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.

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.

DEADLIEST LIE: Without ‘Lone Wolf’ Lie, U.S. Could Have Stopped Nearly EVERY ATTACK

lone-wolf-terror-attack-sized-770x415xt

PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Sept. 21, 2016:

Some time ago, the invaluable Patrick Poole coined the term “known wolf,” sharply shredding the conventional Washington wisdom that “lone wolf” terrorism is a major domestic threat.

Pat has tracked the phenomenon for years, right up to the jihadist attacks this weekend in both the New York metropolitan area and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Virtually every time a terror attack has occurred, the actor initially portrayed as a solo plotter lurking under the government’s radar turns out to be — after not much digging – an already known (sometimes even, notorious) Islamic extremist.

As amply demonstrated by Poole’s reporting, catalogued here by PJ Media, “lone wolves” –virtually every single one — end up having actually had extensive connections to other Islamic extremists, radical mosques, and (on not rare occasions) jihadist training facilities.

The overarching point I have been trying to make is fortified by Pat’s factual reporting. It is this: There are, and can be, no lone wolves.

The very concept is inane, and only stems from a willfully blind aversion to the ideological foundation of jihadist terror: Islamic supremacism.

The global, scripturally rooted movement to impose sharia — in the West, to incrementally supersede our culture of reason, liberty, and equality with the repressive, discriminatory norms of classical Islamic law — is a pack. The wolves are members of the pack, and that’s why they are the antithesis of “lone” actors. And, indeed, they always turn out to be “known” precisely because their association with the pack, with components of the global movement, is what ought to have alerted us to the danger they portended before they struck.

This is willful blindness, because of the restrictions we have gratuitously imposed on ourselves.

The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the ideology that drives the movement until after some violent action is either too imminent to be ignored or, sadly more often, until after the Islamic supremacist has acted out the savagery his ideology commands.

The U.S. government consciously avoids the ideology because it is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Islam. Though it is but one of many ways to construe that religion, the remorseless fact is that it is a mainstream construction, adhered to by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by centuries of scholarship.

I say “the U.S. government” is at fault here because, contrary to Republican campaign rhetoric that is apparently seized by amnesia, this is not merely an Obama administration dereliction — however much the president and his former secretary of State (and would-be successor) Hillary Clinton have exacerbated the problem.

Since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the bipartisan Beltway cognoscenti have “reasoned” (a euphemism for “reckless self-delusion”) that conceding the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror — which would implicitly concede the vast Islamist (sharia-supremacist) support system without which the global jihadist onslaught would be impossible — is impractical.

But how could acknowledging the truth be impractical?

Especially given that national security hinges on an accurate assessment of threats?

Bipartisan Washington “reasons” that telling the truth would portray the United States as “at war with Islam.” To be blunt, this conventional wisdom can only be described as sheer idiocy.

We know that tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda. We know that, by a large percentage, Muslims are the most common victims of jihadist terror. We know that Muslim reformers are courageously working to undermine and reinterpret the scriptural roots of Islamic supremacism — a crucial battle our default from makes far more difficult for them to win. We know that Muslims, particularly those assimilated into the West, have been working with our law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies for decades to gather intelligence, infiltrate jihadist cells, thwart jihadist attacks, and fight jihadist militias.

None of those Muslims — who are not only our allies, but are in fact us — believes that America is at war with Islam.

So why does Washington base crucial, life-and-death policy on nonsense?

Because it is in the thrall of the enemy. The “war on Islam” propaganda is manufactured by Islamist groups, particularly those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

While we resist study of our enemies’ ideology, they go to school on us. They thus grasp three key things:

(1) Washington is so bloated and dysfunctional, it will leap on any excuse to refrain from strong action;(2) the American tradition of religious liberty can be exploited to paralyze our government if national defense against a totalitarian political ideology can be framed as hostility and persecution against an entire religious faith; and

(3) because Washington has so much difficulty taking action, it welcomes claims (or, to be faddish, “narratives”) that minimize the scope and depth of the threat. Topping the “narrative” list is the fantasy that the Islamist ideological support system that nurtures jihadism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles) is better seen as a “moderate,” “non-violent” partner with whom we can work, than as what it actually is: the enemy’s most effective agent. The stealth operative that exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by the jihadists.

In other words, in proceeding from the premise that we must do nothing to convey the notion that we are “at war with Islam” — or, in Obama-Clinton parlance, in proceeding from the premise that we need a good “narrative” rather than a truth-based strategy — we have internalized the enemy’s worldview, a view that is actually rejected by our actual Islamic allies and the vast majority of Americans.

