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

Qatar Awareness Campaign: Texas A&M

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoPresident Mark A. Hussey Office of the President
1246 TAMU
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-1246

Dear Dr. Hussey:

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, the country whose capital hosts a campus of Texas A&M University. Since 2003, when Robert Gates (later Secretary of Defense) was president of the university, the Qatar Foundation has borne all campus development costs associated with the campus. (Also see here.)

Texas A&M University at Qatar plays an important part in the Qatari economy, educating students in disciplines including: chemical engineering, electrical and computer engineering, mechanical engineering, and petroleum engineering. Qatar possessing the world’s third largest natural gas reserves, and significant reserves of oil, engineering is particularly important to their economy.

The president of Texas A&M in 2003, when the Doha campus was established, was Robert Gates, who served until December 2006. Gates resigned from his role as president of the university to accept the nomination for Secretary of Defense by President George W. Bush, and went on to serve in the same role under President Barack Obama until July 2011, at perhaps the peak of the Arab Spring.

We urge to you read the information below, which includes evidence that Qatar is arguably the preeminent sponsor of terror in the world today. It is a benefactor of the genocidal armies of ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram; it is involved in Taliban narcotics trafficking through a relationship with the Pakistani National Logistics Cell; and profits from operating a virtual slave state. Qatar has leveraged its relationships with violent jihadi groups to its own benefit, and to the detriment of the United States and her allies.

So the public understands why this letter is addressed to you:

  • In May 2009, Texas A&M University at Qatar awarded the Medal for Leadership to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. Sheikh Tamim is the current Emir of Qatar, reigning through the same period of time which saw Qatar-backed Hamas attack Israel, and the rise of Qatar-backed ISIS.
  • In May, 2014, the university received $31.7 million in research awards from the Qatar National Research Fund.
  • In 2001, the Qatar Foundation funded an initiative in Doha, the Education City. It welcomed six American universities, Texas A&M among them (in 2003), to build campuses in the complex. The Qatar Foundation, which has noted links to terrorism, pays all associated campus development costs.
  • The University benefits Qatar financially; according to the University’s website, “Research activities that address issues important to the State of Qatar are valued at over $159 million.”       It also states that the University is “a valued resource of the State of Qatar.”

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 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: Mark Weichold, Dean, Texas A&M University at Qatar.  News and Information Services, Texas A&M.

Islamic State Video Calls Western Jihadists To Attack At Home

Capture (1)by John Rossomando :

A new Islamic State video released titled “Message of the Mujahid” Friday calls on Western jihadists unable to travel to territory controlled by the terrorist group to conduct attacks at home. The message also offers a pointed rebuke of British Prime Minister David Cameron and the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

“A message to all of the brothers who cannot do Hijrah, I advise you to respond to the call of the sheik, the mujahid (Holy Warrior) Mohammed al-Adnani, to cause terror in the hearts of the kuffar (unbelievers),” the unidentified Islamic State spokesman said. “You are living in the West, you can cause terror in the hearts of the kuffar, right in the center of the kuffar in the center of all that shirk (polytheism), you can cause terror right from within.

“So unlike us, you can cause real damage right within the heart of Dar al-Kuffar (Land of Unbelief), so rise up my brothers. Rise up!”

He starts out the video mocking Cameron and the Western leaders for thinking they can defeat the Islamic State with bombs dropped from the air, chiding them that if they were “real men” they would send ground troops to fight them.

“You know that in the hearts of your men, they’re cowards,” the spokesman says. “So America, you think you are a superpower, when in fact if you were a superpower, you wouldn’t need these 40 nations to come and fight us.

“Know that all power belongs to Allah, and Allah is with [the pious Muslims], so you could send your planes above us, but know that Allah is above your planes,” he continued. “You are fighting people who love death more than you love life.”

The message warns that the West and their Muslim allies can send all of their men, reserves an backups, and the Islamic State will send them back one-by-one in coffins.

In a special message to British Muslims, saying that the caliphate has been re-established and calls on them to leave the land of the unbelievers and come to the Islamic State.

“If now is not the time to do Hijrah then when is the time,” the spokesman asks. “Why are you still in Dar al-Kuffar? What does Dar al-Kuffar have to offer you? We have the Islamic State here, and we are fighting jihad.”

He tells them that the “despicable” West has nothing to offer them.

This reaffirms the Islamic State’s desperate desire to inspire attacks against Western targets and hopes to turn Muslims against their home countries.

