Video: Bill Warner Speaks at ACT Cleveland 5 Dec 2016

Published on Dec 7, 2016 by KRoseVideo

From ACT For America – Cleveland, Ohio Chapter:
=======================================
“I am pleased to invite you to come and hear our next guest, Dr. Bill Warner. He is considered by CAIR to be one of the top Islamophobes in the country. Now consider the source, LOL!

Dr. Warner is a renowned national and international speaker on the topics of Islamic doctrine and history.

Dr. Warner will explain quite clearly how and why Mohammed’s success began with migration. The Islamic calendar is based on Mohammed’s migration, the Hijra. Islamic migration is the beginning of Sharia and Jihad.

Here’s more of Dr. Warner’s Bio:

Dr. Bill Warner has been a physicist, businessman and professor. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is the first person to use the scientific method to produce a Koran that can be easily understood.

Dr. Warner made the other two sacred texts of Islam, the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, and the Hadith, his Traditions, simple to read and understand. He has written a dozen books on Islam. His Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is an international best seller.

Dr. Warner developed the first self-study courses on Islam — The Foundations of Islam and a three level training-A Self-Study Course on Political Islam, that explains Islamic political doctrine.”
======================================
see: http://www.politicalislam.com

maxresdefault-11

Muslim Car Jihad Continues With 4 Soldiers Dead, 15 Wounded in Israel (VIDEO)

carjihad

Front Page, by Daniel Greenfield, January 8, 2017:

Muslim Car Jihad isn’t new. And it predates ISIS, but ISIS terrorists really seem to adore it. 

The terrorist who carried out the deadly truck ramming attack in Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon was apparently a supporter of Islamic State, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu made his comments at the scene of the attack, where he received a briefing along with Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman. Soon after visiting the site, he was scheduled to convene a meeting of the security cabinet.

Netanyahu said there may be a connection between this attack and similar attacks recently in France and Berlin. “We are fighting this plague, and will defeat it,” he said.

The terrorist, identified as Fadi al-Qanbar, came from the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Jebl Mukaber. Netanyahu announced that Jebl Mukaber has been cordoned off in light off the attack, and that “we are taking other actions that I will not detail here.”

All Islamic terror is connected by the Koran and the xenophobic supremacist impulse that underlies Muslim violence against non-Muslims.

Also at the briefing, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman charged that the truck-ramming attack was not fueled by the issue of Israeli settlements, rather by the mere fact that “we are Jews and we live here in Israel.”

The EU and Kerry disagree. But they, in some ways, have more in common with ISIS than the free world.

Also see:

Identifying the Threat

maxresdefault-1-868x488AIM, by Retired Adm. James A. Lyons

On 13 December 2016, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer received the prestigious Freedom Flame Award presented annually by the Center For Security Policy (CSP) for his unswerving commitment to freedom and democracy. The CSP is headed by Frank Gaffney, who has been a staunch voice in promoting freedom and democracy for the Western world, but also for Israel which finds itself in a sea of hostility.

Gaffney and the dedicated team of professionals at CSP, in their fight to protect our Constitution, have always put principle foremost in their efforts. This fact was recognized by Ambassador Dermer in his acceptance remarks. Separately, Ambassador Dermer was criticized by the left-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for accepting the award because the SPLC considers Gaffney and the CSP to be anti-Muslim.

What SPLC principally objects to is the CSP’s exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) penetration in all of our government agencies including the White House. This should be of great concern to all Americans since the MB creed is to destroy America from within (Civilization Jihad) by our own miserable hands and replace our Constitution with the seventh century draconian Islamic “Shariah Law.” This point is not debatable, since facts supporting this claim were introduced as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial in 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Two principal MB front groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were designated (among others) as un-indicated co-conspirators in that trial. The Obama White House frequently uses these two MB front groups to deflect any linkage of Islam to terrorist acts.

Ambassador Dermer then went on to address how, in his view, the main terrorist threat we face today, what he called is “militant Islam.” This was more than surprising as it implies that there is some “non-militant” or “moderate” version of Islam. While it is true that all Muslims do not adhere to the scriptures in the Quran, there is only one Islam; one doctrine; one Islamic law (Shariah); and one scripture–the Quran!

Muslims do not consider Islam a religion but more “a complete way of life.” Furthermore, according to that doctrine, the law and scriptures in the Quran, as affirmed by all senior scholars of Islam since the 10th century, jihad (warfare against non-Muslims per Islamic law) is obligatory for all Muslims. This is true for all time until the world is dominated by Allah (Q 8:39).

Many Western leaders have failed to comprehend the supremacist hostility of Islamic doctrine and are delusional to the point that they believe that there is some version of Islam that can co-exist with Western values. They are quick to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists. True, Muslims are individuals and some will be more devout or faithful or obedient than other Muslims. But that doesn’t matter because it has no bearing whatsoever on the core doctrine of Islam which includes the obligation to support jihad. Therefore, even though individual Muslims may be fine upstanding human beings, friendly, and embracing our culture, that has no bearing on the core principles of Islam.

All four major schools of Sunni Islam and the principal Shiite one are in agreement about all major elements of Shariah, including death for adultery, apostasy, homosexuality and sometimes slander. They also all agree on the commitment to jihad, Jew-hatred and Islamic supremacism. Jihad on the part of both Sunnis and Shiites has continued non-stop since Muhammad led the migration (hijra) to Medina in 622 A.D. Therefore, what we are witnessing today in Europe and here in the U.S. is nothing more than the continuation of the jihad launched by Muhammad following the hijra. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1838, “Jihad, holy war, is an obligation for all believers….The state of war is the natural state with regard to the infidel….These doctrines of which the practical outcome is obvious are found on every page and in almost every word of the Koran….The violent tendencies of the Koran are so striking that I cannot understand how any man with good sense could miss them.” Amen! Jihad is not something unique to the 20th or 21st century. It has only been suppressed when confronted resolutely by both political and military force.

While President al-Sisi of Egypt, speaking before all the leading Sunni clerics at al-Azhar University, called for a reformation of Islam on 1 January 2015, unfortunately, his call has no standing with the leading Sunni clerics. He is viewed by them as a political/military leader, not a scholar or jurist of Islam. In fact, it may be said that Islam already has been through three major “Reformations”: these were led by the 1st Caliph Abu Bakr in the Ridda—or Apostasy—wars; Ibn Wahhab in the 1700’s; and now the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose name tells you whom it is he emulates. These reformations have been more in the sense of “purification and returning to Mohammad’s true intent” than making Islam compatible with Western values.

Until it is understood by Western leaders that Islam is a totalitarian ideology bent on world domination, masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in defeating this threat. The current migrations to America and Europe must not only be stopped but reversed. Islam cannot coexist with Western values and must be confronted resolutely, both politically and militarily.

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. Lyons is a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi.