The delusion comes into sharp relief if one listens to Hillary Clinton’s campaign bombast. Robert Spencer incisively quoted it earlier this week:

[W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the maybe tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

Sheer idiocy.

Our enemy is not the mere “tens of thousands” of jihadists. (She’s probably low-balling the number of jihadists worldwide, but let’s indulge her.) It is not merely ISIS, nor merely ISIS and al-Qaeda — an organization Mrs. Clinton conveniently omits mentioning, since it has replenished, thanks to Obama-Clinton governance and despite Obama-Clinton claims to have defeated it, to the point that it is now at least as much a threat as it was on the eve of 9/11.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are not the sources of the threat against us. They are theinevitable results of that threat.

The actual threat, the source, is Islamic supremacism and its sharia imposition agenda.

The support system, which the threat needs to thrive, does indeed include tens of millions of Islamists, some small percentage of whom will inexorably become violent jihadists, but the rest of whom will nurture the ideological aggression and push the radical sharia agenda — in the media, on the campus, in the courts, and in the policy councils of government that they have so successfully influenced and infiltrated.

Obviously, to acknowledge that we are at war with this movement, at war with Islamic supremacism, is not remotely to be “at war with Islam.” After all, Islamic supremacism seeks conquest over all of Islam, too, and on a much more rapid schedule than its long-term pursuit of conquest over the West. Islamic supremacism is not a fringe movement; it is large and, at the moment, a juggernaut. But too much of Islam opposes Islamic supremacism to be confused with it.

Moreover, even if being at war with Islamic supremacists could be persuasivelyspun as being “at war with Islam” — i.e., even if we were too incompetent to refute our enemies’ propaganda convincingly — it would make no difference.

The war would still be being prosecuted against us. We have to fight it against the actual enemy, and we lose if we allow enemies to dupe us into thinking they are allies. We have to act on reality, even if Washington is too tongue-tied to find the right words for describing reality.

The enemy is in our heads and has shaped our perception of the conflict, to the enemy’s great advantage. That’s how you end up with inanities like “lone wolf.”

Frank Gaffney: ‘Most Searing Indictment of Hillary’ Is ‘Her Consistent Support for, Alignment with, and Help to the Global Jihad’

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Dan Riehl, Sept. 7, 2016:

Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, spoke to Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow regarding the upcoming Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump Commander-in-Chief Forum hosted by Matt Lauer on Wednesday evening.

“The most searing indictment of Hillary, I believe, is her consistent support for, alignment with, and help to the Global Jihad,” said Gaffney in discussing lines of attack Trump might choose to pursue during the forum.

Continued Gaffney:

I don’t know how else to describe it–whether it’s her help with the Iranian deal early on, or whether it’s her support for the overthrow of friendly governments in the Middle East. “Friendly” is a relative term, that they were sure more friendly than the Muslim Brotherhood, with which Hillary has aligned herself and supported, it seems to me, at just about every turn. And I think this is a place where Donald Trump can showcase the strong and necessary differences between the kinds of policy approach that he’s been laying out in a series of really important addresses.

The event will be broadcast on NBC and MSNBC, as Breitbart News reported:

The Commander-in-Chief Forum is a first-of-its-kind event and will be broadcast live on MSNBC and most NBC stations starting at 8 p.m. Wednesday. Lauer, a former “notable member” of the Clinton Global Initiative—a leadership arm of the highly controversial Clinton Foundation—will moderate the event, which is being put on by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) organization here in New York City.

“During this one-hour forum, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will be on stage back-to-back taking questions on national security, military affairs and veterans issues from NBC News and an audience comprised mainly of military veterans and active service members,” MSNBC states.

LISTEN:

Victory Over Jihad: Five Steps to Win the War

Published on Aug 30, 2016 by CounterJihad Video

Nations are crumbling. Religious murder haunts Western streets. Millions of refugees swamp our borders, with unknown numbers of terrorists hiding among them. The Obama administration’s foolish policies ignited a fuse that has set off global jihad. Now they are keeping those same policies in place, and letting the crisis fester.

Join the CounterJihad, and help us enact our five-part strategy:

1. Stop Importing Jihadists

2. Cut Down the Black Flag and defeat ISIS

3. Cure Willful Blindness

4. Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is

5. Tear Up the Iran ‘Deal’

Learn more at http://counterjihad.com

screen-shot-2016-02-21-at-11-54-52-pm-640x480

Refuting the denial of religious motivation for Jihad

Islamic State jihadis (Photo: video screenshot)

Islamic State jihadis (Photo: video screenshot)

What Drives Foreigners to Join the Islamic State?

