What Motivates Jihad And What Is America’s Plan To Defeat It?

2016-06-24_featured-1140x660The Federalist,  27, 2016:

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, writer and expert on national security and terrorism, joined the Federalist Radio Hour to explain how America can attack the jihadi movement and defeat the war on terror. He is author of the new book, Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, now a New York Times Best Seller.

ISIS is more powerful than Al-Qaeda ever was and is the most significant jihadi resurgence since the Caliphate was dissolved said Gorka. “What we are seeing–the murder of this priest, the murder of this pregnant woman–this is executed by people who are the incarnation of evil,” he said. “These aren’t random acts. These aren’t psychologically disturbed. This is evil incarnate and we must recognize that.”

Gorka explained the origins of ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the strategists behind jihad. “These people aren’t crazy…they have a plan. They’re not capricious and they’re not making it up as they go along,” he said.

Our national security is cross-wired with a political agenda that is endangering Americans. “These things have become hot button issues inside the intelligence community, and you touch upon them, you discuss them at your own peril and at a risk to your career.

Listen here:

Frank Gaffney: Democratic Party Is ‘Aligned with Our Enemies, and Not with America’

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty/Reuters

Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty/Reuters

Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 27, 2016:

Center for Security Policy founder Frank Gaffney told SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon of Breitbart News Daily that curing the “plague” of Islamist terrorism will first require a proper diagnosis.

Gaffney said it was important to understand that “Yes, these are individuals that want to attack Western civilization, but they also are all about Islamic supremacism over other faiths, as well as other civilizations.”

He was speaking, of course, in the context of the savage murder of a Catholic priest, in his Normandy church, by Islamic State jihadis.

He described the Islamic State as “just one manifestation of this global jihad movement,” stressing that “you could destroy every single operative, in Europe, in the Middle East more generally, and you still have not taken down this Islamic supremacist, jihadist enterprise.”

“You can set it back – and you have to do that, don’t get me wrong – it’s just that you also have to be going after the underlying ideology,” he explained. “And let’s call it what they call it: sharia. And that ideology is at the core of every jihadist enterprise in the world, violent and non-violent, as well.”

Bannon asked if Western nations should shut down mosques and Islamic centers that preach the supremacy of sharia law and deport their clerics.

“Let me suggest three things. One, we’ve got to stop importing more of these jihadists,” Gaffney responded. “I mean, before we get to the ones we’ve got here, don’t bring more in. Whatever the number is, we’ve got plenty. We’ve got too many, in fact.”

“Secondly, we need to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization,” he stated, adding:

That’s what it is. Once you’ve designated it as such, then those mosques, then those front groups, then those influence operations that it is running here, as well as in Europe, to enable the other kind of jihad – not this stealthy civilization kind, the violent kind – you stop that.

Third, Gaffney said, “We need to set our sights on nothing less than victory over jihad,” expressing hope that Donald Trump would issue such a call during his presidential campaign.

“Setting our sights on that is the critical step to making sure that the rest of this gets done,” he urged.

Bannon noted that two days into the Democratic National Convention, there has been no mention of ISIS, radical Islam, or the Muslim Brotherhood. “Are we at war, or are we not at war?” he asked.

“Of course, we are at war with Islamic supremacism because they are at war with us,” Gaffney replied. “Whether the President, whether the former Secretary of State, whether their party chooses to ignore it, Steve, or not, that war is ongoing, and will kill more of us.”

“The bigger question, which I think more and more of us are tumbling to, watching this spectacle, is not just the ignoring of that reality; it is the aligning with our enemies,” he said, continuing:

You talked earlier about Tim Kaine having done a lot of that with the Muslim Brotherhood, but he’s not alone. There are whole bunches of the progressive movement. Look at the Palestinian flags. Look at people burning Israel’s flag and burning the American flag. These people are on the wrong side.

“I’m sorry for Democrats – I used to be one myself – who are now being completely disenfranchised by a party that is aligned with our enemies, and not with America,” Gaffney declared. “They will doom all of us, if they had their way.”

Patrick Poole: How Hillary Clinton Mainstreamed Al-Qaeda Fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi

Photo courtesy of The Investigative Project

Photo courtesy of The Investigative Project

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 27, 2016:

Right now, prisoner #47042-083, Abdurahman Alamoudi, sits in his cell in a federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky.

It’s a long way down from being one of Hillary Clinton’s favorite colleagues. Alamoudi organized White House events during the Bill Clinton administration. Under Hillary’s supervision, he held official positions: Alamoudi was strategically placed at the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department.

That is, until he was arrested and convicted in a bizarre Libyan intelligence/al-Qaeda assassination plot to kill the Saudi crown prince.

Later, he was identified by the Treasury Department as an Al-Qaeda fundraiser who had operated inside the United States.

Hillary Clinton and Abdurahman Alamoudi were no mere acquaintances. According to an affidavit filed in court by Georgetown professor John Esposito, Alamoudi was asked by Hillary Clinton to arrange the first White House Ramadan iftar dinner in 1996:

Hillary - Alamoudi iftar (Esposito)

It appears that no media outlet has ever asked Hillary Clinton about her relationship to Alamoudi.

Under the Clinton administration, Alamoudi was tasked with founding and developing the Defense Department’s first-ever Muslim chaplain program. Alamoudi himself handpicked the Pentagon’s Muslim chaplain corps.

As I reported in 2010, one of those chaplain trainers was al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

The State Department, during the Clinton administration, appointed Alamoudi as a goodwill ambassador and sent him on six official taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. Remarkably, after Alamoudi’s 2003 arrest a federal agent testified in an affidavit about a recording of Alamoudi complaining to an audience that the 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania did not kill enough Americans.

Years before he was helping Hillary Clinton arrange official dinners at the White House, Alamoudi had already been known to the FBI for al-Qaeda fundraising.

