Western Leaders Confuse Endangering the Innocent for Compassion

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 3, 2017:

In London, the Prime Minister (and the previous Prime Minister) and many members of Parliament say the recent jihadi attack in Westminster has nothing to do with Islam, and call for embracing the Islamic community.

In Germany, Angela Merkel has opened German borders to people from sharia-adherent jihadi nations, has defended jihadis as being “un-Islamic” and, in the face of towns being overrun by jihadis, she has doubled-down on her posture.

In France, establishment leaders continue to denounce Marine Le Pen’s call for a truthful dialogue about the threat from Islamic refugee populations, and a call for French pride and liberty as being bigoted and closed-minded.

In Canada, similar malaise sweeps the land as leaders fight for who will bend over backwards farther to appease and please their Islamic residents and immigrants.

In the United States, the previous three Presidents and five or six recent Secretaries of State have belched out comments that Islamic teachings are contrary to those of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayef, Boko Haram, or any of the other hundreds of jihadi organizations on the planet despite the fact they all claim to act in the name of Islam and all of their actions are supported by core Islamic teachings and sharia.

Leaders of North American and European Jewish organizations unwittingly stand with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders because they “know” what its like to be singled out and wrongly targeted for persecution and bigotry.

The same is true in European and American churches where pastors of all denominations throw the Apostles Creed out the window in order to be liked by their “Muslim neighbors” under the guise of “Jesus told us to love everyone – even our enemies.”

Since both government and church leaders hold that love and compassion should be our guide – a noble and just pathway – we must contemplate this from an objective, rational, and reasonable perspective.

Does compassion towards a group of people whose doctrine and belief system call for the destruction of yours take precedence over protecting the innocent in society?

Do muslims who do not believe in or want to abide by sharia constitute a “different version” of Islam? Since objectively, muslims who are speaking out against Sharia are unanimously threatened with death, we must take this into consideration if our thought process is to be considered reasonable.

Did Jesus merely command his followers to be “gentle as doves” which has been extrapolated by some Christian leaders to mean soft-hearted and soft-minded like fools, or was there more to it?  “Wise as serpents” maybe?  Has the bar for what is right and just become only those things that make our enemies “happy” or is there more to love than that?

These are relevant questions because the fate of Western society hangs on the answers.

From the perspective of Western civilization, the government has a role to play as does the Church in civil society.  In neither case is the intentional destruction of innocent civilians an acceptable trade off for surrendering authority and power to an enemy whose stated goal is the killing of innocent non-muslims. We are called to lay our lives down for others in pursuit of righteous causes, not to allow evil to destroy what is good.

That requires us to know objective good and objective evil.

As Sir Winston Churchill said:  “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the
religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas was clear as well:  “Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.”

It appears the fate of Western civilization is in the hands of the people.  Citizens of free nations will either once again stake a claim in liberty and truth and risk everything for its future, or they will risk being extinguished by the cancer called Islam spreading across the globe.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Britsh Leaders’ Inability to Speak Truth About Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, March  23, 2017:

See UTT’s new video entitled “British Appeasement to Islam” HERE.

Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?

Since 9/11/01, Britain’s leaders have been unable to see the reality of the Islamic threat which is overwhelming them, and, in the face of their own destruction, have been incapable of letting the light of truth in to see the problem they face lies with Islam and it’s destructive and barbaric sharia.

In October 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference where he stated:  “This is not a war with Islam. It angers me as it angers the vast majority of Muslims to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran.”

After British Army soldier Lee Rigby was run over and beheaded on the streets of Woolwich, England in May 2013 by two Muslims, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  “This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and on the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.  There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

After British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Muslims in ISIS on video in September 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated:  “They claim to do this in the name of Islam.  That is nonsense.  Islam is a religion of peace.  They are not Muslims.  They are monsters.”

What will Prime Minister Theresa May say about Islam after the jihadi attack in Westminster?

Is she aware “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them” (Koran 9:5) is a permanent command from Allah for Muslims until the world is under sharia (Islamic Law)?  Is she aware this is taught in Islamic schools all over Britain?

What will London’s jihadi mayor say?

Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men…Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
[Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pages 248-250]

Muslim Brotherhood: London is a base for extremists that fight the integration of British Muslims

A recent Muslim Brotherhood rally in CairoReuters

A recent Muslim Brotherhood rally in CairoReuters

IB Times, by Steven G. Merley, Dec. 17, 2015:

For over 14 years I have been engaged in documenting and writing about what I came to call the Global Muslim Brotherhood, which I have defined as a global network developed by Muslim Brothers (Ikhwan) who fled their home countries and settled in Europe and the United States where they went on to found what has become some of the most prominent Islamic organizations in their new home countries.

On more than one occasion, critics have labelled this conspiracy theory thinking and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood once famously called the idea ‘a Hollywood Fiction’. The release of Britain’s Jenkins report on the Muslim Brotherhood on December 17 is, for me at least, a complete vindication in describing how Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.

Beyond that acknowledgment, the UK report also supports what I have also tried for years to document, that the Global Muslim Brotherhood has a highly problematic relationship to violence and is prepared to countenance violence – including, from time to time, terrorism – where gradualism is ineffective.

The reality is actually far worse, as a forthcoming report that I have authored will demonstrate how important Global Muslim Brotherhood leaders from around the world, including the UK, have sat down at the table in an organization that is led by and includes individuals designated by Western governments as terrorist and terrorist financiers. That same organization has made it abundantly clear that it considers “The West” to be the primary enemy of the Islamic world.

Further confirming what I have struggled to get acknowledged is that Muslim Brotherhood groups in the UK are connected to a wider network of Global Muslim Brotherhood organizations. The report identifies the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) as part of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) and concurs with what I wrote in 2008, that FIOE represents the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.

Even more surprising is the statement in the report that UK charities such as INTERPAL, despitewholly inadequate investigations by the UK Charity Commission, are part of the Hamas and Brotherhood infrastructure in the UK, something I reported in 2009.

Beyond the focus on terrorism, I have also at times tried to move discussion about the Global Muslim Brotherhood beyond terrorism to a focus on how the Brotherhood networks impact the social fabric in the various countries where it is operating.

Once again, the UK report supports what I have long argued which is that the Brotherhood works counter to the successful integration of Muslim immigrants by promoting the view that “Western society is inherently hostile to Muslim faith and interests and that Muslims must respond by maintaining their distance and autonomy.”

However, far more important than the satisfaction I experienced in seeing my long-held views endorsed by a major Western government is the question of what should be done in light of the report findings. While some suggest that a UK ban on the Muslim Brotherhood is in order, it is not altogether clear how such a ban could work given that there is still no “official” definition of who or who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood or even exactly what constitutes the Global Muslim Brotherhood.

Such a ban would also likely be prone to the phenomenon seen in Germany when various far-right groups are banned only to be re-constituted under a different name and organizational structure. A blanket ban might also raise the risk of allowing the banned organizations to claim that they are being discriminated against, further reinforcing the narrative referred to above that the West is hostile to Muslims.

Far more useful would be a UK governmental blanket policy of denying any imprimatur of legitimacy to UK Muslim Brotherhood groups, something which the very same groups seek at all costs as they strive to be recognised as the sole representatives of the Muslim community. Under such a policy, government would simply refuse to engage with, support, fund, or in another way lend support to any group that it has found to be part of the Global Muslim Brotherhood network.

At the same time, recognition and support should be accorded to any legitimate Muslim organization that is found to be acting without significant ties to the Brotherhood or any other Islamist group. Such recognition of alternative voices would also serve to counter the far-right narrative that Islam itself, rather than Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, is the heart of the problem as well as negating any accusations of “Islamophobia.”

Perhaps most important of all is the report’s finding that the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, using London as a base, claims to act in support of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations around the world and that this activity is sometimes secretive, if not clandestine.

Yet once again, I have long argued that there is a substantial limit to what we can know about the Global Muslim Brotherhood by using the kind of open source information to which analysts such as myself are limited. To gain further access to the secret workings of these organizations will required dedicated action by national law enforcement and intelligence agencies who can and must take appropriate action when instances of illegal or anti-democratic behaviour is found.

This is only a question of political will and the release of the Jenkins report appears to denote that UK has taken the lead in West in going down that path.