The Trump Administration Should Treat Islamists Like The Mafia

9541686914_d48e1acc23_o-1024x680The analogue is so close that, reading public statements from the early 1970s and replacing ‘Italian’ with ‘Muslim,’ you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The Federalist, by David Reaboi and Kyle Shideler, January 2, 2017:

Thousands attend their rallies, claiming widespread discrimination. They wrap themselves in displays of “interfaith” cooperation. National, state, and local officials pay them heed. Words that “offend” them are removed from movies, newscasts, and even official government reports. All the while, the men who lead this organization have appeared extensively on FBI wiretaps and are known to federal law enforcement to be involved in a national criminal conspiracy.

You could be forgiven for thinking this describes the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders—a group the FBI, federal prosecutors and a federal judge have all affirmed supported the designated terrorist group, Hamas.

But no. The year is 1971, and the pressure group is the Italian American Civil Rights League (IACRL). Its founder, Joe Colombo, is known to federal law enforcement as the head of New York’s Colombo crime family, one of the infamous “Five Families” of the Cosa Nostra. Its most high-profile spokesman is his son, Anthony, who, for more than 30 years would deny the Mafia existed and rail against dark government conspiracies targeting Italian-Americans.

You Fight Crime, You Fight Italians?

It may seem like a punch line now but, in the 1970s, the effort by gangsters to don the mantle of activists and wrap themselves the flag of “civil rights” was taken semi-seriously. Many prominent Italian-American elites (prominenti in Italian) endorsed the call, throwing their influence behind the grievance-mongering. As scholar Joseph Sciorra of the Italian American Review describes,

A blurring occurred in which the mobbed-up League was conflated in the popular imagination with civic-minded spokespeople, thus diminishing the latter’s seemingly altruistic efforts (Kenna 2007, 193). But as historian Philip V. Cannistraro notes, “the prominenti’s constant preoccupation with the Mafia issue” (2005, 83), dating to the early 1930s when newspaper owner Generoso Pope launched an anti-defamation campaign against cinematic depictions of mafiosi, has historically been a self-serving agenda. ‘The dual focus of prominentismo has always been to promote the separate, self-aggrandizing interest of their own particular elite rather than the community as a whole, and to stress what Italian Americans are not’ (Cannistraro 2005, 84). It is no surprise, then, as Fred Gardaphé observes, that ‘more unified acts by Italian Americans have been launched against fictional portrayal of the mafia than ever were mounted against real mafiosi in the United States’ (2015, 365).

The obvious parallel is to the tens of thousands of Muslim-Americans CAIR enlists to bolster crowds condemning “Islamophobia” and any discussion of Islamic terrorism, but offer at best anemic support for pro forma denunciations of terrorism. As The Federalist’s Sean Davis has noted, the analogue between the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Italian American Civil Rights League is so close that, reading the latter’s public statements from the early 1970s and replacing “Italian” with “Muslim,” you’d be hard-pressed to spot the incongruence.

The way Sciorra described “the mobbed-up League” and its efforts could be an apt descriptor for CAIR, a group founded and run by ex-Islamic Association for Palestine staffers that has had more than one of its employees convicted of terror-related criminal activity. As Sciorra explained, while the crowd at the league’s rallies wore pins discussing their Italian pride, the leadership had more strategic concerns. They focused on attacking federal law enforcement and purposefully conflating all investigation of Mafia criminal activities with discrimination against the large Italian-American community.

The only way to end this perceived “discrimination,” the league insisted, was for the government and media to change its ways; not only must it stop using the word “Mafia,” it must deny that any such criminal conspiracy existed. And they did. The Department of Justice adhered to federal regulations, which prohibited use of the word. “There is nothing to be gained by using these terms,” U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell wrote, “except to give gratuitous offense” to “many good Americans of Italian-American descent.” The New York State Police had a similar rule. The word “Mafia” was deleted from the script of “The Godfather” at the behest of Colombo’s league.

Once, the Media Reported These Connections

Not everyone fell for it, including among the Italian-American community. New York state Sen. John Marchi warned that Italian-Americans had “been had” by their endorsement of Colombo’s Italian American Civil Rights League, only to be denounced as a “self-loathing Italian.” One wonders if Marchi didn’t feel then much the way Zhudi Jasser of American Islamic Forum for Democracy must feel now as he warns the American people about the machinations of Islamist groups, only to be denounced as an “Islamophobe” by known terror conspirators.

In the early 1970s, the media was a lot more skeptical of these obvious propaganda efforts, as well. At the end of a syndicated 1971 article about the League’s alliance with the Jewish Defense League, the Jewish Telegraph Agency slips in the following inconvenient information for context, complete with parentheses:

(Joseph Colombo, president of the League, faces a Federal hearing on April 21st on charges of conducting a gambling business. He has also just been convicted in the Manhattan State Court on a perjury charge and was recently arrested for allegedly receiving stolen goods from a robbery of the Long Island Jewelry Exchange in Mineola.)

The JTA obviously thought it was important to describe for its readers the provenance of the league’s complaint, as well as its unsavory record. Of course, one would wait in vain today for a mainstream media outlet to describe CAIR’s troublesome history with the same forthrightness.

In fact, despite U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis ruling that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR [and other Islamist groups] with Hamas,” none of the nearly 700 articles the New York Times has run about the group has mentioned it. Even more egregiously, the Times covered CAIR’s 2007 efforts to break free of its designation as an unindicted coconspirator in the largest terror finance trial in American history, yet neglected to cover the 2009 rejection of the Islamist group’s appeal.

What It Takes to Fight International Leagues of Terror

The parallels between the League’s censorship efforts in the ‘70s and CAIR’s efforts today aren’t lost on Rudy Giuliani, and for good reason. In 1983, when he was U.S. attorney, Giuliani launched his successful prosecutions against the New York crime families. One of his first acts was to violate the prior decade’s DOJ regulations and say the forbidden word “Mafia.” In a piece for the Wall Street Journal last year, Giuliani made an apt comparison between the battle for accurate vocabulary in both the fight with the mob and with Islamic terrorists.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

As Giuliani argued, the similarities go beyond mere forbidden words and get at the heart of what it takes to prevail against both the Cosa Nostra and Islamic jihadists. In a recent piece for the Claremont Review of Books, we argued for a new law enforcement approach to dealing with Islamist movements, of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the most consequential, that draws explicitly on efforts to defeat the Mafia:

Instead of approaching Brotherhood members and organizations as respected community leaders for outreach purposes either at home or abroad, the primary goal should be to acquire the intelligence needed to disrupt terror finance or prevent indoctrination. If necessary, officials can use the possibility of prosecution under the Muslim Brotherhood designation to secure cooperation, which would be similar to the way informants are treated when approaching other conspirators, such as crime organizations.

Since Giuliani crippled the New York mob in the 1980s, Colombo’s League and its campaign to ban the word “Mafia” seems more like a quaint throwback to the 1970s than a threat to the integrity of organized crime investigations. Perhaps the Trump administration will be able to accomplish the same for groups like CAIR, when the inappropriate deference, and White House meetings, become a thing of the past.

Of course, some of the league’s bitter holdouts will always remain. Anthony Colombo continues to write on his mob boss father, insisting the FBI had him killed to halt his civic accomplishments. Even more colorfully, Father Louis Gigante—brother to famed Genovese Mafia Boss Vincent “the Chin” Gigante and a well-known Bronx community organizer—holds up mobsters as exemplars for civic minded Americans, in just the way Islamist groups sing the praises of convicted terror financiers.

For most Americans of all ethnic groups, though, government efforts to act against the Mafia are considered appropriate rather than discriminatory. No serious person insists that admitting Mafiosi were largely Italian-Americans is the same as saying all Italian-Americans are mobsters. The same can and must be done for Islamic terrorism.

David Reaboi is a national security consultant and a Claremont fellow. Kyle Shideler is director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

ISIS Threat in Washington, DC

dcis

Unconstrained Analytics, December 29, 2016:

UA’s Stephen Coughlin and Patrick Poole joined Congressman Louie Gohmert, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Hannity radio show, to discuss the growing evidence that there is an ISIS threat living right outside of our nation’s capitol as well as what needs to be done to effectively combat this threat.

Related:

Islamic State arrests reveal jihadi threat near seat of U.S. government (Washington Times)

Law enforcement agencies have arrested nine Northern Virginia residents on charges of aiding the Islamic State since the terrorist group rose to power in Syria and Iraq in 2014 and launched social media propaganda to attract followers, a government message to police states. . .

. . . Of the nine Northern Virginians who were arrested, all but one were in their teens and early 20s. They included a police officer, a Starbucks barista, Army soldiers, bankers and a cabdriver. Four of the nine graduated from Northern Virginia high schools, one with honors. Two attended Northern Virginia Community College.

In other words, all of them appeared to have opportunities via public education to become successful Americans but instead were charged with what amounted to a devotion to violent jihad.

They are suspected of conducting terrorism planning through Twitter, Facebook, Skype, WhatsApp and other platforms and apps, as well as on prepaid phones. . . . (read all)

2016: A TURNING POINT FOR EUROPE?

showimage-ashx__1

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Bawer, December 21, 2016:

For Western Europe, 2016 began with an apocalyptic frenzy, a nightmarish vision of its possible future – namely, an avalanche of brutal sexual assaults, over a thousand of them, committed on New Year’s Eve by savage Muslim gangs in the streets and squares of Cologne and several other major German cities.

The horrific events of New Year’s Eve didn’t happen out of the blue, of course. For over a generation, thanks to irresponsible immigration policies that had never been submitted for approval to any electorate, as well as to straightforward demographic realities, Western Europe had been steadily Islamized. At first in a few large cities and eventually even in small, remote towns, the presence of Islam became more and more visible. Over time, government officials who had made these developments possible, and who had cut back their own citizens’ welfare-state entitlements in order to feed, clothe, and house newly arrived Muslims, were rewarded not with the gratitude and assimilation they had expected but with the exact opposite. Steadily, Muslim communities developed into crime-ridden, sharia-governed enclaves, increasingly explicit in their hostility to infidels, increasingly aggressive in their rejection of the values of their host cultures, and increasingly insistent on their legal independence from secular authorities. Forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and honor killing became European problems. Hijab proliferated, then (in some places at least) niqab. And authorities reacted to all of it with a feckless passivity.

Along with the quotidian reality of stealth jihad came jihad of the more headline-grabbing sort: terrorism. Only months after 9/11, the Netherlands experienced the coldblooded murder of politician Pim Fortuyn, a vocal critic of Muslim immigration and leading prime ministerial candidate; in 2004, journalist Theo van Gogh, who had just released a documentary about Islam’s treatment of women, was butchered in broad daylight on an Amsterdam street. In 2006, Muslims around the world rioted, committed major acts of vandalism, and massacred dozens in response to a Danish newspaper’s publication of cartoons of their prophet. Bombs took 191 lives in and around Madrid’s Atocha railway station in 2004 and 52 lives in London in 2005; last year saw the assassination of 12 people at the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Each time, mainstream media and public officials made haste to insist that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, to reaffirm their dedication to the policies that made this bloodshed possible, and to shower Europe’s Muslims with inane, unmerited praise. Europeans didn’t have to be familiar with Islamic theology to understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn’t need to know the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to would-be conquerors.

These elites inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they’d seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials doubled down.

And then came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe’s most powerful leader, Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be neither Syrians nor refugees. Naive do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November 13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year’s Eve carnage. Brussels was hit in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned down Russia’s ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.” This is not a joke.)

The good news is that this year’s spikes in out-of-control immigration and in jihadist terror appear to have been accompanied – at last – by an equivalent spike in outrage. Western Europeans’ fury over the relentless rise of Islam in their midst – and at the complicity, and complacency, of their leaders – may finally have reached a tipping point. On June 23, defying the counsel (and upending the predictions) of virtually the entire U.K. political, cultural, business, ecclesiastical, academic, and media elite, the people of Britain voted to quit the EU, reinstate their national borders, and establish proper immigration controls – an act that voters in several other EU countries now yearn to replicate. This month, not long after Donald Trump won an equally stunning triumph against his own nation’s see-no-evil establishment, a referendum in Italy rejected an attempted power grab by their insouciant elites.

The winds are shifting. Merkel’s approval ratings have plummeted, raising the odds that her party will go down to defeat in next year’s parliamentary elections, which will probably be held in September. Meanwhile, in France, presidential hopeful and outspoken Islam critic Marine Le Pen’s numbers are rising in the run-up to that country’s April elections. Since a kangaroo court declared him guilty of anti-Islamic hate speech on December 9, Geert Wilders, the already highly popular head of the Netherlands’ Freedom Party, has won even more support. I gave a talk in Rome a few days after Trump’s win, and was surprised when several members of the audience, including a history professor, came up to me afterwards and voiced strong pro-Trump sympathies. From their perspective, the Donald had come along just in the nick of time, giving the entire West a desperately needed jolt of hope. Their sentiment: we may win this one after all.

In November 1942, after British forces defeated General Ernst Rommel in the Second Battle of El Alamein, bringing the Allies their first major victory in World War II, Winston Churchill famously said: “This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it may be the end of the beginning.” In these closing days of 2016, it can feel, very much as it did in late 1942, as if the effort by at least some freedom-loving Europeans to push back the tide of tyranny – an effort that for many years seemed quixotic – is finally making some headway. Is this the end of the beginning? We can hope so. But it’ll take more than hope to win this struggle. Among other things, it’ll take a Churchill. Preferably a few of them.