Yet Alamoudi became a regular face at the White House, Here, he is pictured with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore:

952_alamoudi_clinton_gore_2050081722-14945

After the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the speechwriter for the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman told the FBI that Alamoudi had been funneling $5000 payments from Osama bin Laden to Rahman. Rahman is currently serving a life sentence on terror charges for his role in the “Day of Terror” plot targeting New York landmarks.

In a July 2005 press release announcing a terror designation, the Treasury Department stated that Alamoudi “had raised money for al Qaida in the United States” and that his arrest was “a severe blow to al Qaida.”

Alamoudi’s donation to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign became an issue in October 2000. Then, Alamoudi was caught on video speaking in Lafayette Park across from the White House publicly announcing his support for Hamas and Hezbollah:

I have been labelled by the New York media as a supporter of Hamas. Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars again] Anybody a supporter of Hamas here? [crowd roars a third time] Here that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. Allahu Akbar.I wish they also added that I am a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars] Anybody supports Hezbollah here? [crowd roars again] Takbir! [crowd responds, “Allahu Akhbar”]

When questioned by the New York Daily News about his statement, Alamoudi first denied making it –he said that the reporters should “check their Arabic.”

When told that he had made the statement in English, Alamoudi responded by saying: “It was in English? Oh my god, I forgot.”

Days before Alamoudi publicly pledged his allegiance to two terror organizations designated as such by President Bill Clinton, he had just returned from a State Department-funded trip to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Oman.

He received a $100-$200 honorarium every day, plus hotel and travel covered by U.S. taxpayers.

After news of Alamoudi’s statement in support of Hamas and Hezbollah reached the media, Hillary Clinton promptly returned Alamoudi’s political contribution to her U.S. Senate campaign.

Alamoudi’s undoing came when he was stopped in September 2003 at London’s Heathrow Airport with $340,000 of sequential $100 bills on his way to Syria. Prosecutors said they believed he was headed to deliver the money to Hamas and possibly other terror groups.

The money he was carrying was believed to have been provided by Libyan intelligence to Alamoudi as part of a plot involving al-Qaeda operatives in London to assassinate the Saudi crown prince. Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years in prison after pleading guilty to his role in the assassination plot. His sentence was reduced in 2011 to 17 years under an agreement with the Obama Justice Department testimony in a terror-related trial.

As Alamoudi sits in his cell at the federal prison in Kentucky tomorrow night, will he be watching his old friend Hillary Clinton making her keynote speech to the Democratic Party National Convention?

Between now and Election Day in November, will anyone in the media ask presidential candidate Hillary Clinton about her role in mainstreaming her al-Qaeda fundraising friend?

***

A President Hillary is the end to National Security!

Trump and NATO

nt

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Thornton, July 27, 2016:

The Never Trump crowd has found another example of The Donald’s disqualifying ignorance: comments he made about NATO. He has said that our contributions to NATO are “unfair,” that they are “costing us a fortune,” that we are “getting ripped off,” and that they are “getting a free ride.” By the way, Obama in his Atlantic interview also called the Europeans “free riders,” but I don’t recall a lot of sneering at the president for his “alarming” and “dangerous” remarks, as one critic put it.

Trump also implied that he would put the European NATO members’ feet to the fire about meeting the 2006 requirement that they spend 2% of GDP on their militaries, and suggested he would negotiate a new contribution schedule. Few NATO members have met that requirement, which is a violation of Article 3 that requires member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” According to NATO’s own report, only five countries are estimated to meet the 2% requirement in 2016. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain­­––the first, third, fourth, and fifth largest economies in the EU––are not among them. The richest, Germany, is expected to remain at 1.19%. In contrast, the US will spend 3.9%. As Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General from 1999-2004, put it, European nations are “military pygmies.”

Critics of Trump are technically correct to say that he exaggerates when he claims that the US pays the “lion’s share” of NATO funding. In fact, the US pays under a fifth (22%). But the complaints about European NATO members, which predate Trump by decades, take into account more salient deficiencies. “Common funding,” of which the US covers a fifth, is “used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities),” according to NATO. In other words, mostly institutional bureaucratic infrastructure.

“Indirect spending” covers what each nation voluntarily contributes to an operation. NATO acknowledges the greater share the US spends on indirect spending: “there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.” We could also mention transport aircraft, cruise missiles, and other matériel that the European countries simply don’t have much of. For example, in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya, there were 246 cruise missiles launched. The US fired 228 of them. At $1.5 million apiece, that adds up to $342 million taxpayer dollars spent to destabilize a country and get four of our citizens killed.

This discrepancy in indirect spending and military capability was already obvious in the 1990’s when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop a vicious war. During the 1999 crisis in Kosovo, the Europeans had to make “heroic efforts” just to deploy 2% of their two million troops, according to the British foreign secretary. Historian William Shawcross writes of the bombing campaign, “The United States flew the overwhelming majority of the missions, and dropped almost all the precision-guided U.S.-made munitions, and most of the targets were generated by U.S. intelligence.”

So Trump’s complaints, as blustering and exaggerated as they may be, are legitimate. Operations conducted by NATO are overwhelmingly American funded and directed, and NATO is a diplomatic fig-leaf for American power.

No more convincing are the reasons critics give for supporting NATO. The alliance has not prevented “major state conflict since World War II,” as a writer at NRO claims. Given that some 40 million people have died in conflicts since WWII, I’m not sure what “peace” we’re talking about. During the Cold War, the peace between the US and the Soviet Union was kept by nuclear “mutually assured destruction” and millions of American troops, not NATO. Nor was Europe in any condition to fight among themselves. The Europeans were, and still are in many ways, burned out after 30 years of warring, and had neither the will, the morale, nor the belief in anything worth dying for to engage in another war. With their security underwritten by the US, they could spend their money on lavish social welfare programs and la dolce vita. Thinking NATO kept the peace is as preposterous as claiming the EU did.

Then there’s Article 5, the pledge that NATO members will fight for any member state that’s been attacked. Much is made of the only time Article 5 has been invoked, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet all that solidarity and allied good will didn’t stop France and Germany from trying to undermine the US when it tried to get the UN to sanction the war in 2003 on Saddam Hussein, who had violated 16 UN resolutions and the formal terms ending the 1991 Iraq War. Despite the consensus of American and European intelligence agencies that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, France and Germany took the lead in lobbying the Security Council to oppose the authorization to use force against Iraq.  Germany’s ambassador to the UN Council pressured members like Mexico and Chile to vote against the US. Worse yet, France and Germany, along with Belgium, formally objected to a proposal for NATO to send defensive equipment to Turkey, which wanted assurances that it would be supported by its fellow NATO members if attacked for supporting the war against Hussein.

This behavior of NATO allies did not reflect principle, but national interests and politics. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was running for re-election, and found reflexive German anti-Americanism and pacifism a convenient distraction from his terrible economic record. France had grubbier reasons in addition to its ownressentiment towards the US––renewing the arm sales to Iraq and oil development contracts it had enjoyed for years before the war, and could resume once the sanctions on Hussein were lifted, something France was actively pursuing. As Shawcross summarized, “The long friendship with Saddam, commercial considerations, the response to le défi Américain, and concern over the reactions of France’s Muslims––all these played a part in [President Jacques] Chirac’s calculations in the summer of 2002.”

The importance put on Article 5 forgets that, as George Washington said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bound by its interests.” NATO members have made and in the future will make decisions based on each nation’s estimation of its interests. So there’s no guarantee that invoking Article 5 would lead to meaningful NATO member support. And given the weakness of their militaries, just how much actual rather than rhetorical support could the Europeans provide in the event of an attack? How many battle carrier groups does NATO possess? The Europeans can’t even afford cruise missiles.

Finally, the arguments for NATO are predicated on an either-or fallacy. If we don’t have the NATO alliance and the benefits it supposedly brings for collective security, then we’ll have nothing. But of course, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US would quickly sign bilateral and multilateral defense agreements with individual countries or groups of countries, including some current NATO members. The argument that without NATO our security would be endangered is as fallacious as the argument of the Remain faction in England that leaving the EU would put the UK in danger. A country as rich and powerful as the US will find no dearth of countries eager to bandwagon with it.

Trump’s critics continue to search for dubious reasons to justify sitting out the election or even voting for Hillary. There may be many reasons not to vote for Trump, but criticizing NATO isn’t one of them.

***

Also see:

***

Jihadi terror attacks multiply: Will the West submit or WAKE UP?

maxresdefault (3)

The Rebel, by Brian Lilley, July 27, 2016:

Did you hear about the latest terror attack? If you’re paying attention the correct answer is, “Which one?” There are so many, and lately that is just in the West.

What if I told you that in the last 30 days, there have been 160 attacks carried out by Islamic radicals and that those attacks saw 1,590 people killed and 2,412 people injured? Would you be shocked?

That’s the claim made by website The Religion of Peace which tracks terrorist attacks all around the world.

And so while we can point to the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14 that saw 84 people killed when Mohammed Bouhlel drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian area, how many can point to the 13 people killed by al Shabab suicide bombers on July 26?

Those two suicide bombings didn’t get much media attention in the West but they happened in attacks carried out by people that want to establish their strict vision of Islamic rule on everyone around them.

Those attacks happened the same day that Catholic priest Father Jacques Hamel was killed while performing the sacred rites of the Mass. His throat was slit by two young Jihadis in Normandy, France.

The 85-year-old man was forced to his knees before his execution. Nuns were taken hostage in the attack which ended with dead Jihadis but not before they violated the sanctuary of the altar with their callous murder of a defenceless old priest and by reportedly giving their jihadi sermon at the altar – alternating between French and Arabic, spewing their hatred.

They were shot by police, which ended the whole ordeal.

The Somalia attack got next to no media coverage in the West, the attack in France relegated behind other stories like Hillary Clinton officially securing the Democratic Party nomination.

Maybe we are getting used to terror attacks in France?

We know the attacks from November 13, 2015 – the massacre at Bataclan nightclub. We know the attack July 14, 2016 – that was in Nice. But do you know the others?

More shockingly, do you know about the other terror attacks?

The day before Fr. Hamel was killed and 13 people were killed in Mogadishu, did you hear about the 17 killed and more than 40 injured in suicide bombings in Khalis, Iraq? That was July 25.

The day before that, July 24, there were 21 people killed in Baghdad.

On that same day a Syrian migrant, a failed refugee claimant, blew himself up outside a bar in Germany after being turned away from a festival.

We heard a bit about that but not much. Only a little more than the Baghdad bombing.

On July 23 there were several terror attacks but the biggest happened in Kabul, Afghanistan. Three suicide bombers killed 81 people. Why? Because the people killed were Shiite or Shia Muslims and those that claimed responsibility, ISIS, are Sunnis that hate Shias.

I haven’t even gotten past last weekend and we’re into hundreds of people killed in terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists intent on spreading their vision, their goals, their religion around the world – not by the sword but by the bomb and the gun.

The word Islam means submit and that is the intent of those carrying out these attacks, to one way or another get you to submit to their views.

It matters not whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, or a Muslim that might just believe something a little different — their goal is to get you to submit.

After the killing of Father Hamel, French President Francoise Hollande said that France was at war with this strain of Islam.

I’d like to believe him. But despite the onslaught of attacks in Western countries alone, never mind the attacks in other countries, I’m not sure people in the west are ready to wake up.

What I am sure of is that the Islamists, whether ISIS or al Shabbab or al Qaida, are at war with us. They have declared it, they are waging it and they have no plans of stopping so we better wake up and get serious.

***

Also see:

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaeda hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

France Sacrifices Priest on the Altar of False Tolerance

quote-unilateral-tolerance-in-a-world-of-intolerance-is-like-unilateral-disarmament-in-a-world-of-armed-anthony-daniels-psychiatrist-222576Answering Muslims, by David Wood, July 26, 2016:

On Tuesday morning, two jihadis stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France, with knives and a fake bomb. They forced a Catholic priest to his knees and filmed themselves slashing his throat at the altar. They later shouted “Allahu Akbar” while police shot them to death.

Prior to the attack, French police had caught one of the jihadis repeatedly attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS. Nevertheless, he was free to roam the streets of France, as long as he wore an electronic bracelet.

Even worse, French authorities knew that the church was being targeted by ISIS, since an ISIS hit list found in 2015 named the church as a target.

Given the circumstances, do French authorities bear some of the blame for the outcome of the attack?

***

Also see:

Attacks in France and Germany claimed by Islamic State propaganda arm

Long War Journal, by Thomas Joscelyn, July 26, 2016:

The Islamic State’s Amaq News Agency has claimed responsibility for two attacks in Europe. The first was a suicide bombing in Ansbach, Germany on July 24. More than one dozen people were injured, some of them seriously, when a bomber self-detonated outside of a music festival.

The second assault was carried out earlier today during the morning mass at a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, which is in northern France. Initial reports say that an elderly priest was killed by a pair of terrorists, who took several people hostage before being shot to death by police.

In both instances, Amaq News cited an “insider source” as saying that “soldiers” of the Islamic State were responsible. The language in both claims of responsibility is similar to past statements.

The “individual who carried out the martyrdom operation in Ansbach, Germany was a soldier of the Islamic State who executed the operation in response to calls to target nations in the coalition fighting the Islamic State,” a July 25 statement from Amaq read.

“The 2 executors of the attack on a church in Normandy, France were soldiers of the Islamic State,” Amaq said in a “Breaking News” update earlier today. “They executed the operation in response to calls to target countries belonging to the crusader coalition.”

Counterterrorism and intelligence officials in Europe are investigating any possible ties between the self-proclaimed jihadists and the Islamic State’s international network. It is too early to tell if they acted on their own accord, or had help from the so-called caliphate’s external operations arm, which has been plotting terrorist operations inside Europe.

German authorities have reportedly identified the Ansbach terrorist as a 27 year-old Syrian who had been denied asylum, according to BBC News and other media outlets.

Video purportedly shows Ansbach bomber

Amaq has released a video purportedly showing the Ansbach bomber, suggesting that he had at least one tie to the Islamic State, even if it was only a digital one. Either he, or someone he knew, sent the video to the jihadist media outfit. Amaq says his name was “Mohammad Daleel.”

A screen shot of “Mohammad Daleel” from the footage can be seen below. Separately, Amaq also released a photo of the man identified as Daleel. The Long War Journal cannot independently verify his identity, or his role as the Ansbach bomber.

Screen-Shot-2016-07-26-at-12.57.52-PM-1023x573

“I renew my pledge of allegiance to Emir ul-Mu’minin [“Emir of the Faithful”] Abu Bakr al Baghdadi…may Allah protect him,” the man identified as Daleel said in the clip.

Daleel, whose face is covered, claimed that his attack is revenge for Germany’s role in the international anti-Islamic State coalition. He claimed that Germany’s bombs do not discriminate between men, women and children. And he called on his “brothers,” who are also “soldiers of the Islamic State,” to strike in Europe.

The video of Daleel is similar to two other productions disseminated by Amaq after recent attacks.

Last week, Amaq identified the teenager who slashed and hacked multiple people on a train in Würzburg, Germany as “Muhammad Riyad.” The young man recorded a video of himself that either he, or someone he knew, delivered into Amaq’s hands. As with Daleel, this suggests there was at least a digital tie between Riyad and the Islamic State’s network. [See LWJ report, Teenager who terrorized German train appears in Islamic State video.]

Prior to his assault on the train, Riyad delivered a speech while brandishing a knife. He called on all Muslims to pledge allegiance to Baghdadi, saying that the Caliphate has been resurrected in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Riyad added that Muslims should join one of the Islamic State’s so-called provinces around the world, including in Libya, if they cannot reach the “caliphate” in Iraq or Syria.

In mid-June, Amaq released a similar video from another Islamic State loyalist, Larossi Abballa. The video was recorded at the scene of a brutal double murder in Magnanville, France, which is less than 40 miles north of Paris. Abballa stabbed a police officer and his partner to death, recounting the horror show for the Islamic State’s audience and the rest of the world. The couple’s son was rescued when French forces stormed the home.

Amaq has repeatedly described terrorists as “soldiers” of the Islamic State

The wording of Amaq’s claims of responsibility for the Ansbach and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray attacks mirrors past statements by the Islamic State’s propaganda arms. Amaq and other outlets frequently describe the terrorists who carry out such deeds in the Islamic State’s name as the caliphate’s “soldiers.”

For example, the Islamic State described the May 2015 shooters in Garland, Tex. and the couple who assaulted a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif. in Dec. 2015 as the group’s “soldiers.” The San Bernardino terrorists were also labeled “supporters.”

The team of jihadists responsible for the Nov. 2015 assault in Paris was hailed as “a group of believers from the soldiers of the Caliphate.”

Omar Mateen, who repeatedly pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi the night of his shooting at a LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida in June, was described as a “fighter” for the organization.

