condition of the soldier who was shot was not immediately clear.

The shootings began about 10 a.m., just as the leaders of Parliament were holding their weekly meetings, suggesting the possibility of deliberate timing. Many of the lawmakers were rushed into secure rooms in the basement by guards.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had been inside Parliament at the time of the shooting but was evacuated safely, Canadian news reports said. The entire area, known as Parliament Hill, was placed on lockdown as police reinforcements arrived.

Footage from Globe reporter captures exchange of gun fire in Parliament Hill building Video by The Globe and Mail

Read more at New York Times

 

Also see:

The Top 10 Qur’an Verses to Understand ISIS — on The Glazov Gang

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. David Wood, host of the Trinity Channel’s live talk show, “Jesus or Muhammad?” He has been in more than 40 public debates with Muslims and he runs the website AnsweringMuslims.com.

EXPOSED: Jihadi kidnap and murder handbook… and plan to infiltrate British Army and police

  • The 268-page manual is called The Management Of Savagery
  • Template for terrorism was written by influential jihadi Abu Bakr Naji
  • It has been carefully studied by the terrorist commanders in Syria and Iraq
  • Reveals IS’s intention to target tourists at locations across Islamic world
  • Suggests method to kill hostages should maximise shock value in the West

 

By MARK NICOL:

Islamic fanatics are planning to infiltrate Britain’s Army and police forces to carry out brutal attacks, a chilling manifesto for terror used by Islamic State (IS) reveals.

The jihadi manual explains how the atrocities committed in the Middle East – including the brutal murders of British hostages David Haines and Alan Henning – are part of a wider strategy that includes plans to wreak mayhem in the UK.

The development comes after security sources revealed yesterday that thousands of terror suspects are being monitored in the UK. The Association of Chief Police Officers has also warned police officers about their personal safety in light of the threat from IS.

naji

Neither the Metropolitan Police nor the Ministry of Defence were willing last night to discuss the security procedures in place.

The 268-page terrorism guide called The Management Of Savagery reveals IS’s intention to:

  • Target tourists at locations across the Islamic world
  • Exploit the propaganda value of targeting Western journalists, and to try to capture oil workers
  • Strike the same strategic targets repeatedly in a bid to expose weaknesses in Western security.

The handbook also revealed that infiltration operations have been going on for years – meaning that a sleeper cell may already have get inside the MoD or a police force.

Written by influential jihadi Abu Bakr Naji, the guide has been carefully studied by the terrorist commanders in Syria and Iraq, who he tells: ‘Our battle is long and still in its beginning… However, its length provides an opportunity for infiltrating the adversaries. [We] should infiltrate the police forces, the armies, private security companies, sensitive civil institutions.’

Step-by-step jihad: Extracts from The Management Of Savagery, studied by commanders in Syria and Iraq

Step-by-step jihad: Extracts from The Management Of Savagery, studied by commanders in Syria and Iraq

He added that there were ‘exuberant youth in large numbers seeking jihad. Their desire for martyrdom indicates a proper condition of faith; all that is required is instructional polishing within the movement. It is possible to divert some of them to work in the security apparatus for infiltrating institutions.’

The template for terrorism states that the method chosen to kill hostages should maximise shock value in the West.

Read more at Daily Mail