Liveleak, Sept. 27, 2016:
Liveleak, Sept. 27, 2016:
H/T Vlad Tepes
The first key is do not use the Koran and Allah, because the Koran is structured to be hard to understand. Instead, use the Sunna of Mohammed. The Koran says 91 times that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and he is very easy to understand. We find Mohammed in his traditions, the Hadith, and his biography, the Sira.
When we use Mohammed to explain Islam, we do what the Koran commands. Some Muslims might say that a particular hadith may not valid (meaning they don’t like what it says), but know that almost every hadith that I use is called Sahih (authentic), since I use Bukhari and Abu Muslim.
Sometimes you meet a Muslim who rejects all of the Sunna, so how do you use Mohammed? Simple, the Koran by itself cannot be understood by any person, without knowing the life of Mohammed. No Mohammed equals no understanding of the Koran.
Actually, there is an oddity about the Koran. It is said to be the perfect, exact words of Allah. However, the perfect Koran cannot be understood without knowing Mohammed. However, the life of Mohammed and his traditions were written by people who never met him, but wrote down what they heard from others. In a court of law, this is called hearsay. Hearsay is usually not admissible in our courts. So the perfect book cannot be understood without evidence that cannot be used in our courts. Odd, isn’t it?
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses two recent protests by Muslims against the labeling of the 9/11 hijackers as Islamic terrorists, and shows how they’re part of ongoing efforts to intimidate Americans into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.
Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 27, 2016:
The evidence is scant that Arcan Cetin, a Muslim migrant from Turkey, murdered five people in Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington last Friday night in the name of jihad and Islam, but the evidence that does exist is striking. Amid his busy online activity, Cetin posted admiration for the Islamic State caliph al-Baghdadi and Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei and a call for Muslims to repeat “SubhanAllah” multiple times.
It’s hard to imagine a scenario in which someone who did not have jihad sympathies would post anything positive about Baghdadi or Khamenei, but the problem in Cetin’s case is that these references come without any supporting context. Dahir Adan, who stabbed nine people in a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota last week, had a sparse social media presence, but did take the time to list the Qur’an as his favorite book on his Facebook page. Cetin, who by contrast was all over social media, never speaks about Islam or jihad – except in the posts about Baghdadi and Khamenei, and the “SubhanAllah” post.
And so NBC News reported that “when asked on Sunday whether they could rule out terrorism as a motive, Mount Vernon police Lt. Chris Cammock said no.” It couldn’t be ruled out, but there was no initial indication that Arcan Cetin was a hardcore true believer a la Orlando jihad mass murderer Omar Mateen, who called 911 in the midst of his massacre to declare his allegiance to the Islamic State and repeatedly proclaimed that his murders were for Allah.
But Cetin could be something even worse. CBS News reported that he “was described by those who knew him as ‘creepy’ and a ‘bully,’ and he had a handful of arrests for assaulting his stepfather, as well as a DUI.” He was “reportedly ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation in August 2015, and that was completed as of March 2016.”
He scared at least one neighbor: “Amber Cathey, 21, lived in an apartment next to Cetin for the past three months and said she was so frightened by him that she complained to apartment management and kept a stun gun handy. Cathey said she blocked him on Snapchat after he sent her a photo of his crotch. ‘He was really creepy, rude and obnoxious,’ Cathey said.”
A high school classmate recalled that Cetin “was very hurtful towards girls. He would sexually harass them. And bully a lot of them.”
So Cetin had a history of violent, abusive behavior, and sexually harassed women. Not coincidentally, he comes from a cultural that sanctifies violent, abusive behavior, particularly toward women: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them” (Qur’an 4:34). The Qur’an also teaches that Infidel women can be lawfully taken for sexual use (cf. its allowance for a man to take “captives of the right hand,” 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (33:59) The implication there is that if women do not cover themselves adequately with their outer garments, they may be abused, and that such abuse would be justified.
Arcan Cetin may not have known or cared about any of those Qur’an passages. But he may have lived in an environment in which such attitudes were taken for granted. Ex-Muslim cartoonist Bosch Fawstin has recounted how, even growing up in a secular, non-observant Muslim household, anti-Semitism and misogyny were commonplace and taken for granted. Even though no one in the house was particularly devout, no one thought to question the bedrock assumptions that Jews were evil and women were inferior.
If that is the kind of household Arcan Cetin, another apparently secular Muslim, grew up in, he and people like him should concern authorities even more than people like Omar Mateen and the San Bernardino killers, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. Mateen, Farook and Malik were all devout and observant Muslims; Cetin, at least as far as we know right now, was not. When devout, observant Muslims who believe that the supreme being has ordered them to “kill them wherever you find them” (cf. Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, 9:5) end up doing so, it should surprise authorities who aren’t thoroughly sold out to politically correct fantasies. When, on the other hand, someone like Arcan Cetin goes jihad, his actions show that the violent jihad option is a live one even for the “moderate,” secularized Muslims upon which Western authorities are staking the future of the free world.
