Did ISIS Just Reveal Its Plans?

American Thinker, by Michael Curtis, April 4, 2016:

The first task of the Obama administration should be to fight and eliminate Islamist terrorism.  A document just issued by ISIS is perplexing because it is unclear whether the terrorist caliphate is helping the U.S. administration in this task or teasing it by revealing the essence of its terrorist strategy.  The document, a February 2016 article in the French edition of the ISIS online propaganda magazine, Dar al-Islam, has explained its campaign to wage war against the West.


In a surprising revelation, ISIS’s article rediscovers the basis of German maneuver warfare.  It says it is copying the 19th-century tactics of Auftragstaktik, a combat doctrine of the German army similar to Mission Command in the U.S. and U.K.  That doctrine was adopted as a response by Germany after its military defeats by Napoleon.

The article cites a 1908 German infantry manual asserting that there is nothing more important in tactics than educating a soldier to think for himself.  Though a little un-Germanic, it asserts that a soldier’s autonomy and sense of honor push him to do his duty even when it is not in front of his superiors.

The ISIS article explains that the terrorists plan three types of attacks.  These include large-scale plots coordinated by the leaders, though these now seem a lesser priority.  More important is a warning to the West that the attacks also include isolated actions of individuals who have no direct contact with ISIS but act in its name.  This means that followers of ISIS will carry out terrorists attacks without them being traced to the central chain of command.

The concept of Auftragstaktik means a method by which leaders give subordinates a mission, a target, and a time frame by which it should be accomplished and allow those subordinates to carry out their tasks independently.  This implies allowing the subordinates complete tactical autonomy and flexibility at the operational level.  The leadership is not informed of tactical details of the “lone wolf” operators.  The perpetrator adapts tactics to the local situation in flexible fashion.

The concept also means that the subordinates understand the orders, are given general guidance, and are trained to act independently.  This means decentralized warfare, terror by autonomy, while following centralized orders.

Perhaps by coincidence, the ISIS strategy bears a striking resemblance to and echoes the U.S. War Marine Corps Manual of June 1997, with its doctrine of maneuver that places a premium on individual judgment and action.  This kind of doctrine, with implicit communication through mutual understanding, using a minimum of well understood phrases or even anticipating thoughts, is faster and more effective than using detailed, explicit instructions.  All people involved have a shared philosophy.

Related: ISIS Europe bombers explode ‘lone wolf’ fallacy

The result of the ISIS tactics is reminiscent of the assaults and massacres in Madrid, Paris, London, and Brussels.  A number of the individual lone wolves have become familiar.  The Belgian-Moroccan Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who had spent time in Syria, where he trained ISIS fighters and was linked to ISIS leadership, was responsible for a string of terrorist attacks and the mastermind of the November 15, 2015 massacre in Paris that killed 130 people before Abaaoud himself was killed in a police raid in Paris.

In prison, Abaaoud was in contact with Salah Abdeslam, a Belgian-born French national of Moroccan descent who was also involved in the Paris attack and was a key figure in the Brussels attack on March 22, 2016 that killed 32 people.  Abaaoud was linked to Mehdi Memmouche, a French national of Algerian origin who was responsible for the murder of four people in the Jewish Museum in Brussels on May 24, 2014.


ISIS is becoming ever more aggressive.  Its images and graphics call on German Muslims to carry out high-profile attacks, like that in Brussels, on significant targets – for example, the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin and the Cologne airport.

The British Daily Mail revealed the most recent attempt at a lone wolf operation in Britain in March 2016.  A 25-year-old Muslim named Junead Khan, a driver who delivered pharmaceutical goods, had scouted two U.S. Air Force bases in East Anglia and planned to kill U.S. soldiers in the U.K.  The plan was to run his van into a U.S. military vehicle near a U.S. base in Suffolk and then attack the American occupants.  At his trial, his uncle testified on his behalf and told the court the Islamic truth: the BBC and Sky television were part of the Zionist conspiracy, together with the diabolic stores Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury, and Tesco, and the usual suspects, the Freemasons and the Illuminati.

