A horrifying look into the mind of 9/11’s mastermind, in his own words

Khalid Sheik Mohammed in 2003. (Associated Press)

Khalid Sheik Mohammed in 2003. (Associated Press)

November 28, 2016:

What is it like to stare into the face of evil? James E. Mitchell knows.

In his gripping new memoir, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America,” Mitchell describes the day he was questioning Khalid Sheik Mohammed, when the 9/11 mastermind announced he had something important to say. “KSM then launched into a gory and detailed description of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl,” Mitchell writes. Up to that moment, the CIA did not know KSM had personally carried out the murder. When asked whether it was “hard to do” (meaning emotionally difficult), KSM misunderstood the question. “Oh, no, no problem,” KSM said, “I had very sharp knives. Just like slaughtering sheep.”

To confirm his story, the CIA had KSM reenact the beheading so that it could compare the features of his hands and forearms to those in the video of Pearl’s murder. “Throughout the reenactment, KSM smiled and mugged for the cameras. Sometimes he preened,” Mitchell writes. When informed that the CIA had confirmed that he was telling the truth, KSM smiled.

“See, I told you,” KSM said. “I cut Daniel’s throat with these blessed hands.”

This is the pure evil Mitchell and his colleagues confronted each day at CIA “black sites.” “I have looked into the eyes of the worst people on the planet,” Mitchell writes. “I have sat with them and felt their passion as they described what they see as their holy duty to destroy our way of life.”

The world has heard almost nothing from KSM in the 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, but Mitchell has spent thousands of hours with him and other captured al-Qaeda leaders. Now, for the first time, Mitchell is sharing what he says KSM told him.

Mitchell is an American patriot who has been unjustly persecuted for his role in crafting an interrogation program that helped stop terrorist attacks and saved countless lives. He does not shy from the controversies and pulls no punches in describing the interrogations. If anything, readers may be surprised by the compassion he showed these mass murderers. But the real news in his book is what happened after enhanced interrogations ended and the terrorists began cooperating.

Once their resistance had been broken, enhanced interrogation techniques stopped and KSM and other detainees became what Mitchell calls a “Terrorist Think Tank,” identifying voices in phone calls, deciphering encrypted messages and providing valuable information that led the CIA to other terrorists. Mitchell devotes an entire chapter to the critical role KSM and other detainees played in finding Osama bin Laden. KSM held classes where he lectured CIA officials on jihadist ideology, terrorist recruiting and attack planning. He was so cooperative, Mitchell writes, KSM “told me I should be on the FBI’s Most Wanted List because I am now a ‘known associate’ of KSM and a ‘graduate’ of his training camp.”

KSM also described for Mitchell many of his as yet unconsummated ideas for future attacks, the terrifying details of which Mitchell does not reveal for fear they might be implemented. “If we ever allow him to communicate unmonitored with the outside world,” Mitchell writes, “he could easily spread his deviously simple but potentially deadly ideas.”

But perhaps the most riveting part of the book is what KSM told Mitchell about what inspired al-Qaeda to attack the United States — and the U.S. response he expected. Today, some on both the left and the right argue that al-Qaeda wanted to draw us into a quagmire in Afghanistan — and now the Islamic State wants to do the same in Iraq and Syria. KSM said this is dead wrong. Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States “turned tail and ran.” He also said he thought we would treat 9/11 as a law enforcement matter, just as we had the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in Yemen — arresting some operatives and firing a few missiles into empty tents, but otherwise leaving him free to plan the next attack.

“Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’” Mitchell writes. “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

But KSM said something else that was prophetic. In the end, he told Mitchell, “We will win because Americans don’t realize . . . we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.”

KSM explained that large-scale attacks such as 9/11 were “nice, but not necessary” and that a series of “low-tech attacks could bring down America the same way ‘enough disease-infected fleas can fell an elephant.’ ” KSM “said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws” until they were strong enough to rise up and attack us. “He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people would eventually become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.”

“Eventually,” KSM said, “America will expose her neck for us to slaughter.”

KSM was right. For the past eight years, our leaders have told us that we are weary of war and need to focus on “nation building at home.” We have been defeating ourselves by quitting — just as KSM predicted.