Arcan Cetin shows that even thoroughly assimilated Muslims who love video games and kidding around with non-Muslim friends on social media still retain a good many Islamic cultural attitudes that are incompatible with Western culture, and, at times of personal crisis, may pick up a rifle and start shooting.
This is a case that proponents of the massive Muslim migrant influx into the West should ponder. But they won’t.
Daily Caller, by Abraham H. Miller Sept. 26, 2016:
“La rentrée” is what the French call back to school. This year something is conspicuously different about the festive occasion. Children as young as three are being taught to remain silent during a terrorist attack.
That’s not all that is different this season in France. Many French Jews will be staying away from synagogue during the high holidays beginning next week because of the threats posed by militant Muslims.
France has changed. Radical Islam has changed it.
Tear up your tickets to Turkey and find paradise beneath your feet, an ISIS recruiter tells his fellow Islamists through the encrypted web. Turkey of course is the gateway to the fighting in Syria, and “paradise beneath your feet” is encouragement to wage jihad in the West.
The ISIS recruiter, Abu Suleyman al-Firansi, who spouts this propaganda, is himself French.
These homegrown jihadis are not committing crimes. They are committing acts of war. They are agents of a foreign power intent on our destruction.
Ahmad Rahami’s bombing attack on New York City was not a criminal act but an act of war by an enemy combatant. By treating him as a common criminal, he has been given access to the rights of the system he sought to destroy. And he has lawyered up.
There is ample legal precedent for treating the homegrown jihadis as enemy combatants that should not have access to the civilian judicial system. In the case of American citizens during World War II who were brought back from Germany to conduct sabotage operations on American soil, the United States Supreme Court, in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), ruled that trial by military tribunal was legal in the case of any unlawful enemy combatants against the United States.
It would appear that one of the ways to keep our citizens safe would be to employ the legal tools granted us in Ex parte Quirin. If so, Rahami would not be able to avail himself of the Constitutional rights he sought to destroy but would be tried by the military.
Instead, our political leaders have chosen to view the homegrown problem as a problem in narration – a “public relations” conflict between ISIS and us. The idea is to counter ISIS’ propaganda. As White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in the wake of terrorist attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, we are in a “narrative” war with ISIS.
To win the narrative war and prevent would-be jihadis from falling into ISIS’ hands, Hillary Clinton is calling for the absorption of more Syrian refugees. Barack Obama is fighting ISIS’ narrative while basking in the glory of raising the number of refugees to be absorbed as if he were some modern-day Moses leading the downtrodden of Egypt into the Promised Land
And to further counter ISIS’ propaganda, Obama is releasing hardened terrorists from Gitmo, who will soon join their brethren in waging jihad and recruiting Western jihadis.
The administration’s mantra is that without Gitmo and with a more liberal policy of refugee acceptance, there might not be a worldwide jihad.
As a consequence of such thinking, our children will face the increasing probability of another Beslan-type massacre. In 2004, on the opening day of school in Beslan, jihadi terrorists seized the school and brutalized the children over a three-day period before killing them. The death toll numbered nearly 400, and the situation required a military assault to be brought to denouement.
Unlikely to happen here? Not according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.) who has studied the Beslan massacre in depth and lectures to law enforcement about the appeal to terrorists of a large-scale slaughter at a school. Grossman and others see Beslan as a dry run for potential operations here.
The Islamists who have slaughtered our fellow citizens were the progeny of parents who came here seeking a better life. And these children repaid us as the Europeans have been repaid, with violence.
Claiming these are a minority of the Muslims coming into our country is a digression. How many people have to be slaughtered before we see this as a real problem? Not a problem in criminal justice but a problem of importing actual and potential enemy combatants whose hatred for us is so great they would rather die trying to kill us and our children than find a decent life among us.
This is not a fight about narratives. It is actual warfare. It should be treated as such. We have no desire to become like France.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati, and a distinguished fellow with the Haym Salomon Center, a news and public policy group. @salomoncenter
CJR: Social media is filled with conservatives literally screaming advice to Trump as this election is so crucial to the survival of our Republic. Daniel Greenfield sums up what needs to be done:
Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Sept. 27, 2016:
The first debate was a disgrace. NBC’s moderator, Lester Holt, hurled attack after attack at Trump. Not only was the entire debate defined by a left-wing perspective, but Holt repeatedly threw character attacks at Trump and none at Hillary. Trump performed best when he turned those attacks around, whether on emails or on Libya. That should be the strategy for future debates.
Trump would be well advised not to waste time defending himself from attacks about his past. The only thing this accomplishes is to give the scandal airtime while making him appear defensive.
