Ontario Imam Tells Muslims Not to Apologize for Foiled ISIS Suicide Attack

Mazin-AbdulAdhim

“It’s amazing that Muslims continuously ignore the fact that our Creator gave us our own system and obligated it upon us.”

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 244, 2016:

Islamists often blame the foreign policies of Western governments in attempt to mask the despicable acts of terrorism committed by jihadists. This type of scapegoating switches the fault from radical Islam to the West, and finds traction with Westerners that succumb to the white privilege/collective guilt mindset furthered by leftist academics.

An Ontario imam named Mazin AbdulAdhim, who is connected with the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir movement, continues to condemn the West  after the stymied terror attack by ISIS supporter Aaron Driver on August 10. Take a look at AbdulAdhim’s Facebook post, allegedly posted the day after the thwarted attack:

Aaron Driver, a Muslim convert from my city, was killed in a confrontation with the RCMP yesterday. They allege that he detonated a device inside a taxi, hurting himself and someone else, and was shot when he tried to detonate another one.

It is important to not jump to conclusions about this information until details are made clear. The media clearly has a campaign against Islam and Muslims, and so we should be careful how we respond to news like this.

Even if the information is true, we must not allow these sorts of events to cause us to be pressured to apologize for actions that we are not responsible for, nor should this cause us to become afraid of speaking the truth. The governments of the West kill and help kill dozens of innocent civilians every day, and the crimes they have committed against humanity through their foreign policies are orders of magnitude worse than anything these individuals have committed or tried to commit…

It’s funny how Islamists like AbdulAdhim say the media is out to get Muslims, when many media outlets push the contrived ‘Islamophobia’ narrative. For example, the BBC recently ran a story that implied that opposition to Sharia law is ‘Islamophobia’ – apparently interrupting an interview by stating, “There’s no Sharia law here.”

AbdulAdhim also flips morality on its head and thinks that alleged crimes resulting from the foreign policies of Western governments are a much greater evil than Islamic terrorism. This is another leftist tactic of using moral relativism to justify the most absurd of viewpoints – for example, drone strikes that seek to minimize collateral damage are apparently more evil than a suicide bomber aiming to murder innocent people. This is the reasoning behind actual terrorist groups like Hamas who blame Israel for terrorism when Israel’s military inadvertently kills or injures civilians because the leaders of Hamas purposely hide their militants in schools and hospitals to ensure collateral damage.

AbdulAdhim also provides a Facebook posting that’s indicative of how anti-Western the Sharia mindset is at its core. Purportedly posted after the Orlando massacre, the anti-democratic/anti-capitalist post states:

…It’s amazing that Muslims still have not absorbed the fact that this is not our system, these are not our laws, and these are not our governments. This system does not represent us, and it will not protect us if those behind it decide that we are no longer worth protecting.

It’s amazing that Muslims continuously ignore the fact that our Creator gave us our own system and obligated it upon us, and He will never allow us to solve these countless problems we face today until we return to His system that He ordained for us in His final message…

…We are the ones who have turned away from the systems revealed by Allah (swt), and look at this most miserable life we live, constantly apologizing, lacking in dignity, and never having proper representation of the proper implementation of Islam.

And we are the ones who have caused the spread of corruption throughout the land and the sea, since we abandoned our positions in implementing Islam on the political level, and left those positions for the worst of humanity to occupy…

Unlike the Islamists of the Hamas-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir are more forthright about their political goals and what Sharia law entails. As suggested from AbdulAdhim’s previous statement, political Islam is not compatible with democracy and a capitalist system.

We know in Sharia “that only Allah can righteously create laws that are binding on human beings[;]” therefore, laws conceived by humans are invalid. From this perspective there’s no reason to have a democracy since the laws that likely come out of the democratic process are inherently wrong, and there’s no reason to have a free-enterprise system when Allah has already stipulated what is permissible (halal) and what is forbidden (haram) – for example, usury (riba) is prohibited (Quran 2:275-280). Also, the elevation and promotion of Islam and Muslims is another key element of Sharia. How is a government governed by Sharia supposed to give equal rights to Muslims and non-Muslims (Kafirs) alike if non-Muslims are systematically discriminated against in Islamic texts that make up Sharia like the Quran (2:221)? It can’t, and AbdulAdhim knows that.

The use of violence is one of the few differences between Islamists and jihadists (even though some Islamists subscribe to violence). As we have already seen Islamists oftentimes downplay Islamic terrorism or blame it on supposed Western aggression, thus helping to advance their Sharia agenda. Furthermore, Islamists like AbdulAdhim are enemies to Western civilization and the Western countries they inhabit. Leaders like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cannot identify the threat stemming from radical Islam because they are too steeped in political correctness. The threat of Sharia won’t go away on its own – the West must confront its enemy.

***

This panel discussion with Bill Maher is an example of how hard it is to confront Western Islam apologists with the truth: (h/t Bill Warner)

Iran Expanding Terror Network in Latin America

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, is welcomed by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, in Havana, Cuba / AP

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, is welcomed by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, in Havana, Cuba / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Aug. 23, 2016:

Iran is solidifying its foothold in Latin America, sparking concerns among U.S. officials that the Islamic Republic will enlist these regional allies in its push to launch terror attacks on U.S. soil, according to conversations with congressional sources.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has been on a diplomatic tour through key Latin American countries known for hostility towards the United States, including Cuba, Venezuela, and a host of other countries believed to be providing shelter to Iranian terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah.

As Iranian-ally Russia boosts its spy operation in the region, sources have raised concerns about the rogue nations working together to foster anti-U.S. unrest.

Zarif’s trip through the region has raised red flags among some senior congressional sources familiar with the region. For example, Zarif took aim at the United States and touted the regime’s desire to align with anti-American countries during his stay in Cuba.

One senior congressional source who works on the issue said to the Washington Free Beacon that Iran is seeking to recruit “potential terrorists who want to cause the U.S. harm.”

Increased ties between Iran and these Latin American nations are setting the stage for terrorists to penetrate close to U.S. soil with little detection.

These individuals “can travel easily to Venezuela, and once there, they can get to Nicaragua or Cuba without passports or visas, which poses a national security risk for our nation,” the source explained.

Iran has also reopened its embassy in Chile, a move that has only added fuel to speculation among U.S. officials that the Islamic Republic is making moves to position its global terror network on America’s doorstep.

“The threat to U.S. national security interests and our allies should be setting off alarm bells,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement about Zarif’s Latin American tour.

“The Obama administration has failed to prevent Russia and China from expanding in our Hemisphere, and now Iran is once again stepping up its efforts to gain a greater presence to carry out its nefarious activities,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “I urge the White House to stop downplaying the Iranian threat and take immediate action to prevent the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism from establishing a regional safe haven in the Americas.”

Asked to comment on Zarif’s trip and the potential repercussions on Monday, a State Department official said to the Free Beacon that the administration had no comment.

Ros-Lehtinen said the high-profile trip by Zarif should serve as a warning.

“The timing of Zarif’s trip is significant as Iran could use many of these rogue regimes to circumvent remaining sanctions, undermine U.S. interests, and expand the drug trafficking network that helps finance its illicit activities,” she said. “Tehran’s classic playbook is to use cultural centers, new embassies or consulates, or cooperative agreements on various areas to act as façades aimed at expanding Iran’s radical extremist network.”

The renewed concerns about Iran’s footprint in Latin America comes nearly two years after the State Department said Tehran’s influence in the region was “waning.”

“The timing of Zarif’s trip speaks volumes,” said the senior congressional aide who would discuss the issue only on background. It “is worrisome that as we just celebrated the 22nd year of the horrific terrorist attack against the AMIA Jewish community center in Argentina, Iran can now have personnel nearby in a new embassy in Chile.”