But quitting will not bring us peace, KSM told Mitchell. He explained that “it does not matter that we do not want to fight them,” Mitchell writes, adding that KSM explained “America may not be in a religious war with him, but he and other True Muslims are in a religious war with America” and “he and his brothers will not stop until the entire world lives under Sharia law.”

Read more from Marc Thiessen’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Jihadis in Suits Assail National Security Forum

3704830867

Center for Security Policy, November 1, 2016:

There they go again.

In response to a top-level national security panel presentation organized by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman at the Ahavath Torah Congregation tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts, HAMAS-doing-business-as-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and the notorious jihad incubator at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC) have joined forces to mount a last-ditch intimidation campaign.

On Wednesday, 2 November 2016, the Ahavath Torah Congregation is scheduled to host an event featuring Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Family Research Council Executive Vice President Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin, and The United West Founder Tom Trento. In response, ISBCC Executive Director Yusuf Vali has coopted nearly 100 interfaith leaders who represent the Christian and Jewish communities in the Boston area in an attempt to pressure the leadership board of Rabbi Hausman’s synagogue to cancel the program, which is dedicated to highlighting the national security threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood’s global Islamic Movement.

So, by whom exactly have these interfaith collaborators allowed themselves to be conned into this latest Brotherhood-led assault on free speech? It may be recalled that during the 2016 general election cycle, the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), formed in 2014, described on its website the group’s efforts to “promote peace and harmony in society.” And yet, the principal leader of the Muslim Brotherhood-led USCMO is none other than Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed HAMAS dba CAIR. While CAIR tries to present itself as a civil rights organization, it has here joined forces with the ISBCC, jihad command and control center for the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

As noted by Robert Spencer in March 2016, the ISBCC has long been a haven for jihadists.

  • The Boston Marathon individual jihadis, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
  • Pakistani neuroscientist and jihadi, Aafia Siddiqui, who is serving an 86-year sentence for trying to kill American soldiers in July 2008
  • Tarek Mehanna, U.S. citizen pharmacist and jihadi, who is serving seventeen years for providing material support to al-Qaeda
  • Ahmad Abousamra, who before he was killed in a June 2015 airstrike in Iraq, was considered a key architect of the Islamic State’s social media presence
  • The Islamic Society of Boston’s founder, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, was once a major player in Washington and the nation’s most prominent “moderate” Muslim. Now he is serving a twenty-three year sentence for charges including fundraising for al-Qaeda.

That HAMAS dba CAIR is working alongside the ISBCC is not a coincidence. CAIR under the leadership of Executive Director Nihad Awad has not only condemned publicly and repeatedly the counterterrorism efforts of the local law enforcement community and United States government, but has an extensive record of defending jihadis and jihadi organizations. As former FBI Assistant Director Steven Pomeranz stated, “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, HAMAS.” In December 2015, USCMO member, CAIR’s Awad, openly declared the Muslim Brotherhood’s allegiance with the far-left racist and revolutionary movement, Black Lives Matter.

In early October 2016, USCMO leader CAIR (CAIR-Chicago) unsuccessfully led a campaign with a series of partners including Black Lives Matter – Chicago, Arab American Action Network, and the Center for New Community to cancel the Illinois Tactical Officers Association (ITOA)’s five day Tactical Training Conference (9 -13 October 2016) for law enforcement officers and emergency medical technicians. CAIR also mounted pressure in a botched attempt to terminate the contractual relationships between ITOA and the Cook County, IL Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management (DHSEM), in addition to other government agencies.

Next, it was CAIR-Oklahoma Executive Director Adam Soltani’s turn to strike out on 25 October 2016, when he took aim at a national security briefing on ‘the ideological roots, nature and magnitude of the jihad threat’ provided to the Oklahoma State Legislature. Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett, a combat veteran Marine in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called for an Oklahoma State Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee’s Interim Study on “Radical Islam, Shariah Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Radicalization Process.” During the hearings Bennet sponsored, former FBI agent John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz of Understanding the Threat provided a clear explanation about shariah as the doctrinal Islamic basis for jihad and set forth a succinct evidentiary legal framework about the subversive Brotherhood network in this country. Frank Gaffney, President and Founder of the Center for Security Policy, and Gen. Jerry Boykin also spoke at the hearing, with Gaffney explaining how zakat, the obligatory annual Muslim tax, according to Islamic Law is required to fund jihad.