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Aug. 30, 2016:

Almost 15 years after the 9/11 attacks, the West is still debating the cause of such terrorism even as repeated studies and common sense points in one direction:  Islamist ideology based on certain religious interpretations.

Now we can add another study to this heap of evidence, as a new study of foreign fighters has confirmed that ideology is the primary factor.

The new study released by the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society is based on interviews with 40 foreign fighters who went overseas to join Islamist terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria and 100 other relevant players, such as their family members and online supporters.

Of these, 15 joined the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL), 12 joined Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda’s Syrian wing), three joined the Free Syria Army and 10 joined other rebel groups, mostly jihadist in nature.

Here are five of the most important findings from the study:

The primary factor is religious interpretation.

“As our interactions with these individuals are so heavily mediated by a religious discourse, we also think that religiosity (i.e., sincere religious commitment, no matter how ill-informed or unorthodox) is a primary motivator for their actions. Religion provides the dominant frame these foreign fighters use to interpret almost every aspect of their lives.”

And:

“There is a real concern with real moral issues, with knowing and doing the right thing—again, not as determined by the seeming apathetic and corrupt surrounding society but by some higher or transcendent authority.”

This is the obvious conclusion that many observers have sought to deny, such as when former State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf said ISIS is caused by unemployment and subsequently defended her comments. She was laughed out of her job, but her illogical understanding of the problem remains pervasive as many Westerners desperately seek to find a more comforting and relatable cause than Islamism for Islamist terrorism.

One Western Muslim told the authors, “The zeal of jihad always struck me when I would sit in my room and read Quran with English translation. I would wonder how jihad was fought today.”

The political gripes of the Islamist terrorists are a subset of their religious gripes.

“[Most] provided justifications for being a foreign fighter that were largely moral and religious in character, more than explicitly political.”

The researchers found that the decision to become a foreign fighter was more about rejecting Western governments and societies than a decision to combat Western foreign policy.

The common mantra that Islamist radicalization is simply a religious expression of political protests over Western “imperialism” is false. The primary factor is the adoption of the ideology and those that hold that ideology will become exponentially more infuriated over the West’s foreign policy. If you believe in resurrecting the caliphate, then you’ll rage against the West’s presence in the Middle East that stands in your way.

It’s not about inequality.

“None indicate, directly or indirectly, that forms of socio-economic marginalization played a significant role in their motivations to become a foreign fighter.”

Here we have yet another study finding no connection between Islamist radicalization and unemployment, poverty, lack of education, broken families, mental illness, etc. About half of the foreign fighters in this sample went to university and one-third graduated.

The study identified five “ecological niches of homegrown terrorism:” Late modernity (our Internet-driven society); the immigrant experience (most come from Muslim immigrant families); youthful rebellion; ideology and group dynamics.

The linkage between Islamism and lack of integration is overemphasized.

“The correlation between marginalization or lack of integration and radicalization are not as robust as commonly assumed.”

Previous studies have shown a linkage between a lack of assimilation and Islamist radicalization. For example, Marc Sageman’s pivotal study based on 400 biographies of Al-Qaeda members found that 80% “were, in some way, totally excluded from the society they lived in.”

This study doesn’t deny that a correlation exists, but rather that the correlation is played up too much. The authors refer to how some respondents described feeling out of place in the West as they saw how it conflicted with their faith. In these cases, the religious belief is prompting the individual to marginalize himself, as opposed to Western society marginalizing the individual and pushing him towards radical beliefs.

They aren’t lone wolves.

“The process of self-radicalization needs to be legitimated to be complete.”

The researchers found that, in most cases, “outside mentors” enter the Islamist’s life and guide him into becoming a foreign fighter. They are not lone wolves if they are being led, even if it is online.

The West can either craft a strategy for each Islamist terrorist group it goes up against, starting over and over with each new manifestation or it can target the common variable between all of them. This study, like others before it, finds that the common variable is Islamism and its foundational religious interpretations.