“Just recently, a Hezbollah member was picked up in Brazil, an explosive device was found near the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, and Hezbollah members are reportedly traveling on Venezuelan passports,” the source added. “It was not too long ago that Venezuela offered flights to Iran and Syria, and as of last week, Hezbollah cells were found in the West Bank where Venezuela lifted its visa requirements for Palestinians.”

Zarif slammed the United States on Monday during a speech in Havana.

“Iran and Cuba could prove to the U.S. that it cannot proceed with its policies through exerting pressure on other countries,” Zarif said, according to Iran’s state-controlled media.

“Now the time is ripe for realizing our common goals together and implement the resistance economy in Iran and materialize [Cuban dictator Fidel] Castro’s goals of reconstruction of the Cuban economy,” Zarif added.

Zarif went on to note that Iran “has age-old and strong relations with the American continent and the Latin American countries.”

Zarif is reported to have brought along at least 60 Iranian officials and executives working in the country’s state-controlled economic sector.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior Iran analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that Iran has boosted efforts to engage Latin America in the wake of last summer’s nuclear agreement.

“Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif is aggressively continuing Iran’s diplomatic outreach, a policy which began early in the Rouhani administration and was kicked into high gear in the aftermath of the JCPOA—last summer’s nuclear deal,” he said. “Zarif’s sojourn into the Western hemisphere follows on the heels of his May visit to the region. Zarif’s trip symbolically commences in Havana, Cuba, where the Iranian foreign minister harped on themes of steadfastness and resistance to American legal and economic pressure.”

The Iranian leader’s goal is to “build on this experience to help promote an anti-American and anti-capitalist world order,” he added. “What’s most clear however, is that in addition to seeking to solidify the anti-American political orientation of these states, Iran aims to capitalize on the increasingly detached stigma of doing business with it in the aftermath of the nuclear accord. Therefore, we can expect to see trade deals or memorandums of understanding inked. In short, Iran will be looking to deepen to its footprint in Latin America.”

Meet Aleppo’s ‘Moderate,’ ‘Secular’ ‘Rebels’: Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood

aleppo-syria-moderate-rebels-muslim-brotherhood-al-qaeda

Let’s support moderate Muslims. But that means figuring out which ones are the real deal.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 19, 2016:

As the invaluable David Pryce-Jones notes, Syria’s second-most important city, Aleppo, is the locus of heavy combat, pitting Russia and Iran, the forces propping up theBashar Assad, against anti-regime fighters, also known as the “rebels.” David refers to reports that, as he summarizes them, “secular rebels appear to have liberated most of [Aleppo], maybe all of it.” Meanwhile, the estimable Charles Krauthammer observes that Russia is operating out of an air base in Iran (probably yet another violation of Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the mullahs). And who does Charles say Vladimir Putin’s air force is targeting? “It’s hitting a lot of the moderate rebels . . . in Aleppo.”

I have been arguing for years (and as recently as last weekend) that there are simply not enough moderate, secular rebels in Syria to overthrow the regime, much less to defeat both Assad and ISIS simultaneously. Suggestions to the contrary are wishful thinking. More important, such suggestions are counterproductive: The illusion of a vibrant secular, pro-Western opposition in Syria is the basis for urging that America throw its weight behind the “rebels,” on the theory that we would be undermining radical Islam.

In truth, we’d simply be empowering one set of anti-American Islamists against another.

At The Long War Journal, Tom Joscelyn, who for my money does the best job in America of analyzing the factions involved in the global jihad, takes a careful look at who is fighting against Assad in Syria. To what should be no one’s surprise — but will apparently be very surprising to many — the bulk of the opposition consists of Islamists.

As Tom explains, two coalitions are spearheading the campaign that has enjoyed recent success against the regime in Aleppo. The first is headed up by al-Qaeda and goes by the name Jaysh al-Fath (Army of Conquest). The al-Qaeda franchise in Syria, until recently known as al-Nusrah, has rebranded itself as Jabhat Fath al-Sham (JFS). It has a close alliance with a group called Ahrar al-Sham (Ahrar), which includes many al-Qaeda veterans and (as Tom notes) models itself after the Taliban (al-Qaeda’s close ally in Afghanistan). JFS and Ahrar run the Jaysh al-Fath coalition, which includes sundry other jihadist militias long affiliated with the al-Qaeda terror network.

Al-Qaeda is well aware of the West’s myopic focus on ISIS (the Islamic State — the al-Qaeda splinter group that began as al-Qaeda in Iraq). This myopia has the U.S. government and much of the commentariat turning a blind eye to other anti-American Islamists, even absurdly labeling them “moderates,” as long as they are not part of ISIS. The leaders of al-Qaeda realize that a great deal of financial and materiel support is to be had in the “moderate rebel” business but that the al-Qaeda brand could be problematic in maintaining the façade. So they have encouraged their franchises to obscure and soft-peddle their al-Qaeda connections — particularly by not brandishing “al-Qaeda” in their names.

It’s working.

To their credit, the Wall Street Journal’s editors concede that “the Army of Conquest coalition . . . includes al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.” Yet this is still an understatement, just as the Journal’s follow-up observation — that this al-Qaeda affiliate “fights alongside more moderate and secular forces” — overstates the case. In reality, al-Qaeda is the Army of Conquest; and the forces they are fighting alongside are a different coalition — and one whose moderation and secularity are exaggerated.

As Tom Joscelyn elaborates, the other coalition in Aleppo is known as Fatah Halab (“Aleppo Conquest”). To be sure, it has some secular, moderate elements; but it also features deep Islamist ties.

The “secular, moderate” veneer is built on the fiction, heavily promoted in the U.S. from the first stages of the uprising, that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is a gaggle of secular factions seeking to replace Assad with a Western-style democracy. In reality, the FSA has long been coopted by the Muslim Brotherhood — as has the Syrian National Council, which was set up early on to pose as the overarching framework of the opposition.

As I have pointed out any number of times over the past several years, enthusiasts for American intervention in the civil wars of Muslim-majority countries bend over backward to avoid mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood. They say “moderate” and “rebel,” hoping no one will try to pin them down about who these “moderate rebels” are. But way too many of them are members of the international sharia-supremacist organization whose motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!”

The Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization in recent years by Egypt (which ousted a government led by the Brotherhood), and by its former allies, the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. (See Daniel Pipes’s 2014 piece in National Review on how perceptions of the Brotherhood have changed.) In the U.S., legislation to designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization has been proposed by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and was approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year. Nevertheless, it remains progressive Beltway wisdom that the Brotherhood is better thought of as a moderate Islamist organization — even a “firewall against violent extremism,” as Marc Lynch of George Washington University put it in a Washington Post opinion piece in March.

But the Brotherhood, which has a history of violence and boasts as its Palestinian branch the Hamas terrorist organization, is hardly opposed to “violent extremism” (the Washington euphemism for “jihadist terror”). It is true that its methods differ from those of al-Qaeda and ISIS. For the Brothers, jihad has its place but is just one form of aggression in a broad arsenal that includes political activism, vexatious lawsuits, media propaganda, etc. Nevertheless, the Brothers’ objective is exactly the same as that of the more brutal jihadist networks: the imposition of the totalitarian sharia system of governance. And given the geography of the conflict in Syria, it is worth emphasizing that the Brothers have no more coveted short-term objective than the destruction of Israel.