Clearly, the facts of the accelerating worldwide jihad are becoming all-too obvious to all—and the only rear-guard action the MB’s U.S.-based jihadis in suits seem able to muster at this point is against the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee for free speech. Civilization Jihad and Star spangled shariah in action.

Also see:

Gorka Discusses the Existential Threat of the Global Jihad Movement

suicidebomberisis-620x350The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, October 31, 2016:

I compare Islamofascists to Soviet-era Communists, assess the magnitude of the threat faced by the West, who is currently winning, and the signals that will be present to indicate the end is near for ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist groups. I also explain Putin’s play in the Middle East on this edition of Against The Current, with Dan Proft, host of AM 560 The Answer morning show.

Robert Spencer on why there is no end in sight in the defense against the global jihad

jihad-denial22

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer explains why, fifteen years after 9/11, there is no end in sight in the defense against the global jihad.

Liberals Wanted to Talk About Islamophobia at the Debate, But the Real Problem is Terrorism

argus | Shutterstock

argus | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Nate Madden, October 10, 2016:

Amid the tawdry, ad hominem cacophony that was the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were forced to contend with the implications of a supposed “rise in Islamophobia.” However, a quick look at the facts show that the question and implication really need some context.

Sunday night’s debate was, as expected, laden with pro-Clinton bias from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. However, several of the questions submitted by the randomly-selected panel of undecided voters on the stage also carried the hallmarks of prepared layups for the Democrat nominee.

One such topic in particular, asked by one of the attendees, Gorbah Hamed, put the candidates on the spot about how they would deal with “Islamophobia” as president (per the Washington Post):

“There are 3.3 Muslims in the United States and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being a threat to the country after the election is over?

To his credit, Trump bridged the question directly to recent terror attacks, and the importance of Muslims patrolling their own communities. Meanwhile, Clinton criticized Trump’s views on immigration from Muslim-majority nations while hypocritically espousing religious freedom for foreign nationals from those nations, despite her own deplorable positions on free exercise for anyone who disagrees with her views on marriage and abortion.

Furthermore, while Clinton made a very big point of agreeing with Trump’s premise that American Muslims need to be “part of our eyes and ears” on the front lines, and bragged about her work with Muslim groups in the U.S. and how she intends to use that experience to defeat ISIS. But she failed to differentiate how her approach to the Muslim community is going to differ from President Obama’s, whose analogous “countering violent extremism” program has already been found as a “catastrophic failure,” according to a recent report.

But I digress. While the issues of Middle Eastern immigration and jihadist terror in the 2016 election cycle have sparked a chorus of concern from the Left over so-called “Islamophobia,” the concerns ignore reality of how big a threat it actually is.

The question hearkens back to a few weeks ago when the Hamas-and-Muslim-Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in the wake of a jihadist stabbing that they were afraid of the blowback from the attack.

“We are concerned about the potential for backlash,” CAIR’s Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said, per NBCNews.com, following last month’s Minnesota mall stabbing. “[Muslims] are being made to suffer for [the terrorists’] acts. They are minorities in our faith. Islam is peace.”

Well, here’s the real story about that blowback.

According to FBI data, ACTUAL incidents of Islamophobia pale in comparison to incidents of anti-Semitism in the U.S. Numbers from December indicate that in the previous year saw, 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, and the rate of Jewish victims was nearly four times that of Muslim victims at a proportion of roughly 57 percent to 16 percent.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — the deadliest Islamist attack in American history — 2002 data from the FBI shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes totaled a grand total 174 for the year. These are, of course, dwarfed when compared to the 1,084 cases committed against Jews, and the 237 committed against “other.”

And it doesn’t stop there: America’s college campuses have become seething hotbeds ofanti-Jewish activity. Meanwhile, a report from February finds, attacks on free exercise of religion across the board have doubled in the waning years of the Obama administration.

There was no mention of how America’s Jewish population (with nary a notable terrorist attack attached to its name) is under increasing fire — and has been so for years. Furthermore, recent jihadist terror attacks in San Bernardino to Orlando to Manhattan have taken scores of American lives and have left all of our citizens, regardless of their religion, under siege.