***

Robert Spencer on the Obama/Clinton war against the reality of the jihad threat:

***

Secure Freedom Radio with Jim Hanson Aug. 30, 2016:

SEBASTIAN GORKA, Chairman of the Threat Knowledge Group, author of “Defeating Jihad: the Winnable War”:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • ISIS is totalitarianism centered around religion
  • What does it take to win the war against Jihad?
  • Jihadist use of both kinetic and subversive methods against western civilization

Also see:

A fast-spreading disease: New map shows ISIS has become a truly global terror group, with outposts as far as Mali and the Philippines

  • A new map shows where ISIS is operating out of, and where it is setting up cells, as of August 2016
  • NBC News obtained the map, which was part of a classified White House report 
  • When the U.S. first started fighting ISIS in 2014, the group was operating out of just seven nations 
  • Now the group has spread to a total of 18 areas, including Libya where the U.S. conducted airstrikes on Tuesday 

Daily Mail, by  ASHLEY COLLMAN, Aug. 3, 2016:

A new map of the Islamic State shows the group is growing at an unfathomable pace and is no longer just a problem for the Middle East.

The map, a classified White House document obtained by NBC News, shows the terror group’s core countries, official branches and aspiring branches as of this month.

When the U.S. first started coordinating attacks against the group in 2014, ISIS was just a fledgling group with about seven nations where its affiliates were operating out of – but most of the fighters were concentrated in Syria and Iraq.

36D5930E00000578-0-image-m-6_1470227635599

NBC News has obtained a map, showing the Islamic state’s current areas of operation as of this month. The areas with the darkest shading are where the original group is centered. The medium orange-shaded areas are where the group has official branches. The lightest orange-shaded areas are where there are burgeoning cells 

Over the next year, that number nearly doubled to 13 countries. And as of this month, that country count is now up to a startling 18 countries. That’s about three times as large as the original 2014 estimate.

The map, created by the National Counterterrorism Center, includes for the first time countries where there are ‘aspiring’ ISIS branches.

Areas where the group are taking root include Egypt, Mali, Somalia, and Tunisia in Africa, and Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Indonesia in Southeast Asia.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Navy coordinated airstrikes against ISIS cells in Libya, showing that the terror group reach is truly becoming global.

Also see:

New ‘Terror Jihad Reader Series’ Lays Bare The True Nature And Danger Of The Islamic State

2623784173CENTER LAUNCHES NEW ‘TERROR JIHAD READER SERIES,’

LAYS BARE THE TRUE NATURE AND DANGER OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

Center for Security Policy, August 2, 2016:

As the savage attacks claimed by the Islamic State (IS) seem to follow on one another at an ever-increasing pace, too many still do not understand what this group is, where it came from, who its leaders are, and most important of all, why they do what they do. Whether the IS-controlled territory called “The Caliphate” survives in its current form or not, the totalitarian ideology Islamic supremacists call Sharia and the jihad it impels will cause adherent fighters, followers and supporters around the world to fight on and, unless decisively defeated, to continue to metastasize.

In the absence of such a defeat, the Islamic State continues to add new groups to its growing franchise. And individual jihadists from nearly every continent continue to step forward to pledge allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as they carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, too many at the top levels of U.S. national security, the media, academia and other elites still fail to understand this enemy, typically approaching it as a mere “terrorist organization” or purveyor of “violent extremism.” In particular, unless and until there is a much better appreciation for the phenomenon that is spawning and intensifying Islamic supremacism as practiced by IS, Americans and other freedom-loving peoples will be in mortal peril.

In the hope of enabling such an appreciation, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the first monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series”: Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America, by Ilana Freedman. This publication delves into IS’ inspirational Islamist identity and describes the real threat it consequently poses to the United States. Ms. Freedman brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and sober analysis in order to define this enemy accurately and illuminate its abilities, intentions and motivations.

Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez introduces the Center’s new book

Speaking on the timeliness of this critical new book, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney noted:

For much of the past fifteen years, the United States has been preoccupied with the threat posed by al Qaeda (AQ). More recently, attention has preponderantly shifted to what began as an AQ splinter group, the Islamic State. Ilana Freeman’s new monograph, Jihad!, makes plain why the object of this new focus needs both to be better understood, utterly crushed and recognized as just one part of the global jihad movement – which must get the same treatment. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who seek to be our next Commander-in-Chief and charged with protecting this country against such enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the Center’s other publications, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

SafariScreenSnapz006

For additional information about the stealthy counterpart to the violent jihad addressed by the Terror Jihad Reader Series, see the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”

PDF of the newly released monograph

JAMIE GLAZOV MOMENT: 9 STEPS TO COUNTER JIHAD (videos)

Sipa via AP Images

Sipa via AP Images

These videos are based on Jamie’s recent Breitbart article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.

From The Glazov Gang

Part I (Steps #1-3):

Part II (Steps #4-6): 

Part III (Steps 7-9):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen here: