A Muslim Woman’s Fight Against Radical Islam

farhana-qaziby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
February 23, 2017

If one were to find a single question that defines the geo-politics of our age, it might well be the question Farhana Qazi has been asking herself for almost 20 years: why do so many Muslims kill in the name of their religion?

If she has not found all the answers, Qazi has done much to facilitate our understanding of the issues, primarily as they relate to Muslim women and the rise in women extremists. A Muslim herself, she has worked largely behind the scenes: at the Counter-Terrorism Center in Washington, D.C.; at the Rand Corporation think tank; as an instructor on terrorism for the U.S. military; and as an author. Her work has taken her back to her native Pakistan, where she has immersed herself in the lives of Muslim extremist women, met with the mothers of suicide bombers, come to know women who have endured imprisonment, and shared stories with women who, in her words, “have tried to break the barriers of patriarchy and patrilineal traditions.”

Born in Lahore, Pakistan, Qazi came to America with her mother at the age of 1, joining her father who was already working in Tennessee. Soon after, the family moved to Austin, Texas, which Qazi considers her hometown. Her work since then, both in the service of her country and as a beacon for moderate Muslims seeking to reconcile their beliefs with the violent extremism facing the world, has received lavish praise and numerous awards. She is now working on a book that examines why Muslims turn violent, and the ways in which recent political events contribute to violent extremism.

She told us her story in a recent interview, and shared her crucial insights on radical Islam, women terrorists, and where we stand now in the face of the radical Islamist threat.

Abigail R. Esman: Why did your family move to the U.S., and how old were you at the time?

Farhana Qazi: My father came to the U.S. because it was his dream since he was a child. He admired Western values and later, he worked with American clients when he was a young accountant in Lahore, Pakistan. He came to the U.S. (to the rolling hills of Tennessee to pursue an MBA), and thanks to Al Gore, my father was allowed to stay in this country to work after his student visa expired. Gore wrote a letter on my father’s behalf. I was a year old when I moved here with my mother. I barely remember my birth city, Lahore – the cultural nerve of Pakistan. I lived in a small town in Tenn. before moving to the capital city of Austin, Texas, my childhood home.

ARE: How important was religion to you growing up?

FQ: My parents were born Muslim but their practice was liberal, almost secular. My father is an intellectual and philosopher who admires all religions; he values the Ten Commandments that came from Moses. He idolizes the principles of Buddhism and he believes in the Christian concept of charity. My father has raised me to be a “humanist” rather than a Muslim. I embraced Sunni Islam later in life

ARE: Many women in Pakistan face oppression, forced marriage, and family violence. How do you explain the freedom you have had in your life?

FQ: I am blessed to be an American Muslim woman. My father often tells me he came to the U.S. for me; because I am a girl from a middle-class family in Pakistan who would not have had the same opportunities in life had I lived in a country with patriarchal norms, age-old customs, and traditions, most of which deny girls and women their basic rights in Islam. Culture trumps religion in Pakistan. But it’s not true in America, where I can practice faith openly or privately. Because I am free in America, I chose a male-dominated field – in the 1990s, counter-terrorism work was dominated and dictated by men mostly. Often, I was the only female speaker at international conferences and addressed why Muslims kill in the name of my religion. Now, there are more women in the CT field, but at the time, I was not only female, American, but also Muslim – the combination of the three made me stand alone, which is a blessing in disguise. I welcome the opportunity (and attention) for speaking on a subject that I understood. And that’s how my father raised me: to be a bridge between the East and the West. To learn from both worlds, both cultures and to close the gap of misunderstanding.

ARE: Was having that freedom part of what has guided you in your work?

FQ: Yes, my unique cultural and linguistic background made me marketable for the intelligence community. There were no female Muslims in the Counter-Terrorism Center. I believe I was hired to help the Center understand the extremists’ narrative, rhetoric, and recruitment patterns. Later, upon leaving the Center, I joined the RAND Corp as a policy analyst-researcher and traveled to the Muslim world to engage local communities. Because I understand both cultures, I have been able to speak to women who might have not been accessible to other American men or women. When I trained the U.S. forces as a senior instructor, I received the highest honor – the 21st Century Leader Award from The National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) in 2012 for my service as an American Muslim woman – when I was presented with the award, I was told that because I knew how to serve the U.S. government as a woman and Muslim is the reason why I was chosen for the award.

ARE: You in fact began working in the area of counterterrorism and issues surrounding the lives of Muslim women very early in your career. What motivated this?

FQ: My mother is a war hero to me. She joined the Pakistani Army when she was barely 20 years old to fight for Kashmir. In the 1960s, Pakistan was at war with India for the second time to fight for the valley of Kashmir. My mama, barely five feet tall and a petite frame, volunteered for the Army and trained at Qaddafi stadium in Lahore, holding a British .303 rifle which was taller than she was. She often told me, “I wanted to prove to my country that women can fight, too.” She was raised in a country at a time when women and girls had few career choices and were often bound by familial responsibilities. But not my mother, who dreamed of being a politician had she not married my father and then settled in the U.S.

ARE: Mostly, you’ve focused your work on women.

FQ: I’d say my work focuses on understanding radical Islam and the divisions in the Muslim world today – a broken mass of billions blinded by age-old customs, traditions, and patriarchal norms steeped in ancient cultures. I’m trying to understand the way that Islam has been destroyed by splinter groups, religious fanatics, and hardline conservatives, issuing fatwas that oppose women’s rights. I’ve come to learn has that while terrorists claim to empower women, the reality is that women are cannon fodder or a ‘riding wave of terrorists’ success.’ In the end, women don’t matter, which begs the question: why do they join?

ARE: Then for many years you worked at Rand. What did you do there?

FQ: Research on Al Qaeda networks and the female suicide trend that began to capture headlines in the conflict in Iraq. I was the first to predict that there would be a series of bombings by women – I wrote my first op-ed on the subject in The Baltimore Sun, predicting more attacks. Women were an anomaly so no one paid attention, until females strapped on the bomb. And then a Newsweek piece caught the attention of multi-national forces in Iraq and the U.S. embassy. Suddenly, we began to pay attention to a trend that would continue to this day, though I have been saying this for the past 17 years: women are deadly, too.

ARE: And the Counter-Terrorism Center.

FQ: I was the first American Muslim girl to be hired. I was 25 years old.

ARE: How serious is the problem of Muslim women extremists right now? Is it a threat that is growing?

FQ: This is an ongoing threat that is shielded by men. We don’t hear of attacks by women because it is unreported. For example, I know from my U.S. military contacts that there were a number of Afghan women strapping on the bomb and I am writing about this in a chapter for my next book on female terrorists, but that phenomenon was not reported. Because we don’t hear of it in the news doesn’t mean it’s not happening. The real concern is women who support extremist men – women have done this since the Afghan jihad. Women write in jihadi magazines. Women raise their children to be terrorists. And women stand by their radical men. This is nothing new.

ARE: Are Muslim women in the West generally more or less likely to radicalize than their counterparts in the Islamic world?

FQ: Western women have different challenges; the main concern for a Muslim girl or woman in the West has to do with identity. Often, girls who join ISIS are trapped between two opposing cultures and societies – the life at home and their life outside the home (at school, for example).

One of my chapters in my new book is called “The Denver Girls” – I remember visiting with the community that was affected by the three East African girls who boarded a plane to join ISIS but were brought back home (the father of one of the girls reported his daughter missing). A Sudanese woman I interviewed told me that ISIS empowers our girls, and I can see why. Because many Muslim girls living in the West are still bound by cultural (read controlled) rules and have little freedom outside of their home environment; they aren’t allowed to ‘hang out’ with Western friends and these girls certainly don’t have the same opportunities as their brothers or male cousins. In these cases, girls look for alternatives, which terrorism provides.

Further, I believe the teachings of Islam (which I live by: peace, compassion and mercy) are not preached or taught at home. When Muslims have spiritual pride and believe that God’s love is only for the select few, then this teaching restricts children in many ways: they are unable to cope in a Western society and compelled to stay within their own communities, which makes girls more vulnerable to extremist recruitment and makes them feel they do not belong.

ARE: What are some of the major reasons you’ve found that explain the phenomenon of female Muslim terrorists?

FQ: No two Muslim female terrorists are alike. And while the motives will vary, I do believe that patterns don’t lie. Contextual clues are important indicators for violence, and by context, this would include a girl’s home (private) and public life; her exposure to violence or trauma or abuse; her access to violent messaging online and the time she spends reading and engaging with violent individuals in the digital space; a personal tragedy (did she lose someone to violence?); and much more. I’ve learned that there is no “aha” moment or trigger point but a sequence of triggers and “aha” moments that lead to the path of violence.

ARE: Based on your expertise, what do you think of Trump’s “Muslim ban” or travel ban?

FQ: The travel ban may have the adverse effect. I believe in protecting our country from external threats. What worries me is that the threat is already here. If we look back at attacks or attempted attacks over the past decade, radical Muslims have been living in our midst. [Orlando shooter] Omar Mateen, [San Bernardino killers] Syed and Tashfeen Farook, [Chattanooga shooter] Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, [Fort Hood shooter] Nidal M. Hassan, and more. Many of these terrorists were not from the countries listed in the travel ban. What we need is greater civic involvement and community policing.

ARE: Have you experienced threats of any kind in relation to your work?

FQ: I have been warned to change careers and not talk about Muslim terrorists. But to do that would be to ignore the realities of our time. As a devout Muslim woman, who still believes in Islam’s core message of peace, I have to acknowledge that there are Muslims who kill in the name of Islam, manipulating the faith for political or personal reasons. And these individuals, male or female, need to be stopped and countered by Muslims, too.

ARE: In the now-infamous words of Mitch McConnell, “she persisted.” Why do you persist?

FQ: My father taught me the word “persistence’ when I was a young girl in Texas. He often said, “every challenge is an opportunity,” which made the word “persist’ a positive term in my mind. To persist is to succeed and to succeed is to make a difference. I live by the maxim: lead a life of service – and the only way to do that is to persist.

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. Follow her at @radicalstates.

Whistle-Blower: House Committee Hung Me Out To Dry After Using My Info Against DHS

department_homeland_security_surveillance_records_to_get_purged-1-e1458240698787

Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, June 28, 2016:

WASHINGTON — Department of Homeland Security whistle-blower Philip Haney says he sought help from the House Homeland Security committee after he provided its members with pertinent information following the 2013 Boston bombing, but the committee refused to intervene when the Obama administration retaliated against Haney.

Instead, the committee sent him to an Obama administration official who was himself under investigation for covering up alleged corruption, Haney says. He worked at DHS’s National Targeting Center from November 2011 to June 2012, identifying radicalized individuals associated with terrorist organizations entering the United States.

“I identified individuals affiliated with large, but less well-known groups such as Tablighi Jamaat and the larger Deobandi movement freely transiting the United States,” he wrote in an article published in The Hill newspaper. “At the National Targeting Center, one of the premier organizations formed to ‘connect the dots,’ I played a major role in an investigation into this trans-national Islamist network. We created records of individuals, mosques, Islamic Centers and schools across the United States that were involved in this radicalization effort.”

However, late into President Obama’s first term and early into Obama’s second term, Haney says his work became compromised by DHS when it decided to shut down his investigation into the Islamic Institute of Education in Chicago, which was subsequently linked to the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque in San Bernardino, California, and the Pakistani women’s Islamist group al-Huda.

Haney asserts that had he been able to continue his work, he and his Customs and Border Protection (CBP) colleagues may have been able to flag San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook before he caused any harm. According to Haney, Farook’s mosque, San Bernardino’s Deobandi movement is affiliated with Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamia.

Farook’s wife and accomplice in the December 2015 massacre, Tashfeen Malik, went to school at Pakistan’s al-Huda, which also is connected to the Deobandi movement.

After nine months of work and more than 1,200 law enforcement actions, as well as being credited with identifying more than 300 individuals with possible links to terrorism, Haney says, DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the State Department and DHS’ Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. Additionally, the administration deleted 67 investigative records Haney entered into the DHS database, he claims.

In his first act of blowing the whistle, Haney notified Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of a DHS document casually known as the “terrorist hands off list.” The senator then contacted DHS for further information, and the document’s existence became publicly known in May 2014. Grassley is known as a government whistle-blower advocate.

In April 2015, Judicial Watch sued for the document’s release. Haney wrote in his book “See Something, Say Nothing” that in May 2014 Customs Border Patrol officials “refused to answer multiple questions” about the “hands off terrorist list” in a closed-door meeting with Grassley’s staff.

“I knew that data I was looking at could prove significant to future counter terror efforts and tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement. On July 26, 2013, I met with the DHS Inspector General in coordination with several members of Congress (both House and Senate) to attempt to warn the American people’s elected representatives about the threat,” Haney wrote.

By 2013, as Haney wrote in his book, he met with several members of Congress, including South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert and Grassley to tell them what the administration was doing to his work. One other member, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, also met with Haney and assured him the committee would protect him, and his information, he said.

Then came the incident that he says led him to be placed under investigation.

Days after the Boston bombing that same year, Haney met with McCaul’s committee in person and gave the members information about a Saudi national who was detained after the attack. Based on that information, Rep. Duncan grilled former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitanoon whether the man was going to be deported.

Napolitano said she did not think that the Saudi man was a person of interest.

“I am unaware of anyone who is being deported for national security concerns at all related to Boston. I don’t know where that rumor came from,” Napolitano said.

She said later, “Like I said, again I don’t even think he was technically a person of interest or a suspect. That was a wash. And I am unaware of any proceeding there, I will clarify that for you, but I think this is an example of why it is so important to let law enforcement to do its job.”

After the hearing, the committee wanted documentation  that showed the Saudi man was, indeed, a person of interest. To get that documentation, the committee turned toDHS’s congressional liaison Ray Orzel .

Haney relayed the story of him sending the documentation to the committee in his book “See Something, Say Nothing.”

“It was my day off but I got dressed and went to a secure location near the airport and printed off copies of the files,” he wrote. “At about 4:45 p.m., I faxed the files to the secure number at the House Homeland Security Committee offices in the Ford Building.”

Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier and TheBlaze then obtained leaked copies of the files, which confirmed that the Saudi man had been a person of interest and that he had been added to the government’s no-fly list. DHS said that he had later been removed from the no-fly list after finding that he was a victim of the attack.

Immediately after those media reports, Haney says the Department of Justice, the DHS Office of Internal Affairs and the DHS inspector general launched investigations into him as a result of the information he gave to the Homeland Security Committee that Duncan used to question Napolitano.

McCaul’s committee, Haney says, did not speak up for him or intervene in any way and instead suggested that he go to the inspector general’s office, which at the time was headed by acting inspector general Charles Edwards.

“They knew that I was being investigated,” he told The Daily Caller. “Three separate investigations all at the same time, because they are trying to accuse me of being the one who leaked the information to the media. Why didn’t they help me?”

Acting inspector general Edwards had problems of his own. He was being investigated for corruption when McCaul sent Haney over to him. When asked by this reporter about Edwards during the investigation, McCaul said, “The allegations are serious and there’s also an independent review right now. This is one of those cases that if the misconduct is correct and the allegations are correct, and I know he’s been put on administrative leave — he should not only be fired, the U.S. attorneys office should be looking at it.”

A bipartisan Senate Oversight report stated that Edwards compromised his job with Obama administration political aides as he put forth an effort to be tapped as the permanent inspector general of DHS.

Additionally, Edwards was probed for instructing staff to change an OIG Report of Investigation about the U.S. Secret Service scandal in Cartagena, Colombia, a charge he denied.

Whistle-blowers cited in the report from the DHS OIG office claimed Edwards “improperly destroyed or concealed e-mails, phone records, and hotline complaints, inappropriately favored particular employees, and retaliated against those who brought attention to supposed misconduct through the use of administrative leave or poor performance reviews.”

Haney questioned why McCaul would send him to Edwards in the first place, given the accusations against him. Additionally, Haney sent an appeal letter to Homeland Committee chief counsel R. Nicholas Palarino, expressing concern that Edwards may have tampered with the report he wrote on Haney (p.176 “See Something, Say Nothing”).

The Daily Caller sent an inquiry to McCaul’s committee and asked why the Homeland Security Committee did not intervene when Haney was investigated for the information he gave them as well as why they sent Haney to an IG being investigated for corruption.

“We will pass on the opportunity to participate,” a committee spokeswoman responded.

Follow Kerry on Twitter

The New York Times Destroys Obama

nytoSo pathetically, in a bid to defend Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democrats, the Times published a report that showed that Obama’s laser like focus on the Zawahiri-controlled faction of al Qaida has endangered the US.

By failing to view as enemies any other terror groups — even if they have participated in attacks against the US – and indeed, in perceiving them as potential allies, Obama has failed to defend against them. Indeed, by wooing them as future allies, Obama has empowered forces as committed as al Qaida to defeating the US.

Again, it is not at all apparent that the Times realized what it was doing. But from Israel to Egypt, to Iran to Libya to Lebanon, it is absolutely clear that Obama and his colleagues continue to implement the same dangerous, destructive agenda that defeated the US in Benghazi and will continue to cause US defeat after US defeat.

By Caroline Glick:

The New York Times just delivered a mortal blow to the Obama administration and its Middle East policy.

Call it fratricide. It was clearly unintentional. Indeed, is far from clear that the paper even realizes what it has done.

Last Saturday the Times published an 8,000 word account by David Kirkpatrick detailing the terrorist strike against the US consulate and the CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In it, Kirkpatrick tore to shreds the foundations of President Barack Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy and his overall policy in the Middle East.

Obama first enunciated those foundations in his June 4, 2009 speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. Ever since, they have been the rationale behind US counter-terror strategy and US Middle East policy.

Obama’s first assertion is that radical Islam is not inherently hostile to the US. As a consequence, America can appease radical Islamists. Moreover, once radical Muslims are appeased, they will become US allies, (replacing the allies the US abandons to appease the radical Muslims).

Obama’s second strategic guidepost is his claim that the only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden’s successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.

The administration has dubbed the Zawahiri faction of al Qaida “core al Qaida.” And anyone who operates in the name of al Qaida, or any other group, that does not have courtroom certified operational links to Zawahiri, is not really al Qaida, and therefore, not really a terrorist group or a US enemy.

These foundations have led the US to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are the rationale for the US’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. They are the basis for Obama’s allegiance to Turkey’s Islamist government, and his early support for the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian opposition.

They are the basis for the administration’s kneejerk support for the PLO against Israel.

Obama’s insistent bid to appease Iran, and so enable the mullocracy to complete its nuclear weapons program is similarly a product of his strategic assumptions. So too, the US’s current diplomatic engagement of Hezbollah in Lebanon owes to the administration’s conviction that any terror group not directly connected to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.

From the outset of the 2011 revolt against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya, it was clear that a significant part of the opposition was comprised of jihadists aligned if not affiliated with al Qaida. Benghazi was specifically identified by documents seized by US forces in Iraq as a hotbed of al Qaida recruitment.

Obama and his advisors dismissed and ignored the evidence. The core of al Qaida, they claimed was not involved in the anti-Qaddafi revolt. And to the extent jihadists were fighting Qaddafi, they were doing so as allies of the US.

In other words, the two core foundations of Obama’s understanding of terrorism and of the Muslim world were central to US support for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi.

With Kirkpatrick’s report, the Times exposed the utter falsity of both.

Read more at Front Page

Related articles

Patrick Poole: Day One Highlights from the World Summit on Counter Terrorism

1185075_10151793556875999_1809247653_nBy Patrick Poole:

As I noted in my previous post, I’m reporting from the 2013 World Summit on Counter Terrorism in Herliya, Israel. The first day’s session was entirely in Hebrew with translation via earphones (rendering my recorder irrelevant), so I’m going to rely on translations from the Israeli media to cover the highlights.

The keynote speaker was Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who said that Israel would stay out of the Syria crisis unless“red lines were transgressed,” meaning retaliatory attacks directed at Israel in the event of a U.S. attack. Included in those “red lines” would also be transferring chemical weapons to Hezbollah.

But he also warned that inaction by the U.S. would also have consequences. This is particularly interesting, as the conference falls six years after Israel launched an attack on Syria’s nuclear weapons development facility.

As the Times of Israel noted, most of Ya’alon’s speech was directed at challenging Western misconceptions of the region and expressing skepticism at the efforts to bring democracy to the Arab world. Of particular note was the aspirations of the Palestinians to form a state:

One of the most incredible things in a period when the notion of the nation-state is collapsing before our eyes is that there are those who are trying to advance, in one way or another, the founding of yet another nation-state — even as it remains unclear how the people of Jenin are connected to the people of Hebron, and uncertain that there is a common denominator between those in Judea and Samaria and those in Gaza.

Former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit noted the incompatibility between Western norms and the intentions of jihadists in the fight against terrorism:

Western culture espouses the values ​​of tolerance and acceptance of the other, but radical Islam is not willing to accept the other and according to its perception the “infidels” must die. Since the West places an emphasis on morality, it tries to fight terrorism while its hands are tied. The tension between the need for security and morality is also expressed by means of preventing and combating terrorism. With technological developments I predict that eventually the technology will evolve into an effective tool in fighting terrorism, but until that development will come, terrorism will have already been at work in the non-conventional arena.

remarkable statement by former Israeli National Security Council director Uzi Arad not only questioned the effectiveness of a U.S. strike against Syria, but also its legality under international law (a point also made during today’s session by Syracuse University professor William Banks):

Syria is not a signatory to international conventions against the use of chemical weapons. You cannot say that Assad violated an international convention Syria is not signed onto.

I find it hard to believe that intervention will bring about a substantially better situation. The best thing now would be for Obama to carefully bring the crisis to an end, without creating negative ramifications in the region and the world, whether before or after an attack.

One personal observation from my interactions the past two days with Israeli officials: not a one has had a positive thing to say about President Obama.

I hope to post more thoughts later.

For more information see the facebook page: ICT: International Institute for Counter-Terrorism

Obama’s scrub of all mention of Islam from counterterror training materials under fire after Boston jihad bombings

Chart by Patrick Poole

Chart by Patrick Poole

By Robert Spencer:

CAIR deserves some credit for this — they mounted a huge campaign in 2010 to have me dropped as a trainer of FBI agents. Others responsible for the politically correct scrubbing of counterterror training materials of any mention of Islam or jihad include hard-Left pseudo-journalist Spencer Ackerman, who published a series of “exposes” of “Islamophobic” counterterror training; Fatima Khera, who wrote a letter to John Brennan demanding that this material be removed; Brennan, who readily acquiesced to this demand; and Salam al-Marayati, who piled on in the mainstream media. They got what they wanted: the scrubbing of counter-terror training materials of the truth about Islam and jihad. Now in Boston, we have begun reaping the fruit of this.

Khera’s letter to Brennan complained that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a powerpoint presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; and that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia,” and “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”

In fact, I gave many such presentations to various government agencies and law enforcement groups. This was amid many other complaints about similar material from other writers, and presentations by other counter-jihadists. So now all that material is gone, and the witless and politically correct FBI of today ignored Tamerlan Tsarnaev despite repeated warnings from Russian authorities. And if they did investigate him, they didn’t know what to look for or how to understand what they were seeing.