Yet, the question that both candidates were forced to contend with is one that clearly targeted the Republican nominee’s focus on the security concerns that mass migration from Muslim-majority countries generates in relation to America’s national security.

When we look at this issue earnestly, the real threat to American Muslims from the specter of Islamophobia are far less than the threats faced by all Americans from the threat of global jihadism. They’re far less than what American Jews have to deal with both on and off the university campus. And they’re far less than what anyone who runs afoul of the government’s views on marriage, abortion, and contraception face on any given day.

Finally, when it comes to the havoc created by ISIS and other terror organizations that commit atrocities in the name of Allah, President Obama and company are quick to point out that most of the victims of jihadist violence around the world are Muslims themselves. But when it comes to the the same threat posed to those on our own soil, such concerns are nowhere to be found. Rather, they find themselves drowned out by those that worry about a so-called “Islamophobia” epidemic rather than the threat faced by every person in the civilized world, Muslims included, when they leave their homes every morning.

What exaggerated concerns about “Islamophobia” actually do, however, is dull, silence, and distract from the message of those who actually voice that there is indeed a centuries-old problem within Islam — that it creates legitimate security concerns, and that these realities have to be addressed in bold and earnest terms. Those terms might hurt someone’s feelings, after all.

In sum, the “Islamophobia” question was endemic of a host of concerns that the Left has thrown at anyone who dare raise questions about the Islamic nature of jihadist terrorism, or about the safety of the Obama administration’s immigration and refugee policies. However, in light of the numbers and the real security threats faced by Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, that the debates chose to focus on “Islamophobia” really ought to be put into context.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, jihadism, and the judiciary. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate’s writing has previously appeared in several religious and news publications. Follow him@NateMadden_IV.

Finding Truth Among Talking Heads in the Media

talking-heads

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Oct. 2, 2016:

Many of the questions UTT gets these days revolve around our thoughts on various talking heads who seems to “get it” about the Islamic threat.  Often times the questioners are disappointed to hear the truth UTT shares with them about the person whom they were inquiring.

It is important at this time in the war we all understand that any departure from the truth about the threat we are facing from the Global Islamic Movement provides space in which our enemies can operate.

Remember, our enemy is working most diligently and most effectively in the information battlespace.

Anyone giving our enemy room to maneuver is serving the enemy’s cause not America’s – no matter what their intentions.

What boxes the enemy in is the truth about who they are and what they are doing.

So today, the UTT team would like to offer three simple things to help our readers discern who among the talking heads are intentionally or unintentionally giving our enemies rooms to move, and those speakers who are on point:

  • How does the speaker refer to the threat?  Does he use terms like Islam, Jihad, Global Islamic Movement?  Or does he use terms intentionally meant to keep the discussion away from doctrinal Islam like violent extremists, radical terrorists, radical Muslims, or Islamism.
  • Does the speaker say such things as:  “The vast majority (or “99.9%”) of Muslims do not support what ISIS and Al Qaeda stand for,” “We must use moderate Muslims to drive a wedge between them and the extremist Muslims,” or other such nonsense?
  • Does the speaker claim he/she was “purged” from the government because of his stance on the threat of Islam?  There are three prominent speakers on the circuit today who claim this.  If someone was promoted and kept inside the government during the current administration at a time when those speaking real truth were pushed out, how can one claim he was purged?

UTT hopes these simple guidelines will help you discern truth-tellers from liars.

The Global Islamic Movement, including all of the jihadi organizations as well as jihadis killing people around the world from New York to London to Paris to Brussels to San Bernadino and Orlando, states they are muslims waging jihad in the cause of allah in order to establish a caliphate under sharia (Islamic law).

Its all about sharia.

Anyone watering the truth down at this point in the war is giving our enemy the ability to keep Americans from understanding the true nature of the threat while allowing the jihad to advance forward and making our victory that much more difficult.

ISIS in the Middle East and now here

A Complete Takeover Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

A Complete Takeover Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Searching for a strategy to defeal Islamic supremacists in America.

Washington Times, By James A. Lyons, Sept. 29, 2016:

A comprehensive strategy to defeat Islamic supremacists must include not only a war plan to defeat the enemy on the active battlefields of the Middle East, but it must also address how to defeat this enemy now inside the United States.