Just as the al-Qaeda affiliates pretend to be “moderates” by stressing their opposition to ISIS, the Brotherhood affiliates pose as “secularists” — with no small amount of help from the Obama administration — by stressing their differentiation from al-Qaeda. This pose is also helped along by the fact that al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has taken to mocking the Brotherhood as overly cozy with secular regimes and insufficiently zealous for transition to sharia. (See Tom Joscelyn’s report, here.) Consistent with this strategy, the Fatah Halab coalition in Aleppo made a point of claiming that al-Qaeda groups would be excluded. But this, again, is mainly a feint to project the illusion of secular moderation, which triggers Western and other support. In reality, as Tom documents, key Fatah Halab constituents have been working with al-Qaeda affiliates all along.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not to belittle the magnitude of the Russia–Iran alliance. Not only is Putin leveraging his increasingly close relations with the mullahs to project power; Tehran reportedly has dispatched hundreds (perhaps thousands) more fighters to bolster Assad’s forces in Aleppo (to say nothing of the 80,000 to 100,000 militia fighters whom Iran controls in Iraq). My point is that we need a strategy that recognizes all of our enemies for what they are, not one that imagines enemies into potential allies for no better reason than that other enemies seem worse.

I am far from an isolationist, but I strenuously opposed foolish interventions. I am not unsympathetic to the cause of supporting secularists and moderate Muslims — meaningnon-Islamists. But that means figuring out which ones are the real deal. We should be analyzing “rebels” in the exacting way Tom Joscelyn does, so that we can grasp what realistically can be accomplished. In Syria, that may be no more than creating safe space for refugees, promoting pro-Western groups, attacking jihadist hubs, and awaiting an American president who understands that both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are our enemies, not our prospective “regional partners.”

Until then, the lesson of Libya ought to teach us that it is no advancement of American interests if al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood win in Aleppo, even if that means that Assad, Iran, and Russia lose.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

15 Guantanamo detainees sent to UAE in major transfer

1471302528742

Fox News, Aug. 15, 2016:

Fifteen prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center were sent to the United Arab Emirates in the single largest release of detainees during the Obama administration, the Pentagon announced Monday.

The transfer of 12 Yemeni nationals and three Afghans to the UAE comes amid a renewed push to whittle down the number of detainees held at the U.S. prison in Cuba that President Barack Obama wants to close.

The Pentagon says 61 detainees now remain at Guantanamo, which was opened in January 2002 to hold foreign fighters suspected of links to the Taliban or the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. During the Bush administration, 532 prisoners were released from Guantanamo, often in large groups to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

The latest batch of released prisoners had mostly been held without charge for some 14 years at Guantanamo. They were cleared for release by the Periodic Review Board, comprised of representatives from six U.S. government agencies.

The UAE successfully resettled five detainees transferred there last year, according to the Pentagon.

Lee Wolosky, the State Department’s special envoy for Guantanamo’s closure, said the U.S. was grateful to the United Arab Emirates for accepting the latest group of 15 men and helping pave the way for the detention center’s closure.

“The continued operation of the detention facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists,” Wolosky said.

Obama has been seeking to close the detention center amid opposition from Congress, which has prohibited transferring detainees to the U.S. for any reason. The administration has been working with other countries to resettle detainees who have been cleared for transfer.

Naureen Shah, Amnesty International USA’s director of national security and human rights, said the transfers announced Monday are a “powerful sign that President Obama is serious about closing Guantanamo before he leaves office.”

According to Amnesty, one of the Afghans released to the UAE alleged that he was “tortured and subjected to other cruel treatment” while in U.S. military custody. The man, identified only as Obaidullah, was captured by U.S. special forces in July 2002 and allegedly admitted to acquiring and planting anti-tank mines to target U.S. and other coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan.

In clearing him for transfer, the review board said he hasn’t expressed any anti-U.S. sentiment or intent to re-engage in militant activities. However, a Pentagon detainee profile also said he provided little information and they had little “insight into his current mindset.”

One of the Yemeni men sent to the UAE was identified as Zahir Umar Hamis bin Hamdun, who traveled to Afghanistan in 1999 and later apparently acted as a weapons and explosives trainer.

A Pentagon profile from September 2015 said he expressed dislike of the U.S., which they identified as “an emotion that probably is motivated more by frustration over his continuing detention than by a commitment to global jihad.”

***

Also see:

Predicting which detainees will become recidivists can be difficult. But JTF-GTMO assessed that all 15 of the detainees transferred to the UAE were “high” risks. And President Obama’s own task force considered most of them “too dangerous” to let walk.

The Trickle-Down Erosion of Honesty in Obama’s White House

ap_barack-obama-john-kerry_ap-photo-e1471008064574-640x480Breitbart, by  James Zumwalt, Aug. 12, 2016:

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) conducts fraud prevention training for U.S. businesses. Training focus is both internal and external—preventing fraud against the business as well as fraud by company employees against others.

An important standard taught is the tone set for ethical integrity leadership:

An organization’s leadership creates the tone at the top – an ethical (or unethical) atmosphere in the workplace. Management’s tone has a trickle-down effect on employees. If top managers uphold ethics and integrity so will employees. But if upper management appears unconcerned with ethics and focuses solely on the bottom line, employees will be more prone to commit fraud and feel that ethical conduct isn’t a priority. In short, employees will follow the examples of their bosses.

Obviously, the larger an organization, the more difficult to hold all within it accountable to this standard. However, when numerous examples of a lapse in an organization’s ethical conduct exist, the tone set at the top comes into question.

Next week, a five-month long investigative report will be released finding U.S. Central Command intelligence ISIS and al-Qaeda threat assessments were intentionally downplayed. While offering no definitive evidence President Barack Obama ordered it, determining whether he did or not creates a need to look at the tone set for truth-telling.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered more ethics training for its attorneys based on a judge’s findings he was misled by DOJ lawyers in a high-profile lawsuit initiated by 26 states opposed to Obama’s immigration policies.

Apologizing for any confusion, DOJ lawyers deny making intentional misstatements. But their soft-pedaling contrasts significantly with the judge’s finding, “The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material.”

A recent Hillary Clinton email release suggests DOJ may also have blocked a Clinton Foundation probe.

For those believing it unfair to pin transgressions of one wayward federal agency as an indictment of the president under whom it serves, let us turn to Obama’s executive branch staff—where he held the most direct influence.

Ben Rhodes is Obama’s foreign policy guru. He is credited with setting the tone for the Iran nuclear deal both via his interactions with the press and Congress. Throughout the process, he maintained a low profile.

However, with the deal concluded, it has been difficult for Rhodes to contain his successful deception of the media and Congress. In a New York Times interview, he boasted about doing exactly that. And, anyone who knows Rhodes, knows he and Obama enjoy a mind-meld mentality.

For Obama defenders still believing DOJ misconduct and one self-admitted lying foreign policy guru do not an unethical president make, we continue.

Concerning the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to deceive Congress there were no side deals. We now know there were at least three.

As reported by the Associated Press, under one side deal, restrictions imposed by the known agreement “will ease in slightly more than a decade” rather than the 15 years originally claimed, thus reducing “the time Tehran would need to build a bomb to six months from the present estimates of one year.”

An aspect of the Iran deal making more recent headlines is the $400 million cash payment to Iran—sold to Congress at the time as a release of “Iranian” funds. Disclosures now suggest the fund release was actually a devious way for Obama to pay a ransom for Americans the mullahs held hostage. Senior DOJ officials objecting to the payment were overruled by Kerry.  Obama continues to deny it was ransom money despite evidence strongly suggesting Tehran viewed it as such.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, also denying it was ransom, claims, “We don’t pay for hostages. We don’t negotiate for hostages, absolutely not. We’re a nation of laws…” Yet, the White House, admits some of the money paid Iran could go to fund terrorism—a clear violation of U.S. laws.