Steven Merley is the editor of the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch which tracks developments in the worldwide networks of the Muslim Brotherhood.

***

From the Vault: The Plan of the Muslim Brotherhood by Dale Hurd

Also see:

The Façade in CAIR’s Paris Attacks Condemnation

cair-terror-shadowIPT News
November 16, 2015

Leaders at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemn Friday’s coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris that left an estimated 130 people dead. They really, really condemn it.

But if the discussion turns to the terrorists’ religious motivations, they’ll condemn that, too. Beginning with social media posts and a news conference with leaders of other Muslim organizations Saturday, CAIR is waging a campaign to stifle any reference to the Islamist ideology that drove the Islamic State attack on Paris.

If defeating ISIS requires a war of ideas among Muslims to determine how literally to apply the Quran, CAIR wants no part.

“Let’s not legitimize ISIS and help them in their propaganda by calling them the Islamic State,” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad told reporters.” They’re not Islamic. They’re not state. They’re anti-Islamic. Let’s not call them jihadis. They have nothing to do with jihad. Jihad is a legitimate self-defense in Islam. Let’s not give them this legitimizing title. They are brutal killers. They have no legitimacy.

“And I urge media, politicians, analysts to be very careful with the choice of their words. ISIS is appealing to the marginalized, disenfranchised and alienated young people in the Middle East and in the West. Let’s not help ISIS recruit more disenfranchised and alienated young people.”

It’s an argument directly contradicted by ISIS itself and one being mocked both by Islamic radicals and by secular advocates of religious freedom.

In a statement claiming credit for Friday’s slaughter re-posted at the Long War Journal, ISIS described the attacks as “a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah” to strike “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris.”

“This group of believers were youth who divorced the worldly life and advanced towards their enemy hoping to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion,” the ISIS statement said. “…The targets included the Bataclan theatre for exhibitions, where hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice.”

CAIR, meanwhile, created a Twitter hashtag, “TerrorismHasNoReligion,” and sent the director of its Florida chapters, Hassan Shibly, onto the radio, where he essentially blamed the victims. It isn’t religion that drove the attacks, he said. Rather, it is the consequence of “failing foreign policy” by Western nations including France and the United States.

1266In a four-minute segment, Shibly made seven references to foreign policy, describing it as “bad” and “horrific.” Fix the foreign policy, he said, and the terrorism will end. The problem is, “We cannot have a real conversation about terrorism these days.”

Terrorists, he told host Dean Obeidallah, “are not motivated by religion. They’re motivated by politics, by fighting for power and their own political agenda and they use religion to galvanize support. But ultimately, it isn’t about the religion. An absence of religion but still with the same political issues, you would still have the same problems. So it’s about politics, not religion.”

This is an argument wholly divorced from any facts about the Paris attacks or about ISIS’s ideology. We have cited numerous examples in which Islamist terrorists clearly describe their actions as religiously-inspired. And now, ISIS and its supporters provide fresh examples contradicting CAIR’s very premise.

In a sickly sarcastic essay, “Sorry Paris,” Salafi-jihadist ideologue Hussain bin Mahmud ridicules “our respectable and venerable ‘scholars’ who opened their mouth faster than the speed of light to condemn those criminal events.”

Mahmud’s beefs are about a perceived Western disrespect for Islam:

Sorry Paris, we have forgotten your enmity towards our religion, your insults towards our Lord and His messenger peace be upon him, your efforts to change our cultures in our countries, and suppressing Islam from the hearts of the young people in the East and the West.. Sorry Paris.

On the other side of the spectrum, Iraqi-born secularist Faisal Saeed Al Mutar likens arguments like CAIR’s to a Monty Python sketch depicting an Islamist terrorist arguing with an apologist:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

Read the entire script here.

In its statement claiming credit for the Paris attacks, ISIS refers to its grievances with the “crusader” nations, but makes a point of emphasizing religion. Those countries “will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris.”

It starts with a Surah in which Allah “cast terror into their hearts so they destroyed their houses by their own hands and the hands of the believers.”

Never mind that, CAIR says. It insists religion should not be part of the conversation.