Such a strategy must start by recognizing that there is a Global Islamic Jihad Movement which is carrying out attacks in the United States, e.g., Sept. 11, Ft Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, New Jersey, New York and Minneapolis. This Islamic Jihad Movement is operating on the al Qaeda seven-phase timeline for the conquest of Western Civilization. For example, Phase Four (2010-2013) was to bring about the collapse of hated Arabic governments, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Libya, a goal which was accomplished successfully with the help of the Obama administration.

Phase Five (2013-2016) involved the declaration of an Islamic caliphate. This was accomplished by conquering significant territories in Iraq and Syria and attracting pledges of loyalty from West Africa to the Philippines. We are now in Phase Six (2016-total confrontation), which is a fight between the “believers and non-believers.” It must be recognized that this is a war that has been going on for nearly 1400 years. Mosques and Islamic centers are the command and control centers for jihad here in the United States. There are over 2400 mosques and Islamic centers in the United States. We know some 80 percent of them advocate or support jihad. Islamic cells and networks, many linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, are operating throughout America.

In order to develop an effective strategy, there must be a recognition of the Islamic supremacists’ key organization in the United States. This is embodied by the Muslim Brotherhood and its so-called civilization jihad strategy until ‘zero’ hour, when the war goes ‘hot’ (Phase Seven). Each year there are between 70 and 120 new Islamic non-profits created (with no IRS problems) that work in conjunction with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic movement in the United States is deeply embedded with thousands of organizations. The Muslim Student Association serves as a recruiting arm with over 700 chapters in major universities. These organizations are well-funded by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al.

Muslim Brotherhood jihadists have been able to penetrate the senior levels of our government. That penetration of our government agencies actually started over 50 years ago but has greatly accelerated under the Obama administration. They have been very successful in penetrating government agencies including security and intelligence where they have been able to influence our domestic and foreign policies. Specifically, they have been able to achieve the purging of any federal training curricula that accurately links Islamic doctrine, law and scripture with terrorism under the guise that factually proven information is found to be “offensive to Muslims.” This denied key information on the enemy not only to our military personnel but law enforcement agencies down to the local police departments. Further, they have successfully restricted local law enforcement’s ability to conduct critical surveillance and monitoring of mosques and Islamic centers.

Complicating the situation is the fact that the Obama administration is now bringing in tens of thousands undocumented shariah-compliant Muslims and settling them throughout the country. Why would the Obama administration do this, when they know that migration is part of the jihad doctrine? It’s called “hijra,” which refers to the symbolic original migration of Muhammed from Mecca to Medina. Therefore, for those who make the “hijra” into non-Muslim countries masquerading as refugees are preparing for the “final phase,” which is armed conflict.

The strategy to successfully defeat the Islamic supremacists’ plan for the United States must directly confront the enemy. First and foremost, the Muslim Brotherhood must be designated a terrorist organization. The 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trial must be reopened in order to prosecute the unindicted co-conspirators beginning with CAIR and ISNA. Local police departments must be unshackled to carry out their critical penetration and monitoring of mosques and Islamic centers. The 80 percent of mosques that preach sedition must be closed and their imams either deported to their country of origin or prosecuted. In order to increase the deterrence level against the Islamic supremacists who would or are planning to conduct terrorist attacks in the United States, the penalty must be very clear. The mantle of trying to use “freedom of religion” as a justification for a terrorist act has no basis under the Constitution. To any thinking person, it should be clear that Islam is a totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion and bent on world domination. Therefore, the following declarations and actions based on a presidential Executive Order must be taken against Islamic supremacists, including U.S. citizens.

• If an individual has conducted or is planning to conduct a terrorist attack in the United States, evidence demonstrates a decision to join the enemy. That individual has placed himself in the same category as a military person who has deserted to the enemy. Such an individual must be classified as a traitor and be categorized as an “enemy combatant.”

• Being designated an “enemy combatant” when captured, such a person would immediately be shipped off to GITMO for intense interrogation to determine the full support network and any other accomplices.

• Once the network is identified, then those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and, and if appropriate, returned to their country of origin. Likewise, those who joined ISIS on the battlefield should not be permitted back into the country.

Such action as proposed above would significantly raise the level of deterrence in the United States.

James A. Lyons, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.