Tag Archives: war on terror

Radicals Moderates and Islamists

Posted on by
1

angry-muslimsBy Daniel Greenfield:

The radical-moderate continuum that has defined the dialogue on Islam in the War on Terror is not an authentic perspective, it is an observer perspective.

To the Western observer, a suicide bomber is radical, a Muslim Imam willing to perform gay weddings is moderate and the Muslim Brotherhood leader who supports some acts of terror, but not others, is moderately radical or radically moderate.

These descriptions tell us nothing about Islam or about what Muslims believe, but do tell us a great deal about its observers and what they believe. They turn Islam into inkblots that reveal more about the interpreter than the splotch of ink being interpreted.

Muslims are not radical or moderate. The radical-moderate continuum is how liberal countries rate individuals and countries to decide how well they will harmonize with the national and international consensus. Even if that consensus only exists in their own mind. The label of moderate does not mean a rejection of violence. Otherwise it could hardly be applied to the Muslim Brotherhood. What it means is a willingness to collaborate with Western governments and progressive organizations.

The radical-moderate labels are useful for liberals, but useless for anyone who wants to asses reality. It is tied into a number of false notions that are necessary for maintaining the status quo of liberal democracies. Notions such as the equal moral stature and interchangeability of all religions and peoples are key to running a liberal democracy, but they make it impossible to have a rational conservation about Islam.

In liberal democracies, no one really discusses Islam as a religion. That discussion is preemptively aborted by the defense of the general category of religion. To criticize Islam is to challenge the category of protection for all religions, much as to attack Communism during the Cold War was to attack the First Amendment.

The general category makes it necessary to subdivide the specific religion or ideology into a moderate majority and a tiny minority of extremists. This categorization tells us nothing about Islam and everything about the political and intellectual classes that refuse to rationally discuss it.

Islam is neither moderate nor extreme. It simply is. Extremism and moderate are an observer perspective. That does not mean that Islam is all one thing, an impermeable block. But the one thing that it is not, is liberal.

Liberal Islam is secular Islam, in the same way that liberal Christianity and liberal Judaism are both secularized in their subservience to liberal values. There are indeed secular Muslims out there, but they are a tiny minority of secularists even in the secular West. Their influence is minimal. And it likely would be minimal even if the Saudis weren’t spending fortunes in oil money to control the expressions of Islam in the West.

Even these secular Muslims are not necessarily non-violent. What they lack is the broader worldview of Islamic nationalism, that some label Islamism. They will support Arab Nationalist terrorism, which defines peoples by nation, rather than the Islamic Nationalism, which defines them by religion.

Islamic nationalism is not a religion. Nor is it a separate branch of Islam. It is influenced by movements within Islam, but those movements are largely reformist efforts aimed at returning to a more uncompromised Islam. And it is not limited to these movements. The majority of Muslims identify with Islamic nationalism to some degree.

Islamism is simply the political implementation of Islam which is already political. Islamism does not politicize an apolitical religion, it applies a political religion to politics. And most Muslims support that for the simple reason that they are Muslims and Islam is their religion. They may quibble over some of the details and they may be fooled by some smooth talk, but the same may be said of many supporters of National Socialism and Bolshevism. What matters is not whether every single German who thought Hitler had some good ideas supported the concentration camps or whether every single Communist supported the Gulags. Certainly not all did. What matters is that they supported the systems and leaders that made those things possible even when the warning signs were there.

muslim rageNo Islamist movement represents a complete break with Islam. Not even a partial break. The greatest stressors that Islamic terrorist groups impose on their religious codes is the treatment of other Muslims as infidels. And that alone is a telling statement about the tolerance for interfaith violence in their religion. It isn’t war that stresses Islamic codes, it’s internecine warfare.

Western observers may label those who identify with Al Qaeda as extremists and those who identify with the Muslim Brotherhood as moderates, but these are cosmetic differences. Islamist organizations are not a separate religion. They are the practical implementation of the religion. If we are to have a truer continuum, it would run from secular to religious, rather than moderate to extremist.

What makes Islamists dangerous are not their means, such as flying planes into skyscrapers, but their ends, which involve a global theocracy that reduces non-Muslims to enemies and slaves. Whether this end is accomplished through bombs or elections makes little difference. Hitler and Stalin would be no different whether they won elections or seized power by force. Not so long as their ends involved war, mass slavery and genocide.

The trouble with Islamic nationalism is Islam. There is no way of getting around that. Terrorism is an aspect of the problem. But the problem is a violent system that views the lives of non-Muslims and dissenting Muslims as worthless.

When Muslim terrorists set off bombs in Boston, Mumbai, Jerusalem or anywhere else, what they are really communicating is not some passionate grievance, but an ideology that has no regard for the lives of non-Muslims. That same message is communicated by the treatment of Western prisoners in Dubai or the treatment of Western hostages in Nigeria. It is a message rooted in the xenophobia of the Koran and it is a warning of the system that these acts of oppression and terror are intended to build.

***************

Islamism won in the Arab Spring. It won the Western Diaspora. The idea that we can detach Islam from its political application by branding its political application extremist has failed. The two are intertwined. We cannot weaken Islamism except by weakening Islam, economically, militarily and demographically.

Read more

Related

Did the US have enough indicators and warnings for Algeria?

Posted on by
2

arc-of-instability1

 

by

In the intelligence world, indicators and warnings are essential. They are key pieces of data expressing enough insight allowing an analyst to determine threats, proposed threat levels, and assist in forecasting. With the ongoing hostage situation still unfolding in Algeria (still ongoing as this is being written), it’s critical to question whether the US or our Western allies had enough indicators and warnings to caution citizens living and or working in Algeria.

In May, Homeland Security Today published a piece titled West Africa: Al Qaeda’s New Home. It revealed how Al Qaeda shifted its base from Afghanistan and Pakistan into West Africa—specifically Mali. There was enough information found within to allow any open source intelligence analyst to obtain what is known as “chatter.” That chatter could be observed as the first warning.

Then, in October, Homeland Security Today released another article title The Quint-Border Region: The World’s Most Under-Reported Terror Hot Spot. Within it, five key nations were identified in western Africa demonstrating unprecedented amounts of activities which have unfolded over the years via Al Qaeda linked terrorist groups. These incidents were sheer warnings.

The first week of December could arguably be construed as one of the biggest indicators demonstrating how austere the region has truly become. Online media outlet Magharebia divulged in an article title Belmokhtar breaksaway from AQIM. Anyone who ever worked intelligence knows when key leaders break away from a large terror group, they later form their own. And that’s exactly what Mokhtar Belmokhtar did.

Belmokhtar broke away from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Magrheb and formed his own Islamist group called Al Muwaki un bi Al-Dima (Signatories of Blood). A video tape of the one eyed Islamist was created and delivered to at least one international media outlet explaining his intent.

Belmokhtar is no small fish in the Islamic terror world. He is a highly skilled and trained fighter who quickly moved up the ranks in Al Qaeda after fulfilling his mission in Afghanistan back in 1991. He eventually returned to Algeria where he was born and later assisted in a horrifically violent coup of Mali’s government.

Only a few weeks after Magharebia posted their news about Belmokhtar’s split from AQIM, the Jamestown Foundation released a very well written report on the situation in West Africa, specifically revealing Belmokhtar’s future endeavors.

With this information, why did the United States State Department’s Office of Securityand Cooperation release just two travel warnings for Algeria in 2012? Worse, why were they created in May and September having nothing more recent knowing the entire West African region was imploding?

Yes, these two travel warnings could have also sparked interest for an intelligence analyst to create something more suitable for the Western free world, specifically Americans living and working in the region.

The truth is, America and our western allies knew how volatile the entire west African region had become. Yet for some reason, similar to Benghazi, they sat on the back of their heels proving to be inept protectors of their citizens.

Now, as the tragedy in Algeria continues to unfold, reports have revealed at least 35 hostages and 15 terrorists were killed in Algerian military led airstrikes. This reporting remains extremely vague and maintains limited details.  As mentioned last night on Canadian Television News, this tragedy would end in bloodshed.

Kerry Patton, a combat disabled Veteran is author of Contracted: America’s Secret Warriors.

Refusing to Name the Enemy in the War on Terror

Posted on by
5

AFLC:

Watch this skit from the short-lived Fox News comedy show The 1/2 Hour News Hour; it is funny but tragic because it is satire played out in real life:

It is well-known that by refusing to identify sharia-driven Islam as the enemy in the War on Terror, the Obama administration has seriously undermined the ability to combat this existential threat to American security.  Naming or identifying the enemy is important because it allows us to identify the enemy’s threat doctrine–that which motivates his war (i.e., jihad)–and to orient on that threat doctrine (i.e., sharia), not some fictional narrative that we would wish it to be (“hijacked Islam,” extremism, etc.). Watch this real-life tragedy unfold in the two videos below:

 

 

The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom.  It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  Visit their website at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org

American Islamists Push Negative American Image

Posted on by
1

by Steven Emerson, IPT News: Traveling in Bangladesh last weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was confronted with a question she said “hurts me so much.”

Why, she was asked, is there “a common perception held by many young people that the U.S. is anti-Muslim?”

“I mean, it’s a painful perception to hear about, Clinton said, “and I deeply regret that anyone believes that or propagates it.”

There may be discrimination, but that cuts across racial, religious and ethnic lines, she said. American law and culture “has gone probably farther than anywhere else in the world in trying to guarantee legal protections for people.”

Claims that America is anti-Muslim come from people “who, for their own reasons, try to politicize what the United States has done in a way that I think is unfortunate and unfair,” she said.

In many cases, however, the message that America is hostile toward Muslims is promoted by the same people Clinton’s State Department and other Cabinet-level agencies turn to as outreach partners.

We’ve noted repeatedly how national Islamist groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Muslim Advocates and others have pushed the notion that America’s legal and military war on terror amounts to a war on Islam.

It’s an irresponsible message for two reasons. It is wrong. And it has been proven to be among the most effective messages in radicalizing young Muslims. Yet the same groups who perpetuate it in America find themselves embraced by the government. Officials legitimize and empower them by attending and speaking at their events rather than building the profile of Muslim voices who tout the freedom and opportunity their families find here.

Most recently, Cyrus McGoldrick, civil rights director for CAIR’s New York chapter, told a newspaper that a spate of arson attacks by a lone suspect on mosques was driven by bigotry even though police say personal vendettas were in play. In one case, a mosque had refused to let the suspect use its restroom.

“It was only a matter of time before the war abroad became a war at home,” McGoldrick said. “Fearmongering about Islam and other American minorities have ripped this country apart. Warmongering politicians and willing media confirm this narrative, the warrantless incomprehensive surveillance of the Muslim community by the NYPD confirms this narrative and the destruction of the Constitution in the name of the war on terror confirms this narrative.”

McGoldrick was angered by disclosures of New York Police Department surveillance of public settings and its review of web pages as part of its efforts to identify pockets of radicalization among the local Muslim community.

His organization joined 15 other groups, including the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America in sponsoring a rally against “NYPD and CIA Repression” last November. During that event, Shahina Parveen Siraj, whose son Shahwar Matin Siraj was convicted of plotting to bomb New York’s Herald Square subway station, said, “In addition to the wars abroad, there are wars here against Muslims, African Americans, immigrants and the poor.” Siraj’s claim of entrapment was rejected on appeal.

Shahina Siraj’s claims were echoed by DePaul University Professor Laith Saud, a frequent host of CAIR-Chicago events. “But neo-cons and neo-liberals are more interested in promoting war against the entire Muslim world and our own interests for inexplicable reasons,” Saud said.

The State Department has sent CAIR officials abroad on goodwill missions, including at least two by Michigan director Dawud Walid.

During a 2010 trip to Mali, Walid depicted American law enforcement as inherently hostile toward Muslims. “Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001 American Muslims have been subjected to increased discrimination from racial and religious profiling by law enforcement.”

CAIR officials have no problem routinely appearing on Press TV, Iran’s state-controlled English-language outlet, to criticize American treatment of Muslims.

Read more…

Reality Check? U.S. Declares ‘War on Terrorism’ Over

Posted on by
Reply
by: Arnold Ahlert at Radical Islam:

On Monday it was revealed that the CIA had thwarted a new al-Qaeda-sponsored terror plot hatched in Yemen. The scheme was brought down by a man said to have been a mole for the CIA and Saudi intelligence. After infiltrating the Yemeni cell, the agent enlisted in a suicide mission designed to bring down a U.S.-bound airliner, but turned over his equipment and intelligence once the plan was set in motion. The success of the counterterrorism mission — a story full of intrigue, double agents and high-stakes deception — is a testament to the prowess of U.S. defense capabilities, to be sure. Yet, the event also serves as a grim reminder that recent declarations by Obama surrogates suggesting that the war on terror is “over” have been overstated, to say the least.

On Tuesday, John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, contended that the discovery of the plot indicates that al-Qaeda remains a threat to the United States a year after Bin Laden’s death. Keep in mind, however, that Mr. Brennan himself revealed in 2009 that the terms “war on terrorism,” “jihadists” and “global war” were no longer acceptable within the Obama White House. At the time, he did concede that we were still “at war with al-Qaida,” yet he insisted that using the three above terms gave the terrorist organization unwarranted legitimacy, and further implied that America is at war with all of Islam.

The “we’re only at war with al-Qaeda” motif was amplified by an unnamed “senior State Department official” in a National Journal article written by Michael Hirsh in April 2012. “The war on terror is over,” said the official. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

Despite the ridiculous assertion by Hirsh that, if Osama bin Laden were still alive, he “would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden’s confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al-Qaeda era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism,” al-Qaeda remains a potent force.

Despite the ridiculous assertion by Hirsh that, if Osama bin Laden were still alive, he “would see a U.S. administration that, having killed most of bin Laden’s confederates, is now ready to move into a post-al-Qaeda era and engage with Islamist politicians as long as they renounce violence and terrorism,” al-Qaeda remains a potent force.

Yemen, Pakistan Nigeria and Somalia represent relatively new and fertile feeding grounds for the terrorist organization — unless one wishes to engage in another round of semantic obscurantism. Such obscurantism attempts to ignore the reality that groups such as Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and Somalia’s al Shabaab espouse the very same jihadist ambitions as al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Furthermore, leaders of these affiliates have sworn “bayat,” or loyalty, to current al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, even as they offer him funding and fighters. The Wall Street Journal’s Seth Jones offers the ultimate reality check: “None of these organizations existed a decade ago,” he writes.

Hirsh’s other contention, that the so-called Arab Spring “opened up new channels of expression, supplying for the first time in decades an alternative to violent jihad” is also undone. Documents taken from Bin Laden’s compound and reviewed by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reveal that Bin Laden was seeking a way to “reattach al-Qaeda to the Muslim mainstream.” Ignatius re-iterates the success al-Qaeda has enjoyed in Yemen, but he notes that Egypt’s Salafist party, “which like al-Qaeda traces its roots to the Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, has 13 seats in the new Egyptian parliament.” He refers to such political successes as “electoral bin Ladenism.”

There are other notable al-Qaeda success stories as well. It planted its flag on a Benghazi courthouse in post-Gaddafi Libya last November, and has made inroads into the Syrian opposition attempting to overthrow butcher Bashar Assad, a reality revealed by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February. Thus, it appears the demise of the organization responsible for 9/11 has been greatly exaggerated.

Despite these sobering assessments, one of the reasons the administration likes the focus to remain on al-Qaeda is that it takes the focus off other inconvenient truths. For example, instead of pursuing victory in Afghanistan, the Obama administration has not only been negotiating with the Taliban, but secretly releasing high-level Taliban detainees from a military prison in Afghanistan — with the warning that if they are caught attacking American troops, they will be detained once again. Measured against the Taliban’s long record of savagery, such a warning amounts to delusional thinking.

Read more…

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist.

Obama Admin Embracing ‘Legitimate Islamism’

Posted on by
3

PJ tatler:

The National Journal reports:

In an article in the current National Journal called “The Post Al Qaida Era,” I write that the Obama administration is taking a new view of Islamist radicalism. The president realizes he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively “moderate” Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. (The Muslim Brotherhood officially renounced violence decades ago, leading then-dissident radicals such as Ayman al-Zawahiri to join al Qaida.)

It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists. “The war on terror is over,” one senior State Department official who works on Mideast issues told me. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama’s savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.

Keeping some of them locked up at Gitmo has probably helped, too.

The administration’s quiet pro-Islamist approach goes hand in hand with something Rep. Allen West has been warning about lately: That the Obama administration is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to influence policy in the US.

Rep. Allen West warned Monday that reports of the FBI’s training manual being edited to scrap portions considered offensive to the Muslim community signaled an increasingly “one-way street” level of tolerance that could lead to “cultural suicide.”

“We have to understand when tolerance becomes a one-way street, it will lead to cultural suicide and we should not allow the Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups to be influencing our national security strategy,” the Florida Republican said on “Fox & Friends.”

West noted that the report of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan— who has been accused of the fatal shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas, that killed 13 and wounded dozens more — makes no reference to Islamic Jihadism or Muslim extremism, and also fails to mention the suspect’s alleged association with Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Strange times we live in: The American administration steps up drone attacks on one type of violent Islamist, it lies that Republicans have declared “war” on women, while it is working with Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere who actually do wage war on women (along with non-Muslims of all types) wherever they can, every single day.

 

Maybe someone should send Bill Whittle’s whiteboard lesson on the Muslim Brotherhood to Obama.