Also see:

 

Qatar: A backer of international jihad terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq

qatar_awareness_campaign_logo

To the American Public:

In light of the wars and violent turbulence that currently engulf the Middle East and parts of Africa, a coalition of concerned citizens, journalists, and activists are launching a campaign to expose a most infamous and pernicious sponsor of Islamic terror: the Gulf state of Qatar.

Qatar, (pronounced “cutter,” or “gutter”), is, per capita, the richest country in the world ($93,352 in 2013).  This is partly due to the fact that they control the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, the North Dome field in the Persian Gulf.  It is also because Qatar has a mere 278,000 citizens, with a total population of 2.05 million; the remaining people in Qatar are a mix of well-paid ex-pats from countries such as the United States and Great Britain, and a substantial slave labor population.

A backer of international terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq, the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, exploit Islamic jihadi groups and their ties to illicit smuggling.

What is being smuggled?  Mostly narcotics and people – slaves.

Unfortunately, the United States is integrated into the Qatari “economy” as much as any other developed nation.  Doha, Qatar’s capital, is home to two of the largest American military bases in the entire world, as well as familiar companies like ExxonMobil, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.  Doha also hosts a number of campuses for prestigious American universities, such as Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell.  Other companies and organizations, ranging from the film production company Miramax to financial behemoths like Bank of America, have accepted significant amounts of investment by the al-Thanis.

Hamas, a Qatari client, launched a war against Israel this summer.  There is an ongoing genocide across Iraq and Syria, with mass graves and grisly beheadings of Christians and Shiite Muslims.  Boko Haram continues to rampage across Nigeria, threatening the political stability of Africa’s largest economy and population.  Qatari fingerprints are on each of crises.

Over the course of the next month, companies, organizations, and individuals with significant investments and activities with and in Qatar will be identified and contacted with the reality of their host country.  These letters, once published, will be sent to press outlets around the world.

We call on the parties identified in this campaign to review the evidence, which is all credibly sourced and vetted.  In light of the terror, slavery, genocide, and narcotics trafficking, we urge the parties to demand that Qatar immediately cease any and all involvement in these activities.

Sincerely,

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

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

Walid Shoebat
Shoebat.com

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

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

**

& 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.

Obama Praises Muslim Cleric Who Backed Fatwa on Killing of U.S. Soldiers

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo:

President Barack Obama favorably quoted and praised on Wednesday in his speech before the United Nations a controversial Muslim cleric whose organization has reportedly endorsed the terror group Hamas and supported a fatwa condoning the murder of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.

However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.

This is not the first time that the Obama administration has extoled Bin Bayyah, who also has served as the vice president of a Muslim scholars group founded by a radical Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called “for the death of Jews and Americans,” according to Fox News and other reports.

The State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau (CT) was forced to issue multiple apologies earlier this year after the Washington Free Beacon reported on its promotion of Bin Bayyah on Twitter.

“This should not have been tweeted and has since been deleted,” the CT Bureau tweeted at the time after many expressed anger over the original endorsement of Bin Bayyah.

However, it appears that Obama and the White House are still supportive of Bin Bayyah, who, despite his past statements, is still hailed by some as a moderate alternative to ISIL and al Qaeda.

“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript of his remarks.

“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the controversial cleric.

Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, when outrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.

While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against Israel.

He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.

Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that “resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.

Patrick Poole, a reporter and terrorism analyst who has long tracked Bin Bayyah, expressed shock that the Obama administration would endorse the cleric on the world stage.

“It is simply amazing that just a few months ago the State Department had to publicly apologize for tweeting out it’s support for Bin Bayyah, only to have Barack Obama go before the leaders of the entire world and publicly endorse Bin Bayyah’s efforts,” Poole said.

“It seems that nothing can stop this administration’s determination to rehabilitate Bin Bayyah’s image, transforming him from the Islamic cleric who issued the fatwa to kill Americans in Iraq and calling for the death of Jews to the de facto White House Islamic mufti,” he said.

This type of mentality has contributed to the administration’s foreign policy failures in the region,” Poole said.

“This is a snapshot of why this administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East is a complete catastrophe,” he said. “The keystone of their policy has been that so-called ‘moderate Islamists’ were going to be the great counter to al Qaeda. But if you take less than 30 seconds to do a Google search on any of these ‘moderate Islamists,’ you immediately find they are just a degree or two from the most hardcore jihadis and have little to no difference when it comes to condoning violence.”

A White House official said that the president’s remarks speak for themselves and declined to add anything further.