Since the moderators are likely to follow Holt’s lead and refuse to discuss any of Hillary’s many issues, the only way to incorporate them into the debate is to bring them up. Any attacks on Trump should be immediately redirected to questions about Hillary. This will make them an issue. Focusing on them will leave a biased moderator working to help Hillary with only two options. Either he can escalate the confrontation with Trump or pivot to actually discussing the issue out of the conviction that Hillary will do better in a discussion of more serious topics.
Mainstream media moderators should never have been allowed to helm the debates. But presumably that is not about to change for this series of debates. (Though it could and ought to.) But moderators should be forced to choose between discussing Hillary’s scandals and discussing issues. What they cannot be allowed to do is to repeat Holt’s performance of allowing Hillary to discuss issues and Trump’s scandals… and then insisting on limiting Trump to discussions of his scandals.
Romney made the mistake of trying to play the game. And he lost. Trump should not make the same mistake.
Long War Journal, by Thomas Joscelyn, Sept. 27, 2016:
Editor’s note: Below is Thomas Joscelyn’s testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade on jihadist groups operating inside Libya, including the Islamic State and al Qaeda. If you wish to view the testimony with footnotes included,download the PDF by clicking here.
Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the turmoil in Libya. Obviously, the multi-sided conflict in Libya is complex, with various forces pulling the country in multiple directions. My testimony today focuses on the jihadist groups operating inside Libya, especially the Islamic State’s arm and groups belonging to al Qaeda’s network. I am going to emphasize five key points:
1. The Islamic State is on the verge of losing its safe haven in Sirte, Libya. The loss of Sirte would be a major blow to the so-called caliphate, as Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s organization has invested significant resources in this state-building project. From the Islamic State’s perspective, Sirte was one of the most important cities under its control. This was true even though most of the city’s citizens had fled the jihadists’ occupation. By controlling Sirte, the Islamic State was able to portray its “caliphate” as having significant territory outside of Iraq and Syria. If Baghdadi’s loyalists are cleared from Sirte in the coming weeks, then the U.S. and its allies should trumpet the group’s loss. During its rise to power, the Islamic State’s motto was “remaining and expanding.” This was a key part of the organization’s marketing message. But in Libya, as in Iraq and Syria, it is no longer true.
2. Despite losing its grip on Sirte and the surrounding towns and villages, however, the Islamic State will retain a presence inside Libya. The group has cadres in Benghazi and elsewhere. The Islamic State’s leaders likely evacuated some of their men from Sirte as the offensive on the city progressed. It is important to note that even though the Islamic State is on the verge of a significant defeat, the effort required a robust commitment by local Libyan ground forces, as well as more than 170 “precision” American airstrikes to date. As the Islamic State’s men have been cleared block by block from Sirte, they have demonstrated that they continue to maintain a strong operational capacity, launching suicide bombings in neighborhoods they’ve lost and killing dozens of their Libyan enemies. The U.S. and its partners will have to make sure that they hold Sirte once it is cleared, as well as prevent the Islamic State from seizing significant terrain elsewhere.
3. The Islamic State’s loss of Sirte will be viewed in jihadist circles as a vindication of al Qaeda’s strategy. Al Qaeda’s senior leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, repeatedly warned that the premature declaration of an Islamic state harms the jihadists’ cause. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s (AQIM) emir, Abdulmalek Droukdel, has made the same argument. Al Qaeda has consistently argued that a jihadist state cannot survive if the U.S. and its allies decide to intervene. This is exactly what happened in Sirte.
4. Some assume that, unlike the Islamic State, al Qaeda does not seek to control territory and build Islamic emirates (states). But this is an erroneous assumption. A wealth of evidence shows that this is, in fact, al Qaeda’s primary goal. However, al Qaeda and the Islamic State have very different strategies for achieving this same end. AQIM and its allies briefly controlled much of Mali beginning in 2012. Documents recovered in Mali show that AQIM was laying the groundwork for an Islamic state. But Droukdel and his advisors concluded that their effort needed to be firmly rooted in the host society, so AQIM was willing to partner with tribes and organizations that did not share its ideology. AQIM is following a version of this same strategy inside Libya today and has been working to embed itself in various local groups and communities. The Islamic State’s model for state-building is top-down authoritarian. In the view of Baghdadi and his key advisors, all Muslims must submit to the so-called caliphate’s authority. Al Qaeda’s follows a bottom-up plan, which means that the organization is seeking to spread the jihadist ideology, win popular support and embed itself within local societies. Al Qaeda and AQIM, which is openly loyal to Ayman al Zawahiri, are not close to achieving their goals in many areas. But the al Qaeda network remains deeper than many assume.
5. In addition to the assistance the U.S. military provides local forces, the U.S. government should work to expose al Qaeda’s network inside Libya. Sun light is a key part of any plan to combat al Qaeda’s clandestine strategy. Al Qaeda’s senior leadership has dispatched operatives to Libya in the past. AQIM doesn’t typically advertise its presence in Libya, but has clearly backed groups such as Ansar al Sharia in Libya and the Mujahideen Shura Council in Derna. Indeed, al Qaeda has worked under multiple brand names in Libya.
The investigation into bombings in New Jersey and New York by Ahmad Khan Rahami earlier this month do not point to a larger terror cell, FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday.
Comey was testifying alongside Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, at a hearing examining threats to national security 15 years after the 9/11 attacks.
Republican senators pressed Comey about whether anything more could have been done to prevent the bombings and other violent incidents including the Orlando nightclub massacre.
Comey said the FBI is fallible and transparent about its mistakes, but he did not concede that anything should have been done differently or that any red flags were missed.
The questions arose because the FBI has said it investigated Orlando gunman Omar Mateen a few years before the June shooting and interviewed him multiple times. The FBI in 2014 also looked into Rahami, the Afghan-born U.S. citizen accused in the explosion, but found nothing that tied him to terrorism.
Two senators, in particular, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Kelly Ayotte, said they were alarmed that both individuals had at one point been on the FBI’s radar but were not intercepted.
“What more do we need to do? What are the lessons learned, and if you need additional support, we need to know about it very quickly,” Ayotte said at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Paul, one of the Senate’s leading civil liberties champions, said he was troubled that the FBI appeared to often seek new tools but didn’t seem to adequately use the ones they had.
Comey pushed back against the criticism, telling Paul that he had his facts wrong in characterizing the FBI’s investigations into both Mateen and Rahami. He said he had commissioned a review into the FBI’s past interactions with Mateen, who killed 49 people inside a gay nightclub, and would be doing the same with Rahami.
“We’re going to go back and look very carefully about the way we encountered him,” he said.
The FBI opened an assessment on Rahami in 2014 following a domestic incident. His father has said he warned the FBI that his son was drawn to terrorism, though law enforcement officials say he never discussed his son’s apparent radicalization.
Separately, Comey said the U.S. remains extremely concerned that violent extremists will eventually flow out of Syria and Iraq and into other countries in hopes of committing attacks.
The number of Americans traveling to Syria to fight alongside the Islamic State group has slowed to a trickle in the last year, but as the so-called caliphate becomes “crushed,” many militants from Western nations who are already there will stream out of the region and create new security threats.
“There will be a terrorist diaspora sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before,” Comey said.
The hearing took place just over a week after bombings in New York and New Jersey and a separate stabbing attack at a Minnesota mall.
Rasmussen said that in addition to the Islamic State militants, U.S. government officials are concerned about the capabilities and ambitions of al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Johnson said terrorist threats have evolved, moving from terrorist-directed attacks “to a world that also includes the threat of terrorist-inspired attacks” in which individuals who live in the U.S. are “self-radicalized” to attack their own country.
Johnson says that by their nature, terrorist-inspired attacks and terrorist-enabled attacks are difficult to detect by intelligence and law enforcement communities, can occur with little or no notice and in general make for a more complex homeland security challenge.
The panel’s chairman, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said the threat of “militant Islamic terrorist attacks to the United States remains significant,” citing the Sept. 17 attacks in the New York region and Minnesota, as well as deadly attacks in San Bernardino, California, and Orlando, Florida.
“In all, Islamic extremist terrorist have killed 63 people on U.S. soil since our committee last held its annual hearing to consider threats to the homeland,” the chairman said in a prepared statement.
Two years after President Barack Obama stated a goal of defeating the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, “we have made little progress,” said the senator, who is not related to the Homeland Security chief.
Rahami, the main suspect in the New York and New Jersey bombings, faces federal terrorism charges after a shootout with police.
Prosecutors say Rahami, 28, planned the explosions for months as he bought components for his bombs online and set off a backyard blast. They say he wrote a journal that praised Osama bin Laden and other Muslim extremists, fumed about what he saw as the U.S. government’s killing of Muslim holy warriors and declared “death to your oppression.”
The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Sept. 27, 2016:
I discussed last night’s first presidential debate and the candidate’s coverage of national security with the hosts of AM560 Chicago’s Morning Answer.
By Creeping Sharia, September 27, 2016:
Including free classes on Islam. Taxation for Islamization. Submission. Taxpayers are funding the takeover of their own city where thousands of people were killed by Muslim terrorists and where Muslims continue to terrorize and attempt to kill non-Muslims.
Above is a quick rendition of NYC’s Islamic dawah campaign. We encourage reader’s to make their own versions and hijack the #IamMuslimNYC hashtag on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere.
We can, and will, make more and could make many more if the NYPD released names and photo’s of all the Muslims it arrests. But they don’t always do so, particularly in faked Muslim hate crimes.