The Leftist journalists and Islamic supremacist groups who pressured Obama (as well as Obama and his administration officials themselves) ought to be held accountable for the law enforcement and intelligence failures connected to the Boston jihad bombings.

Read more at Jihad Watch

Sebastian Gorka on the purge:

 

 

Why Terrorist Attacks Have Quadrupled Since 2001

1280-computational-analysis-of-terrorists-groups-437x350By Kerry Patton

Terrorism is a tactic used by individuals with specific ideologies. Killing an ideology is nearly impossible. The war on terror is a complete misnomer. A war cannot be waged against a tactic. And proving to be an ideological war, evidence demonstrates that today, the tactic of terrorism is actually growing world-wide.

Since 2001, the United States and our allies have been engaged in a complex war fighting against an ideology. Many people have been killed while many more have been maimed. Today, it is known via the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, deaths caused by terror have decreased yet attacks have actually quadrupled world-wide since 2001.

The leading ideological culprit behind the growing terror dilemma is Islam. The Global Terrorism Database proves unequivocally that those who embrace a very twisted religious ideology are leading the world today in terrorist activities — i.e. Islamists.

Terrorists have varied their tactics with advanced unconventional tools. Today, we learn that Syria is threatening to incorporate chemical weapons against its opposition. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has already ransacked at least three Syrian military bases procuring Manual Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) systems shooting down a Syrian military helicopter just last week. Do we know whether they obtained any chemical weapons during the raids as well?

What happens if the opposition obtains these chemical weapons? What happens if Al Qaeda elements fighting alongside Free Syrian Army rebels transfer these weapon systems elsewhere later, incorporating them into the streets of a European or North American nation? Terrorist and their movements strengthen.

Four credible arguments can be made explaining why terrorist incidents have increased over the years—weak US foreign policy, internal fighting between conventional and unconventional military wisdom, technical intelligence dependency, and decapitated US human intelligence.

A weak US foreign policy could be partially blamed for the spike in world-wide terrorist incidents. Since the start of the Arab Spring, the United States has actually emboldened terrorist groups through “behind closed doors” diplomacy, weapons procurement, and other logistical needs. Simply put, the very people we often assist frequently become the very people we fight.

Read more at Front Page

Obama’s National Security Priority: Moderate Muslim Rappers

By Daniel Greenfield:

Also known as, this is what the leading counterterrorism experts were doing the day after Benghazi.

The day after Islamic extremists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the nation’s top counterterrorists hosted something of a brainstorming session on how to keep violent extremism down in the long term. While the consulate burned, 100 or so intelligence analysts, military officers, prosecutors, academics and civil rights experts gathered… for a conference on “Countering Violent Extremism / Community Engagement.”

Afterward, according to a draft agenda obtained by Danger Room, attendees were invited to a nearby mall for a happy hour at Coastal Flats, a restaurant known for its crab cakes.

A State Department official, Shahed Amanullah, ran through the ways effective al-Qaida propagandists spread their message on the internet, and described how a program he runs, called Viral Peace, seeks to troll the online radicals.

“With CVE, the spectrum starts at prevention, with the regular Joe on the street,” explains Humera Khan, who runs a number of such prophylactic programs and who spoke at the Sept. 12 event. “The idea is to increase the barriers to entry, so that he never goes down that radical path.”

A national security priority of the Obama White House, CVE is supposed to work by using the various government security branches to “empower” Muslim communities at home and abroad.

As discussed previously, CVE has actually subverted legitimate counterterrorism efforts by making it a priority to win over Muslims domestically, instead of cracking down on terrorists. The FBI has been neutered by CVE and so have most domestic law enforcement agencies.

Instead of focusing on counterterrorism, the Obama Administration is putting all its weight behind CVE and bringing a lot of Muslims on board to throw around money on their Islamic programming.

Read more at Front Page