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:

Jihadi terror attacks multiply: Will the West submit or WAKE UP?

maxresdefault (3)

The Rebel, by Brian Lilley, July 27, 2016:

Did you hear about the latest terror attack? If you’re paying attention the correct answer is, “Which one?” There are so many, and lately that is just in the West.

What if I told you that in the last 30 days, there have been 160 attacks carried out by Islamic radicals and that those attacks saw 1,590 people killed and 2,412 people injured? Would you be shocked?

That’s the claim made by website The Religion of Peace which tracks terrorist attacks all around the world.

And so while we can point to the terrorist attack in Nice on July 14 that saw 84 people killed when Mohammed Bouhlel drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian area, how many can point to the 13 people killed by al Shabab suicide bombers on July 26?

Those two suicide bombings didn’t get much media attention in the West but they happened in attacks carried out by people that want to establish their strict vision of Islamic rule on everyone around them.

Those attacks happened the same day that Catholic priest Father Jacques Hamel was killed while performing the sacred rites of the Mass. His throat was slit by two young Jihadis in Normandy, France.

The 85-year-old man was forced to his knees before his execution. Nuns were taken hostage in the attack which ended with dead Jihadis but not before they violated the sanctuary of the altar with their callous murder of a defenceless old priest and by reportedly giving their jihadi sermon at the altar – alternating between French and Arabic, spewing their hatred.

They were shot by police, which ended the whole ordeal.

The Somalia attack got next to no media coverage in the West, the attack in France relegated behind other stories like Hillary Clinton officially securing the Democratic Party nomination.

Maybe we are getting used to terror attacks in France?

We know the attacks from November 13, 2015 – the massacre at Bataclan nightclub. We know the attack July 14, 2016 – that was in Nice. But do you know the others?

More shockingly, do you know about the other terror attacks?

The day before Fr. Hamel was killed and 13 people were killed in Mogadishu, did you hear about the 17 killed and more than 40 injured in suicide bombings in Khalis, Iraq? That was July 25.

The day before that, July 24, there were 21 people killed in Baghdad.

On that same day a Syrian migrant, a failed refugee claimant, blew himself up outside a bar in Germany after being turned away from a festival.

We heard a bit about that but not much. Only a little more than the Baghdad bombing.

On July 23 there were several terror attacks but the biggest happened in Kabul, Afghanistan. Three suicide bombers killed 81 people. Why? Because the people killed were Shiite or Shia Muslims and those that claimed responsibility, ISIS, are Sunnis that hate Shias.

I haven’t even gotten past last weekend and we’re into hundreds of people killed in terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists intent on spreading their vision, their goals, their religion around the world – not by the sword but by the bomb and the gun.

The word Islam means submit and that is the intent of those carrying out these attacks, to one way or another get you to submit to their views.

It matters not whether you are a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, or a Muslim that might just believe something a little different — their goal is to get you to submit.

After the killing of Father Hamel, French President Francoise Hollande said that France was at war with this strain of Islam.

I’d like to believe him. But despite the onslaught of attacks in Western countries alone, never mind the attacks in other countries, I’m not sure people in the west are ready to wake up.

What I am sure of is that the Islamists, whether ISIS or al Shabbab or al Qaida, are at war with us. They have declared it, they are waging it and they have no plans of stopping so we better wake up and get serious.

***

Also see:

The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaeda hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

France Sacrifices Priest on the Altar of False Tolerance

quote-unilateral-tolerance-in-a-world-of-intolerance-is-like-unilateral-disarmament-in-a-world-of-armed-anthony-daniels-psychiatrist-222576Answering Muslims, by David Wood, July 26, 2016:

On Tuesday morning, two jihadis stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, France, with knives and a fake bomb. They forced a Catholic priest to his knees and filmed themselves slashing his throat at the altar. They later shouted “Allahu Akbar” while police shot them to death.

Prior to the attack, French police had caught one of the jihadis repeatedly attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS. Nevertheless, he was free to roam the streets of France, as long as he wore an electronic bracelet.

Even worse, French authorities knew that the church was being targeted by ISIS, since an ISIS hit list found in 2015 named the church as a target.

Given the circumstances, do French authorities bear some of the blame for the outcome of the attack?

***

Also see:

Normandy Priest Slaughter: Europe Teeters on the Brink

priest

Front Page Magazine, by Ari Lieberman, July 27, 2016

Still reeling from a truck attack in the French resort city of Nice on Bastille Day that left 84 dead and more than 300 wounded, France was hit yet again with Islamic terrorism, this time in the northern French town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. The carnage began at approximately 9am on Tuesday when two knife-wielding Muslim terrorists, chanting their battle cry of “Allahuakbar,” burst into a church during morning mass and took hostages. They then proceeded to murder, Jacques Hamel, an 86-year-old priest by slitting his throat before being shot dead by police snipers. Another hostage, gravely wounded by the attackers, is reported to be hovering between life and death. The remaining three hostages survived unharmed.

The terrorists swore allegiance to ISIS and the group claimed responsibility for the attack through its propaganda outlet. At least one of the attackers was known to law enforcement. In 2015, he traveled to Turkey in an attempt to infiltrate into Syria and join an Islamist group but was apprehended by the Turks and shipped back to France. He did a brief jail stint before being released by French authorities. His liberal release terms allowed him to be unsupervised between the hours of 8.30am and 12.30pm. The Church attack occurred during those hours.

Tuesday’s outrage was eerily similar to a November 2014 attack on a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem. Two Muslim-Palestinian terrorists, armed with hatchets, meat cleavers and a pistol burst into the synagogue during morning services and brutally murdered four worshipers before being killed in an exchange with police. A policeman was also killed during the firefight and a fifth worshiper succumbed to his wounds a year later.

These attacks, whether occurring in Europe or Israel, are inspired and driven by the same radical, Islamo-fascist ideology. Those who perpetrate such bestial acts as well as those who incite them are devoid of any semblance of humanity. Enlightened Europe has still largely failed to grasp this concept, believing that rehabilitation for such individuals is still a viable option. It is not. Had French authorities understood this, at least one of the terrorists who carried out the cowardly attack would have been sitting in a damp cell or deported.

Pope Francis, whose liberal views on Muslim migrants are well known, condemned the atrocity. But The Pope is an enormously influential personality whose opinions carry extraordinary weight and persuasive moral authority. Yet he has inexplicably chosen to adopt a viewpoint that has Europe teetering on the brink and could very well lead to its demise. It is a virtual certainty that many of the Muslim migrants are wolves in sheep’s clothing and are members of ISIS or otherwise harbor extremist Islamist views and are just one degree of separation from full-fledged murderers. Indeed, many of the recent attacks, including last year’s Paris attacks that claimed the lives of 130, were perpetrated by individuals who claimed refugee status and sought asylum.

In the past eight months, Europe has been wracked by unprecedented violence carried out exclusively by Muslim terrorists.