Full story below on the full blown Islamic dawah no doubt orchestrated by the terror-linked Muslim Brotherhood organizations that have infiltrated all levels of New York City politics and law enforcement.
Source: New York City Human Rights Commission i-am-muslim
New York City is one of the most diverse and welcoming cities in the world. With more than 8.4 million residents, people of every faith, race, and ethnicity live and work side by side. Millions of people adhering to some religion or faith call New York City home, including thousands of Muslims with diverse backgrounds. They, like New Yorkers of every faith, contribute to the unique and rich cultural diversity for which New York City is universally known. They deserve to live and work free from discrimination and harassment.
Ongoing Events and Initiatives
• Launching a digital ad campaign today led by the Commission on Human Rights to promote respect and understanding of Muslim communities and underscore anti-discrimination protections under the NYC Human Rights Law. The ads will appear on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter with the hashtag #IamMuslimNYC. The ads will direct traffic to NYC.gov/IamMuslimNYC, which will list fresources, events, and calls-to-actions in an effort to support and serve Muslim New Yorkers.
• Hosting Community Safety and Fair Treatment Forums with the NYPD, the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, NYC Commission on Human Rights, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Department of Education to discuss public safety concerns on the streets and in our schools, anti-discrimination protections under the law, and information on accessing city services.
• Developing a cultural sensitivity workshop with community leaders and the Islamic Center at NYU called “Understanding Islam” to help City employees and public and private employers across the city better understand the Islamic faith and to dispel common myths. The NYC Commission on Human Rights will launch a pilot workshop in October 2016.
• Increasing public outreach and awareness efforts on religious protections under the NYC Human Rights Law, including issuing a new multilingual fact sheet explaining protections against religious discrimination with a focus on Muslim communities and a new multilingual brochure on religious protections under NYC Human Rights Law with practical examples to identify discrimination in the workplace, housing, and public accommodations.
• Hosted a “Building Inclusive and Progressive Cities” forum with Mayor de Blasio and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, along with Muslim leaders and community members, to discuss how New York City and other cities can better address Islamophobia and prevent hate crimes and other acts of discrimination.
• Convened Muslim, immigrant, and refugee groups to unite communities facing hate and violence and discuss shared actions the City and communities can take to combat xenophobic rhetoric, including a joint multi-sector action plan to join together and push back.
• Launching a citywide media campaign in late spring 2017 to educate New Yorkers on combatting xenophobia and embracing religious diversity, and create toolkits for government agencies and non-profits to improve cultural competency with faith-based communities.
Commitment of the de Blasio Administration with Muslim and all Faith-Based Communities
• Recognized Eid al Fitr and Eid al Adha as public school holidays for the first time in the 2015-16 school year.
• Hiring a senior advisor specifically focused on working with City agencies to ensure programs and services reach Muslim communities.
• Improving language access across the city. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs develops policy and monitors and coordinates with 75 City agencies to ensure effective translation, interpretation, and “plain language” practices amongst City agencies. At the NYC Commission on Human Rights, 26 languages, including Arabic, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Urdu, and Gujarati are now spoken among law enforcement staff.
• Meeting regularly with Muslim community leaders and making mosque visits to discuss public safety concerns, social services, small business services, mental health, access to universal pre-K, and other issues facing communities.
• Furthering the inclusion of immigrant communities though IDNYC, a government-issued identification card that over 900,000 unique cardholders and connects New Yorkers to libraries, museums, hospitals, and many City services.
• Convening roundtables and workshops with Muslim leaders and advocates to discuss religious protections under the NYC Human Rights Law and how to report acts of discrimination.
• Celebrating Muslim traditions and increasing cultural literacy through public events, such as Eid celebrations in every borough and iftars throughout the city, including the largest public iftar in City history, “Iftar in the City,” attended by hundreds of New Yorkers.
Future Actions [i.e., PROMOTING ISLAM aka Dawah]
NYC Commission on Human Rights launching citywide public information and integrated multiplatform marketing campaign on combating xenophobia and embracing religious diversity in New York City.
NYC Commission on Human Rights, in collaboration with other agencies, launching toolkit for government agencies and non-profits to improve cultural competency with faith-based communities.
• Download the Fact Sheet “NYC Human Rights Law Protections for Muslims (and Those Perceived as Such): 10 Things You Should Know” (soon to be available in 9 languages).
• Coming Soon: Download the Brochure “Religious Discrimination Protections under the NYC Human Rights Law” (will be available in 9 languages).
• Download the #IAmMuslimNYC social media ads:
Facebook: 1 2 3 4 5 Twitter: 1 2 3 4 5 Instagram: 1 2 3 4 5
• Learn more about upcoming free workshops on “Understanding Islam,” targeted at City employees and public and private providers citywide (pilot launching in October).
There are human rights laws specifically for the protection of Muslims? Is New York now governed by sharia law? The so-called Human Rights Commission sounds more like a sharia court. More analysis to follow.