But despite the protestations, acknowledging the words and ideals that fuel terrorists in no way indicts the belief of the world’s billion Muslims or the ideals of any broad spectrum of American Muslims. That is a false argument intended to shut down the debate before it starts.

During his interview, Shibly and Obeidallah mocked the argument that terrorists hate us for our culture, for our freedom. As the ISIS statement shows, it views Paris as “the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe.”

According to Shibly, that really means they hate French and American foreign policy.

“There’s hundreds of other countries in the world that have the freedoms we have but that don’t have the problems we have,” he said. “We do need to start asking ourselves how is our failed foreign policy leading to the troubles that we are seeing today while recognizing that the actions of terrorists is never justifiable.”

In a speech last July, British Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the notion that discussions about Islamic theology fueling terrorism be avoided.

It doesn’t work, Cameron said, in part “because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. The fact is from Woolwich to Tunisia, from Ottawa to Bali, these murderers all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith.”

Minimizing debate is counter-productive, he added, because there are voices advocating reform who challenge “the fusing of religion and politics, the voices that want to challenge the scriptural basis which extremists claim to be acting on…the voices that are crucial in providing an alternative worldview that could stop a teenager’s slide along the spectrum of extremism.”

These voices lack the profile and money the terrorists have at their disposal.

Perhaps Shibly and his colleagues at CAIR are targeting the wrong audience. Rather than tell non-Muslims to ignore the statements issued by Islamist terrorists, CAIR might provide a better public service by loudly and clearly speaking to the terrorists themselves. If the terrorists are wrong theologically, who better than the most visible Muslim advocacy group in the country to set them straight?

Instead, CAIR has chosen the same template over and over again. Like “Fight Club,” the first rule of radical Islam is you do not talk about radical Islam.

STEYN: LEADERS MUST ASK IF ADMITTING ‘MILLIONS AND OF PEOPLE’ IS SMART, SOME ‘PROVIDE COMFORT ZONE’ FOR ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

steyn

Breitbart, by Ian Hanchett, Nov. 14, 2015:

Columnist and author Mark Steyn argued that a “large pool of people” who “provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates” and that Western leaders are going to have to ask themselves “is it really a good idea to admit millions and millions of people to European countries?” on Saturday’s “Fox & Friends” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said, “nobody wants to say they were right about this, but I wrote a book almost ten years ago, and people said it was a alarmist. I’ve been listening to you guys all morning, and it’s striking to me, every interview you’ve had, Tucker has said, at one point, well, is it — some variation of is it really a good idea to admit millions and of millions of people to European countries? And people then start to tap dance around that issue, but when you get to it, that’s at the heart of it. That there is a large pool of people who, they don’t want to kill people, they don’t want bomb people, they don’t want to blow people up, but they provide a comfort zone within which this virus incubates. And at some point, if Mr. Hollande, and Mr. Cameron, and all these people talking about our values this morning are serious about that, they will have to do as Tucker did and ask themselves that question, and come up with an answer to it.”

When asked if the president realized “we have different values from the people who did this,” Steyn answered, “No, he doesn’t, and he wants to preserve that myth. If you look at the two big French attacks this year, for example, this attack was on people who just going to concerts, just going to restaurants, just going to soccer games, people find that well, easy to say, well you shouldn’t be blown up if you just go to a restaurant, or you just go to a soccer game. But when you get to the free speech thing, when you get to Charlie Hebdo in January, the majority of Muslims, in France, and in other western European nations, do not accept the concept of free speech. Free speech is not a universal value. It arises from a very narrow, particular tradition on this planet, and when you country becomes ten percent, 15 percent, 20 percent Muslim, there’s less and less of market for a free speech. So, despite what Obama, and Cameron, and Mr. Hollande say, that value of free speech will die, because there will be people who do not share that value.”