  • On November 13, 2015, ISIS terrorists struck multiple targets in Paris in a coordinated, well-planned assault killing 130 and wounding 350.
  • On March 22, 2016, ISIS terror attacks at Brussels airport and the Maelbeek metro station claimed the lives of 32.
  • On June 13, 2016, an ISIS terrorist stabbed a French police chief and his wife to death outside their home in Magnanville near the French capital.
  • On July 14, 2016, a Muslim truck driver barreled his lorry down a promenade filled with pedestrians in the city of Nice, killing 84 and injuring more than 300.
  • On July 18, 2016, a Muslim immigrant boarded a train in Germany and attacked passengers with an axe, seriously injuring five.
  • On July 22, 2016, an Iranian shot and killed nine people in a Munich shopping mall
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee attacked a pregnant woman with a machete in the German city of Reutlingen, killing her and wounding three others.
  • On July 24, 2016, A Syrian refugee detonated a bomb at an open-air music festival in the southern city of Ansbach, wounding 12.

These attacks are in addition to the numerous rapes and sexual assaults, both documented and undocumented, perpetrated by Muslim migrants against European women.

In response to the surge in attacks, France has instituted a state of emergency and the EU has turned to Israel, recognized as a world leader in combatting terrorism, for assistance. Israeli counter-terrorism units have trained their European counterparts and Israeli intelligence has been instrumental in thwarting terror attacks on the European continent.

In 2015, Israeli intelligence tipped German authorities off to an imminent terror threat that forced the cancellation of a soccer match between Germany and the Netherlands that was scheduled to take place on November 17 at Hanover Stadium.

The EU is also seeking Israeli expertise in dealing with so-called lone wolf attacks. Israeli technology companies have developed specialized software to deal with the growing phenomena of individuals radicalized or otherwise influenced by online social media forums. Israel’s anti-terror cyber capabilities are very formidable and the EU recognizes this.

But while these measures may help in the short run, a longer term solution is required. Europe’s open door policy for Muslim migrants has turned into an unmitigated failure. Until the EU acknowledges this fact and takes the necessary measures to secure its borders, deport asylum seekers, stiffen penalties for incitement, and loosen absurd restrictions imposed on law enforcement, the dreadful attacks that we’ve witnessed in Western Europe in recent years will only intensify.

Lastly, the EU must recognize that appeasement represents the policy of a defeated people. The EU, led by France and Sweden, has kowtowed to the Palestinians who maintain an extremist ideology that parallels the Islamic State’s. And Just as ISIS celebrated the attack at Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, the Palestinians, of all political stripes and persuasions, celebrated the Har Nof massacre. Though their oratory may differ, Hamas, Fatah (the party of PA president, Mahmoud Abbas), ISIS, and Hezbollah are all cut from the same cloth and seek the same maximalist, genocidal goals.

Terror in France and the Annals of Willful Blindness

memorial Nice

By failing to take the jihadists’ ideology seriously, we refuse to understand the breadth of the threat we face.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, July 16, 2016:

Well into year eight of Obama, with the prospect of years nine through twelve hanging heavy in the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, it feels like I write the same column every few weeks now. How could it not? Fort Hood, Detroit, Times Square, Portland, Cairo, Benghazi, Boston, Garland, Paris, Chattanooga, Paris again, San Bernardino, Philadelphia, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando, Istanbul again, Dhaka, and now, Nice. Even if we leave out the more overt war zones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Egypt, and Israel, the jihadist attacks targeting the West are coming in more rapid succession: iconic targets, dates of commemoration, diplomatic outposts, tourists, and citizens just going about their lives.

It is easy to grasp why this is the case. Willful blindness has metastasized from a dangerous dereliction of duty to a system of governance.

It was the wee hours of Friday morning, just after the Bastille Day jihadist mass-murder of at least 84 people. For Mrs. Clinton, that seemed the perfect time to take to Twitter and set the tone of the American response — the kind of resolve we can expect in a third Obama term. So as France retrieved the dead, dying, and maimed from the Promenade des Anglais, where Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel had barreled over them in his truck, she unloaded with the concern foremost in her mind:

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

I know, I know: you’re just relieved that she didn’t find a video to blame this time. Still, Clinton’s remarks are criminally stupid. So much so, they overwhelm even the criminal recklessness for which the FBI has just given her a pass on felony charges. She clearly mishandled mounds of classified information, but it appears doubtful that she read much of it. Or maybe she did read it but learned nothing from it, since politicizing intelligence and purging the Islam from Islamic terrorism is strict Obama-Clinton policy.

RELATED: Jihadists Are ‘Strong-Horsing’ the West

Even to one so superficial as Clinton, it should by now be perfectly obvious that that there is no “Islam,” at least not if we are talking about a monolithic belief system. There are sects of Islam, all vying for supremacy in what is, in the main, a conquest ideology — with the various splinters having very different ideas about what conquest entails, and with no papal analogue to impose order by decreeing orthodoxy and condemning heterodoxy.

Clearly, some of these sects are our enemy. And just as clearly, these sects also have a legitimate claim on the designation “Islam.” That does not mean they have a monopoly on the interpretation of Islam (there, again, being no such monopoly). But it does oblige government officials responsible for national security to deal with jihadists and other sharia supremacists on their own terms.

Why? Because the objective is to defeat our enemies, not redefine them. To defeat the enemy still requires knowing the enemy. Try as he might, Obama is unable to fundamentally transform Sun Tzu.

Obama-Clinton policy is to deny Islamic standing to jihadist terrorists. To be fair, it is an exacerbation of Bush policy. More importantly, it is pointlessly suicidal.

First the pointless part: The enemy derives legitimacy from his own literalist interpretation of Islamic doctrine. Thus, he is utterly indifferent to what the Westerners he seeks to conquer think of him or say about him. We non-Muslims cannot broker the competing doctrinal claims of internecine Islamic conflict.

Jihadists care neither about what Washington thinks “the true Islam” is, nor about the counterfactual “peace” and “tolerance” rhetoric in which this “true Islam” is swaddled. Our enemies’ Islamic legitimacy was not granted by us, and we are powerless to take it away from them. That’s for Muslims to figure out. Our enemies, moreover, know a good deal more about the subject than we do, their highly influential scholars having spent lifetimes steeped in sharia jurisprudence. They shred Washington’s imaginary “true Islam” with their own informed Islam, making us a laughing stock. I hate to be the bearer of (more) bad news, but, yes, the Blind Sheikh actually does know a tad more about Islam than Hillary Clinton.

RELATED: How Will France and the West Respond to Savage Terror Attack in Nice?

Now for the suicidal part of denying the Islamic moorings of jihadism: Contrary to White House blather, people do not commit mass-murder attacks because of economic privation or over trifling slights. They commit it because they are seized by commands that they take to be divine injunctions rooted in scripture, their devotion to which will determine whether paradise or eternal damnation awaits.

You may be a haughty American progressive, but not everybody is. You may roll your eyes over quaint notions like religious obligation, but not everybody is equally evolved. Not everybody is convinced that bloody sectarian conflict — the norm of history — is just as obsolete as the rule of law in the age of Obama.