New Yorker’s should be outraged that the city is not only aggressively promoting Islam and protecting those who will continue to attack them, but using their tax dollars to do so.
Clearly, 9/11 was a great victory for Muslims and they will continue to takeover New York City and will be forced to submit to Islam.
Trump still has a lot to learn, but Clinton can’t learn lessons because she wrongly thinks that she already has the answers.
CounterJihad, Sept. 27, 2016:
The first Presidential debate revealed a Democratic candidate who believes she has all the answers even though her failed performance as Secretary of State led directly to the formation of the Islamic State (ISIS), aided the rise of Iran, and furthered much of the chaos in the Middle East. She cannot learn anything while she believes she already knows everything. Electing her promises more of the same, and ‘the same’ has been a disaster.
The Republican challenger, meanwhile, has much still to learn about the security structure he would command as President. Clinton’s strongest moment against him on foreign policy came as she chided him for appearing to suggest that America would not honor its mutual defense treaties with Japan or South Korea. Nothing is more important to the world than the reliability of America’s word. Clinton should know that: it was her former boss, President Obama, who personally kicked off the refugee crisis bedeviling Europe by failing to enforce his red line against Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. His failure to keep his word on a security agreement gave the Syrian regime free rein to wage war on its own population, putting millions on the road to Europe.
Trump’s strongest moment against Clinton came when he accused her of bad judgment in the formation of ISIS. She attempted to respond by saying that George W. Bush had negotiated the withdrawal from Iraq, and that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”
That’s all true, but whose job was it to obtain such an agreement? That was her job. She was the one who was supposed to obtain that agreement, and she failed utterly. As our earlier coverage states:
It was her job to negotiate an arrangement with the Iraqi government that would do two things: allow a stabilizing US military presence to remain in Iraq, and allow the US Department of State the freedom of movement it would need to step up as guarantors of the peace. The peace, you see, had been purchased not only by the US military’s victory on the battlefields, but also by its patient negotiation with militants formerly aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq. These tribes, mostly but not exclusively Sunni, had rejected the terrorism of al Qaeda in Iraq in return for promises of fair treatment from the Iraqi central government. This included jobs, assistance for communities recovering from the war, and many other things that the government promised to provide in return for the support of these former enemies. The United States helped to negotiate all these agreements, and promised to see that they would be kept faithfully.
Instead, the Secretary of State failed to produce either a new Status of Forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in Iraq, or an agreement that would allow State Department personnel to move about the country safely to observe whether agreements were being kept. In the wake of the precipitous withdrawal of US forces, Prime Minister Maliki moved to arrest Sunni leaders in government, and broke all his promises to the tribes.
The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency.
Clinton was similarly unreflective when she argued that Trump had supported “the actions we took in Libya,” without pausing for a moment to acknowledge what a destabilizing mistake it was. Effecting regime change with no capacity to control the outcome is what allowed radical groups, including ISIS, to expand into the vacuum. That one is also her fault personally, as she pushed President Obama to take this action. Her own President says that he considers taking her advice on Libya to be his “worst mistake.” Yet again, she has learned nothing, and does not seem to be aware that there is even anything to learn.
A similar failure to understand the lessons of the recent past occurred in their exchange on NATO. Trump is right to be critical of the institution’s continuing relevance, but he is criticizing it on the wrong grounds. That the other nations do not pay their way is true, but it is not the problem with NATO. That it does not focus on terrorism is partly true, but it does not render the organization obsolete because a resurgent Russia remains a security challenge for western Europe.
Nevertheless, Clinton’s smug response is un-reflective and wrong.
You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it’s ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side.
What Clinton fails to mention here is that, like all of NATO’s decisions, invoking Article 5 must be done unanimously. The reason to question NATO’s continued relevance is that the Turkish drift into Islamist politics makes it unlikely that a unanimous vote could still be reached. Turkey has also shown signs recently of falling into Russia’s orbit. If Turkey becomes a Russian ally in the way that China is, NATO may be rendered obsolete simply because it can never take a decision. If Turkey becomes a Russian satellite, NATO will indeed have been rendered obsolete. In either case, NATO’s continued relevance turns on figuring out how to swing Turkey away from Islamist thought and Russian influence, eliminating the unanimity requirement on NATO actions, or else developing a mechanism to expel the Turks from the alliance. None of that exists, and since Turkey would have to agree to any of those changes, none of it is likely to come to exist.
Finally, on Iran, Clinton is wedded to a policy that Trump rightly describes as a disaster.
You look at the Middle East, it’s a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent.
But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that’s another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they’re going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they’re going.