Tehran even boasts about Obama’s efforts to deceive Americans on the nuclear deal. The Iranians were told not to discuss their missile tests, conducting them in secret so as not to draw attention to a flawed deal.

Evidence has also come to light that the U.S. State Department manipulated data given to Congress, downplaying anti-Israel bias charges against the UN Human Rights Council.

But, enough about State Department lies. Let us now turn to other federal agencies.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed this month the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had inappropriately targeted tea party and other conservative groups seeking non-profit status. As IRS targeting became an issue, it tried blaming it on “rogue agents.” However, internal documents reveal the tone was set at the agency’s top level.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper also suffered effects of the tone. In June 2013, he apologized to the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman for lying during a hearing. He had responded “No,” when asked specifically if NSA was spying on Americans. Only after Edward Snowden leaked classified documents revealing secretive U.S. government programs monitoring hundreds of millions of Americans did Clapper’s lie come to light.

The tone from the top includes misrepresenting facts tied to our national security and Muslim immigration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee determined in June 2016 the number of refugees arrested for terror in the U.S. was more than three times higher than what State Department reported.

Additionally, concerning criminal aliens in general, it was determined the number reported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement as released in 2014 who then went on to commit additional crimes was under-reported to the House Judiciary Committee by almost 90 percent. This led Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to say Obama was creating “a sanctuary for tens of thousands of criminal aliens.”

The Secret Service also fell victim to Obama’s unethical tone, releasing a congressman’s personnel file in retribution for his disclosures about agent misconduct.

Obama’s unethical leadership has had a trickle-down effect. While 42 years ago such leadership caught up to a U.S. president, it appears Obama, inexplicably, will be spared a similar fate.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields,” “Living the Juche Lie: North Korea’s Kim Dynasty” and “Doomsday: Iran–The Clock is Ticking.” He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.

***

Also see:

Inside the Last ISIS Stronghold in Iraq, Resistance Grows

Anti-ISIS graffiti in Mosul

Anti-ISIS graffiti in Mosul

Preemptive Love, Aug. 4, 2016:

As the extremist group known as ISIS looks increasingly unsteady inside Iraq, there are a growing number of acts of resistance against the group inside the northern city of Mosul, which has been it’s stronghold in Iraq for over two years.

Evidence includes the number of times one sees the letter “M” written on the walls of schools, mosques, and other buildings in the city. This letter was not a casual choice. It is the first letter of the Arabic wordmuqawama, which means “resistance.”

It is an important symbol for those living in the city who oppose the extremist group and all it stands for. Acts of physical resistance are still rare, mainly because the city is full of ISIS fighters, many of whom are armed and who will not hesitate to punish those who oppose them.

Of course, the extremists do not stand idly by when this graffiti appears. They clean it from the walls and try to find those responsible.

Local media has also responded to the graffiti, publishing stories about it, mostly gleaned from Iraqi social media users, who post pictures of the graffiti and boast about how the people of Mosul are trying to resist ISIS.

The “M” is not the only way locals are resisting ISIS. Locals in the Dubbat neighborhood in Mosul—an area where many army officers used to live—woke to find somebody had placed an Iraqi flag atop an electricity pole during the night. The only flag allowed in Mosul is the black one belonging to ISIS. Extremists removed the flag immediately and burned it; they also arrested a number of locals, including some younger people and some retired army officers, and took them away, blindfolded, for questioning.

Everyone in Mosul knows the price of resistance—certain, and most likely cruel, death.

On July 21, ISIS released a 7-minute video that showed two extremists holding knives, as well as two young Iraqi men in front of them. The extremists spoke in French and threatened France again, as well as the other countries belonging to the international coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They also congratulated the man who killed over 80 in Nice, France, on July 14. Then they proceeded to decapitate the young men with their knives. The whole gruesome spectacle was filmed in Mosul.

The cruelty did not surprise Iraqis. But what is surprising about the video is the fact that it contains an admission from ISIS that there is resistance to them inside Mosul. The two young men who were killed confessed to having drawn the “M” graffiti, and also to having given information to the international coalition.

ISIS has been trying to isolate the people of Mosul from the rest of the world for some time now. In November 2014, the group banned communication by mobile phones (with varying degrees of success); and in February, they began to stop locals from leaving the city. Today, there is no way of getting out of Mosul without using risky smuggling routes.

About a month ago, ISIS fighters started to collect satellite television receivers. Members of the group drive around the city with loudspeakers, calling out to households to hand over their satellite dishes. The receivers will be taken to the outskirts of the city and destroyed, ISIS members say.

Read more

***

***

Also see:

  • Shia militias committing atrocities in Iraqi cities
  • ISIS to adopt the al Qaeda model for Iraq
  • Arming the Sunni tribes, recognizing the Kurds, and distancing from the Iranian-backed government in Baghdad

***

The Fall of Mosul – A historical documentary on how 1500 ISIS extremists were able to take control of a modern city of 1.8 million people. It covers ancient history, the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Syrian civil war, and more.

‘Clock Boy’ Ahmed Files Lawsuit Alleging ‘Discrimination’ Against Texas School, City

Ashraf Shazly/AFP

Ashraf Shazly/AFP

Breitbart, by MERRILL HOPE, Aug. 8, 2016:

Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, father of “Clock Boy” Ahmed, filed a federal lawsuit in Dallas against the Irving Independent School District, the MacArthur High School Principal and the City of Irving, on August 8.

The lawsuit claims Ahmed Mohamed’s rights were violated when he was arrested last year after the 14-year-old brought to school a clock device that resembled a hoax bomb. Although Mohamed’s engineering teacher advised him to put it away, he did not listen. Instead, Ahmed took the “clock” to English class where he plugged it in. It started to beep and scared the teacher. No charges were ever filed against the teen once the situation sorted itself out, but Mohamed served three days of suspension before his family withdrew him from Irving ISD and relocated to Qatar where Mohamed accepted a full scholarship to attend a Qatar Foundation school.

The Mohamed family held a press conference at 10 a.m. Monday, August 8 by led by new attorney Susan Hutchison, after filing a lawsuit against the City of Irving and the Irving school district. Hutchison said she filed the lawsuit against the City and Ahmed Mohamed’s former school district at 6 a.m. in federal court in Dallas. The suit alleges a violation of the teen’s civil rights. During the press conference, Hutchison asserted “there was no cause” for the Ahmed Mohamed’s arrest last year and accused the Irving school district of “paranoia” towards Muslims. She said the only remedy to this matter is “money” and they are “suing for justice.” They have not stated a dollar amount to sue for, so far. Hutchison said that would be up to a jury.

The lawsuit also claims a history of anti-Muslim sentiment in Irving and that Ahmed Mohamed was discriminated against based on his race and religion. The teen’s father, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, who filed the suit on his son’s behalf, claimed last year that Islamophobia was behind his son’s clock woes. In 2015, he said it happened “because his name is Mohamed and because of September 11.”

Meanwhile, the elder Mohamed posted a contentious photo of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers enveloped in smoke during the 2001 terrorist attacks on his Sudanese National Reform party page that sourced to a Sudanese military group that asserted a truther philosophy. They called 9/11 an inside job, depicting these “so-called” events a “rumor.” Weeks later, Mohamed shared another 9/11 “truther” Facebook post in Arabic. He pondered the clock incident would lead to spreading Islam in America.

The lawsuit described Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed as “an immigrant from the Sudan” and a United States citizen, although his son, Ahmed, is listed as “African American Muslim.”

The lawsuit accuses the Irving Independent School District of displaying a pattern of disproportionate disciplinary actions for black students. It also asserts Mohamed’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was detained by police and by principal Daniel Cummings for over an hour without the presence of his parents before he was arrested.