Media mum on jihadists’ birthday gift to Muhammad: Bloodshed, mayhem, and death

oneinchpunch | Shutterstock

oneinchpunch | Shutterstock

Conservative Review, by Jordan Schachtel, December 12, 2016

With the birthday of Islam’s founding father, Muhammad, came a massive global campaign of terror this weekend. From Africa to the Middle East, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed within the short weekend window.

Ignored by the media reports on the terror wave, the vast majority of news outlet did not mention the fact that the bombing attacks coincided and appeared to ramp up on the birthday of Islam’s holiest figure.

Egypt

An explosion tore through the Coptic church of St. Peter and St. Paul during Sunday morning mass in Cairo. At least 25 people died, and 49 (many of them women and children) wounded.

The Coptic Orthodox Church said in a statement:

“As we are bereaved by this violence and terrorism that attacks worshipers, we pray for these martyrs and for the wounded. The Egyptian church stresses on persevering national unity that keeps all Egyptians on Egypt’s blessed land.”

Coptic Christians account for about 10 percent of Egypt’s 90-million population. The ethno-religious minority group has faced severe persecution by the Muslim-majority population.

A 22-year-old suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest inside the church, according to a statement from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, who has engaged in a years-long campaign to quell the influence of Islamic extremists in his country.

“Entire Christian communities have been assaulted by mobs of Muslim radicals on four separate occasions in 2016 because there was a rumor that a church was being constructed. Now, we have witnessed one of the worst assaults on Egypt’s Christian community in years,” commented William Stark of International Christian Concern, a group that documents Christian persecution worldwide.

Nigeria

Also on Sunday, two young girls — who appeared no older than 7 or 8 years old, per eyewitness accounts — detonated suicide vests at a crowded market in northeastern Nigeria, wounding 17. The area is known as a stronghold for members of the ISIS-affiliated Boko Haram terrorist group, which officials are blaming for the attack.

This was preceded by another devastating suicide attack in northeastern Nigeria Friday. At least 45 people were killed and at least 33 wounded in the nearly identical operation.

Per the BBC, “The two bombers, who were ‘disguised as customers, detonated their suicide belts at the section of the market selling grain and second-hand clothing,’ local government official Yusuf Muhammad told AFP.”

Syria

The sectarian civil war continued between forces loyal to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and opposition militants, with dozens of civilians killed from government airstrikes. About a thousand civilians have been killed in the last month alone, as opposing sides continue to battle for eastern Aleppo.

Also on Sunday, Islamic State jihadis recaptured the ancient city of Palmyra, scoring a major advance after a year of setbacks in Syria and neighboring Iraq, the AP reported.

Somalia

At least 16 people died Sunday when a suicide truck bomb exploded outside of the sea port in Mogadishu, which wounded another 48, according to the director of Mogadishu’s emergency services.

Al Shabaab, an African militant group that is closely associated with al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the deadly attack.

“The bomber targeted a civilian area, there were porters and other small scale traders in the area when the blast occurred,” a senior police official told AFP.

Yemen

A suicide bomber self-detonated at a military camp near the city’s international airport Saturday, killing 35 Yemeni soldiers and wounding another 50. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack.

As the AFP notes, “ISIL and its militant rival Al Qaeda have taken advantage of a conflict between the government and the Houthi rebels, who control the capital Sanaa, to bolster their presence across much of the south.”

Turkey

Two bomb blasts shook up the nearby Istanbul soccer stadium late Saturday night, killing at least 44 people and injuring hundreds more. The first blast came via a detonated car bomb, while the second explosion was carried out by a suicide bomber shortly thereafter.

The attack appeared to be directed at police officers, as 30 officers are counted among the victims. The Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, an offshoot of the Kurdish Worker’s Party (a far-left Kurdish terror organization) claimed responsibility.

In total, the weekend’s Islamic terror wave took hundreds of lives and wounded countless more. The media, however, seem to completely ignore even the possibility that some of these attacks may be in connection and birthday commemoration of Islam’s holy prophet Muhammad.

Also see:

Jihad Continues to Escalate in the Philippines

pzabu29e_2xTerror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton, November 13, 2016:

We’ve been covering the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines for years now. Along with Thailand, it is one of the two major Islamic insurgencies of which people in the West are mostly unaware.

Since the Jihadist group Abu Sayyaf pledged allegiance to the Islamic State back in 2014, their operations have escalated, at the very least suggesting that funding sources have ramped up their support for the Jihad in the Philippines…

https://terrortrendsbulletin.com/2015/11/26/report-islamic-state-affiliate-abu-sayyaf-expanding-operations/

mainx_adn_0505_abusayyafgrouppdf

The latest incident involves the hostage taking of a half dozen Vietnamese sailors from the high seas near the Philippines, part of Abu Sayyaf’s ongoing operations to both terrorize and raise money through ransom…

Suspected Abu Sayyaf militants attacked a Vietnamese cargo ship on Friday, kidnapping the captain and five of its crew members near the southern Philippine island of Basilan.

Approximately 10 gunmen launched a dawn attack on the MV Royal 16, boarding the vessel and fleeing with their captives in speedboats, according to regional military spokesman Major Filemon Tan. Their fate and current status remain unknown.

The ship was heading for Davao City but was stopped near the southern heartland of the Abu Sayyaf militant group, which has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State militant group (ISIS). Vietnam is yet to comment on their kidnap.

http://europe.newsweek.com/gunmen-philippines-kidnap-six-vietnamese-sailors-near-abu-sayyaf-heartland-519985

Also see:

President Trump: Now What?

tr

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, November 10, 2016:

A key element of Donald Trump’s popularity as a presidential candidate was his willingness to stake out policy positions that made establishment politicians cower in fear. His success as President will depend upon his willingness to do the same thing. Among his most important tasks will be to take the hard steps necessary to establish a sane and realistic stance for the United States toward the global jihad threat. To do that, he should implement measures such as these:

[1] Suspend (as promised) immigration from nations that are hotbeds of jihad terror activity.

While excoriated as “racist,” this proposal is a simple matter of national security. No one who opposed Trump’s proposal ever offered an alternative way to keep jihadis out of the country. (Of course, the problem of those who learn jihad inside the U.S. is also acute, and must be addressed). Some glibly opined that Trump should ban “Islamists,” not Muslims as a whole, yet never suggested a reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from ordinary Muslims. Indeed, the Islamic State has instructed its operatives to appear secular — to avoid ostentatious displays of Islamic piety that might arouse suspicions of “radicalization.” Can America really afford the national security risk of importing whole Muslim communities from Iraq and Somalia, as is happening now, without even making any serious attempt to screen out potential jihadists?

[2] Tell the truth about Islamic jihad and supremacism.

Ever since 2011, it has been official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and is now head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups demanded that the task force “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and moreto ensure that all that law enforcement officials would learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were. Today this entrenched policy of the U.S. government ensures that all too many jihadists simply cannot be identified as risks, since the administration is bound as a matter of policy to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Trump must reverse that. He has spoken about the threat from “radical Islamic terrorism” on the campaign trail; he must follow through as President and remove the prohibitions on allowing agents to study and understand the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat.

[3] Remove all those linked with the Muslim Brotherhood from any position of responsibility, and end all government agencies’ interaction with groups linked with Hamas.

This shouldn’t even have to be said, but there has been evidence of Muslim Brotherhood operatives having influence in the U.S. government back to 2012, when Representative Michele Bachmann called for an investigation of that infiltration. It’s high time that investigation was actually conducted.

[4] Enforce existing laws.

Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that “whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.”

It may be that the proviso in this statute that the overthrow of the government must be planned as taking place by “force and violence” may prevent this law from being applied against Muslim Brotherhood groups that are intent on subverting America from within. Legal minds should study that issue. But surely – somehow — working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood has stated its own strategic goal for America, ought to be a prosecutable offense.

[5] Reclassify Muslim organizations.

The U.S. government should call upon Islamic advocacy groups in this country to renounce, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia. This renunciation should be backed up with transparent action to teach in mosques and Islamic schools against this intention, and against the elements of Sharia that contradict American freedoms. Those that refuse to do this, or are found to be teaching these aspects of Sharia, should be immediately closed and prosecuted.

[6] Reconfigure our international alliances.

Such that no state that oppresses women or non-Muslims in accord with Sharia provisions gets a penny of American aid, or is considered a U.S. ally.

The swamp needs draining indeed. These measures, if adopted, would go a long way toward putting the U.S. back on dry land.

New Center Monograph Warns Of ‘Gateway’ Group For Violent Jihadists: Tablighi Jama’at

photoshop-ccscreensnapz002Center for Security Policy, October 26, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Fifteen years after 9/11, one reality should be self-evident: No matter how many jihadists are killed as a result of U.S. and allied kinetic actions, our Islamic supremacist enemies’ ranks seem to be continuously replenished by an inexhaustible pipeline. While it is undeniable that most jihadis are nurtured in Muslim communities, families, madrassas, and mosques, the final indoctrination that propels an Islamic terrorist on the pathway to mayhem often takes place among Muslim scholars especially dedicated to the teaching and training of those showing the most promise in devotion to the faith.

Preeminent among such incubators of indoctrination is a global Islamic missionary and revival movement known as Tablighi Jama’at (TJ). Founded in the 20th Century on the Asian subcontinent, TJ claims more than 70 million followers in 80 countries around the world. The group strictly enforces a no-violence policy among its missionary membership.

Those imbued with Tablighi Jama’at’s adherence to the jihadist doctrine of Sharia, however, are ripe for recruitment by groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that – in light of Mohammed’s example and the teachings of Islam’s sacred texts – have no such compunction against the use of terrifying force. Indeed, TJ-affiliated members, students, teachers and mosques have been at least loosely-connected to a number of U.S. terror attacks, including in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida in 2016.

In this video, the Center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez, who serves as the editor-in-chief of the “Terror Jihad” collection and its companion, the “Civilization Jihad Readers Series,” introduces the Center’s new monograph

If the terrorist pipeline to which Tablighi Jama’at contributes is ever to be severed, it is imperative that U.S. policy-makers and the American people understand the contribution this ostensibly “non-violent” missionary group makes at the intersection of Islamic indoctrination and jihadist terror. To that end, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the second monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series,” Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad, by Ilana Freedman.

This publication, like Freedman’s first in the series, Jihad! The Threat of ISIS in America, brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and solid analysis to help explain how it is that indoctrination in the Islamic canon can and does all too often lead to an absolute conviction of Islamic supremacism, and thence to violence.

In unveiling this new product, the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, observed:

For far too long, the West has given a pass to Tablighi Jama’ati missionaries, on the theory that – like the Muslim Brotherhood – their ostensibly non-violent practice of Islamic supremacism poses no threat to our civilization and security. Ilana Freedman powerfully debunks this theory, exposing the dangers associated with it and making the case for treating TJ as the toxic enabler of jihad that it is, both elsewhere and here.

 Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format: gatewaytojihad

Islam’s Will to Power

ds_1

An Interview with Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim.

Front Page Magazine, by October 21, 2016

Reprinted from Linformale.eu.

Of Egyptian Coptic parents and fluent in Arabic, Raymond Ibrahim is among those scholars and commentators who, like Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, is not afraid of calling a spade a spade. In this times of ours poisoned by politically correctness it comes like a breath of fresh air.

He will not talk of Islam as “the religion of peace” pretending that it is something that it never was. On the contrary, he will emphasize that contemporary jihadists just follow a strict application of the Koran, much alike the Protestant Reformers with their concept of sola scriptura (scripture by itself). The main difference is that the latter usually do not make themselves explode, or behead “infidels” or are committed to a permanent strife with the West to subjugate it.

The reason for this is that in the Koran, jihad is prescriptive and Mohammed, the perfect example for every Muslim, was  a prophet but also a warlord.

A regular contributor to the David Horowitz Freedom Center and previously associate director of The Middle East Forum, Raymond Ibrahim is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians and editor of the seminal The Al Qaeda Reader: The Essential Texts of Osama Bin Laden’s Terrorist Organization.

He has kindly accepted to answer our questions.

The first issue I would like to address is the widespread notion that ISIS is the facto a product of the U.S.A intervention in Iraq. The implication is very clear. If the U.S.A wouldn’t have invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS around. How would you comment on this?

Facts are facts.  Before the US invaded, Saddam Hussein was renowned for suppressing Islamist movements.  Indeed, one of the reasons for his later human rights abusing reputation was that he was brutally stomping out the jihadis, a label Western media regular omit when talking about secular Arab dictators using brutal means, such as Assad and his efforts against jihadis.  A decade after Saddam was ousted, killed, and the U.S. proclaimed victory for having brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq, all we have to show is the emergence of ISIS, which, when it comes to human rights abuses, makes Saddam look like Santa Claus.

I usually look to the situation of Christian minorities in Muslim countries to understand the nature of those who rule.  Under Saddam, they and their churches were protected; the year America brought “freedom and democracy” to Iraq, Christians were savagely persecuted and dozens of their churches bombed.   Incidentally, it’s not just in Iraq that American intervention gave rise to ISIS.  Libya and Syria are also part of ISIS’ caliphate, again, thanks to the U.S. paving the way by ousting Gaddafi and trying to oust Assad.  I don’t claim to know the reason behind this phenomenon, but the facts speak for themselves: where the U.S. ousts secular Arab strongmen—whose human rights abuses were often in the context of fighting even worse human rights abusing jihadis—ISIS follows.

Anti-Americanism is still strong among the left both in Europe and in the States. The likes of people like Noam Chomsky have spread the notion that the U.S.A is evil incarnate together with Israel viewed as its proxy in the Middle East. Which are the main factors, according to you, behind this attitude?

Ultimately, I believe these views are based less on objective facts and more on subjective distortions of history.  The mainstream view today is that, at least historically, white, Christian men are the source of all evil on planet earth;  therefore, the least they can do by way of reparations is to be passive while the Muslim and other third worlds experience their growing pangs—which manifest themselves as atrocities against non-Muslims, including Westerners.  So whenever the US or Israel do anything for their interest and security that would be deemed absolutely normal and standard for other, especially non-Western nations, the left cries foul, racism, etc.

The apologists of Islam tells us that Islam is very much part of the West as it helped shaping our culture with its innovations when it was still an empire. Here in Italy a renowned historian, Franco Cardini, recently said that “Islam is at the base of modernity”. What is your personal view?

This view is just another example of how the true history of Islam and Europe has been so thoroughly distorted and warped in a way to glorify Islam and humble formerly Christian Europe.  Reality and history—as recorded by Islam’s most renowned historians—has a very different tale to tell, one that was known by the average European child but which is now “taboo” to acknowledge: war—or jihad—on Europe is the true history of Islam and the West.  Consider some facts for a moment: A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia.  Two-thirds of what was then Christendom was permanently conquered and much of its population put to the sword and/or pressured to convert, so that almost no one today realizes that Syria, Egypt, and all of North Africa were once the centers of Christianity.  Then it was Europe’s turn.  Among other nations and territories that were attacked and/or came under Muslim domination are, to give them their modern names in no particular order,: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Sicily, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Greece, Russia, Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Lithuania, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, Croatia, etc.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 600 years later, in 1453, Christendom’s other great basilica, Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.  The few European regions that escaped direct Islamic occupation due to their northwest remoteness include Great Britain, Scandinavia, and Germany.  That, of course, does not mean that they were not attacked by Islam. Indeed, in the furthest northwest of Europe, in Iceland, Christians used to pray that God save them from the “terror of the Turk.” As late as 1627 Muslim corsairs raided the Christian island seizing four hundred captives, selling them in the slave markets of Algiers.  Nor did America escape.  A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs.  The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim’s “right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners.”  In short, for roughly one millennium—punctuated by a Crusader-rebuttal that the modern West is obsessed with demonizing—Islam daily posed an existential threat to Christian Europe and by extension Western civilization.  In this context, what use is there in highlighting aberrations?   Even that one peripheral exception that so many Western academics tried to make the rule—Islamic Spain—has recently been debunked as a fraud in Darío Fernández-Morera’s The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise.

khalid_ibn_al-waleed_battle_warrior_islam_sword_of_allah

Islam presents itself as the true and definitive religion of humanity. Judaism and Christianity in the Islamic view are seen as deeply defective and corrupted. As a matter of fact for Islam, the Muslim prophet Jesus will come on Judgement Day to destroy all the crosses and expose the falsehood of Christianity itself. Notwithstanding this, the Pope keeps calling Islam a religion of peace and presents it only in a very favorable light. According to you it is just political prudence or something else?

This pope sees himself as a diplomat and politician, not a spiritual leader, and certainly not as a defender of Christians.  More’s the pity since of all Europeans, historically it was the Catholic popes who most understood the dangers of Islam—physical and spiritual—especially to fellow Christians. Yet he staunchly refuses to associate Islam with violence.  Even when a journalist asked him if the recently slaughtered 85-year-old French priest Fr. Jacques was “killed in the name of Islam,” Francis adamantly disagreed; he argued that he hears of Christians committing violence every day in Italy: “this one who has murdered his girlfriend, another who has murdered the mother-in-law… and these are baptized Catholics! There are violent Catholics!  If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence.”  Apparently for Pope Francis, violence done in accordance with Allah’s commandments is no more troubling than violence done in contradiction of the Judeo-Christian God’s commandments.

Papa Francesco in viaggio in Turchia

By this perverse logic, if we hold Islam accountable, so must we hold Christianity accountable—regardless of the fact that Islam does justify violence while Christianity condemns it.  And when he met with the grieving relatives and survivors of France’s Bastille Day attack—another Islamic attack that claimed the lives of 86 and injured hundreds—he told them: “We need to start a sincere dialogue and have fraternal relations between everybody, especially those who believe in a sole God who is merciful,” a reference to monotheistic Muslims.  He added that this was “an urgent priority….  We can only respond to the Devil’s attacks with God’s works which are forgiveness, love and respect for the other, even if they are different.” This is certainly a different approach than that of his courageous namesake.  Its also futile vis-a-vis Islam and will only be taken advantage of.  How does one have “fraternal relations” with adherents of a religion that calls on them to hate all non-Muslims, including  family members and wives?  Even Koran 60:4 calls on Muslims to have “eternal hate” for all non-Muslims.

Do you think that there is any chance that Islam can accommodate with Western values, and if this is possible on what grounds?

For Islam to accommodate Western values it would first have to cease being Islam.  Countless forms of behavior that directly contradict Western values are called for in the Koran and/or hadith, and the ulema, are agreed to them: death to apostates and blasphemers, subjugation of Muslim women, sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women, polygamy, child-marriage, ban on and destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and scriptures, and enmity for non-Muslims—are all no less Islamic than are prayer and fasting.

Even Islamic State atrocities—such as triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and smiling while posing with their decapitated heads—find support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.  To fully appreciate how much of Islam directly contradicts Western values, consider the findings of one Arabic language article by Dr. Ahmed Ibrahim Khadr.  It lists a number of things that mainstream Muslims support even though they directly contradict Western values.  These include (unsurprisingly): demands for a caliphate that rules according to Sharia and expands into “infidel” territory through jihad; death for anyone vocally critical of Islam or Muhammad; persecution of Muslims who try to leave Islam; rejection of equality for Christians and Jews in a Muslim state; rejection of equality for women with men; and so forth (read entire article).

Anyone who understands how Islam is actually articulated knows that the assertion that it is “possible to be a Western liberal and mainstream Muslim,” as London’s Muslim mayor recently said, is a grotesque oxymoron.  It’s akin to saying that it’s possible to fit a square peg through a round hole.  It’s not—unless, of course, one forcefully hammers it through, breaking portions of the peg,  that is to say, the Muslim and or cracking the surface of the hole, that is to say, Western society.

Islam is a political religious system from its inception. Would you subscribe to the notion that it is truly an ideology with a religious coating to it, or is there something really religious about it? I am thinking about Islamic mystics and the Sufis, for example.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter: even if it has a religious coating to it, it is most certainly a political ideology, especially its early origins.  This is simply clear looking at the life of its founder prophet Muhammad.  When he was merely a powerless preacher in Mecca, he only had a very small following; when he went to Medina and became a warlord and caravan bandit—and when his followers started to grow rich from plunder—his ranks began to swell.

Many are the worldly rewards, incentives, and privileges—to say nothing of the “worldly” rewards (sex with supernatural women) in the hereafter— that come with being Muslim:  if you fight for the empowerment of Islam against non-Muslims and you can lie, cheat, kill, steal, enslave and rape.  Countless are the Muslims, past and present, who joined the Islamic bandwagon precisely for these prerogatives.  That said, I do believe that some Muslims try to turn Islam into a more spiritual thing for their own sake.  But that doesn’t change the fact that others use it for its original purpose of conquest and plunder

One of the most repeated statements about Islamic terrorism is that it is the product of various groups of fanatics. Most Muslims are moderates and will never go around beheading people or having themselves exploded. Is this evidence conclusive?

Yes and no.  It may be true that many Muslims would not want to behead people or detonate themselves, but that is because they are not committed to or interested in Islam beyond the bare basics of survival.  However, it is wrong to think that “Islamic terrorism is … the product of various groups of fanatics.”  Terrorism is actually the product of the Koran and example of the prophet—the two things all Muslims are enjoined to follow.  And so long as these two pillars of Islam stand, so will they have adherents, even if a majority of nominal Muslims—who dare not apostatize due to Islam’s death penalty—do not literally follow them.

Islam has been deeply divided in itself from the death of Muhammad in 632. It seems that warfare and strife are inbreed in the Muslim world. Do you agree?

Yes.  Perhaps the most defining aspect of Islam is the search for absolute power—power over all others whether they be infidels, women, the wrong kinds of Muslims, ad infinitum.  Accordingly, and despite some of its injunctions against for example killing fellow Muslims, Muslims have been and continue to slaughter each other, in the name of Islam.

Can we say that Wahhabism is at the core of Islamic contemporary jihadism, or is this a reductionist point of view?

We can say this, but it would be much more accurate to say a literal reading of Islam’s core texts “is at the core of Islamic contemporary jihadism.”  After all, that is what “Wahhabism” is all about.  Incidentally, no Wahhabi calls or sees himself as a Wahhabi-—a word often used in the West to distance Islam from violence and intolerance—and see themselves simply as Muslims who literally pattern their lives after the teachings of Mohammed and Koran.

What is your opinion about the longtime alliance between the U.S.A and Saudi Arabia, which is among the strictest Wahhabi states. Does realpolitik justify everything?

I think it is a sickening and disgraceful alliance that turns everything that the US stands for into a joke.  Nor is realpolitik the root source. After all, the US and the entire free world could easily put Saudi Arabia on its knees and force it to reform or else.  Its oil could be seized—and actually should, since, with that revenue, Saudi Arabia spends 100 billion annually to radicalize Muslims around the world, such as their brainchild, ISIS.  Saudi Arabia knowledge of all this is one of the main reasons it gives many millions to Western politicians and others, who in exchange stand before Western people and speak of Saudi Arabia as a “ staunch ally,” whose help in “fighting terrorism” is “indispensable”.

Robert Spencer on why non-devout Muslims sometimes turn to jihad terror

robert-spencer

Robert Spencer discusses redemptive jihad as one explanation for “sudden jihad syndrome”. Muslims who have become Westernized may feel guilty and actually fear what will become of them in the hereafter. They may believe that the only way to redeem themselves is to commit jihad as taught in the Quran.

Daily Mail: 62 People in America Launched or Plotted ISIS Attacks, More Than Half Immigrants or Children of Immigrants

omar_orlando_shooter

64 people murdered and at least 121 wounded.

Truth Revolt, by Mark Tapson, October 10, 2016:

UK Daily Mail has compiled an impressive and exclusive roster and analysis of ISIS terrorists in America — 62 men and women who have either launched attacks or been accused of plotting terror or assisting ISIS activities in just over a year.

These jihadists such as Omar Mateen (pictured above), who massacred 49 and wounded scores more in the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando, are responsible for 48 attacks or ISIS-inspired activities, from mass stabbings to attempts to send arms and money to Syria. They have tallied 64 murdered victims and at least 121 wounded.

Six ISIS-inspired attackers have died and 54 have been arrested, according to the Daily Mail’s figures. Thirty-four, or slightly more than half, of those attackers and alleged plotters were either immigrants or the children of immigrants, including six who came to the U.S. as refugees. As the Daily Mail notes, the number of refugees in terrorism “could be higher, as it was not possible to ascertain exactly how many of the alleged ISIS attackers or plotters entered America.”

The analysis shows that 13 people linked to ISIS by the federal authorities were the children of immigrants from countries including “Palestine” and Pakistan, and at least 13 were Americans who converted to Islam. They include a former cheerleader and the son of a senior Boston police officer, as well as an immigrant who was not deported after serving a four-year sentence for a firearms crime.

You may recall that earlier this month FBI director James Comey warned that as ISIS is purged from its home territory in Syria and Iraq, a “terrorist diaspora” like we’ve never seen before could hit our shores. And yet Hillary Clinton wants to America to open its arms to increased immigration and refugee-resettling from the Middle East.

Check out the entire breakdown and analysis here. Kudos to the UK Daily Mail for investigating and reporting on a topic the American mainstream media don’t want to touch.

Also see:

Washington Mall Shooter Came from Turkey, Had a Picture of ISIS Caliph al-Baghdadi on His Blog

kiro7dotcom-template_20160926175324773_6177686_ver1-0_640_360Analysts are still looking for motives, but one cannot deny that jihadism has had an influence.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe Sept. 30 2016:

We have witnessed a number of recent attacks over the past couple of weeks in New York, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington state, amongst others. New information is coming in for these cases, while analysts are still looking for motives; however, one cannot deny that jihadism has had an influence in at least some of the cases. The Burlington, Washington mall shooting is an interesting case. Even though the shooter, Arcan Cetin, is from a Muslim majority country in Turkey (police originally thought he was Hispanic) and has posted pictures of ISIS’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and had other Islamic references, it isn’t clear yet that he was inspired by jihad. Besidesmultiple “arrests for assaulting his stepfather, as well as a DUI[,]” Cetin seemed to exemplify an Islamist bent toward the treatment of women. FrontPage Mag states:

He scared at least one neighbor: “Amber Cathey, 21, lived in an apartment next to Cetin for the past three months and said she was so frightened by him that she complained to apartment management and kept a stun gun handy. Cathey said she blocked him on Snapchat after he sent her a photo of his crotch. ‘He was really creepy, rude and obnoxious,’ Cathey said.”

A high school classmate recalled that Cetin “was very hurtful towards girls. He would sexually harass them. And bully a lot of them.”

The Washington Post gives more insight into Cetin’s feelings toward women:

Mehmet Ecder, an 18-year old high school student who grew up with Cetin in Amana, Turkey, said Cetin came from a troubled family and was struggling to connect with American girls once he moved to Washington state. He liked living in the U.S., but “He says, ‘American girls hate me,’” Ecder recalled of conversations over the last year with Cetin.

Cetin had mentioned a young woman who had rejected him, Ecder said.

“He says he doesn’t know how to talk to girls,” said Ecder. He believes Cetin may have committed the crime “out of jealousy.”

Even if Cetin was a socially awkward kid (especially around girls) like many other kids in the U.S. this alone typically doesn’t trigger one to go on a shooting spree. Maybe the reason was more cultural. Coming from Turkey where women are relegated in society and men feel entitled to have women it’s not surprising that Cetin could have been influenced by this Islamist culture – at least within his family. It’s quite possible he used this animosity toward women in selecting his targets in the mall shooting – four out of five of the fatalities were female. Only with more time and information will we be able to know with certainty what inspired Cetin to commit such vicious acts of violence (one victim was a sixteen-year-old girl who had beat cancer). As for now we also still can’t rule out the possible jihadist motive.

***

***

 

Fact-Check: ISIS Hates Us Because We Don’t Embrace Islam, Not Because of Donald Trump

160527170101-donald-trump-isis-libya-oil-sot-00005007-full-169

Jihadists hate us with a passion anyway; people who are on the cusp of becoming jihadis do not need Trump to convince them.

CounterJihad, by Immanuel Al-Manteeqi, Sept. 27, 2016:

One frequently hears that people like Donald Trump are playing into the narrative of ISIS and other jihadist or Islamist groups by virtue of their rhetoric. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, Trump’s contender for the highest office in the world, is fond of making such accusations.

Clinton and others state that Trump’s rhetoric regarding Islam and Muslims will only result in his playing into the hands of jihadis, who want to  propagate the view that the West is in a vicious war with Islam. On September 19th, for example, Clinton told reporters that “we know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS.” She further elaborated that “we know that Donald Trump’s comments have been used online for recruitment of terrorists.”

In these statements Hillary Clinton echoed what others, like CIA director Michael Hayden, had  affirmed. In a POLITCO interview with journalist Glenn Thrush, Hayden commented that Trump’s call to temporarily put in place a tout court moratorium on Muslim immigration has “made the United States less safe than it would otherwise be.”

Now, Michael Hayden is probably technically correct in his judgment vis-a-vis U.S. security and Trump’s rhetoric on banning all Muslims from the country—i.e., his fiery rhetoric here has increased the probability that Jihadis will hate the West, and thus increase the probability that they will attack the territories of the United States, or U.S personnel abroad.

But this criticism of Trump is not worth mentioning because this increase in probability is insignificant, and has greatly been exaggerated by people like Hillary Clinton for political gain.

We can discern the insignificance of the evidence here by stopping to think about what Trump’s critics are implicitly presupposingwhen they state that Trump’s rhetoric makes the United States less secure than it would have otherwise been. The critics believe that Trump is making the United States less secure because his rhetoric is somehow increasing the probability  that there will be jihadi attacks against the United States. And they believe this because they implicitly presuppose that Trump’s rhetoric increases the probability that jihadis hate the United States.

Jihadists hate the United States with a passion anyway; people who are on the cusp of becoming jihadis do not need Trump to convince them that they should hate the United States.

Whether U.S. politicians say that ISIS or other Jihadi groups are Islamic or not is simply irrelevant to ISIS and like-minded extremist Islamic groups—they don’t really care. As Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi recently testified before Chairman Scott Perry for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency of the House Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress, in a hearing entitled “Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror,”

We keep [asking] what ISIS will say. [But] ISIS isn’t sitting there wondering what Americans will say. ISIS is going to use whatever narrative [Americans] throw at them and twist it.

That Jihadis hate the United States regardless of what its officials or prospective officials say or do– short of reciting the shahada[1] and becoming Muslims– can be readily discerned by reading what ISIS, the leader of the jihadi front, has written in an article entitled, “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” in the 15th issue of their magazine, Dabiq.

In this article, they make explicit that their “primary reason” for hating the West will not cease to exist until the West embraces Islam. In this regard, it is lamentable that politicians who want to preserve their appeal by uttering the falsehood that ISIS members are not motivated by religion. The Dabiq article lists six reasons why ISIS militants hate the West and why they fight Westerners. The six reasons are listed here:

1 – “We hate you first and foremost, because you are disbelievers, you reject the oneness of Allah.”

2 – “We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.”

3 – “In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.”

4 – “We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.”

5 – “We hate you for your crimes against Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bombs, kill, and maim our people around the world.”

6 – Sixth “We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.”

The article goes on to importantly state that

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. [Emphasis added]

So the jihadists hate the United States and Americans, and indeed all Westerners, with a passion regardless of what they say or do, so long as they do not embrace the Islamic religion. The implicit assumption of the critics that Trump’s rhetoric is going tosignificantly increase the probability that Jihadists hate America, and therefore significantly decrease the security of the United States, is simply false.

It should be noted that one can believe that his critics are wrong to say that Trump is indirectly aiding Islamists here without endorsing Trump’s plan of temporarily banning all Muslim immigration into the country.

So the idea that people like Trump, who take a strong stance against Islamic terrorism, are somehow enabling terrorism through theirrhetoric is nothing but a talking point that is being used by Clinton and her cohorts for political expediency.

Indeed, if anyone is making it harder to fight against Islamic terrorism, it is the Obama administration. And Hillary Clinton, if she were to become President, would continue the same failed national security policy of the Obama administration with respect to the Middle East and Islamic terrorism.

While Donald Trump wants to curb immigration from places like Syria, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to continue the influx—despite the fact that the State Department has alreadyadmitted that jihadis have posed as refugees, in order to gain asylum in the United States. And Clinton and the Obama administration seem to be opposed to Ted Cruz’s commonsensical idea that we should give persecuted minorities in the Middle East priority in immigration.

Furthermore, if anyone is indeed enabling terrorism, it is none other than the Obama administration with its politically correct stance vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. As can be discerned from the “Willful Blindness” senate committee hearing on Islamic terrorism, the Obama administration’s policies, which Hillary Clinton would no doubt continue, have resulted in the dangerous interagency wiping of terminology that associates jihadi attacks with anything having to do with Islam.

This type of self-censorship and the refusal to call a spade a spade, not Trump’s rhetoric, is what is going to make it significantlyharder to fight Islamic terrorism. There is simply no significant sense in which Trump is indirectly supporting jihadis.


[1] The shahāda is the Muslim testimony of faith, which is as follows: “I testify that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is the prophet of God.”