Khan’s identification with terrorist groups and his connection with individuals in central command of ISIS became clear.  Photos showed him posing, wearing what seems a Ralph Lauren (Jewish) shirt, holding the ISIS black flag, and possessing an al-Qaeda bomb manual.  After his deed, he was preparing to go to Syria to join ISIS.

More revealing in this story was that earlier, Khan exchanged messages with a man named Junaid Hussain, an ISIS recruiter in central command and a British-born jihadist who was killed in a U.S. drone attack.  It became apparent from reading the exchanges that ISIS fighters in Syria have addresses in the U.K. of British servicemen.

For the U.S. and its allies, the lesson to be drawn from the ISIS document is clear.  It involves two intersecting policies.  Critical vulnerabilities must be identified to undermine the enemy.  In practice, more attention must be paid to the “sleeper cells” of ISIS and those attracted to fundamentalist Sunni Islam and those dabbling in crime, by a variety of means – military, police, and above all collaboration in intelligence information.  For security, it also means assessing U.S. vulnerabilities that ISIS associates and sleeper cells may attack.

ISIS has given warning, and the U.S. administration must act accordingly.

Also see:

“Interfaith Outreach” Movement Led by Marxists and Jihadis

UTT, by John Guandolo, Nov. 3, 2015:

Two weeks ago the Parliament of the World’s Religions held its annual conference at the Salt Lake City Convention Center boasting “10,000 People. 80 Nations. 50 Faiths.”  Representing Islam were the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia.  That alone tells a story, but the presence of Marxists/Alinskyists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations funded primarily by Saudi Arabia driving the “Interfaith Outreach” efforts in America is a stark reminder that well-intentioned people are being duped by those with a dark agenda using the guise of “togetherness” and “tolerance” to achieve nefarious ends.

The key speakers representing Islam at the Parliament of the World’s Religions were Sheikh Salah Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abdullah bin Humaid was also the head of the Fiqh Assembly of the Muslim Brotherhood’s World Muslim League in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s official legal system is the Sharia (Islamic Law) including the Hudud punishments – stoning for adultery, beheading for those who apostacize from Islam, cutting off hands of thieves – which directly contradicts all Western understanding of human rights.  Those Hudud punishments come directly from the Allah in the Quran.


Sheikh Saleh Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Also featured as a speaker at the Parliament’s event was Saudi lap-dog and apologist for Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, John L. Esposito of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  Bin Talal is one of the wealthiest Saudi princes in the world and funds the global jihad to the tune of millions of dollars annually.

Funny, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic University.


Tariq Ramadan, International face of the Muslim Brotherhood and grandson of the MB founder

Tariq Ramadan continues to travel the world with a smile on his face fooling Western leaders, especially religious leaders, who view him as a nice man with a peaceful message.  Yet, as one of the leading faces for the International Muslim Brotherhood, he supports Civilization Jihad to overthrow un-Islamic governments and replace them with Sharia because that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and affiliates of these organizations are the key drivers of the U.S. Interfaith movement. ICNA is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. efforts; ISNA is a Hamas support entity; and CAIR is a Hamas organization according to evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v HLF, Dallas 2008).

“Left-wing religious” organizations like the Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) are directly partnered with the Saul Alinsky organization the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). The VOICE website is directly tied to IAF – http://www.voice-iaf.org.  VOICE dutifully follows the guidance provided by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers with which they work.


Saul Alinsky (photo 1965), Marxist Revolutionary, Author of Rules for Radicals dedicated to Lucifer

Saul Alinsky was a Marxist revolutionary whose book Rules for Radicals details how to penetrate and overthrow societies.  It was dedicated to Lucifer.  [note:  President Obama studied Alinsky’s lessons and became a “community organizer” – a term coined directly from Rules for Radicals].

Why is it so difficult for Christian leaders to understand Islam?

Islam divides the world into two parts: the Dar al Islam (the house of Islam) where Sharia is the law of the land, and the Dar al Harb (the house of war) – everywhere else.  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam and Sharia.  Then there is “peace.”

The vehicle to accomplish this is called “Jihad.”

The Sharia unanimously states lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals. Jihad is obligatory, and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.” Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat (agreed upon by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ibn `Umar).” Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

When Christians conduct “outreach” to Muslim communities, they must know the ground truth about what they are getting into, especially when they send others in to do this kind of work.

Should Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Marxist Revolutionaries drive American “Interfaith Outreach?”  Whether they should or shouldn’t is not truly the point.  Currently, they are.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonished Christians to be tough minded and discerning in their approach to evil. “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, ‘Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God.’”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors speak the truth about Islam, no matter the cost.

What Hamas Means by ‘Peace’ and ‘Truce’


israel-explosion-apby John Guandolo at Breitbart:

If someone walked up to you and asked you if you would like a sandwich, and you replied in the affirmative, where would the disconnect be if he punched you in the nose?  The disconnect would be in your understanding of the word “sandwich.”  While the word is in English, your assailants understanding of the word is obviously quite different from yours.  Understanding Hamas’ use of terms (and the entire Islamic world’s understanding of certain terms) – in English – is much the same way.

The Western understanding of the words “Peace” and “Truce” are universally understood – in the West.  These terms are also understood in the Islamic world.  But the Western world and the Islamic world do not define these terms in ways that are even vaguely similar.

In the West, “Peace” is freedom from war or strife or an agreement to end war” (source:  Webster’s).  While some may argue true peace must be brought about by one side being defeated so hostilities do not immediately resume, the point is made.  A “Truce” on the other hand is a cessation of fighting by mutual agreement (also Webster’s).

All of Islam – from doctrinal books of Islamic Law to first grade Islamic school texts across the globe – define “Islam” as a complete way of life (social, cultural, military, religious, and political) governed by Islamic Law (Shariah).  One-hundred percent of all published Islamic Law obliges Jihad until the entire world is subordinated to Islamic Law.  One-hundred percent of all published Islamic Law defines Jihad as “warfare” against non-Muslims.  This in and of itself is disturbing, but let us focus on the topic at hand.

(Author’s note:  for those not clear on this, 100% means “All.”  There is no published Islamic law of any century which does not conform with the above facts.)

Islamic Law divides the entire world into two parts:  the dar al Islam (the house or abode of Peace), and the dar al harb (the house of war).  Those not living in Islamic controlled territories under Shariah (Islamic Law) live in the dar al harb – the abode of war – and are “harbi” or “enemy personnel.”  Islamic Law obliges Jihad until the dar al harb is obliterated and only the dar al Islam exists.  That is when, according to Islamic Law – which Hamas touts as its guide for all it does – there is PEACE.

Islamic Law states a “truce” means “a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specific period of time…Truces are permissible, not obligatory…There must be some interest served in making a truth other than mere preservation of the status quo…Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of number or materiel, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim.” (Umdat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law, (1368), Book O, Justice, 09.16 – published in Maryland, distributed nationwide by Islamic organizations).

In other words, the only reason for the truce by Hamas with Israel right now, is that they are getting their butts handed to them by the Israelis and need to regroup, rearm, and strategize.  Since that has also been what we have historically seen from them for the last 25 years, there is also a great deal of evidence to support Hamas’ thought process today.

Therefore, anyone advocating that Israel enter into a “cease fire” with Hamas either does not understand what they are talking about, or are looking to give Hamas an advantage over the Israelis.  And, since the form of “Peace” promoted by Hamas includes destroying all governments which are non-Islamic and the destruction of Israel, there can never be a valid peace between Hamas and Israel.  Never.  To argue that this is possible is to be divorced from reality.