Irving ISD responded to its being named in the lawsuit shortly after the Mohamed Family press conference in a statement obtained by Breitbart Texas:

“Legal counsel for Irving ISD has confirmed that the school district was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed today in Dallas federal court by attorneys for a former Irving ISD student. As with any legal matter of this nature, attorneys for the school district will review the filing and respond as appropriate. Irving ISD continues to deny violating the student’s rights and will respond to claims in accordance with court rules. Because this matter is now in litigation, Irving ISD officials will have no further comment at this time.”

September 2015, Breitbart Texas reported that zero tolerance, not Islamophobia was behind the teen’s woes.

The family has had several lawyers represent them along the way, including a west Texas personal injury attorney Kelly Hollinsgworth demanded a total of $15 million last November —   $10 million from the City of Irving, and $5 million, from the Irving school district. Breitbart Texas reported the letters alleged innumerable claims about Ahmed Mohamed’s September 14, 2015 detainment, among them “Islamophobia.” In late June, uncle Aldean Mohamed told Dallas news media the family still planned to sue.

Personal injury attorney Susan Hutchison of Hutchison & Stoy in Forth Worth is the latest lawyer representing the Mohameds.

In June, Mohamed told news media he returned to Texas for a summer internship with Twitter, although, CBS DFW reported the family returned to visit family.

This article has been updated to reflect new developments in the story.

Follow Merrill Hope on Twitter @OutOfTheBoxMom.

Doc 1 Clock Boy Complaint by Logan Churchwell on Scribd

Also see: (try not to gag)

Somber, Ahmed told reporters: “The reality of it is I’ve lost my home, I lost my creativity, because before I used to love building things but now I can’t. There is nothing I can do.” He added his materials to build with was in storage or the trash and then, insisted he cannot create again because he does not know what parts he needs to use.

Obama Only Bombs Libya When the Muslim Brotherhood Lets Him

benghazi_victims (1)

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, August 2, 2016:

Obama is rather belatedly bombing ISIS in Libya after having essentially turned over Libya to Jihadists. That particular course of action cost the lives of four Americans in Benghazi.

Why can Obama bomb Libya now but not to save the Americans who were under siege in Benghazi? The answer is simple and ugly.

In Washington, the Pentagon said the raids were launched in response to a request from the unity government.

“At the request of the Libyan Government of National Accord, the United States military conducted precision air strikes against ISIL targets in Sirte, Libya, to support GNA-affiliated forces seeking to defeat ISIL in its primary stronghold in Libya,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said, using another name for IS.

The GNA is significantly Muslim Brotherhood influenced. Obama refused to provide aid until the GNA, which incorporates Islamists, came into being.

A  third deputy is Abdessalam Kajman who aligned with the Justice and Construction Party of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest component while Musa al-Kuni represents southern Libya.

Whether it was going after Gaddafi or ISIS, Obama needs to be on the right side of his political Islamists first. And he isn’t about to bomb them merely to save American lives.

Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Matthew Boyle, August 2, 2016:

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy.

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it.

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan at the Democratic National Convention last week in Philadelphia, and they were honoring their son U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan—a hero who lost his life to a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004. On behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, Khizr Khan ripped into Donald Trump’s policies on immigration—specifically bashing his plan to bar Muslim migration from regions afflicted with rampant terrorism into America temporarily until the United States can figure out what’s going on.

Khan even brought out a pocket Constitution, claiming inaccurately that Trump’s plans were unconstitutional. That’s not true, as Congress has already granted such power to the president under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952—allowing the president to bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time. Such a class of aliens could be Muslims, or it could be people from a specific region of the world, or any other class—such as someone’s race, weight, height, age, national origin, religion, or anything else.

The media, along with Hillary Clinton and her supporters throughout the Democratic Party establishment, has pushed the line of attack against Trump for days. Now on Tuesday, President Barack Obama has said that Trump is “unfit” to serve as President over the matter. Even a group of anti-Trump congressional Republicans has gone after Trump on the matter.

But as Breitbart News and other new media have exposed Khan’s various deep political and legal connections to the Clintons—and to Muslim migration—the attack line has crumbled. Now, with Khan deleting his website in an apparent effort to hide his biographical information, the attack is falling apart even more.

What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information.

What’s more, the entire mainstream has proven negligence with regard to this matter as none of them even thought to look into this Khan guy’s law practice before bandying him about as some kind of magic elixir that cures the country of Trump. 

Facing the Terror Threat at the Olympic Games in Rio

160801_Rio_Bucci-1250x650

Daily Signal, by Steven Bucci, August 1, 2016:

The Olympic Games are supposed to be a celebration of sport, international good will, and man’s ability to transcend conflict. They are what Gen. Douglas MacArthur called “the fields of friendly strife.”

Yet, since Palestinian terrorists disrupted the 1972 Munich Games, the Olympics also have meant something else. Every country that wins the opportunity to host the games also has a herculean security challenge.

This year is perhaps the most challenging to date.

The Rio de Janeiro Games, set for Aug. 5-21, come after one of the worst runs of international terror any of us has ever seen. Terrorists have struck this year in France, Germany, America, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, multiple sites in Africa, and in Asia.

The terrorists used bombs, guns, knives, axes, and rental trucks. Fueled by an uncompromising Islamist ideology, racial hatred, and mental illness, they continue to spill innocent blood.

Their targets are diverse, but have three common characteristics: soft, symbolic, and spectacular.

Soft as in light security to overcome and difficult for the “good guys” to successfully protect.

Symbolic in that the target means something positive to the rest of us, and is therefore hateful to the perpetrators.

Spectacular in that the guarantee of significant media coverage will relay the message of hate to a wide audience, affecting more people than the physical victims.

Rio meets all three criteria in spades.

The Brazilians will have their best assets providing security at the Rio Games, and they have the benefit of the advice and counsel of the world’s best counterterror experts.

America’s FBI and Joint Special Operations Command, Britain’s Special Air Service, and Germany’s GSG9 (the anti-terror unit formed in response to the Munich tragedy) all will provide assistance. As will regional friends of Brazil, and the best intelligence agencies in the world.

Brazil already has rounded up 12 suspects in multiple operations, all thought to be planning attacks on the Summer Games. That’s a good start. It’s necessary to take the known threats off the board.

However, that is not enough. What about the unknowns?

To mitigate them, screenings, metal detectors, and undercover operatives will be everywhere. Uniformed military and police will provide as big a deterrent as possible, using sensors for bombs, bio-weapons, and chemicals, plus those ever-present and effective dogs.

The bottom line is that the best security methodologies, assets, and operators will be used to secure the games.

Those attending the Summer Games also must play a role. Since the venues are spread out, the routes between them will be targets. The security forces will need the eyes, ears, and senses of every person of good will to augment their efforts.

The civilized world is praying for Brazil. Sadly, others are praying that killers will get through.

As has been said, the protectors have to be right everywhere, all the time, and in every case; the killers need to be “right” only once.

We’re pulling for Rio to be safe and a smashing success.

***

Also see:

Let’s Roll: Why Standing Up to a Terrorist Is Your Best Self-Defense

160728_SelfDefense-1250x650Daily Signal, by Glen Butler, July 28, 2016

After the carnage like we’ve witnessed in American cities such as San Bernardino and Orlando, and more recently in Europe, the national conversation tends to shift temporarily back toward gun control legislation and how to best protect ourselves in the homeland from future terrorist attacks.

Sadly, however, what is always absent from these post-tragedy conversations is any mention of one change with enormous potential to save lives—one which would not require controversial legislation, millions of dollars, nor procurement of expensive advanced technologies. This change includes an overdue re-examination of how unarmed civilians should respond during these events, including how federal, state, and local authorities tell the public to respond.