Steyn added that the war against terror can’t be fought on an “intelligence basis. I mean, we’ve been talking about whether you can vet people before — as they come in. A lot of these people, for example the Boston Marathon bomber, the guy who did the stabbings in Colorado just last week, they come in, and they’re perfectly normal little kids, and then they get radicalized as they live in Western societies. A quarter million people entered one German state, Bavaria, in September and October, a quarter million people. The German police estimate that it takes 60 people working on just tracking one known person on these watch lists. So, you cannot solve it by intelligence. You have to actually talk about things like a moratorium on Muslim immigration, and waging the battle ideologically. You have to be prepared — you have to, not just talk about our values, as Cameron did. You have to identify what those values are, and be prepared to defend and advance them in the world. Don’t just say that they’re universal. Because the guy in Yemen, and the goat herd, the Pashtun goat herd, and the fellow who thinks that his daughter got raped, so she deserves to die, these people don’t think they’re universal values. And Obama is useless if that’s all that he’s got to say about it.”

He added, “I think it has to be a two prong thing. I mean, this is a domestic battle, as much as an overseas war. In that these are people who nominally are citizens of Western nations, yet feel no allegiance to those nations. I mean, we pretend, we talk about the fellow in Colorado for example. The ABC News headline was a Santa Clara teenager had perpetrated the attacks. So, we present these people as normal residents of Santa Clara, of the United States, of France, Canada, Australia, but they bare, they — in the end, their sense of identity is not French, or Canadian, or Australian, or American. It’s with a pan-national identity, that actually doesn’t think in terms of nation-states. It’s bigger than that. The caliphate isn’t interested in the borders of France, or Belgium, or Germany. it’s actually making the very concept of national identity irrelevant, and replacing it with something bigger.”

David Cameron’s Latest Counter-Extremism Initiative Has A Mosque-Sized Hole In It

article-2298553-18E5CED9000005DC-591_634x361

Eye on Islam, by Ben, Oct. 19, 2015:

Today the government released the latest in their recent attempts to outline a cohesive strategy on dealing with the jihadist threat – ahem, sorry, “extremism in all its forms”.

The full outline of the strategy, which can be read here, contains many useful and important initiatives which will help to keep the wolf from the door just a little bit longer, but as usual, it is full of massive problems.

The first, once again, is its obsession with placing “right-wing extremists” up on the same pedestal with Islamic jihadis, as if they were at least a roughly equivalent threat. That’s not to say that such people shouldn’t be combatted where they exist, but the extent of the threat they pose is massively exaggerated – especially when compared to ISIS – and the scariest things the report can come up with are individual attacks against Muslims by loners with no connections to anyone, and a “neo-Nazi” group that holds racist rock concerts. It also cites now-discredited statistics on anti-Muslim hate crimes from Tell MAMA to make the threat of “Islamophobia” seem worse than it actually is.

This isn’t just annoying – it also shows how ineffective these new strategies are likely to be, since they work on the assumption that all “extremism” requires the same solutions, and that all ideologies can be dealt with in the same way. There is no logical reason to believe this is the case.

The other HUGE omission, given that despite the false equivalences, the majority of the document does in fact dwell on Islamic extremism specifically, is that it contains pages and pages of material about how to stop online jihadi recruitment, and not even one sentence on dealing with extremism INSIDE BRITISH MOSQUES.

Mosques are only mentioned twice in the entire strategy document: Once on page 9, in a sentence about how Muslims have the freedom to build them in this country, and again on the following page, in a paragraph explaining how mosques are sometimes attacked by “right-wing extremists”. That’s it. There is also an oblique reference on page 28 to plans to “help faith institutions to establish strong governance.” This scheme, however, will apply to “places of worship of all faiths”.

Because the UK’s 100 or so Sikh temples just need “stronger governance” so urgently.

Why is this omission so critical? Because it flies in the face of mountains of evidence that mosques are a major radicalisation ground, given that they are the place where mainstream Islamic doctrines – which include many things the British government defines as extremist – are taught to the faithful.

The first exposure many British people will have had to the hate preaching and extreme sermons occurring in British mosques was probably in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque documentary in 2007. The same year, an investigation by The Times revealed that books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage were being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques. The report claimed that such hardline material was found at a quarter of the 100 mosques visited during the investigation.

According to the Evening Standard, the An-Noor mosque in Acton has had numerous links to terror and extremism over the years, including a wanted terror suspect who used it as a shelter to evade the police, and the attendance of Abu Hamza’s son, Uthman Mustafa Kamal, who was preaching at the mosque, offering prayers for “holy warriors” to “destroy their enemies”.