The horror show in Syria is linked to the Iran deal, as Obama decided to let Syria fester in order to pursue Iran’s approval of his deal. Clinton’s role in this deal is something she herself has celebrated, so she cannot walk away from it. Since then, Iran has developed new ballistic missiles that make sense only as a delivery mechanism for nuclear payloads. It has bought advanced anti-aircraft missiles, and installed them around one of the nuclear sites allegedly to be made harmless by this wonderful “deal.” Why is it hardening this site against air strikes if it intends to live by the deal? Why develop a delivery mechanism for weapons you don’t intend to build?
Clinton cannot even ask these questions, because she is wedded to her failures.
The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Sept. 26, 2016:
An analysis/opinion piece that my wife Katharine and I wrote that was published in the Washington Times:
On the evening of May 2, 2011, America had a chance at closure.
We had lost thousands of our fellow Americans nine years earlier on that beautifully sunny September morning, and thousands more of our citizen-soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.
But now President Obama gave the word: The master jihadi is dead.
In an audacious operation deep within Pakistan, Osama bin Laden had been located. And killed. Al Qaeda would soon be described by the commander in chief, as “on the ropes,” condemned to ever-increasing irrelevance. But this was not the end. There would be no closure for our nation.
A new, deadlier enemy has since emerged. A foe responsible for the carnage of San Bernardino and Orlando, and scores of attacks around the world. Now we are at war with the Islamic State — a threat group that has already claimed responsibility for one of the recent attacks — and its new caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. Al Qaeda may no longer frighten us, but the Islamic State has dethroned it and is on the march.
We may be in the final stages of a presidential campaign which has polarized opinion on all matters, mundane and significant, but the facts speak for themselves.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Islamic State currently has “fully operational” affiliates in 18 nations around the world. Two years ago, the number was seven. Some of these branches are far from Iraq and Syria, including Afghanistan, where numerous Taliban commanders have sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, and Nigeria, where Boko Haram — one of the deadliest jihadi groups active today — has changed its name to the West Africa Province of the Islamic State. According to the analysts of the SITE Intelligence Group, the totalitarian message of jihadism is so popular around the world that since June 2, outside the war zones of Iraq and Syria, there has been a jihadi attack somewhere around the world every 84 hours.
But does this mean that Americans are in greater danger today than on Sept. 10, 2001? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding yes, and the empirical data is merciless in its incontrovertibility.
In its latest report titled “Muslim-American Involvement with Violent Extremism,” the University of North Carolina has compiled all the metadata on jihadi plots on U.S. soil since 2001. The trend they describe is an exponential one. The number of successful and intercepted terrorist attacks has grown every year (with an inordinate spike in 2009), and most disturbingly, with 2015 witnessing the greatest number of jihadi plots in America since the Sept. 11 attacks 15 years ago. Jihadism has not been weakened. Not abroad. Not in the States. With the attacks in California, Florida, and now apparently Minnesota, and potentially New York and New Jersey, ISIS has displaced al Qaeda, and it has done so here in America, too, not just in the Middle East or Africa.
In our report “ISIS: The Threat to the United States,” we answer the same question for the Islamic State that the University of North Carolina answered for all jihadists secreted within America.
The facts prove than our new enemy is more prevalent than al Qaeda ever was, with federal and state law enforcement arresting three times as many ISIS supports per month than the average for al Qaeda arrests since 2001. Here are the numbers: Since Abu Bakr declared the new caliphate from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque of Mosul at the end of June 2014, we have killed or interdicted 110 terrorists linked to ISIS, (the last one being two weeks ago in Roanoke, Va). And when one looks at what they were actually doing the picture is grimmest of all.
Just over 40 percent had sworn allegiance to ISIS and were set on leaving the United States to fight for jihad in Iraq and Syria. Just under 20 percent were management-level terrorists, the talent-spotters and recruiters who were facilitating the foreign passage of the “travelers,” as the FBI euphemistically calls them. But a full third of the ISIS suspects, like the San Bernardino killers, and Omar Mateen, the Orlando jihadi, had already decided that they could best serve the new Islamic State not by leaving but by killing infidels here on U.S. soil. This is the reality of life in the West today. Whether it is in California or Florida, or in Brussels, Paris or Nice.
As we start the 16th year of what has turned into our longest war ever, we must radically reassess our strategy for victory. The Islamic State has displaced al Qaeda and it is richer, better at propaganda, and has more fighters than bin Laden ever had.
November represents not only a choice of who the new commander in chief should be, but also what our new strategy to defeat ISIS and the global jihadi movement should be. We owe at least this to the memories of those lost on the beautifully sunny morning 15 years ago.
Express, Sept. 26, 2016: (go to site for video)
An opinion poll carried out by the Montaigne Institute, a liberal think tank, revealed that 29 per cent of Muslims living in France were hardline – known as “ultras” in France – who believe the country should respect Islamic law.
Sharia is widely considered as unsecular and flying in the face of the country’s liberal values.
Responding to this “troubling” poll during a radio interview with Europe 1 today Mr Sarkozy, said that the “zealous” Muslim community – the 29 per cent – should be deported from France, or be forced to assimilate – not just integrate – into French society.
He said: “The Montaigne Institute’s poll is extremely troubling. It proves that a quarter of young Muslims are being seduced by radical ideology.”
According to the right-wing presidential candidate, it would be “irresponsible” for the government to allow these pro-Sharia youngsters to follow their Islamic law dream and said: “I’m not being over dramatic.
“The truth is this, simply integrating radical youngsters into France’s Republican society has not worked, it will never work. They must assimilate into French society and culture.”
CounterJihad by Bruce Cornibe, Sept. 26, 2016:
Is there any doubt that giving more power and authority to the United Nations will not only compromise U.S. security but also the security of other other countries within the Western world, including Israel? Just take a look at the list of current members (here) that makeup the U.N. Human Rights Council, which includes some of the biggest human rights abusers. So, we are going to have the likes of Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China and other authoritarian regimes enlightening the free-world on human rights? What a joke. Maybe we should raise awareness that, in Saudi Arabia, one can allegedly receive a death sentence for renouncing his or her Islamic faith.
Furthermore, we have already seen members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) advocate for the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18, which seeks to stifle criticism of Islam and Islam’s prophet, Muhammad. If anti-Western coalitions such as the O.I.C., allegedly “the largest United Nations bloc” (including 57 member states if counting the alleged ‘State of Palestine’), are so influential with the U.N. – how can we look to the U.N. for any kind of justice or fairness? We can’t. Just look how the U.N. deliberately tries to demonize Israel when discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict, while either ignoring or providing scant coverage to other important conflicts around the globe. The Wall Street Journal unveils the U.N.’s double standard with Israel:
Our research shows that the U.N. uses an entirely different rhetoric and set of legal concepts when dealing with Israel compared with situations of occupation or settlements world-wide. For example, Israel is referred to as the “Occupying Power” 530 times in General Assembly resolutions. Yet in seven major instances of past or present prolonged military occupation—Indonesia in East Timor, Turkey in northern Cyprus, Russia in areas of Georgia, Morocco in Western Sahara, Vietnam in Cambodia, Armenia in areas of Azerbaijan, and Russia in Ukraine’s Crimea—the number is zero. The U.N. has not called any of these countries an “Occupying Power.” Not even once.
It gets worse. Since 1967, General Assembly resolutions have referred to Israeli-held territories as “occupied” 2,342 times, while the territories mentioned above are referred to as “occupied” a mere 16 times combined. The term appears in 90% of resolutions dealing with Israel, and only in 14% of the much smaller number of resolutions dealing with the all the other situations, a difference that vastly surpasses the threshold of statistical significance. Similarly, Security Council resolutions refer to the disputed territories in the Israeli-Arab conflict as “occupied” 31 times, but only a total of five times in reference to all seven other conflicts combined.
Yet the bias goes further:
General Assembly resolutions employ the term “grave” to describe Israel’s actions 513 times, as opposed to 14 total for all the other conflicts, which involve the full gamut of human-rights abuses, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and torture. Verbs such as “condemn” and “deplore” are sprinkled into Israel-related resolutions tens more times than they are in resolutions about other conflicts, setting a unique tone of disdain.
Israel has been reminded by resolutions against it of the country’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions about 500 times since 1967—as opposed to two times for the other situations.
In particular, the resolutions refer to Article 49(6), which states that the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This is the provision that the entire legal case against Israel settlements is based upon. Yet no U.N. body has ever invoked Article 49(6) in relation to any of the occupations mentioned above.
Israeli politician Danny Ayalon also gives a breakdown of the U.N. hypocrisy in this video. Not only does a large segment of U.N. General Assembly “Member States” comprise of countries where basic religious and political liberties for minorities are repressed, but it also includes rogue states that advance jihad either directly or indirectly like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous that those in the Western world, including Israel (the only genuine democracy in the Middle East) have to take harangues by such actors. For example, at the U.N. General Assembly in 2012, on the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur, high holy day), then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lambasted Israel and the international order – calling Israel a “fake government” and referring to them as “uncivilized Zionists” among other things.
Considering everything mentioned above it’s absurd how some U.S. leaders want to give the U.N. General Assembly even more power – especially with the U.S. currently wielding the “right to veto” resolutions, being one of the five “Permanent Member States” of theU.N. Security Council. While such efforts to make the U.N. more ‘democratic’ may sound appealing to some globalists, it ignores the fact that many U.N. member countries haven’t even truly bought into the U.N.’s flawed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When U.S. politicians like President Obama and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton seek to concede U.S. sovereignty to the empower the U.N., we need to remind them how bad of an idea that is for not only the U.S. but the rest of the free-world as well.