I had to fight of the urge to throw my television out the window Thursday evening. Images of bodies strewn across the promenade along the Côte d’Azur were interrupted by one vapid pol after another, brought on set to condemn the “cowardly” jihadist. Cowardly? Do you think you could drive a truck through a mass of humanity and then shoot it out with trained security personnel, knowing all the while that you were going to die? Our enemies are barbaric savages, but cowards? To do what our enemies do requires nerve, fervor — a cause they believe is worthy of the raging passion Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna called “the art of death.”

The fervor comes from their ideology. It has this terrifying hold on them because it is credibly drawn from their religious doctrine. If you don’t get that, if you think you can blithely dismiss jihadism as “cowardice” and thus avoid the unpleasant burden of understanding why it happens, you are never going to get what we’re up against. You are never going to summon the resolve it is going to take to overcome the enemy.

Because we don’t believe in much of anything anymore, we discount the pull of ideology. But everything about this enemy, from the pecking order of its leaders to its ruthless methods, from the targets it chooses to the ends it seeks, is all about ideology — fiercely held by its adherents because it is scripturally based. If we don’t face up to the fact that ideology is the core of the challenge we face — that we do not have the luxury of ignoring ideology until after it catalyzes murderous action — we cannot defend ourselves.

If we don’t grasp that the goal of our enemies is the imposition of fundamentalist sharia, we will continue to miss the breadth of the threat — the fact that the jihadists are just the front-line militants. Slipstreaming behind them, exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation they create, are the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated faux moderates who pursue the same ends by infiltrating our councils of government policy and institutions of opinion.

These “moderates” have called the tune throughout Obama’s first two terms, and they’re banking on a third. That’s why we’re losing.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Islamic Jihadists in France Gouged Out Eyes, Castrated and Disemboweled Victims

4221396001_4616462564001_4616354211001-vs

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, July 15, 2016:

Warning: Graphic Content

All for the greater glory of Allah.

A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan:beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside  to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

The French authorities have little interest in seeing more information released that will make it even more clear how horrifying these attacks were.

***

Muslims Celebrate Bastille Day: 80 Dead, 68 Injured

rs

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 15, 2016:

The truck was loaded with explosives and hand grenades as it plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, Thursday night. It was no accident: Nice authorities emphasized that it was a terror attack, which was fairly clear already from the fact that the driver exchanged gunfire with police after he rammed into the crowd.

At least eighty people are dead and 68 wounded, and Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi calls it “the worst tragedy in the history of Nice.” But given the harsh realities of the contemporary world, it probably won’t be the worst for long.

Jihadis have had their eyes on France for quite some time. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Yes, “run him over with your car.”

Then again from the Islamic State in May 2016:

“The French must die by the thousands…. Towards paradise, that is the path….Come, brother, let’s go to paradise, our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies….With a little rocket-launcher, you can easily get one of them… you do something like that in the name of Dawla (Islamic State), and France will be traumatised for a century.”

The French are already traumatized. The BBC reported last week that “more than 5,000 French police will be deployed at key venues in and around Paris ahead of the Euro 2016 football final between France and Portugal,” and that “there will be no victory parade if France win.” Why not? For fear of jihad terror attacks.

The Bastille Day jihad massacre demonstrates that the answer to jihad attacks is not to curtail one’s activities and cower in fear. Even if free people do that, the jihadis will strike anyway. Even without a victory parade, the jihadis struck yet again in France. The response should not be to cower in fear, but to recognize that this is a war and act accordingly. France has just suffered a fresh attack in a war that is being fought by people in service of an ideology that France, like other Western countries, refuses to acknowledge even exists.

France, even as it is under serious attack by the warriors of jihad, continues to pursue policies that will only result in the arrival of still more Muslims to France – and with them will come jihad terrorists, and many, many more jihad massacres like the one on Bastille Day in Nice. French curtailing their activities for fear of being struck by jihadis did not save them. The Bastille Day jihad attack should be the last to take place under the regime of politically correct fantasy that forces law enforcement and intelligence officials to pretend that the threat is other than what it is, and that the remedy is to apply, one more time, policies that have failed again and again and again.

Bastille Day should be a day for the releasing of prisoners. In the war against the global jihad, the truth has been prisoner for too long. It is time to set it free – before it, too, becomes irrevocably a casualty of this war against an enemy no one dares name.

“On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians,” Obama said.

Question: did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on behalf of the American people, condemn in the strongest terms every German and Japanese strike during World War II? Did he add that the U.S. administration was in touch with Hawaiian or Polish or French or Midway etc. officials and was ready to offer any assistance in the investigation?

The answer is no, because there was no need to offer such condemnations. The world was at war, and the world knew it was at war. The fact was obvious, as was which side each combatant was on. Nor was there any need for an investigation after each battle. Everyone knew what was going on, and why.

The reason why Obama offers these condemnations now after each jihad massacre is because he treats each as if it were an isolated incident, not as if it were one more battle in a long war. And he offers help in an investigation for the same reason: if U.S. officials do end up helping the French with an investigation of this latest jihad massacre, they will like come back with a characteristically Obamoid conclusion: they’re unable to determine the motive of the perpetrator.

In reality, there is no need for an investigation, because the jihadi’s motive is obvious. There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war — not just lip-service as French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve offers, but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.

***

Gen. Flynn: I Want Muslim Leaders to Stand Up Tonight and Condemn This Madness

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn sounded off on the terror attack in Nice, France, tonight, saying that he wants to see the leaders of Muslim-majority nations stand up against “this radical form of this ideology in their bloodstream and declare that this thing cannot exist on this planet.”

The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said he doesn’t know who exactly carried out the attack, but said there’s been a lot of “chatter” by jihadist soldiers praising what happened.

“I want these leaders in this Muslim world that have this radical Islamic ideology festering, metastasizing, to stand up, and stand up tonight and be counted, and say something to condemn this attack that we have just seen.”

Flynn said “we have not set up an international set of strategic objectives to go after this very vicious, very barbaric enemy.”

He also called the current situation a “world war,” though not like one anyone has read about in history books.

***

Gingrich calls for deportation of those who ‘believe in Sharia’

Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and talked-about pick for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot, said on Fox News while discussing the Nice, France, terrorist attack that the United States ought to implement a testing system to root out Shariah-compliant Muslims and deport them.

On “Hannity,” Gingrich said the country “should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”

***

Gorka: Greatest Number of ISIS Foreign Fighters Are from Tunisia

“This isn’t about workplace violence or some other label. This is again an instance of the jihadis taking the war to the infidel on their home territory,” said Gorka.

Bad Ideas Created Benghazi

witch-of-benghazi

Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, July 5, 2016

The House Select Committee on Benghazi report confirms what we pretty much already knew. The Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completely politicized this country’s foreign policy in order to ensure the reelection of Obama and to serve the future presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Along the way Obama, Clinton et al. made dangerous decisions, such as establishing the consular outpost in Benghazi, and ignoring the consul’s pleas for more security. They also ignored the many warning signs of incipient attacks, bungled the response to the attack on September 11, 2012, and then obfuscated, spun, and outright lied in the aftermath. The House report adds new details that flesh out the story, but enough had already been leaked to confirm Clinton’s despicable sacrifice of American lives on the altar of her obsessive ambition.