Amaq said Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who drove a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France earlier this month, was “a soldier of the Islamic State.” The same wording was used for the Würzburg slasher.

After the Nice, Würzburg, Ansbach and Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray attacks, Amaq also emphasized that the men responsible had acted “in response to calls to target countries belonging to the crusader coalition.”

The Islamic State has repeatedly called on its members and supporters to strike the coalition of nations targeting its territory in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

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.

ISIS Ignored: Moral Sickness at the Democratic Convention

isis_shut_your_mouse_banner_7-26-16-1.sized-770x415xc

PJ Media, by Roger Simon, July 26, 2016:

Forget the emails. Forget the angry Bernie followers and the various pathetic internecine betrayals.  The real story from day one at the Democratic National Convention is that in sixty-one speeches never once did these so-called “liberals” mention terrorism.

The next morning, in fact almost simultaneously, if you take into account the the time zones, an 84-year-old priest in Rouen was having his throat cut by ISIS maniacs during morning mass. The Islamic terrorists had him kneel, filming his death as they did their evil work. Nuns were held hostage.

Horrifying as it is, it wasn’t really surprising. Such happenings have been going on with increased regularity in Germany and France (not to mention Orlando).

Yet the Democrats chose to ignore. Why?

The answer is simple: It doesn’t play well for them. They’re scared it plays better for the Republicans and Donald Trump. So they don’t mention it.

Also, it doesn’t fit with their morally narcissistic narrative that all religions are equal.

Talk about morally sick — that idea is truly that. In fact, it’s absurd. It is also cowardly.

Media and politicians go on with regularity calling the terrorists cowardly. They are not the cowards.  The Islamist terrorists are quite willing to give up their lives for their own deranged religious cause. It is the media and politicians that are the real cowards in their inability to confront them.

Obama’s — and now Hillary’s — Democratic Party does their best to look the other way and pretend it’s not there. Obama is so deranged himself he continues to downplay terrorism and say climate change is the real problem. When you think about that objectively, it sounds almost insane, yet the press swallows it. Yesterday, John Kerry said air conditioning was the problem.

The idea that more refugees from Syria are being allowed into this country by Obama and Hillary boggles the mind. Do these politicians want to kill us and our families? Don’t they have children themselves? Oh, yes, they have security personnel of their own. But 99.9% of their constituents don’t.

And yet the citizens of the USA elect these people. Enough. Wake up, America

KNOWN WOLF ALERT: ISIS Suspect in Normandy Priest’s Killing Already Known to French Authorities

Normandy-priest-beheaded-known-wolf.sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 26, 2016:

Two armed suspects burst into a church in Normandy, France, today, taking two nuns hostage and slitting the throat of 86 year-old priest Father Jacques Hamel. The Islamic State later claimed responsibility for the attack.

And in what has become a near ritual in these situations, at least one of the suspects was not just known to authorities, but had attempted to travel twice to Syria to join ISIS and was considered a national security threat.

Western terror suspects already being known to authorities has become so pervasive that I coined the term “known wolf” back in October 2014 to characterize the phenomenon.

This will be the sixth “known wolf” terror attack targeting France in the past two years.

The Daily Mail reports:

One of the two ISIS knifemen who stormed a church to behead a French priest was a convicted terrorist and was meant to be living with his parents with an electronic tag.The pair took the 86-year-old priest, two nuns and two parishioners hostage at the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray near Rouen in Normandy during morning mass at 9.45am, killing the priest and critically injuring another hostage.

One of the terrorists, a 19-year-old Frenchman who lived close to the church, is said to have tried to leave for Syria twice to try and join Islamic State, but he was arrested.

He was jailed for terrorist offences following a short trial in France, before being released on March 2 this year.

He had tried travelling to Syria to join ISIS twice, but failed both times.

On his first attempt as a 17-year-old, he attempted to travel to the war-torn Middle East via Munich, but was sent back to France.

The second time he tried, he got kicked out of Turkey and was sent back to Switzerland where he was arrested at Geneva airport on May 14 last year.

After his second failure, he was jailed for a few days in in the prison of Champ-Dollon in Swizterland before being extradited to France and convicted of conspiracy to prepare acts of terrorism.

His conditions included returning to live with his parents, wearing an electronic tag, and reporting to his local police station.

But this did not stop him becoming involved in today’s atrocity, in which Father Jacques Hamel, 86, had his throat cut.

Additional details of the terror attack indicate that the suspect was on France’s terror watch list, and that the church in question had appeared on an ISIS list of targets last year.

In fact, the incident where the list of ISIS targets was found occurred after an attempted attack on a Parisian church in April 2015, where the suspect was also under investigation for murdering a 32- year-old mother whose car he was trying to steal.

The area where today’s attack occurred has been known to be a hotbed of jihadist activity:

I’ve reported here at PJ Media extensively on the “known wolf” terror problem:

Oct. 24, 2014: ‘Lone Wolf’ or ‘Known Wolf’: The Ongoing Counter-Terrorism FailureDec. 15, 2014: Sydney Hostage Taker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ SyndromeJan. 7, 2015: Paris Terror Attack Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 3, 2015: French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 15, 2015: Copenhagen Killer Was yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Feb. 26, 2015: Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Apr. 22, 2015: Botched Attack on Paris Churches Another Case of “Known Wolf” Terrorism

May 4, 2015: Texas Attack Is Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

June 26, 2015: France’s Beheading Terrorist Was Well-Known By Authorities

July 16, 2015: Report: Chattanooga Jihadist Was Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorist, Anonymous Feds Dispute

Aug. 22, 2015: European Train Attacker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Oct 14, 2015: Yet Again: Turkey, Israel Terror Attacks Committed by “Known Wolves”

Nov 14, 2015: One Paris Attacker Was Previously Known to Authorities, Marks Fifth ‘Known Wolf” Attack in France This Year

Feb 16, 2016: Machete Attack in Ohio Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

May 16, 2016: News Reports Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ U.S. Terrorists

June 12, 2016: Orlando Night Club Attack by “Known Wolf” Terrorist Previously Investigated by FBI

July 14, 2016: Senate Intelligence Committee to Investigate “Known Wolf” Terrorism Problem

With little action being taken by Western intelligence and law enforcement authorities to acknowledge, let alone address, the “known wolf” phenomenon, we will very probably see these attacks by known suspects continue.

Kassam Warns Open Borders Crowd Over Murderous Migrants: ‘You Can’t Be Social Justice Warriors If You’re Dead’

Rachel Megawhat/Breitbart London

Rachel Megawhat/Breitbart London

Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, July 26, 2016:

In the wake of the seemingly endless terror attacks by migrants and Muslims in France and Germany, Breitbart London Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has slammed open border activists.

Mr. Kassam confirmed he has “exactly” been warning that “following the mistakes of Europe will result in an American catastrophe and people will die” when presenter Sean Hannity asked him about his stance on his radio show.

“That is what I said about what’s happened in Germany, and we warned about it last year; we warned about it in Belgium; we’ve warned about it in France, and it is coming to fruition,” he said.

“Let me tell you something: it’s very hard to fight for social justice if you’re dead,” Mr. Kassam added, slamming powerful liberal open borders activists such as George Soros who encouraged the “migrant crisis” from the Middle East.

“And the most galling element of it,” he continued, “is that we have the BBC, and the New York Times, and Sky News, and all of these other guys who are basically saying: ‘well, a backpack killed these people, a machete killed them’.

“No. These are Syrian migrants who have faked being refugees. Some of them have been turned down in terms of asylum status, and they happen to have bomb-making knowledge and explosives at the same time?

“I want to know how these people got into the country and how they weren’t screened out, when their asylum application failed, and immediately deported,” he said, asking: “Why was this man still in the country?”

Some shocking allegations were also made on the show, pertaining to the possible Islamist infiltration of U.S. authorities.

“I agree with [Richard Higgins], that there is an NGO presence that is deeply entrenched in the U.S. establishment,” said Mr. Kassam after Mr. Higgins claimed that America’s domestic counter-terrorism strategies and part of its foreign policy are influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Higgins is a former leader inside the Department of Defense who managed programmes at the Combating Terrorism and Technical Support Office (CTTSO) and Irregular Warfare Section, and was appearing alongside Mr. Kassam on the show.

Mr. Hannity had asked why President Obama is insisting 10,000 “refugees” from the Middle East are brought immediately to America, and why Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton advocates increasing numbers by “500 per cent”.

“Why are they so willing to gamble with the lives of Americans considering this has now happened at least a dozen times?” he asked.

“I think that they’re so keen to have them coming in here because their Muslim Brotherhood advisers are telling them that is best for the West,” said Mr. Higgins.

“We see Muslim Brotherhood influence through NGO organisations as well as affiliated with United Nations elements on the ground in Syria [and] on the front end of the vetting process in Syria – which is why you see 99 per cent of the people coming out are actually Muslims, not the Christians, not the ones being most persecuted,” he said.

“They’re on the back end here in the United States, coordinating their reception… once they arrive both in Europe and then here in the United States,” he added.

Islam and the Free World (part two)

f028aa9496fa3ddc3ff41813ed2863c7_LModern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, July 25, 2016:

(see part one here)

What must be done as an imperative to survival.

The following steps must be taken with deep efforts, seriously and effectively:

1) No more the twisted mirror image. To view Islam through Western inclusive pluralistic lenses means not only never understanding Islam but also it may produce disastrous results. What if the struggle is between two polar opposite cultural conceptions, between a society that aspires to modernity and progress, as against totalitarianism of thought, traditional tribal values and religious extremism?

What if Islamic approaches do not play by the Western rules of the game, by the Judeo-Christian morality? What if Islamic behavior is deeply rooted in the hearts of the Muslims as a norm of social behavior, as a cultural reflection of their society? What if Muslims are devoted to implementing their values out of profound hatred and hostility?

Psychologist Norman Dixon has defined the issue aptly: We are busy performing two things: first, denying reality, and second, when the catastrophe happens, rationalizing our mistaken behavior. This is the reason why the Free World is flattering, appeasing, and serving as useful idiots to Islam and Muslims. If we do not know why the Muslims hate us so deeply and they shamelessly continue pushing for concessions, is there any hope for us to prevail? One Jew of the Holocaust survivors, who was asked what he had learned from the Second World War, replied: “When somebody says he wants to kill you, you should believe him.” Everything is so clear and obvious, yet, we do not want to learn.

Let us take, for example, the issue of language, which represents Orwell’s 1984. There is a heated debate concerning the difference between Islam and Islamism. As if Islamism is a political ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is Jihad and conquests, while Islam is a peaceful religion. However, this is the Western debate, the Western language and a twisted formula to evade reality. There is absolutely nothing on that matter in the Islamic vocabulary.

Moreover, what if the terms ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ are totally opposite in Western and Arab-Islamic political culture? What if we all use the same terms — peace, political arrangements, negotiations, coexistence, etc. — while we translate them operationally and understand them conceptually totally differently? What if for Islam “good” is only whatever advances the cause of Islam to control the world, and “evil” is whatever resists the cause of Islam and enables the existence of the Kuffār? What if Islam teaches war in the name of peace, and hate in the name of love? What if, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi are the moderate true believers, since they strictly follow the orders and commandments of the Sharī’ah, and those whom we relate to as moderates are in fact the extremists, even infidels, in the Islamic perspective?

