The Necessary War (Part II)

20140118_largemuslimislamprotestsLby JOHN GALT:

Unlike in the areas of economic and political restructuring of the old USA, where the president is so faithfully following the teachings of his ideological predecessors, in dealing with the issue of terrorism his policies are full of strategic blunders and tactical inconsistencies.

In Egypt, President Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood and president Mohamed Morsi from the outset. Even after Morsi was ousted, Obama continued efforts to reinstate the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Why? As his argument goes, the Egyptians had an election and the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected. Therefore, it is a legitimate government and we must support a democracy. I hate to point out to the constitutional scholar that he is confusing elections with democracy. We should have learned by now that elections do not necessarily result in democratic institutions. Elections are only an instrument of democracy, no more, no less. This instrument of democracy in many instances has malfunctioned and provided legitimacy to oppressive and totalitarian regimes. There are number of examples of where democratic elections failed to produce a democracy: Hamas in the West Bank, Salvador Allende in Chili, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and Adolf Hitler in Germany, to name just a few. We see the almost identical development in Syria, where the United States finds itself on the side of terrorists.

To be fair, Obama is not the first president of the United States to actively support terrorists; it would seem that supporting terrorists has been a long-standing policy of the United States government and cuts across party lines.

President Carter supported Ayatollah Khomeini and called him a “peaceful and holy man.” In August 1982, Ronald Reagan sent Marines to Lebanon to save the Palestine Liberation Organization from complete annihilation when the Israelis cornered terrorists in Beirut. Just think about this utterly obscene picture-American Marines protecting PLO terrorists. America paid a heavy price for the involvement when 241 U.S. Marines died in a terrorist attack on their compound at Beirut International Airport in October 1983. President Clinton turned down at least three offers by foreign governments to help seize Osama bin Laden.

When Jeremiah Alvesta Wright Jr., Obama’s “spiritual mentor,” proclaimed in a sermon that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” although it was a reprehensible statement, he may have had a point. Decades of frolicking with terrorists bears a heavy price, and it’s an interesting mental exercise to play “if only.” If only President Carter had not betrayed the Shah of Iran, contemporary Iran would not be run by ayatollahs. If only President Reagan had not sent the Marines to Lebanon, the Israelis would have eliminated the PLO once and for all and thousands of Israelis and 241 brave Marines would still be alive. If only President Clinton had killed Osama bin Laden, 9/11 might never have happened. If only America was more prudent, our leaders more determined. If only…our presidents and the American people had learned from history.

The president, by practicing the politics of appeasement, has a difficult time coming to terms with the teachings of his ideological mentor and the father of modern terrorism, Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, who both perpetrated terrorism and was on the receiving end, taught that “Terror can be conquered only with greater terror.”  

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

 

Ending the War on Terror

terr-450x327

Calling an end to the “war on terror” is not a solution, because terror is not the enemy – Islamic supremacism is

By :

In a piece last week in The Atlantic entitled “Terrorism Could Never Threaten American Values—the ‘War on Terror’ Does,” James Fallows says it’s high time that President Obama shows he understands the truth of that article’s title, and calls to put a stop to the “open-ended ‘Global War on Terror.’”

Fallows, a longtime national correspondent for The Atlantic, has argued at least as far back as 2006 that we had al Qaeda on the run, and that even though its “successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers… its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing.”

There is some undeniable truth to this. All one has to do is look at how Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, who wasn’t even successful in his attempt to bring down Flight 63 from Paris to Miami twelve years ago, transformed our air travel experience into a tedious, massively bureaucratic and intrusive TSA nightmare, detrimentally impacting our economy in the process (in a succinct summation of Fallows’ argument, famed atheist Richard Dawkins recently tweeted his irritation over what he deemed the pointless idiocy of airport security extremes: “Bin Laden has won.”). And of course, one could look at how terrorist acts have resulted, even more intrusively, in the surveillance state that emerged under George W. Bush and which has metastasized exponentially under Barack Obama.

“But if it saves a few lives…” goes the seemingly reasonable rationale for all this “security.” Of course we should protect American lives; the question is, are there more effective and reasonable ways to accomplish that and to combat terrorism which also don’t require severely diminishing our freedoms and individual rights?

Fallows acknowledges the seriousness of terrorist acts themselves. “Attacks can be terribly destructive, as we saw in hideous form 12 years ago,” he continued in last week’s article. “But the long-term threat to national interests and values comes from the response they invoke. In the case of 9/11: the attack was disastrous, but in every measurable way the rash, foolish, and unjustified decision to retaliate by invading Iraq hurt America in more lasting ways.”

Perhaps Fallows misspoke here, because surely he knows we didn’t invade Iraq in retaliation for the 9/11 attack. We went into Iraq because during a “decade of defiance,” as Bush put it, Saddam Hussein had become an increasingly clear and present danger: harboring terrorists, financing terrorism, developing weapons of mass destruction, and ignoring years of UN demands about those weapons. Maybe Fallows means that going after Saddam was an unnecessary extension of the ill-named war on terror, but the “lasting ways” in which America has been hurt in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted more from our ongoing, blood-and-treasure-sucking, nation-building efforts there than from our invasions of those countries.

Read more at Front Page

 

Inability To Call Terrorism What It Is Dooms U.S. Policy To Incoherence

pic_giant_080813_SM_Obama-Lexicological-War (1)

For President Obama, the word “Islamist” may not be uttered. Language must be devised to disguise the unpleasantness. Result? The world’s first lexicological war.

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER:

Jen Psaki, blameless State Department spokeswoman, explained that the hasty evacuation of our embassy in Yemen was not an evacuation but “a reduction in staff.”

This proved a problem because the Yemeni government had already announced (and denounced) the “evacuation” — the word normal folks use for the panicky ordering of people onto planes headed out of country.

Thus continues the administration’s penchant for wordplay, the bending of language to fit a political need.

In Janet Napolitano’s famous formulation, terror attacks are now “man-caused disasters.” And the “global war on terror” is no more. It’s now an “overseas contingency operation.”

Nidal Hasan proudly tells a military court that he, a soldier of Allah, killed 13 American soldiers in the name of jihad. But the massacre remains officially classified as an act not of terrorism but of “workplace violence.”

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others are killed in an al-Qaida-affiliated terror attack — and for days it is waved off as nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration gone bad.

After all, famously declared Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?

Well, it makes a difference, first, because truth is a virtue.

Second, because if you keep lying to the American people, they may seriously question whether anything you say — for example, about the benign nature of NSA surveillance — is not another self-serving lie.

And third, because leading a country through yet another long twilight struggle requires not just honesty but clarity. This is a president who to this day cannot bring himself to identify the enemy as radical Islam.

Just Tuesday night, explaining the U.S. embassy closures across the Muslim world, he cited the threat from “violent extremism.”

The word “extremism” is meaningless. People don’t devote themselves to being extreme. Extremism has no content. The extreme of what? In this war, an extreme devotion to the supremacy of a radically fundamentalist vision of Islam and to its murderous quest for dominion over all others.

But for President Obama, the word “Islamist” may not be uttered. Language must be devised to disguise the unpleasantness.

Result? The world’s first lexicological war. Parry and thrust with linguistic tricks, deliberate misnomers and ever more transparent euphemisms. Next: armor-piercing onomatopoeias and amphibious synecdoches.

This would all be comical and merely peculiar if it didn’t reflect a larger, more troubling reality: The confusion of language is a direct result of a confusion of policy — which is served by constant obfuscation.

Obama doesn’t like this terror war. He particularly dislikes its unfortunate religious coloration, which is why “Islamist” is banished from his lexicon. But soothing words, soothing speeches in various Muslim capitals, soothing policies — “open hand,” “mutual respect” — have yielded nothing.

The war remains. Indeed, under his watch, it has spread. And as commander in chief he must defend the nation.

Read More at Investor’s Business Daily

 

Hiroshima’s Lessons for the War on Terror

 Our greatest weakness is that we want our enemies to love us. We turn wars into humanitarian exercises that inflict a much worse toll on both sides than an actual war would have and then we wonder what went wrong.

warBy :

In the summer of ’45, the United States concluded a war that had come to be seen by some as unwinnable after the carnage at Iwo Jima, with a bang.

On August 6th, the bomb fell on Hiroshima. And then on the 9th, it was Nagasaki’s turn. Six days later, Japan, which had been preparing to fight to the last man, surrendered.

For generations of liberals, those two names would come to represent the horror of America’s war machine, when they actually represented a pragmatic ruthlessness that saved countless American and Japanese lives.

There can hardly be a starker contrast to our endless unwinnable nation-building exercises than the way that Truman cut the Gordian Knot and avoided a long campaign that would have depopulated Japan and destroyed the lives of a generation of American soldiers.

That we can talk about Japan as a victory is attributable to that decision to use the bomb. Without it, Japan would have been another Iraq or Vietnam, we might have won it at a terrible cost, but it would have destroyed our willingness to fight any future wars and would have given the USSR an early victory in Asia.

Professional soldiers understand the humanitarian virtue of ruthlessness. The pacifist civilian may gasp in horror at the sight of a mushroom cloud, but the professional soldier knows that the longer way around would have left every Japanese city looking far worse than Hiroshima.

More people died in the Battle of Okinawa on both sides than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9 out of 10 buildings were destroyed. As much as a third of the island’s population committed suicide, fled into caves that were bombed, were used as human shields and were killed when American soldiers found themselves unable to distinguish between Japanese soldiers posing as civilians and actual civilians.

It does not take much to imagine what trying to capture Honshu would have looked like. Take the worst horrors of Vietnam and keep multiplying until you run out of imagination. If you run low, remember that at Okinawa the military was handing out grenades to civilians and its home defense plans involved encouraging the civilian population to commit suicide attacks.

The United States military did not understand the fanatical mindset of its enemies, but it did understand that they had to be fought with equal ruthlessness. And now, nearly seventy years later, on another hot August, we find ourselves in another seemingly unwinnable war.

At the Wall Street Journal, former media figure Ted Koppel popped up with an editorial warning that an overreaction to terrorism is more dangerous than terrorism. Summoning up the left’s favorite argument after the September 11 attacks; he wrote that more Americans had died in car accidents, ladder accidents and of various diseases than in the World Trade Center.

Doubtlessly more Americans died in some assortment of accidents in 1941 than at Pearl Harbor. Instead of calling it a day that will live forever in infamy, FDR could have given a typical Obama speech warning the public not to jump to any conclusions.

Obama gave one of those conclusion-jumping speeches after Nidal Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre. He gave another one after the Boston Marathon bombings.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

The War on Terror is Over: Now What?

images (67)by Clare M. Lopez:

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us.” — President Barack Obama , National Defense University, 23 May 23, 2013

Just a few days before the Memorial Day holiday weekend in May 2013, the President of the United States declared unilateral surrender in what used to be called the Global War on Terror [GWOT] – that is, the war to defend the U.S. and the free world against the forces of Islamic jihad and Islamic Shariah Law. No, he did not actually wave a white flag from the podium, but he may as well have done: in calling for an end to the “Authorization to Use Military Force” (AUMF); declaring al-Qa’eda “on the road to defeat” (again—or maybe it is ‘still’), and expressing reservations about “keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing,” Barack Obama made it clear that he hasn’t the stomach for this fight. It is not that the war is actually over, of course, but rather that, as Andrew McCarthy put it, “he wants it to be over.”

In an odd sort of way, though, Obama’s abandonment of the field of battle to the enemy clears away a good deal of the “clutter” that has attended the so-called GWOT over the last dozen years since the 9/11 attacks. Obama even used language that may help the average American and those observers who see things rather differently from him to begin formulating a new, coherent, and comprehensive kind of national security strategy geared actually to defeating an Islamic supremacist adversary.

The president rightly noted that “[w]e need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills, a battle of ideas.” He even went so far as to reference Islamic “extremists,” and acknowledged that there remains a “pull towards extremism.” Of course, after once again accurately mentioning that a “common ideology” fuels the terrorism we face, he shied quickly away from explaining just what that “common ideology” might be and instead launched into a shopping list of surrender terms that he is betting will somehow sap the fighting spirit of Islamic jihad, perhaps, one assumes, by the sheer force of their reasonableness. Among these are the U.S. retreat from Afghanistan and fewer boots on the ground everywhere (they are claimed to be “self-defeating“); suspension of the “Authorization to Use of Military Force;” partnerships with jihadist state powers, such as Pakistan; addressing “underlying grievances,” such as poverty and sectarian hatred (no details on how to get Sunnis and Shi’as to start liking each other, though); more foreign aid (perhaps to some of the oil rich jihad nurseries such as Qatar or Saudi Arabia?); greater respect for state sovereignty (Libya, Syria and Israel presumably excepted); and, of course, closing Guantanamo Bay [GITMO]. The one that’s sure to grab jihadi attention immediately, though, is the president’s determination to “be humbler.” Unfortunately for the president’s strategy, the ideology of this particularly savage enemy tends to treat “humility” as groveling — and as an invitation to double down on aggression.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

#StandDown – Obama Surrenders the War on Terror

president-obama-at-the-national-defense-university-in-washington-dc-446x350

By :

“Don’t be afraid to see what you see,” President Reagan counseled in his farewell address. We would do well to heed his advice as President Obama attempts to lead America backwards, to September 10. Make no mistake: That was the not-so-subtle message he sent last week during his speech at the National Defense University—a speech that was so full of inaccuracies that one is left to conclude the president is either living in an alternate universe or willfully disregarding the facts. Just consider some of the statements he made.

1. “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.”

In fact, Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured 32 others during his shooting rampage at Ft. Hood in November 2009—an attack authorized by al Qaeda’s franchise in Yemen (AQAP). Since the U.S. Army—no doubt following orders far up the chain of command—refuses to classify the Ft. Hood shooting as a terrorist attack, the survivors’ injuries and acts of bravery cannot be categorized as “combat related.”

In addition, the Boston Marathon bombing was a large-scale attack carried out by individuals who were radicalized to jihad and trained by jihadist elements in Russia.

Moreover, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, inspired and trained by AQAP, almost took down a passenger plane in December 2009; and Faisal Shahzad, trained by jihadists in Pakistan, deployed an IED in Times Square in 2010. Just as catching a thief in the act doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed a crime, the fact that these attacks failed does not mean they were not attacks.

2. “The core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on the path to defeat…They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston.”

Like a five-year-old, the president seems to believe that if he says something often enough and loud enough, it will become true. In fact, al Qaeda affiliates did carry out the attacks on Benghazi. No matter what the final draft of those infamous talking points said, several of the attackers were al Qaeda operatives.

3. “Unrest in the Arab world has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.”

In fact, American acquiescence and aloofness have allowed extremists to gain a foothold in these places.

Read more at Front Page

 

Radicals Moderates and Islamists

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

Did the US have enough indicators and warnings for Algeria?

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

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

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

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’

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.