Toxic ambition, sheer incompetence, and the self-serving politics of the individuals involved mean they bear the primary responsibility for this disaster. But Benghazi illustrates as well the climate of bad ideas that make such decisions possible. Bad politicians eventually go away, but malignant ideas and received wisdom are deeply rooted in our institutions, transcending individuals. The Benghazi fiasco illustrates two particularly tenacious ones.

The military intervention in Libya, the origin of the Benghazi tragedy, was another act of Western wishful thinking about “democratizing” and “reforming” the Muslim world. Despite the failure of George W. Bush’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “Arab Spring” revolutions encouraged the Wilsonian “freedom and democracy” promoters in 2011 to make Libya yet another poster-child for this doomed project. Moreover, intervention seemingly could be done on the cheap. No troops need be deployed, since jets and missiles could topple the psychotic Muammar Gaddafi––an autocrat straight out of central casting, whose genocidal bluster gave the West a pretext for intervention.

For Hillary and Obama, this was the perfect opportunity to show those neocon militarists what “smart power” was all about, and strike a contrast with the “cowboy” Bush’s “unilateralist” bumbling in Iraq. A UN resolution was secured, and a NATO-led coalition of 19 states assembled for enforcing a no-fly zone. The mission soon escalated into bringing about regime change and the death of Gaddafi.

For a while, this was a perfect, low-cost, quick little war that would illustrate the various shibboleths of moralizing internationalism: international diplomatic approval for the use of force, multilateral coalition building, a reliance on air power that minimized casualties among participating militaries, and a smaller role for the US, which would be “leading from behind,” as an Obama advisor said. This last idea reflected Obama’s belief that the US needed to diminish its role in world affairs and avoid the arrogant overreach that stained its history abroad, most recently in Iraq. This notion of America’s global sins is another bad idea reflecting ideology, not historical fact.

For Secretary of State Clinton, the Libya intervention would be the showcase of her tenure at State and proof of her superior foreign policy skills and presidential potential. Of course, we all know that the toppling of Gaddafi has been a disastrous mistake. Gaddafi was a brutal creep, but he kept in check the jihadists from Libya eager to kill Americans in Iraq and foment terror throughout the region. His departure created a vacuum that has been filled with legions of jihadist outfits across North Africa, including ISIS franchises. They are armed in part with weapons plundered from Gaddafi’s arsenals such as surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles, machine guns, mines, grenades, antitank missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. Yet eager to protect her defining foreign policy achievement, Hillary kept open the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi even as other nations pulled out their personnel because of the increasing danger caused by the new Libyan government’s inability to control and secure its territory.

Four dead Americans were the cost of political ambition and adherence to the bankrupt idea that liberal democracy can be created on the cheap in a culture lacking all of the philosophical and institutional infrastructure necessary for its success: inalienable rights, equality under the law, transparent government, accountability to the people, separation of church and state, fair and honest elections, and the freedom of speech and assembly. The folly of expecting democracy in a culture alien to it became clear in the aftermath of Gaddafi’s downfall, when the Libyan National Transitional Council’s Draft Constitutional Charter proclaimed, “Islam is the religion of the state, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).” The idea of exporting democracy, however, still has a tight hold on many in the West both on the left and the right, which means we have not seen the last of its bloody and costly failures.

Equally bipartisan has been the next bad idea: that al Qaeda, ISIS, et al. are fringe “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam, and that the vast majority of Muslims are “moderates” grieved by this tarnishing of their noble faith. It was George W. Bush who said in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah,” establishing the model for his administration’s policy of “outreach” to Muslims. Obama has taken this delusion to surreal extremes, refusing in the face of mountains of evidence to link the numerous ISIS attacks of the last few years to Islam, and proscribing “jihad” and “radical Islamist” from the government’s communications and training manuals.

It was this imperative to sever Islamic terrorism from its roots in traditional Islamic doctrine that in part accounted for the lies that Hillary, Obama, and their minions like National Security Advisor Susan Rice told in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. They peddled the narrative that a spontaneous protest against an obscure Internet video insulting Mohammed had morphed into a violent attack. This lie traded in the delusional belief that despite its 14-century-long record of invasion, murder, slaving, colonization, and occupation­­––all in fulfillment of the divine commands “to slay the idolaters wherever you find them” and “to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah” –– Islamic doctrine could not possibly justify the actions of modern terrorists. So powerful was the need to protect this belief and, of course, her political future that Clinton lied to the faces of the parents of the four dead Americans, promising to “get” the hapless filmmaker, even as she knew on the very night of the attacks that there was no protest against the video near the consular outpost.

Nor are the various pretexts for this evasion of historical fact convincing. The worst is that making explicit the link between jihadism and Islam will endanger innocent Muslims and stoke “Islamophobia.” There is no evidence that this is the case, and hate crimes against Jews still vastly outnumber those against Muslims. Not much better is the notion that pious Muslims, supposedly offended by “blasphemers” like al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, will not cooperate with police and the FBI if we state simple facts about their faith and its history.

This idea is psychologically preposterous. It assumes that Muslim pique at infidel statements about their religion trumps their assumed desire to stop the violent “distorters” of their beloved faith. It also assumes that to Muslims, such insults justify keeping quiet about the planned murders of innocents––a damning indictment of the very people whom the “nothing to do with Islam” crowd are so anxious to mollify. Worse, it confirms the unique triumphalism of Islam, whose adherents expect from non-believers deference to their faith, even as Muslims across the globe are slaughtering and torturing people simply because they are non-believers. Such careful monitoring of our discourse about Islam, at the same time Muslim intellectuals routinely attack the West for its alleged historical sins against Islam, is a sign of weakness and fear that encourages our enemies to hit us again.

We’ve been operating by this double standard for decades, and terrorist groups have expanded across the globe, while jihadist violence has murdered Americans in Boston, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando, to name just the deadliest attacks. It’s safe to say that the tactic of flattering Muslims and confirming their sense of superiority to infidels has failed to keep us safe.

But if we really want to be honest, we won’t just rely on the weasel-word “Islamist,” which still suggests that the beliefs of the jihadists are somehow a doctrinal aberration. Those of both parties who continually talk about “moderate Muslims” and use the word “Islamist” to distinguish them from jihadists should heed Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan: “The term ‘Moderate Islam’ is ugly and offensive; there is no moderate Islam; Islam is Islam.” Using “Islamic” rather than “Islamist” will recognize the continuity of modern jihadism with traditional Islamic doctrines. Whitewashing that fact has done nothing to stop jihadist violence, and it is an enabler of those ordinary Muslims who refuse to acknowledge Islam’s illiberal and violent doctrines.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the opprobrium history will inflict on them for sacrificing our security and interests to their personal ambition and ideological obsessions. But bad ideas had a hand in the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, and those bad ideas will continue to cripple us until we discard them and start facing reality.

***

RESCUE INTERRUPTED:

What did not happen to save American lives the night of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya? In recent days, the House Benghazi Committee released results of its investigation. Full Measure asks real intelligence officers what should have happened that night.

 

***

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) Press Conference June 29, 2016 – National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
CCB releases new report and comments on release of House Select Committee on Benghazi report.
Participants are as follows:
Roger Aronoff, Clare Lopez, Dennis Haney, Charles Woods, Tom McInerney, Ace Lyons, Chuck Kubic, John Clarke

Also see:

The Qur’an Test in Dhaka

bangla-2

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 4, 2016:

As Ramadan draws to a merciful close, we have in Bangladesh yet another Islamic jihad massacre, followed by the now drearily familiar attempts to obscure the Islamic character of the massacre, and to keep the public ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. But with this particular mass killing it will be harder for the political and media elites to cover up the attackers’ motives and goals, since they subjected their victims to an increasingly familiar feature of jihad attacks: the Qur’an test.

After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”

Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”

Unfortunately for Hasina and Rashid, however, the killers themselves made it abundantly clear what they were all about. According to Rezaul Karim, the father of a young man who was held hostage inside the Holey Artisan Bakery for more than ten hours, “The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”

A Qur’an test for determining who was tortured and who wasn’t? That certainly seems to have something to do with Islam. Nor is this the first time that Islamic jihadis have employed this tactic. In September 2013, Islamic jihadis murdered 68 people at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. According to the Daily Mail, “the attack saw men, women and children slaughtered if they could not recite the Koran or name the mother of the [Islamic] Prophet Mohammed.”

In June 2014, again in Kenya, in the coastal town of Mpeketoni, Muslims murdered people who could not pass an Islam quiz. In November 2014, Muslims hijacked a Kenyan bus and murdered 28 non-Muslims who couldn’t recite Qur’an verses.

Then in April 2015, Islamic jihadists murdered 147 people at Garissa University College, once again in Kenya. The jihadis here again ordered their captives to recite passages from the Qur’an. Then, screaming “Allahu akbar,” they gunned down those who could not.

The practice wasn’t limited to Kenya. In November 2015, Muslims firing guns and screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed the luxury Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and took 170 people hostage. Those hostages who could recite Qur’an verses were freed. Around 27 others who could not expatiate on the glories of Allah and the torments awaiting unbelievers were massacred.

And now this test has come to Dhaka, and its import is plain. Those who insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that we must look elsewhere to discover the terrorists’ motives and goals, should kindly explain why the textbook for this sinister and murderous little exam is always and everywhere the Qur’an. Terrorists never demand that their captives recite, on pain of death, passages from the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita, or Das Kapital.

Not coincidentally, the Qur’an is singular among books that are by some considered holy in containing clear, open-ended and universal commands to believers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5; see also 9:29, 47:4, 8:60, 8:39, 8:12, etc.). What the political and media elites would have us believe is that Islamic jihadis misunderstand the clear import of those passages, foolishly assuming that “kill the idolaters” means something like, say, “kill the idolaters,” when every right-thinking person knows that if only one understands the nuances of classical Arabic, it really means “give the idolaters a hug.” They would further have us believe that any Muslim who actually goes out to kill those whom he deems to be idolaters is gravely misunderstanding the message of the Qur’an and Islam.

The time for these comforting fictions is long past. Sheikh Hasina and Qasim Rashid (to whom Megyn Kelly recently accorded a platform for his slick falsehoods) are just two exponents of a years-long campaign of deception and lies that now must be decisively repudiated. If authorities don’t drop their politically correct fantasies and address the jihad threat realistically, we will be seeing the Qur’an test administered inside the U.S. before too long. Instead of studying to pass, Americans should be making it abundantly clear to those administering such tests, and to the deceivers running interference for them in government and media, that their days of perpetrating their evils unchallenged are rapidly drawing to a close.

***

Also see:

State and Local Law Enforcement Must Take the Lead Against Jihad

Crime Scene

Crime Scene

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton, July 4, 2016:

In case you haven’t noticed, the global Jihadist insurgency has entered a new, more dangerous phase in the past two years.

The number of Jihadis and the number of attacks that they have carried out–as well as the number of casualties they have inflicted and the number of countries they operate in–has grown drastically.

The excellent, private IntelCenter organization estimates that the Islamic State has killed 18,000 people in 28 countries since they declared their Caliphate on 29 June 2014.

This includes individual acts of Jihad carried out in this country in places like Orlando, Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, San Bernardino, Queens and Philadelphia.

There is no reason to believe that this trend won’t continue. The effort to take down the caliphate is half-hearted at best because it simply isn’t something our president is interested in. He feels as if he killed Bin Laden and that should have been enough. Never mind that the world has become awash in Jihad since then.

Because of the complete lack of leadership on this vital issue, our federal bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus is not even allowed to study Islamic threat doctrine–the very doctrine that the Islamic State cites repeatedly.

Time and time again we find that the warning signs of the Jihadi attackers were missed. We were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston bombers) repeatedly by the Russians and the FBI knew that their mosque was founded by a convicted Al Qaeda member. Yet they were still able to carry out their attack.

There were warning signs about the San Bernardino Jihadis as well. The female, Tafsheen Malik, used a fake address to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. She also gained entry into the U.S. under the horribly flawed federal “Visa Express” program that allows applicants to bypass the interview in the screening process.

Moreover, DHS whistleblower Phillip Haney has testified before Congress and written in his new book, “See Something, Say Nothing,” that he had been ordered to cease investigations into Tablighi Jamaat, the notorious Islamist organization that had ties to the San Bernardino mosque.

Then there is the case of Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, who was twice interviewed by the FBI because he was in the contact list for an American Islamikaze bomber in Syria and because he made “incendiary” remarks to co-workers about Jihad. Oh, and his Dad posted pro-Taliban videos too. He was given the all-clear, only to end up massacring 49 innocent Americans.

What all this points to is the vital need for state and local law enforcement to take the lead against Jihad inside this country. I promise you, the NYPD does not wait for the FBI to vet suspected terrorists. Other state and local agencies around the country need to take the same approach, albeit with resources that can’t match the NYPD, which is probably the most effective counterterrorism law enforcement organization anywhere in the world.

The fact is, the Feds are unaccountable. They can’t follow up all the leads they have now and very often have a lack of knowledge as to what or who they are dealing with. I have a hunch that the FBI agents who interviewed Omar Mateen probably thought he was creepy at best, but they had nothing to charge him with and they had to go about their business. Complicating matters even more is the fact that both the FBI and DHS are forbidden from tying Islam to terrorism. That restriction right there makes them ineffective at conducting counterintelligence operations.

State and local cops are not unaccountable. They have deep roots in their communities. If an Omar Mateen is in someone’s precinct and they know he is a known associate of an Islamikaze bomber and made threatening statements about terrorism, they will keep an eye on him way past the initial interview. There won’t be much more important in that precinct once an Omar Mateen comes to the local cops’ attention.

Furthermore, state and local police are not under any restriction to refrain from studying the enemy threat doctrine. If the local sheriff or police chief is bold enough, he will mandate that his intelligence and investigative people get educated about the threat in an objective, unbiased manner–allowing the subject matter to take them where it leads them, rather than starting from the position that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism.

State and local police are now at the tip of the spear in this war. 15 years ago America sent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas to protect us all from Jihad. Today, local law enforcement is being tasked with protecting soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from Jihad inside our own country. This is a profound shift in this war that has been lost on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

In Garland, Texas, it was a 62-year old motorcycle cop who gunned down the two Jihadi attackers who were wielding AK47s.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, it was the local police who gunned down Mohammad Abdulazeez.

In Boston, it was Boston PD who ran down the Tsarnaev brothers.

In Queens, New York, it was rookie patrolmen who were targeted by and gunned down Zale Thompson.

The San Bernardino shooters were killed by members of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

In Philadelphia, it was a police officer sitting in his patrol car that was targeted by Edward Archer in the name of ISIS.

And, of course, we know that it was the Orlando Police Department who responded to Omar Mateen’s massacre.

By the time DHS and FBI show up, they have to ask permission to cross the crime scene tape. In Marine Corps parlance, by the time the Feds get involved, it’s “right of bang.”

State and local police need to prepare to operate against Jihadis “left of bang,” and that means taking their own initiative and not depending solely on our bureaucratized, federal counterterrorism apparatus for training or intelligence about potential bad guys in their jurisdictions.

Obama Doesn’t Understand Jihadist Doctrine

rad islamMEF, by Mark Durie
The Washington Examiner
June 30, 2016

In his June 14 address to the nation, President Obama attributed Omar Mateen’s attack on patrons of Orlando, Fla.’s, Pulse nightclub to “homegrown extremism,” saying “we currently do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack.”

While Obama acknowledged that the Islamic State has called for attacks around the world against “innocent civilians,” he suggested these calls were incidental, emphasizing that Mateen was a “lone actor” and “an angry, disturbed, unstable young man” susceptible to being radicalized “over the Internet.”

It is a terrible thing to misunderstand one’s enemy so deeply. The doctrine of jihad invoked by terrorist groups is an institution with a long history, grounded in legal precedent going back to the time of Muhammad.

Militants who invoke the doctrine of jihad follow principles influenced by Islamic law. The point to be grasped is that the doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite “bottom-up” terrorism, which does not need to be directed by jihadi organizations.

The doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite bottom-up terrorism.

When the Ottoman Caliphate entered World War I in 1914, it issued an official fatwa calling upon Muslims everywhere to rise up and fight the “infidels.” In 1915, a more detailed ruling was issued, entitled “A Universal Proclamation to All the People of Islam.”

This second fatwa gave advice on the methods of jihad, distinguishing three modes of warfare: “jihad by bands,” which we would today call guerrilla warfare; “jihad by campaigns,” which refers to warfare using armies; and “individual jihad.”

The fatwa cited approvingly as an example of individual jihad the 1910 assassination of Boutros Ghaly, a Christian prime minister of Egypt (and grandfather of former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghaly), at the hands of Ibrahim Nassif al-Wardani, a Muslim graduate in pharmacology who had been educated in Lausanne, Paris, and London.

Ottoman fatwaWhen the Islamic State issued a call for Muslims around the world to rise up and kill their neighbors, it was invoking the individual mode of jihad. This mode relies upon the teaching that when Muslim lands are attacked or occupied by infidel armies, jihad becomes farḍ al-‘ayn, an “individual obligation,” which a Muslim can act upon without needing to come under anyone else’s command.This Ottoman fatwa cited precedents from the life of Muhammad for each of the three modes of warfare. To support individual jihad, it referenced three instances when companions of Muhammad conducted assassinations of non-Muslims. Two of these involved attacks on Jews that were personally instigated by Muhammad.

This principle of individual obligation has been much emphasized by jihadi clerics. Abdullah Azzam wrote in his influential tract Join the Caravan, “There is agreement … that when the enemy enters an Islamic land or a land that was once part of the Islamic lands, it is obligatory … to go forth to face the enemy.”

It was undoubtedly in response to this dogma that Omar Mateen went forth to kill Americans. In line with this, Mateen reported to his victims that his attack was in retaliation for Americans bombing Afghanistan. By this understanding, it was America’s military action against a Muslim country — the country of origin of Mateen’s family — that justified an act of individual jihad.

Preventing future “lone wolf” attacks requires the disruption of the Islamic doctrine that underpins these acts and legitimizes them in the eyes of many Muslims. Teachers and preachers in Islamic institutions across America must openly reject the dogma of farḍ al-‘ayn in relation to U.S. military action.

They need to teach their congregants that this doctrine does not apply, that anyone who uses it to attempt to legitimize his or her personal jihad is acting against God’s laws and that no martyr’s paradise awaits them.

At the same time, U.S. homeland security agencies need to closely watch and monitor any Muslim teacher who promotes this doctrine, which, once it is taken on board and applied against a nation, will lead to acts of jihadi terrorism as surely as night follows day.

During his June 14 speech, Obama defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam” in connection with terrorism, asking, “What exactly would using this label accomplish?”

The answer is simple. It will be difficult to elicit the cooperation of Muslim religious leaders in discrediting the Islamic doctrine at the heart of America’s homegrown terrorism epidemic when President Obama himself is reluctant to acknowledge that doctrine matters — they can simply point to him and decline.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

Al Qaeda: Kill White People So the Left Doesn’t Screw Up the Narrative

inspire guideNational Review, By David French — June 28, 2016

This would be hilarious if it didn’t signify how twisted our world has become:

Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.

In an article first reported by The Foreign Desk, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) called for more self-directed Muslim terrorists to kill in America. But the article, titled “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” tells terrorists to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found” because if gays or Latinos appear to be the targets, “the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility.”

By attacking a gay club, Omar Mateen likely thought he’d chose the perfect target for illustrating his jihadist motivations. After all, ISIS and multiple other jihadist organizations are known for executing gays in particularly vile ways. But when the Left’s narrative collides with ISIS’s, the Left’s narrative wins — so a Muslim Democrat’s attack became an expression of Christian Republican hate. It was the most extraordinary perversion of truth that I’ve ever seen.

Jihadists will keep attacking, but some leftists will keep excusing. It’s a deadly race to the bottom, with each leftist excuse only postponing the day when Americans finally remember what it’s like to fight the enemy, not each other.

***

Also see:

Senate Hearing: While Feds Scrubbed References To Islam, Terrorists Escaped Notice

tedcruz

A Tuesday Senate hearing Sen. Ted Cruz chaired discussed the ‘willful blindness’ of Democrats’ approach to combatting Islamist terrorism.

The Federalist, by M.G. Oprea, June 29, 2016:

On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz chaired an investigative hearing to determine whether law enforcement agencies are deemphasizing radical Islam while investigating terrorism in the United States. Its purpose, according to Cruz’s website, was to “investigate how the federal government has not only refused to appropriately identify the specific threat of radical Islam, but has sought to undermine the people and information who have sought to highlight the threat.”

Provocatively titled “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism,” the hearing comes just weeks after Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 people in an Orlando night club and injured dozens more. In his opening remarks, Cruz said, “the consequence of the willful blindness of a policy, that is a matter of administration policy, that refuses to acknowledge the threat, means over and over again this administration has allowed the threats to go forward.”

In the weeks following the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, Democratic leaders and media elites once again tried to blame the attacks on everything under the sun other than Islamic radicalism. White Christians, Republicans, gun laws, and anti-gay bigotry are for liberals the worst culprits.

But it’s not just the mainstream media and the far-left selling this bill of goods. Incredibly, this rhetoric has been coming from our government. President Obama made a public statement in the days after the Orlando attack doubling down on his commitment not to speak about Islam when addressing any terrorist attacks, even when they are manifestly inspired or encouraged by ISIS or other Islamist ideology.

Denying Reality Gets People Killed

Last week, the FBI released a heavily redacted transcript of Mateen’s 911 call, in which he pledged his allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The FBI had scrubbed references to ISIS and changed his use of “Allah” to “God,” as though it were a translation rather than a transcript. Most damning of all, however, was the revelation that the FBI was aware of Mateen’s presence, had interviewed him three times in the past few years, and knew he belonged to the same mosque as Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria.

Of course, this latest foray into delusion vis-à-vis the relationship between terrorism and Salafist interpretations of Islam, or what Andrew McCarthy referred to in the hearing as “Sharia supremacism,” is preceded by a long history of the Obama administration’s systemic denial of this relationship. We saw similar reactions on the Left and in our government after the Charlie Hebdo shootings, a few weeks after which Obama held a summit on “violent extremism,” as though one can be violently extreme about nothing in particular. There were similar reactions after San Bernardino, Paris, and Brussels.

The hearing Tuesday was meant to shine a spotlight on what can only be described as a systematic and willful blindness to the reality that Islamist ideology is closely linked to terrorism and radicalization. This blindness is a natural consequence of the Obama administration’s reckless national-security policy of “countering violent extremism,” or CVE. McCarthy describes the CVE as “delusionally forbid[ing] the conclusion that radical Islamic ideology has any causative effect on terrorist plotting.”

Among those who testified was Philip Haney, a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security, now turned whistleblower. He described ongoing retaliation while working at DHS for investigations he ran that put the dots together for international Islamist groups that also worked within the United States. Haney was ordered by his superiors to redact the use of Islamic terms in 876 documents, something for which none of the Democrats at the hearing expressed even the slightest bit of concern. He surmises that had his work been allowed to continue, DHS very well could have been alerted to the San Bernardino shooters.

As Long As We Keep Saying It, It Will Be True

In the hearing, Cruz repeatedly brought up Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter, who was known to have visited radical Islamic websites and been in email contact with a radical cleric. This is important because Hassan’s terrorist attack was one of the earliest occurrences of the Obama administration’s insistence that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, because the White House fundamentally rejects the notion that Islam inspires violence. The military officially labeled the Fort Hood shooting “workplace violence,” despite what Hassan himself claims it was.

Another major point raised in Tuesday’s hearing was the scrubbing of terms like “Islam” and “jihad” in DHS training materials over the past several years. This was compared with the 9/11 Commission report, where Islam-related words showed up more than 100 times. Notably, one of the panelists, Farhana Khera, is president of Muslim Advocates, the organization that requested in writing that these training materials be “purged” of these “bigoted” terms.

Not surprisingly, Khera spent much of her time testifying in the exact kind of doublespeak that the hearing was there to discuss. She said dangerous political rhetoric regarding Islam is teaching Americans to fear and hate their Muslim neighbors, despite other panelists arguing that Islam is not a monolithic religion and that there are multiple interpretations, including violent ones, and that these, not the peaceful ones, ought to be condemned. But Khera wasn’t listening. She said she was disturbed by what the other panelists said, calling it “garbage.”

La La La, I’m Not Listening

Panelists like Chris Gaubitz, a national security consultant at Understanding the Threat Consulting Firm, pointed out that we could kill every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, but without addressing the spread of sharia doctrine, Islamist terrorism won’t end. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, urged an honest conversation about Islamist terrorism, arguing that by refusing to talk about it we are infantilizing Muslims by supposing they are too fragile to hear a frank discussion about Islam. According to him, “to say that Islam has no problems is just as problematic as saying Islam and Muslims are the problem”

Several Democratic senators tried to make analogies to the KKK and Christianity, arguing that just like we don’t call white-supremacist groups “radical Christians” neither should we call individuals and groups who perpetrate terrorist acts in the name of Islam “radical Muslims.” Meanwhile, Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, spent much of his time discussing how the focus on Islamic terrorism in the last 15 years has blinded us to the serious problems in our country with radical right-wing terrorists.

During the Senate hearing, Turkey’s Ataturk airport was attacked by suicide bombers, killing dozens, and al-Qaeda released a special edition of their English-language publication Inspire Guide urging lone-wolf attackers to target the “Anglo-Saxon community” so their acts won’t be misinterpreted as “hate crimes” but rather what they really are: religiously motivated terrorist attacks. How painfully ironic that Islamist terrorists are so flummoxed by the liberal West’s insistence on ignoring their motivations that they had to make an official statement to clarify things.

In the end, the hearing appeared an effort in futility. It seemed as though half the room lives in an alternate reality. But only one of those realities is real. And only one of them will win out in the end.

M. G. Oprea is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.

***

Also see:

Denial Will Not Defeat Islamist Terror, Mr. President

O denial

Muslims, in fact, call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis–the groups’ own descriptions of themselves.

MEF, by Raymond Stock
Fox News
June 27, 2016

Before delivering his angry lecture June 14 about why he rejects the term, “radical Islam,” President Barack Obama assured us that the Islamic State (IS) is being driven steadily back in Syria and Iraq, and that our campaign against it is “firing on all cylinders.” The next day, his spokesman, Josh Earnest, bragged–despite what happened the previous weekend in Orlando–that the country “is safer than it was eight years ago.”

But then CIA chief John O. Brennan, speaking to the the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last Thursday, completely shattered those claims. And June 20, the Department of Justice censored the numerous pledges to IS and its leader in the transcript of a phone call made by the Orlando terrorist, Omar Mateen, only to quickly backtrack from this Stalinesque act of attempted memory erasure that would hinder our grasp of the killer’s actual motivation, after howls of Congressional and media protest.

IS (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh), Brennan said, is spreading farther and faster than ever before, has up to 5,000 to 8,000 soldiers in Libya, another 7,000 in Nigeria, and now has nearly as many in Iraq and Syria (18,000 to 22,000) as when our air campaign against it began two years ago. Moreover, it is setting up terror cells and sending its trained fighters all over the world, while inspiring attacks by so-called “lone wolves” everywhere.

Of course, there are no “lone wolves.” There are only individuals already joined in thought with the Islamist movement, who answer the standing call to launch attacks on their own at home if not abroad–as Omar Mateen evidently did in the Pulse nightclub the night of June 12/13. “You never walk alone” could well be the motto of the global jihad, which was very quick, as always, to claim him as a martyr.

Though Brennan, like Obama before him, nonetheless claimed the group was “on the defensive,” he depicted IS as an enemy aggressively on the march globally, even if it is losing some ground it had previously gained in Iraq and Syria. In other words, like so many other times in the past, one of his own high-level national security officials shows us that the president is not telling the truth–not to us and probably not to himself—about these issues.

IS is part of a wave of interrelated movements that have arisen out of the heart of Islamic societies worldwide.

Defending his refusal to name the enemy, Obama sniffed peevishly that “radical Islam” is a “talking point: it isn’t a strategy.” But the talking point is really Obama’s: all informed analysts of the problem know that IS is not an isolated “extremist” threat, but part of a wave of numerous interrelated movements that have arisen out of the heart, not merely the fringes, of Islamic societies worldwide—even if most Muslims do not support them.

And for all of our recent gains on the ground in Iraq and Syria, our brilliant assassination raids against IS leaders in the area, and the harm to its varied financial empire we are inflicting, it is we, not the terrorists, who are on the defensive. We, in fact, are losing overall, thanks to a strategy that denies the clear nature of the threat.

It is, after all, both blinding and enervating to fight an enemy you cannot or will not name. It is even more enervating to fail to commit the kind of military force necessary to cut out what Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has called the “parent tumor” of IS’s claimed caliphate in Syria and Iraq—which, if done early, could have halted the group’s catastrophic global metastasis in the past two years.

In his speech, Obama also insisted that the Orlando killer was simply a disturbed young man with no ties to outside groups, despite his allegiance to IS and his praise for other jihadis. And he repeated his earlier claim that Mateen was radicalized entirely by the Internet, when in fact he grew up in a pro-Taliban Afghan immigrant family and cheered the attacks of 9/11 while watching them on live TV.

Of course, as Obama said, mere use of the phrase would not change the war by itself. But it would radically change our strategic policy toward Islamism–a movement he himself has aided via the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, and by waging a half-hearted military struggle against other elements of the jihad, like IS and al-Qaeda (AQ). Not to mention his disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, which handsomely rewarded what the State Department has justrecertified as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism—while giving it a legal glide-path to building the bomb in a decade.

It would also end the “confusion,” as FBI Director James Comey put it in a media appearance of his own the same day, how to interpret terrorist acts like those in San Bernardino and Orlando. If a perpetrator pledges loyalty to multiple Islamist groups, that doesn’t raise questions about his or her motives. Rather, it means the killer correctly sees the jihad as one–despite internal quarreling such as between IS and AQ, or even between Shi’ite Iran and Sunni groups it sometimes fights and sometimes aids–something the current administration sadly (and willingly) fails to grasp.

For example, the Iranians (Shi’a) sometimes harbor and support AQ members (Sunnis), while fighting AQ in Syria. The Iranian regime not only calls for the unity of jihadi groups (both Sunni and Shi’a) in waging the global jihad against unbelief, but actually funds Sunni groups like Hamas and the MB, and arms and finances the fiercely anti-Shi’a Taliban, all for ideological and strategic reasons.

And they accept that help, also for ideological and strategic reasons. AQ and IS members worked together to launch attacks in France and Belgium. And while it is true that Mateen was an obviously unstable person, as Obama noted, that is one of the profiles of the ideal recruit–one who is already a bit marginalized and harbors general anti-social sentiments.

Worse, Obama says that using “radical Islam” (or any term that would link “extremism” with Islam)–words he has had scrubbed from FBI counterterror training manuals, and from the mouth of French President François Hollande in a video on the White House website) would mean we are declaring war on Islam as a whole. (The removal of these words brings to mind the unprecedented—and secret–excision of several minutes of a December 2, 2013 exchange about the Iran nuclear deal—which involves an Islamist power–between Fox News correspondent James Rosen and State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki from the department’s official video.)

Muslims call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis. So should we.

But nothing could be further from the truth: People can distinguish between radical Islam and the religion overall. Muslims, in fact, call these terrorists Islamists and jihadis–the groups’ own descriptions of themselves. The leaders of our three most consistent allies in the fight against IS—Egypt, Jordan and Afghanistan—have each spoken of the need to thoroughly reform—even “revolutionize,” as Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi has put it—mainstream Islam from within in order to stop the jihad’s appeal to young Muslims around the world. (Even in Europe, as shown here.)

In January this year, King Abdullah of Jordan spoke of the need to defeat IS from “inside Islam” (even while dismissing the it as an “outlaw,” and claiming it represents only “0.1 percent” of Muslims worldwide—which its huge popularityin online polls and websites obviously refutes).

Addressing a joint session of Congress in March 2015, Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani, while calling Islam a religion of peace, acknowledged that at present there is tremendous hatred raging inside its community today. “That hatred must be challenged and overcome from within the religion of Islam,” he affirmed.

In fact, IS is made up entirely of Muslims, bases itself on a sophisticated reading of much mainstream Islamic scholarship and a literal interpretation of its sacred texts, and is the fastest growing movement in modern Islamic history. If you add as well the other jihadi trends in both Sunni and Shi’i Islam, the numbers–while hard to measure accurately because of the fear of responding honestly to polls in Muslim countries—are surely formidable.

Obama also denounced as un-American Donald Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslims temporarily from entering the U.S. And indeed it would be both unconstitutional and impractical. Trump, consistently inconsistent, has since at times refined it to a more restricted temporary ban on immigrants and refugees from Muslim countries from which there is a higher risk of jihadis infiltrating their ranks—as IS has sworn to do, and even succeeded as shown in last November’s attacks in Paris.

Despite that chilling precedent, Obama has ignored the warning of the FBI, CIA and others that we cannot properly vet them. In spite of this, he has actually accelerated the rate of entry of Syrian refugees to the U.S. in the past few weeks.

Some of Trump’s statements have truly opened him to charges of bias, against a variety of groups. Yet this POTUS’ anger, as always, seems reserved entirely for the GOP, not for IS–one of the most barbaric organizations in history–which he invariably discusses with a tone of mild irritation or boredom.

That is the most striking thing of all: he has more genuine rage and resentment for his American political opponents than he ever shows publicly toward the enemies of his country.

Our president made this peculiar appearance to announce what is obviously yet again a wholly inadequate, prevaricating strategy, and to unload his pique at those who call out his denial of both terminological and military reality. Rather, he should have proved them wrong by declaring, “We are going to end the threat of the Islamic State by taking out their capital Raqqa in a combined air and ground campaign that begins tomorrow. And next we shall cut off the heads of the vast hydra of Islamist organizations wherever they are, without delay.”

Instead, he bragged about having made IS cut its salaries–while IS is still decapitating innocents at will. Along with the rest of the jihadi alliance against the West and the millions of Muslims who do not agree with them, they are a much greater threat to us all than they were eight years ago.

Raymond Stock, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum and Instructor of Arabic at Louisiana State University, spent twenty years in Egypt, and was deported by the Mubarak regime in 2010.

Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies

Lynch with OWhat keeps America from protecting itself against radical Islam?

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — June 25, 2016