There is another perspective, which is Theodor Adorno’s idea of the authoritarian personality. Scholars had determined that social conservatives suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness. This is a Machiavellian psychological command and control device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

This is exactly the Arab-Islamic personality that leads to cultural terrorism. Obedience is the result of force. Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is synonymous in human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism displayed in an inhuman attitude toward the other. Consequently, it rejects, for example, the first principles of the US Declaration of Independence of “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is rejected by Islam as its uppermost characteristics is submission to Allah.

According to Ali Sina’s paraphrasing, there are three categories of Muslims residing in the Free World: the good, the bad, and the ugly. However, this division is not according to Western definitions. The good are in fact the bad; the bad are in fact the good and the ugly are in fact the good face of the Islamic propagators introduced to the Free World’s public opinion, in order to deceive and mislead. So, in fact, nothing in Islam is what it is because everything is what it is not. Each and every group has its role in the world game of Islam to occupy the world and subdue humanity to Islamic rule.

What if the terrorists are actually good Muslims, practicing the commandments of the Sharī’ah? Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same. Bombing and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, Ghazawāt, for booty (Ghanā’im) sanctioned in the Qur’an. Muhammad ordered the assassination of his critics, killing the apostates, slaughtering the infidels and decapitating their heads, and imposing terror on them. It is all written in the Qur’an.

What if the bad Muslims are those who do not practice their religion and do not follow its ordinances? What if the ugly Muslims actually appear beautiful? They are eloquent, articulate, intelligent, attractive, and highly manipulative. They know what to say to gain the Muslim majority’s approval and applause. They are charming. Their words are reassuring and their faces are reliable and authentic. They act efficiently in diplomacy of deceit; they use propaganda in order to make you believe that Islam is not only peaceful and poses no threat to you, but in fact is cooperative and dialogue-oriented. These are wolves in sheep clothing proving that deception is as deadly as terror.

Muslims that practice and support the ideology and doctrine of Islam are all part of the problem. That is, they wish to occupy the world and to subdue humanity. Some use terrorism and violence; some use Da’wah and good words of propagation; and some, perhaps the majority, push forward, by charity money of Zakāt, by demography and birth-rate, and by being the silent majority, that is refraining from denouncing and alienating the terrorists. The result: Islam acts firmly and steadily to take over the world. This goal is rooted deep in every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly, each with its own strategy and tactics, but all with the same objective.

There are also good people, in Western terms, among the Muslims. But they are, unfortunately, a very small minority. They really wish to reform and democratize Islam, and to take away all Islamic signs of hatred and incitement to the other. However, the belief that Islam can be reformed from within is something impossible. The Qur’an is the heavenly book given by Allah. One cannot change the words of Allah, as it means blasphemy and it leads to punishment by death. There are verses in the Qur’an and Ahadīth that clearly state, he who changes even one word of the Qur’an must be killed. It is even forbidden to wonder or ask questions about it, let alone to criticize it. Islam is not adaptable with the times and cannot adapt itself to modernization. The gates of innovations (Ijtihād) have been closed since the 12th century. The mountain of Islam has not changed as what is written in the Qur’an cannot be changed.

In a revealing, perhaps surprising, analysis, the Jerusalem Post editorial, took a bold step by criticizing the media in the US:

The irony, of course, is that our postmodern media analysts, while preaching the gospel of cultural relativism, are themselves entirely blind to the moral values, cultural underpinnings and ethical standards of those who adhere to different sets of guiding principles. Rather, their search for answers are steeped in their own narrow mindsets, nurtured at the universities they attended and reinforced in the scholarly journals they read and in the social circles they embrace. The attempt by the media elites to paint a portrait of these men as alienated, disaffected youths is symptomatic of such a mindset. Their faux sophistication is belied by the narrow Western lens with which they view the motivations of these Islamists living in the West.

In essence, they are guilty of the analytic omission which they accuse others of: an honest attempt to understand events beyond the context of their own cultural biases and narrow frames of reference. If they did, they might find the anger and alienation of these young jihadists have nothing whatsoever to do with the familiar narrative of youthful rebelliousness depicted in iconic American cinematic and literary touchstones such as Rebel without a Cause or The Catcher in the Rye. Hence, the multiculturalist thinkers, plagued by Western guilt, seek conflict resolution through understanding and compromise. For the jihadist (lone wolf or otherwise) those are alien notions. They have already determined that there is no place in the worldwide caliphate to come for those who do not submit to the laws of Allah – Western commentators included.

Read more

Department of Homeland Security Targeting the Wrong Enemy

  • President Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”
  • Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”
  • The Obama era is one of willful blindness to the jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.
  • The federal government has spent the last 8 years pretending that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

Gatestone Institute, by A.J. Caschetta, July 26, 2016

Anyone surprised by President Barack Obama’s recurring attempts at exploiting jihadist attacks in his efforts to restrict gun ownership should read the earliest known document concerning terrorism assembled by his administration. The unclassified assessment by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is dated April 7, 2009 — a mere 77 days after Obama’s inauguration.

The document was leaked shortly after its release to law enforcement officials across the country and made public by Roger Hedgecock on April 13, 2009. It laid out the new president’s legislative and executive priorities on terrorism, guns and immigration. Uniquely combining these three issues would become a predictable, coordinated pattern during Obama’s two terms in office.

The assessment boldly delineated the Tom Ridge and Janet Napolitano eras at the DHS. As Eli Lake wrote the day after the document was leaked, “Since its inception in 2003, the department has focused primarily on radicalization of Muslims and the prospect of homegrown Islamist terrorism.” Under Obama’s leadership, attention was directed away from Muslims and Islamist terrorism and redirected towards limiting the Second Amendment, scrutinizing military veterans and expanding both legal and illegal immigration.

Contrary to criticism of the Obama administration as uninterested in the plight of military veterans, the DHS assessment shows that vets were very much a priority. The document’s authors, in fact, were worried that “military veterans facing significant challenges returning into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists.”