Most every American has at some point either discussed or practiced an “active shooter response” based on guidance developed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Originally created, in part, as a buffer against potential lawsuits in the wake of a Nebraska mall shooting in late 2007, the guidance teaches us to run away if possible, hide if you are unable to escape, and fight back only as a last resort.

Today, “Run, Hide, Fight” is taught to everyone and mandated not only by the DHS, but also by the FBI, law enforcement…and even the military, including for its own members. Fear of lawsuits (by grieving family members of victims who fought back) still drives this and indirectly paralyzes everyone into watching helplessly as the active shooter and terrorist menace rampages.

Despite this public mandate to run away or cower when under attack, America vigorously celebrates those who violate this edict and confront the threat.

Three Americans were among those who famously thwarted an attack on a Paris train in August of last year; they’ve enjoyed celebrity status in the months since. Numerous other examples exist of average Americans bucking their government’s guidance, ignoring their survival instincts, and doing the right thing to help save others, and themselves.

Deciding how to respond in such a scenario is a personal choice, and it would be callous to criticize others who have experienced such trauma, no matter their response.

But the mere suggestion of confrontation has somehow become controversial. Recall the widespread criticism of former presidential candidate Ben Carson in October when he said “I would not just stand there and let him shoot me … I would ask everybody to attack” in response to a question about the shooting at an Oregon community college. The world was aghast he would say such a thing.

Nevertheless, consider that in 2012 the Aurora, Colorado, theater gunman who killed 20 people and injured 70 had enough time to leisurely fire 76 shots without confrontation, and was standing casually outside the theater before the arrival of police, who initially mistook him for one of their own.

More recently, an Orlando survivor told CNN he was hiding in the bathroom stall when the gunman’s gun jammed, and he initially thought someone would then use that pause to rush the attacker. “But no one did,” he said. That’s because they were all simply doing what they’ve been told to do, countless times.

The mindset that we are helpless without weapons is not only self-defeating, but dangerous, and government policy that reinforces this perception is a flawed one.

A September 2013 FBI report found that of the 160 active shooter incidents in the U.S. between 2010 and 2013, 21 (13.1 percent) ended after unarmed citizens made the “selfless and deeply personal choices” to confront the active shooters. In each of these cases, the citizens “safely and successfully disrupted the shootings” and “likely saved the lives” of many others present.

Another compelling reason to consider change is because future attacks are inevitable, and relying on police rescue might actually lower your own chance of survival.

The 2013 FBI report found that of those 160 active shooter incidents—incidents that generated 1,043 total casualties—60 percent ended before police arrived. These disturbing numbers warrant attention, especially when examined alongside CIA Director John Brennan’s recent remarks: “ISIL has a large cadre of Western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the West … our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach … [and] we judge that it will intensify its global terror campaign.”

Finally, our government-mandated response guidance is based on outdated models.

Al-Qaeda’s recent Inspire magazine told its U.S. supporters to wage a “knife jihad” and stab civilians like they’re all “Israeli Jews.” A 17-year-old Afghan “refugee” recently attacked passengers in this manner on a German train, and an elderly Catholic priest was similarly butchered during a Mass in France.

Does it make any sense to hide behind a desk while a jihadi terrorist slowly slices your co-workers, fellow students, or other Americans to death with a knife or machete? Wouldn’t it be more practical, ethical, and effective to rush blade-wielding terrorists as soon as possible?

Ultimately, this is something Americans should discuss, pundits should debate, and government officials should examine.

On 9/11, Todd Beamer’s simple “Let’s roll” directive inspired his fellow United Airlines Flight 93 passengers, and now stands as enduring testament to real American grit.

It’s time we stop training to be lambs for the slaughter and have a national conversation about standing up to terrorists—a conversation that, for once, isn’t linked to either arming everyone with guns or to legislatively taking away those same weapons. It’s time to arm ourselves with knowledge about the benefits of action, and with training for such methods of defense and deterrence.

After all, you don’t need to be a Navy SEAL or a SWAT team leader to be a hero. You just need to reflect on the current plan’s flaws and be willing to take a better approach, to stand up together against the evil.

Let’s roll, America!

Islam, Sexual Violence, and the West

rapefugeesby Noah Beck
Special to IPT News
July 28, 2016

The mass rape of hundreds of German women mostly by Muslim migrants last New Year’s was recently revealed to be far worse than originally acknowledged. Authorities now believe that more than 1,200 women were sexually assaulted – more than twice the original estimate of 500. While more than 2,000 men were allegedly involved, only 120 suspects — about half of them recently arrived migrants — have been identified.

One explanation for why it took half a year for the full extent of the crime to be revealed is the German police’s effort to avoid a public backlash against refugees. But ultimately, Holger Munch, president of the German Federal Crime Police Office, acknowledged to the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung that there is “a connection between the [sexual assaults] and the rapid migration in 2015.”

Denial is not a strategy. Western countries that cherish women’s rights must wake up to the fact that many migrants could challenge those values. Most of the mass migration comes from violence-plagued, Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where women are second-class citizens subject to honor killings and various legal restrictions, and where the local culture often condones rape, encourages wife-beating, and treats women as sexual objects (with 72 virgins promised to Muslim men who reach heaven).

Thus, just as the mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa raises the specter of regular Islamist terror on European soil, it also augurs the kind of sexual abuse that those regions have traditionally tolerated. German officials implicitly seemed to acknowledge as much with their laughably impotent campaign to re-educate migrants using signs that explain acceptable behavior towards women.

Non-Muslim (“infidel”) women are especially vulnerable to sexual assault: Christian women are often abused and denigrated in Islamic societies, as extensively exposed by Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again. The Islamic State (ISIS) regards the Yazidi, another religious minority, as devil worshippers and reportedly enslaved up to 5,000 Yazidi women, subjecting them to rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution and other acts of extreme brutality, like burning alive a 20-year-old girl “because she refused to perform an extreme sex act.”

Saudi Arabia, arguably the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, has a legal system based on strict sharia law, which prohibits women from dressing as they wish or even driving a car. Saudi rulings are notoriously abysmal when it comes to rape. Last year, a Saudi woman was sentenced to 200 lashes after being gang raped by seven men. In 2013, a Saudi preacher who raped, tortured, and murdered his 5-year old daughter was punished with just eight years of prison, 800 lashes, and a $270,000 fine. With such legal norms, it’s not surprising that when members of the country’s ruling elite travel to the West, their behavior may not change accordingly (last October three womenaccused a Saudi prince of sexual assault in Beverly Hills). By ironic and tragic contrast, U.S. soldiers stationed in Muslim majority countries are trained to respect local norms to the point that marines stationed in Afghanistan were actually taught to look away if they find Afghanis raping children, a common local practice.

While sharia advocates often claim that the Islamic dress code protects women, the brutally unfair treatment of women by Islamists seems driven more by power-hungry male chauvinism and/or sexual insecurity than by any genuine concern for women’s welfare, judging from the staggering hypocrisy of its proudest proponents. The 9/11 jihadists visited strip clubs, and paid for prostitutes in their motel rooms. Anwar Al-Awlaki, the American-born imam whose sermons continue to attract recruits to jihad,frequented prostitutes. Osama bin Laden had an extensive pornography collection, and is among the many examples of jihadis obsessed with porn and prostitution collected by Phyllis Chesler, a CUNY emerita professor of psychology and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Between 1997 and 2013, well before the recent mass migration to Europe began, an estimated 1,400 children had been sexually abused in Rotherham, England, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.

While that scandal involved mostly “white” victims, an Oxford-educated Pakistani-British woman revealed her own exploitation, noting that “sexual abuse has been systemically under-reported among Asian girls due to deeply entrenched cultural taboos – obscuring the reality that there is a similarly rampant problem of minority girls being abused by members of their own community.”

A few weeks ago, Swedish police received 35 complaints from girls aged 12 to 17 who claimed that “foreign young men” sexually assaulted them at a popular music festival.

Soeren Kern, a distinguished senior fellow of the Gatestone Institute, compiled details of dozens of sexual assaults by migrants in Germany during the first two months of 2016, and noted the enabling reaction from “the upside-down worldview of German multiculturalism: Migrants who assault German women and children are simply rebelling against German power structures. Germans who dare to criticize such assaults are racists.”

In contrast to the initial cover-up by German police of the mass rape by mostly Muslim migrants, France’s top security official recently spoke with candid alarm about the threat that his country faces. Just two days before the truck-ramming, ISIS-inspired massacre in Nice, Patrick Calvar, chief of the Directorate General of Internal Security, warned members of the French parliamentary commission that France is on the verge of a “civil war” that could be sparked by the mass sexual assault of women by migrants.

There are remarkable exceptions within Islam itself, such as the Tuareg, an Islamic tribe in Africa, where women embrace sexual freedoms, dictate who gets what in divorce, and don’t wear the veil because men “want to see their beautiful faces.” But how long can the Tuareg’s enlightened version of Islam survive in southwest Libya when ISIS is expanding there, or in Mali, Niger and northern Nigeria, where Boko Haram is on the march?

There are also brave Muslim reformers trying to improve the way Islam treats women. However, they mostly operate in the West, where they still face death threats; one example is Irshad Manji. Another, Fadela Amara, founded Ni Putes Ni Soumises, a group that defends Muslim French girls against the pressures they face to wear the hijab, drop out of school, and marry early without the right to choose their husband. Amara went on to serve in the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, but she, too, received death threats for her efforts to liberate Muslim women.

Muslim feminists outside of the West assume far greater risks. Pakistani social media celebrity Qandeel ‎Baloch, who openly expressed her feminist views online, was recently strangled to death by her brother in their family’s home, in an “honor killing.” Her “intolerable behavior” is what drove him to murder her, he said, because her risqué persona was bringing “dishonor” to the family. There are an estimated 1,000 honor killings per year in Pakistan.

Even in the West, few feminists dare to criticize Islam because doing so can invite threats and violence. Absurdly, those brave enough to do so also risk being prosecuted for “hate speech.”

Western countries must support courageous Muslim reformers while protecting all women living in their territories from the sexual abuse often encouraged by Islamist culture – whether that abuse is perpetrated by recent immigrants or long-time residents. The survival of the West depends on it.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

How Trains Are A Prime Target for Terrorists

targetby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
July 26, 2016

On July 18, a young man stormed through a train outside of Wurzburg, Germany. Crying “Allahu Akbar,” (God is greatest) he brandished an axe high into the air, then slashed at the men and women seated around him. Within minutes, the car, as one persondescribed it, ” looked like a slaughterhouse.”

Then he fled.

By the time the day had ended, five people had been seriously wounded: four on the train, and a woman who had the misfortune of walking her dog at the moment he passed by. She remains in critical condition.

A day later, the Islamic State took credit for the attack, calling the killer, a 17-year-old refugee who was ultimately shot and killed by German police, a “soldier for ISIS.” It was the first full-scale Islamic terrorist attack in Germany.

But it was not the first Islamic terrorist attack on a train. Far from it: starting with the 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid and the July 7, 2005 bombings of the London Underground, trains and metros have been a common target for extremist groups. Some efforts, like the bombing of the Brussels metro station this past April, succeeded; many more have failed. But the attempts, successful or not, betray a gaping hole in international security, and one that may not be easy to repair.

In fact, a 2007 report from the Council on Foreign Relations noted that “security professionals see trains as some of the likeliest targets.” Consequently, when it comes to the possibility of a major attack on U.S. or European railway or metro systems, former Homeland Security officer Sean Burke told Boston’s WCVB news, “We have to expect it. That’s the bottom line.”

Such an attack, if large enough, could be devastating. While air traffic remains substantial, five times as many people ride trains as fly in the United States, and in Europe, the rapid, efficient and low-cost trains often offer the best transportation options between countries, especially in an era of long airport security lines and early check-ins. Moreover, freight shipments, including highly toxic industrial chemicals, travel the same routes as passenger trains, frequently passing through densely populated areas. Because of this situation, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in 2007 that former White House Deputy Homeland Security Adviser Richard Falkenrath considered such trains “the single greatest danger of a potential terrorist attack in our country today.'”

Yet security on both continents is weak, and in Europe, often at the bare minimum; one will rarely find a policeman or other security personnel at a train station in the Netherlands, for instance. Even on international trains, like the high-speed Thalys between the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, customs and immigration officials are few and far between. Rarely is anyone asked for ID (let alone a passport), and there are, as in the U.S., no security screenings even at major rail stations like Paris’ Gare du Nord and Berlin Hauptbanhof.

Which may in part explain why the real identity of the axe-wielder in Bavaria is still uncertain: at a July 20 press conference in Berlin, officials admitted that his name is still uncertain since he, like many other asylum seekers, entered the country without a passport or other identifying papers. Indeed, Time reports that, “Authorities have discovered that he could be from Afghanistan or Pakistan, and that the information he provided to officials in Germany could be partly or entirely false.”

It also likely explains the many other, less successful attempts on European trains, such as the 2006 plot to bomb trains at the Cologne station; an attempt to blow up the main train station in Bonn in 2006; a suspected plot disrupted last New Year’s Eve tosend suicide bombers onto trains in Munich; and the foiled attack by Ayoub el Khassini, who opened fire on a Thalys train in August 2015. In the latter instance, three American tourists – two of whom were in the military – ultimately overpowered and subdued the Moroccan-born Belgian resident, who had boarded the train armed with a Kalashnikov, pistol, hammer, bottle of petrol, nearly 300 rounds of ammunition, and other weapons.

Yet, counterterrorism and national security officials in the U.S. as well as Europe admit there is little they can do. As Time notes, in Europe, “some of the trains linking major cities stop at countless small towns along the way,” and the cost of installing metal detectors and setting up TSA-style inspections at all of these stations would be prohibitive. As Christophe Piednoel, a spokesman for the French SNCF railway toldLiberation, “Stations are public places….We cannot ask the French to wait one hour before boarding a train. Moreover, 15,000 trains cross France every day, and traverse 3000 stations.”

The same is true in the U.S., where some say Amtrak, which carries over 30 million passengers a year through 46 states and parts of Canada, is a prime target. Tracks pass through tunnels, across bridges, in and out of remote villages and major cities. As Burke also told WCVB, “The passenger rail system is designed to be open. It’s specifically put in densely populated areas. [It’s] a system that is vulnerable really from the beginning of its trip to the end of its trip.”

Added to that is the threat of toxic, chemical freight, which is carried in pressurized tanks: the CFR report points out that “security along their route tends to be lax, and at times tanks sit unmonitored in rail yards for days at a time.” Despite this fact, efforts to reroute such shipments have failed; not only are they costly, but impractical, since many of the shipments are themselves bound for populated areas, including major cities.

Despite this danger, the TSA all but overlooks train safety, budgeting just 2 percent of its spending on train and subway security, according to the New York Times. Even considering the practical complications and costs of adding metal detectors to all train stations and subway entrances in the country, this hardly seems like enough. New York subways are regularly patrolled by transit authority police who will perform random searches of bags, but with 5.6 million passengers riding the system daily, these measures scarcely seem adequate.

What is especially disturbing is that security officials, both in the U.S. and in many European countries, even seem aware of this: after the Paris attacks in November 2014, K-9 teams swept train stations across America. And after the Brussels metro attacks, train terminals saw a stepped up police and military presence in a number of major cities and even some smaller European towns. In New York and Washington, D.C., security was intensified not just on trains and subways, but also on bridges, tunnels, and even highways.

And then, suddenly, they were gone. It was as if the dangers in New York and Washington and Chicago were resolved, once the perpetrators of the attack in Brussels had been arrested or killed.

True, records show that TSA at airports have failed to stop a single terrorist attack (though they did find over 2,200 firearms, along with grenades, knives, and other weapons in 2015). At the same time, that may be because their presence discourages potential terrorists from attempting to strike on board a plane these days. There are, after all, easier options. Like trains.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

The Pope–and virtually ALL Western leaders are Wrong about the War

church-apTerror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton, July 28, 2016:

In the wake of the horrific Jihadist attack on a Catholic church in Normandy, France, Pope Francis’ latest statements that the world war we are in is not a religious war shows a lack of knowledge of Islamic doctrine. The Pope is not alone in this view. Every major Western political leader from George W. Bush through to Barack Obama has maintained the same belief.

When the Islamic State caliphate was declared in 2014, their media arm issued a slick, 10-page document announcing the establishment of the caliphate. In those 10 pages, they cited Islamic scripture 26 times–scripture from the Quran and scripture from the Sunna of Mohammed. The entire document was dominated by Islamic scripture and associated commentary.

So whether the Pope thinks that the Jihadists are waging a religious war or not is irrelevant. The Islamic State Jihadists believe they are waging a religious war. And they justify it with Islamic doctrine.

In warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. We can’t wish this all away and we can’t simply deny the nature of our enemies. In 1943, no one tried to make the case that the Nazis had misinterpreted Mein Kampf. No one tried to make the case that the Japanese had perverted the Shinto religion.

The West must pivot toward making an honest, objective analysis of what our enemies believe, not what we think they should believe.

The Pope’s unfortunate statement is not unique. Western leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are fiddling and Rome may literally be burning soon.

It is long past time to wake up!

***

Also see:

Normandy Priest Slaughter: Europe Teeters on the Brink

priest

Front Page Magazine, by Ari Lieberman, July 27, 2016

Still reeling from a truck attack in the French resort city of Nice on Bastille Day that left 84 dead and more than 300 wounded, France was hit yet again with Islamic terrorism, this time in the northern French town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. The carnage began at approximately 9am on Tuesday when two knife-wielding Muslim terrorists, chanting their battle cry of “Allahuakbar,” burst into a church during morning mass and took hostages. They then proceeded to murder, Jacques Hamel, an 86-year-old priest by slitting his throat before being shot dead by police snipers. Another hostage, gravely wounded by the attackers, is reported to be hovering between life and death. The remaining three hostages survived unharmed.

The terrorists swore allegiance to ISIS and the group claimed responsibility for the attack through its propaganda outlet. At least one of the attackers was known to law enforcement. In 2015, he traveled to Turkey in an attempt to infiltrate into Syria and join an Islamist group but was apprehended by the Turks and shipped back to France. He did a brief jail stint before being released by French authorities. His liberal release terms allowed him to be unsupervised between the hours of 8.30am and 12.30pm. The Church attack occurred during those hours.

Tuesday’s outrage was eerily similar to a November 2014 attack on a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. Two Muslim-Palestinian terrorists, armed with hatchets, meat cleavers and a pistol burst into the synagogue during morning services and brutally murdered four worshipers before being killed in an exchange with police. A policeman was also killed during the firefight and a fifth worshiper succumbed to his wounds a year later.

These attacks, whether occurring in Europe or Israel, are inspired and driven by the same radical, Islamo-fascist ideology. Those who perpetrate such bestial acts as well as those who incite them are devoid of any semblance of humanity. Enlightened Europe has still largely failed to grasp this concept, believing that rehabilitation for such individuals is still a viable option. It is not. Had French authorities understood this, at least one of the terrorists who carried out the cowardly attack would have been sitting in a damp cell or deported.

Pope Francis, whose liberal views on Muslim migrants are well known, condemned the atrocity. But The Pope is an enormously influential personality whose opinions carry extraordinary weight and persuasive moral authority. Yet he has inexplicably chosen to adopt a viewpoint that has Europe teetering on the brink and could very well lead to its demise. It is a virtual certainty that many of the Muslim migrants are wolves in sheep’s clothing and are members of ISIS or otherwise harbor extremist Islamist views and are just one degree of separation from full-fledged murderers. Indeed, many of the recent attacks, including last year’s Paris attacks that claimed the lives of 130, were perpetrated by individuals who claimed refugee status and sought asylum.

In the past eight months, Europe has been wracked by unprecedented violence carried out exclusively by Muslim terrorists.

  • On November 13, 2015, ISIS terrorists struck multiple targets in Paris in a coordinated, well-planned assault killing 130 and wounding 350.
  • On March 22, 2016, ISIS terror attacks at Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station claimed the lives of 32.
  • On June 13, 2016, an ISIS terrorist stabbed a French police chief and his wife to death outside their home in Magnanville near the French capital.
  • On July 14, 2016, a Muslim truck driver barreled his lorry down a promenade filled with pedestrians in the city of Nice, killing 84 and injuring more than 300.
  • On July 18, 2016, a Muslim immigrant boarded a train in Germany and attacked passengers with an axe, seriously injuring five.
  • On July 22, 2016, an Iranian shot and killed nine people in a Munich shopping mall
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee attacked a pregnant woman with a machete in the German city of Reutlingen, killing her and wounding three others.
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee detonated a bomb at an open-air music festival in the southern city of Ansbach, wounding 12.

These attacks are in addition to the numerous rapes and sexual assaults, both documented and undocumented, perpetrated by Muslim migrants against European women.

In response to the surge in attacks, France has instituted a state of emergency and the EU has turned to Israel, recognized as a world leader in combatting terrorism, for assistance. Israeli counter-terrorism units have trained their European counterparts and Israeli intelligence has been instrumental in thwarting terror attacks on the European continent.

In 2015, Israeli intelligence tipped German authorities off to an imminent terror threat that forced the cancellation of a soccer match between Germany and the Netherlands that was scheduled to take place on November 17 at Hanover Stadium.

The EU is also seeking Israeli expertise in dealing with so-called lone wolf attacks. Israeli technology companies have developed specialized software to deal with the growing phenomena of individuals radicalized or otherwise influenced by online social media forums. Israel’s anti-terror cyber capabilities are very formidable and the EU recognizes this.

But while these measures may help in the short run, a longer term solution is required. Europe’s open door policy for Muslim migrants has turned into an unmitigated failure. Until the EU acknowledges this fact and takes the necessary measures to secure its borders, deport asylum seekers, stiffen penalties for incitement, and loosen absurd restrictions imposed on law enforcement, the dreadful attacks that we’ve witnessed in Western Europe in recent years will only intensify.

Lastly, the EU must recognize that appeasement represents the policy of a defeated people. The EU, led by France and Sweden, has kowtowed to the Palestinians who maintain an extremist ideology that parallels the Islamic State’s. And Just as ISIS celebrated the attack at Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the Palestinians, of all political stripes and persuasions, celebrated the Har Nof massacre. Though their oratory may differ, Hamas, Fatah (the party of PA president, Mahmoud Abbas), ISIS, and Hezbollah are all cut from the same cloth and seek the same maximalist, genocidal goals.