And relating specifically to the newest threat of Islamic State, TheGuardian reported last month that networks of ISIS operatives are already recruiting inside mosques in the UK, with one imam even resigning from his mosque after witnessing extremist preaching first hand. In August, it was claimed that a teenage “jihadi bride” who groomed three of her school friends to join her in Syria to fight for Islamic State was radicalised at a women’s charity based at one of Britain’s biggest mosques, the East London Mosque in Whitechapel.

In light of all this and much more, the fact that the government’s “anti-extremism strategy” says absolutely nothing about monitoring mosques more closely, or forcing mosque leaders to implement transparent programmes in their institutions to teach against the jihadist ideology, is nothing short of scandalous.

One final point: A government press release that came out yesterday, announcing the imminent release of the new strategy, cites the work of the Quilliam Foundation, suggesting once again a collaboration between David Cameron and the organisation founded by Maajid Nawaz. By all accounts, Nawaz seems to think that he has been involved in advising Cameron on this new strategy. Why would this self-professed “moderate reformer” not advise the Prime Minister to do more to tackle Islamic extremism inside the very bastions of Islamic preaching?

If Nawaz was indeed involved in this initiative, it’s a question with no comforting answers.

Also see:

David Cameron is coming around–ALMOST

80188334_80188329Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Oct. 1, 2015:

Over the past couple of days Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom has stood in sharp contrast to President Barack Obama of the United States in terms of both his messaging with regard to Islamic jihad and his country’s stance against global jihad.

But that doesn’t mean he “gets it,” at least not yet anyway.

It’s easy to look strong when you’re compared to Barack Obama, especially when it comes to fighting against jihad.

This week at the UN, not exactly the den of strength, Cameron appeared to confront Obama on his messaging on terrorism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron challenged President Obama with some blunt talk on Islamist extremism Tuesday during a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations to develop an international strategy for defeating the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

Well aware that Mr. Obama shuns the term “Islamist extremists,” the Conservative British prime minister reacted strongly at the meeting when the president, who chaired the session, advised the assembled foreign leaders to avoid profiling Muslims because “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”

“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Mr. Cameron said. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL, to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/29/david-cameron-confronts-obama-roots-islamist-extre/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The thin-skinned Obama does not take kindly to being confronted with disagreement so we can probably count on some form of retaliation from the Obama administration for this perceived slight–something ranging from a breaking of protocol down the road to leaked criticism of Cameron with the lapdog media in the US.

While we welcome Cameron’s admonishment of Obama, we must point out that his messaging still leaves a great deal to be desired and has since he became Prime Minister.

As regular readers of TTB no doubt know, we are not at all fond of making up names for our enemies. Just as “violent extremist” is a meaningless term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Left in America, the term “Islamist extremist” is inadequate to say the least. We draw attention to our previous essay on the subject:

It is true that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify.

These calls are invariably followed up by naming the enemy. Only the names assigned to our enemies seem to always be wrong. A few of the wrong names:

• Radical Islam

• Islamic extremism

• Radical Islamic extremism

• Islamist extremism

• Radical Islamist extremism

The problem with all these names is that they are names that we in the West have made up to describe our enemies. They don’t use any of them. No member of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab or Abu Sayyef ever refers to himself as “radical” or “extremist.” No where in their communications will you see the modifiers “radical” or “extremist.”

They don’t subscribe to radical Islam or Islamist extremism.

Read the entire posting here:

http://terrortrendsbulletin.com/2015/02/03/a-few-words-on-radical-extremist-ideology-and-doctrine/

In addition to confronting President Obama on the issue of jihad, Cameron also announced this week that the UK would be sending British troops into Somalia to support efforts to battle Al Shabaab. This announcement has been overshadowed by other news this week, but it represents a step toward confronting the threat of global jihad head on. Now, if only Cameron would do the same in the British Isles themselves…

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/somalia-david-cameron-deploy-british-074345480.html#L6ESFHN

Also see:

‘For the Record’: How U.S. Leaders Fail to Understand, ‘It’s About the Ideology’