The only significant acts of domestic terrorism perpetrated by veterans lately have not been inspired from the right, however: Micah Xavier Johnson and Gavin Long are products of a “left wing,” anti-police, anti-establishment ideology. The assassinations they carried out fit the pattern of the so-called “New Left” wave of terror carried out in the 1970s by the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers.

The language of the document also foretells the Obama story. In its brief seven pages of text there are 25 references to gun control, weapons and ammunition-hoarding. Terrorists motivated by “anti-immigration” and “white supremacist” ideologies are mentioned 11 times, and veterans returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq are mentioned 9 times. Variations of “extremism,” which would become Obama’s preferred euphemism, occur 42 times.

Timothy McVeigh is the model terrorist in the document. DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said a goal of the report was “to prevent another Tim McVeigh from ever happening again.”

The 1990s figure prominently in the DHS prognostication, meriting 17 references. The “poor economic climate,” the Clinton “assault weapon” ban and “a perceived threat to US power and sovereignty by other foreign powers” are envisioned as parallel to the situation in 2009. Looking back at the 1990s and predicting similar troubles in the age of Obama, Napolitano’s DHS made no mention of the most significant development in the evolution of political violence to occur in the 1990s: the rise of Al-Qaeda.

Military strategists worth their pay will recognize the DHS version of “preparing to fight the last war,” but then Obama has surrounded himself not with military strategists but rather with fiction writers, wide-eyed diplomats whose strategy is limited to “don’t do stupid shit,” and law enforcement officials who believe that “Our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love.”

In a passage about “the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes,” there is a reference to “the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009.” The shooter in question was Richard Poplawski, who ambushed the police called to his home to investigate a domestic disturbance. The DHS concludes that “his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories” led to his “radicalization,” though years later, after Poplawski was convicted and sentenced to death, reporters and even the jury were still unsure of his motives.

The Poplawski shooting occurred just three days before the date on the document. Compare that remarkably speedy conclusion to the way the Obama Administration has handled jihadist attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 5, 2009 attack in Fort Hood, Texas, and Alton Nolan’s September 24, 2014 ritual beheading of a coworker at the Vaughan Foods plant in Moore, Oklahoma, are described as “workplace violence.”

FBI Director James Comey expressed confusion over Omar Mateen’s motives for the recent Orlando jihad attack, even though Mateen’s attack was accompanied by the jihadist’s battle cry “Allahu Akhbar” and a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Caliph of the Islamic State during a 911 call. Before that it was the San Bernardino husband-wife jihadist team whose motives were ostensibly a mystery to the FBI.

Only “rightwing extremism” is obvious to the Obama Administration. Everything else is apparently too complex and nuanced for labels. Even Micah Xavier Johnson, who told Dallas police that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people, is a conundrum to the president, who bizarrely asserted that it is “hard to untangle the motives of this shooter.”

Left: The 2009 Department of Homeland Security assessment titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” Right: Micah Xavier Johnson, who murdered five Dallas police officers and injured nine others, said that he was motivated by “Black Lives Matters” rhetoric and hatred of white people.

After the 2009 DHS assessment was widely and rightly criticized, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) complained that the administration “let its team devoted to non-Islamic domestic terrorism fall apart in the aftermath of… [the] controversial leaked report.” But while the “Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division” may have been dropped, but the principles that led to the document were not.

Even more so than the Bush era, the Obama era is one of willful blindness to the global jihadist movement that has declared war on America. CIA Director John Brennan purged the word “jihad” from the agency’s vocabulary. Obama’s two Attorneys General have done the same at the Department of Justice.

The federal government has spent the last eight years pretending (maybe even believing) that “rightwing extremists” are more numerous and dangerous than the careful and intelligent jihadist attackers, whom it insists are just “madmen” or “troubled individuals.”

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Priest, 86, is ‘beheaded’ by two ‘Islamic knifemen’ after taking nuns and worshippers hostage at French church before police shoot them both dead and search building for explosives

A priest has been butchered by knifemen who cut his throat after bursting into a French church and taking hostages before being shot dead by police

A priest has been butchered by knifemen who cut his throat after bursting into a French church and taking hostages before being shot dead by police

  • Priest had throat cut while another hostage is fighting for life after knifemen burst into Normandy church at 9am
  • Reports that one of the attackers shouted ‘Daesh’ before launching the attach at Gambetta Church near Rouen
  • Vatican has condemned the ‘barbaric’ killing of the 86-year-old priest and an anti-terror investigation is underway
  • French President Francois Hollande said the men both ‘claimed to be from’ ISIS as they carried out the attack

Daily Mail, By Peter Allen In France and Julian Robinson, July 26, 2016:

An 86-year-old priest has been ‘beheaded’ by two ‘ISIS’ knifemen who cut his throat after bursting into a French church and taking nuns and worshippers hostage before being shot dead by police.

Five people including the priest, two nuns and two parishioners were held by assailants who raided the church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray near Rouen in Normandy at 9am.

The clergyman, named as Jacques Hamel, is believed to have been beheaded during the attack while another hostage is ‘hovering between life and death’ in hospital.

The two attackers have been ‘neutralised’ by elite marksmen in a dramatic police operation while the building is being searched for possible explosives. French president Francois Hollande said the men claimed to be from’ ISIS.

There were reports the attackers shouted ‘Daesh’ – an alternative name for ISIS often used by the French government – as they ran into the church. At least one of the men was dressed in Islamic clothing, according to French media reports, and an anti-terrorist unit has already taken up the investigation.

It comes as it emerged that the place of worship was one of a number of Catholic churches on a terrorist ‘hit list’ found on a suspected ISIS extremist last April.

Read more

Also see: