What’s Wrong with These Four Approaches to “Deprogramming” Jihad?

1769

You have to look past what you wish were true.

CounterJihad, Aug. 26 2016:

Let’s say that you wanted to reach the people who carry out murder in the name of jihad, and persuade them not to kill anyone.  How would you do it?  There are four approaches that governments are trying today, and none of them work.

The first approach is to identify likely candidates for radicalization while they are young, and talk them out of it using government propaganda.  The FBI’s “Don’t Be A Puppet” campaign is an example of this.  It aims at young people using an online video game that rewards them for solving problems associated with recognizing attempts to radicalize them.  The hope is to teach them to recognize that they are being manipulated by radical religious figures so that these young people will turn away from those messages.

Because the FBI is a counterintelligence agency using government propaganda, however, it has a serious credibility problem with young people — especially those in the community that the FBI is targeting.  Credibility is the currency in propaganda operations, just as it is in any other attempt to lead or influence or persuade.  If you’re a young Muslim, you can see that the FBI doesn’t trust you, is thinking a lot about you, and is trying to manipulate you.  Secretive government agencies — of the US or any other government — are operating out of a serious deficit compared with any religious leader that the community takes to have a real relationship with God.  While these propaganda efforts are not necessarily a complete waste of time and money, as they might persuade a few who are inclined to view the government positively, the people you really want to reach are likely to take this attempt to manipulate them as further evidence that you don’t trust them — and, therefore, that they shouldn’t trust you either.

The second approach treats jihad not as a crime or an act of war, but as a psychological problem.  There are significant moral and legal problems for forcing people into psychological programs designed to alter their religion.  An even bigger problem, though, is that there’s very little evidence that such psychological approaches even work.  Thus, in addition to being government-backed violations of the basic human right to freedom of religion, it’s likely that the approach will only harden opposition among Muslims to the government.  Indeed, there’s a reasonable argument that a government that used these approaches to force your children to change their beliefs would really be creating an actual moral justification for violence.

What about an approach by leaders of factions of Islam to persuade the young?  Egypt’s Al Azhar University is attempting that right now.

In a speech to Muslims worldwide and the West, Grand Imam of al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayeb had renounced all radical takfiri-inspired actions, saying that such deeds are in no way related to the teachings of Islam’s fundamental Sunni sect….  The top Muslim scholar then confirmed that the sole salvation and solution for such an abomination is the true interpretation and abiding by the true Sunnah teachings of prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and companions.

Allowing that a rejection of “all takfiri-inspired actions” would represent a real improvement, this approach does nothing to solve the problem of jihad against non-Muslims.  Takfiri violence is about declaring other Muslims not to be real Muslims, and thus to be subject to violence as apostates.  The attacks on 9/11, and in places like San Bernardino, Orlando, and Paris, are attacks of jihad against non-Muslims.  The attempt to spread Islam through coercion is a huge part of the problem, and yet in the traditions of Islamic law endorsed by generations of scholars, that is more plausibly a duty than an affront.  A full scale reform of Islam must occur to change that, one that sets aside all of its existing factions for a new way.

Finally, what about divide and conquer?  The Russian government appears to be approaching the problem in this way.  They are backing Iran and Assad against Sunni groups in a manner designed to set various Islamic groups against one another.  There is also a propaganda campaign designed to push the idea that a kind of socialism designed to govern Islam was the real answer to violence.  This campaign paints the United States as the real enemy of Islam (and therefore not Russia), as the United States opposed socialist Islam and Russia supported it.

Divide and conquer does not reduce violence, however, it increases it.  The hope is that it will become manageable not because people stop fighting, but because they expend most of their energy fighting one another.  In terms of the number of people convinced that violent jihad must govern their lives, however, that number will greatly increase if we follow such a strategy.

Ultimately none of these answers work, though in the third answer we at least get a glimpse of a solution that might.  Pushing a real reform of Islam, one that sets aside all existing categories and all traditional schools of thought, at least has the potential for putting an end to the violence.  So far, however, that approach is the purview of only a tiny minority of Muslims.  No government, Islamic nor Western, has endorsed the program.

Media silent on surge in Islam-inspired knife attacks

Jihadist on the Democratic Republic of Congo where Christians are often hacked to death by Muslim rebels

Jihadist on the Democratic Republic of Congo where Christians are often hacked to death by Muslim rebels

‘One of biggest criminal cover-ups in human history’

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Aug. 24, 2016:

The spate of grisly stabbings and beheadings being carried out by Muslims around the world is not really a sudden or unique occurrence but part of a decades-long pattern of violence inspired by the Quran, say Islam critics.

The latest attack on American soil came over the weekend in Roanoke, Virginia, by a 20-year-old man who used a 10-inch butcher knife to attack residents of the Pines apartment complex while shouting, “Allahu Akbar!”

It happened again Monday in Australia, where a 21-year-old British woman, Mia Ayliffe-chung, was hacked to death and two others injured by a Muslim man chanting “Allahu Akbar!” as 30 other tourists looked on in horror.

In Europe the attacks has been an almost weekly occurrence since the influx of 1.5 million Muslim migrants over the last year.

Most of these attacks receive scant coverage in the establishment media, and when they are covered they are glazed over with an obvious attempt to paint them as anything but Islamic in nature. More often than not, they are attributed to mental illness, as WND documented in a list earlier this month of more than 25 attacks.

From Oklahoma to Ohio, Virginia, California

There have been many knife attacks by Muslims on U.S. soil in recent years. The one that received the most media attention was the horrific beheading of 54-year-old Colleen Hufford of Tulsa, Oklahoma, by a male co-worker at a food plant in September 2014. Alton Alexander Nolen, a Muslim convert, beheaded Hufford and stabbed another woman who were not receptive to his attempts at converting them.

Earlier this year, on Feb. 11, the 30-year-old Mohamed Barry entered the Nazareth Restaurant and Deli in Columbus, Ohio, and mercilessly chopped up customers with a machete, injuring four, while yelling, “Allahu Akbar!”

On Nov. 4, 2015, an 18-year-old Muslim student at the University of California at Merced attacked students and teachers with a machete, injuring several of them seriously before he was shot and killed. The FBI, after initially characterizing the attack by Faisal Mohammad as the act of a disgruntled student, admitted months later in March 2016 that he had an ISIS flag and had studied Islamist propaganda.

Some critics believe the lack of media coverage of these attacks amounts to one of the biggest criminal cover-ups in human history.

Among them is Timothy Furnish, a professor of Islamic history who wrote “Sects, Lies and the Caliphate” and also authors the MahdiWatch blog. He said he’s keeping tabs on the knife attacks. And he believes the whitewash treatment these attacks receive by Western governments and media shows both have taken on the role of dhimmis – second-class apologists for Islam.

“We are witnessing a legion of attacks by Muslims and Muslim sympathizers in the West utilizing, specifically, bladed weapons – Germany, the U.K., U.S., Australia – over the past several years,” Furnish told WND. “Most would appear to be attempts to decapitate the victims, although the media seems to try to hide that fact in a number of cases by reporting them only as ‘stabbings’ or ‘knife attacks.’”

What’s going on here?

“Since the common links in most if not all these cases are Muslim or Islamophile perpetrators, bladed weapons and attacks on the neck area, I would submit that the driving force is the Islamic rubric to behead unbelievers – spelled out specifically in the Quran,” Furnish said.

He cited Sura al-Anfal [VIII]:12 and Sura Muhammad [XLVII]:4.

Furnish elaborated on these scriptures in the article, “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” published in Middle East Quarterly.

Quran 47:3 is the key scripture but there are others.

“Those who take the Quran literally – which includes not just terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida but millions of Muslims of the Salafi, Wahhabi and Deobandi persuasion and major Islamic commentators across the centuries – believe that it is an act of piety to carry out such injunctions,” Furnish said. “ISIS’s appeals in, for example, its Dabiq magazine may be the proximate cause for such brutality. But make no mistake, it is Islam itself which is ultimately responsible.

“When the founder of a religion engages in, or at the very least approves of a behavior, I fail to see how said behavior can be deeded ‘radical’ or ‘extremist.’”

Read more

Are Nonstop Muslim Atrocities the ‘New Norm’?

mn

Front Page Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim, Aug. 25, 2016:

As hardly a few days pass without some Islamic terror attack in the West—recently and as of this writing an “Allahu Akbar” shouting Muslim man stabbed a Jew in France and an “Allahu Akbar” screaming Muslim woman ran over two policemen in Canada—the West risks becoming desensitized to and seeing Islamic violence as “just another part of life.”

The words and deeds of Western leaders are not helping.  After the Islamic terror attack in Nice, France, where 84 were killed, counterterrorism chief Patrick Calvar said: “Today, France is clearly the most threatened country.  The question about the threat is not to know ‘if’ but ‘when’ and ‘where’.” Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that “Terrorism … is a threat that weighs heavily on France and will continue doing so for a long time.”

As if such resignation wasn’t bad enough, at the memorial event for the 84 Nice victims, Valls declared, “Times have changed and we should learn to live with terrorism.”

Actually, the main thing to change with time in France is its demography.  The largest Muslim population of Europe resides there and, in accordance’s with Islam’s Rule of Numbers, is the real reason why France “should learn to live with terrorism.”

More apathy was in the air during the Munich massacre, where a Muslim gunman killed nine.

While somberly addressing the massacre still in progress—with the usual boilerplate “our hearts go out to [X victim of terror]”—U.S. President Obama managed to crack a joke, grin, chuckle, and draw laughter from his audience.

After all, what is the big deal?  Shouldn’t we be used to Muslims rampaging and killing by now?  And really, what’s nine dead compared to the many hundreds killed by Islamic terrorists around the world in recent weeks?

As for the leader of the nation where the attack took place, Angela Merkel waited almost 24 hours before she delivered yet another perfunctory speech containing all the usual words, condolences, and platitudes.

Then again, what was the hurry? Muslims abusing, raping, and killing Germans in Germany is old hat.  A new poll by ZDF found that a record 75 percent of Germans “expect—which is not unlike accept—more terror attacks in their nation.  Must a statement be made after every single one?!

Needless to say, lesser Islamic terror attacks which once would’ve been extremely newsworthy and received condemnation from the highest echelons of the political wrung now receive perfunctory or no media coverage and little comment.

On July 18 in Germany, another “Allahu Akbar” shouting, axe-waving Muslim attacked train passengers and critically injured five.  The next day, on July 19 in France, a Muslim man stabbed a woman and her three daughters—the eight-year-old was left with a punctured lung and in critical condition—for being “scantily dressed.”

No immediate comments from Merkel and Valls.  (See here for numerous other examples of “minor” and “everyday” Muslim “disturbances” in Europe—such as vandalizing churches and urinating on St. Mary statues—that get little or no coverage or comment.)

Western people had better wise up: in the field of behavioral psychology, “systematic desensitization” is a well-known and effective form of graduated exposure therapy used “to help effectively overcome phobias and other anxiety disorders.”  Consider the following succinct definition with my relevant examples in brackets:

Systematic desensitization is when the client [the West] is exposed to the anxiety-producing stimulus [Islamic violence] at a low level [reports and images of Islamic violence “over there” in the Mideast], and once no anxiety is present a stronger version of the anxiety-producing stimulus is given [reports of violence closer to home, in the West]. This continues until the individual client [the West] no longer feels any anxiety towards the stimulus [Islamic violence].

Is this the plan?  Are the “global elite” producing situations, such as the manufactured “migrant crisis,” that cause the West to experience incrementally worse forms of Islamic violence, until it becomes desensitized, loses its “phobia”—in this case, “Islamophobia”—and simply “learns to live with terrorism,” in the words of France’s prime minister?

Indeed, if the attacks were to fall back to, say, just once a month, many might accept that as a “positive step” they can live with—at least in comparison to what they’ve been seeing, including four savage Islamic attacks in one recent week in Germany alone.

“Conspiracy theories” aside, a much better way exists.  Acknowledge the truth—Islam is inherently violent and intolerant—and build policies on this truth.  A ban on or serious vetting of Muslim immigration—which a majority of Americans support—and close monitoring of already existing mosques and Islamic centers would virtually eliminate Islamic terror from America.

For the fact remains: unlike natural disasters—earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and the like—we actually do not need to live with Islam.

Also see:

Our Catastrophic Failure of Jihad Denial

cf

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 23, 2016:

An outraged nation watched on September 11 as a handful of Muslim terrorists managed to kill thousands of Americans in one of the worst attacks in our history. Answers were demanded and commissions were established to investigate why we failed to prevent the attack.

Why didn’t we know that it was coming? Why didn’t we do something?

It’s still a good question as the number of attacks mount. But under Obama, we actually know less about Islamic terrorism than we used to.

While thousands of Americans died on that terrible day at the hands of Islamic terrorists, thousands of other Americans stepped forward to do their duty. Some brought sandwiches to Ground Zero. Others enlisted in the military to fight. Still others sought unique ways to use their special talents to make a contribution to combating the enemies of civilization.

Stephen Coughlin was a reserve Army officer called up to active duty. He left the private sector for the Directorate for Intelligence. For the next six years he worked in a variety of key roles to shape and orient the war and spoke about the threat of Islamic terrorism everywhere from Quantico to the Naval War College so that those on the front lines of the conflict would understand who the enemy was.

Then he was forced out because he was too good at pointing out the enemy. And the enemy had gotten inside. It would bore deeper and deeper into our national security infrastructure as the years and the wars dragged on.

But the government’s loss is our gain.

Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is Coughlin’s vigorous blast of fresh air through the stale clichés that clutter up counterterrorism conversations. You know the ones. Offending Islam plays into the hands of the terrorists. Mentioning that Al Qaeda is Islamic plays into the hands of the terrorists. Doing anything except playing the denial game also plays into the hands of the terrorists.

“Catastrophic Failure” conveys the information that Coughlin packaged in briefings to the men and women fighting the war. It is the outcome of his work, his briefings and his research. It is why he was fired.

As one of the leading experts in what the terrorists of Islam actually think and want, Stephen Coughlin not only shatters this brass wall of dishonesty, but shows that the real threat comes from the concealment of whom the terrorists we are fighting are and what they really want.

Coughlin’s conviction in analysis took him on this Diogenesian journey for the truth. He was not the only one traveling this road, discarding the excuses and the lies, striving to see clearly what was happening and why. And yet his position so close to the heart of the great failure machine of national security gives him a unique insight into what has gone wrong and into what must be set right.

That is what “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is. It is an analysis of what has gone wrong. Its cover of an eagle wearing a green blindfold all too aptly captures the tragic farce of our fight against terrorism. But it is also a compelling argument about what we must do.

Instead of seeing the threats the bird of prey tasked with our national defense has been hooded in green. He sits tamely on the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood falconer. Our government has responded to Muslim terror by seeking out Muslim moderates to save us from the extremists. But the moderates are not moderate. And working so close to the machine, Coughlin saw how the need to win over moderates, to consult them and rely on them, led to the shift in power as they created the framework in which decisions were made.

Counterterrorism was increasingly being made in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The great struggle of our time is to flip that framework over and restore the power of decision for this war to Americans. Coughlin is a powerful writer and thinker, and he has poured his passion into these arguments that are meant to accomplish just that. He knows Islamic thought and law, and their real life implications, but his background has also prepared him to present focused laser blasts of information to audiences. His key goal and theme has been the importance of knowing the enemy.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a text of knowledge. It is a book about the importance of knowing the enemy so that we may know the war that we are in.

Coughlin draws us a map of the Islamic organizational war against civilization “unconstrained” by the usual preconceptions about moderates and extremists. Instead he shows us who the enemy is by showing us how they think and how they see themselves. He connects the red dots of the Islamic Movement and the road to the Caliphate which is being pursued by far more Muslim groups than just the overt butchers of ISIS whose lack of patience leads them to act before they can sustain their Jihad.

“Catastrophic Failure” is not merely a book about Islamic terrorism. It is about the core worldview of the struggle. It is about how the bombings, shootings and stabbings that we see on the evening news are rooted in an Islamic mindset that stretches from the proverbial “lone wolf” whose actions are blamed on psychiatric problems or a failure to integrate to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the rest of our so-called moderate allies and partners.

It is also about how our process, our ability to analyze and produce forecasts, and then to make decisions based on them, was corrupted by Islamic influence operations. It is about how the “eagle” was seduced with fantasies of moderate Islam by the enemies of this country. And it is about what must be done to lift the eagle’s blindfold and allow him to soar overhead again.

Stephen Coughlin has seen the profound failure of our national security up close. He saw what went wrong and equally importantly, he has seen what could have been if national security were oriented around our security instead of orbiting like a satellite around our impulses toward political correctness.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a valuable book because it reflects the invaluable experiences of its author. It is a story of three wars. The war that was. The war that is. And the war that will be. The motives and the tactics of the enemy have remained consistent in these wars. And that allows Coughlin to predict their patterns. The enemy will not suddenly turn moderate. The question that hangs over the war that will be is whether our leaders will open their eyes to the fight.

BREAKING: Jewish rabbi stabbed by man shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ in French religious attack

The scene in Strasbourg

The scene in Strasbourg

A JEWISH rabbi has been stabbed by an attacker shouting “Allahu Akbar” in the city of Strasbourg, sparking fears France has fallen victim to another Islamist-inspired terror attack.

Express, by Tom Batchelor,, Aug. 19, 2016:

The attacker, who is understood to have been arrested, shouted the Islamic phrase meaning God is great during the attack, according to reports in French media.

The 62-year-old victim, who is described as belonging to the orthodox Hasidic sect, was injured in the attack in the Jewish Quarter, 500 metres from the Great Synagogue of Strasbourg.

Named locally as Chalom Levy, he took refuge in a nearby bar befofe being taken to hospital.

Mendel Samama, a Strasbourg rabbi who visited him at the hospital, said Mr Levy described surviving the attack as a “miracle”.

He said: “He was shocked. He is weak. He was hit in the abdominal region a few centimetres from a vital organ.”

Mr Levy was said to be wearing items of clothing that would identify him as a Hasidic Jew.

Initial reports said the perpetrator was suffering from psychological problems and was known to the authorities for carrying out a similar attack in 2010.

The incident on Friday morning is the latest in a string of religiously-motivated attacks on French soil.

The Grand Rabbi of Strasbourg, René Gutman, said the attack was carried out by “one person” and did not reflect general tensions in the city.

But he requested that “steps be taken” to improve security.

He said: “If this person can stand out in the city and when he sees a person in yarmulke, assault them with a knife, this is a problem.”

The attack took place in the north of the city close to Brasserie des Vosges on a major thoroughfare.

Strasbourg, in north-east France close to the German border, is one of the seats of the European Parliament.

It is home to a large community of Jews, with around 15,000 living in or near the city, accounting for around five per cent of the population.

Sources close to the investigation apparently ruled out terrorism early on although the motive of the attack remains unknown. [CJR – Huh!???]

Around France, people are on edge, security is tight and several events have been cancelled following a string of attacks over the past two years.

The government has maintained a state of emergency put in place after 130 people were killed in Islamist attacks in Paris in November.

At the end of July, knife-wielding attackers interrupted a church service in northern France and murdered the priest in an attack claimed by the Islamic State group.

In that incident two ISIS extremists shouted “Allah Akbar” before slitting the victim’s throat in front of terrified parishioners.

French jews were targeted in January 2015 during the siege of a Kosher supermarket in Paris in which four people were killed.

An elderly man, the son of a distinguished Rabbi, a teacher and a shop worker who was saving up for his marriage were killed in the attack at the Jewish store by jihadist Amedy Coulibaly.

It followed the murder of journalists at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine.

Also see:

London’s Muslim Mayor Introduces the Thought Police

jk

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, August 18, 2016:

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force — and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caughtclassifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.

Also see:

One cannot have discourse if there is no opportunity for opposition. We are now seeing European courts, the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the UN Human Rights Council seek to silence those whose views they oppose.

It even turned out, at least in Germany last September, that “hate speech” apparently included posts criticizing mass migration. It would seem, therefore, that just about anything anyone finds inconvenient can be labelled as “racist” or “hate speech.”

Censoring, ironically, ultimately gives the public an extremely legitimate grievance, and could even set up the beginning of a justifiable rebellion.

There is currently a worrying trend. Facebook, evidently attempting to manipulate what news people receive, recently censored the Swedish commentator Ingrid Carlqvist by deleting her account, then censored Douglas Murray’s eloquent article about Facebook’s censorship of Carlqvist. Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich’s mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Yet, a page called “Death to America & Israel“, which actively incites violence against Israel, is left uncensored. Facebook, it seems, agrees that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state is acceptable, but criticism of Islam is not. While pages that praise murder, jihadis, and anti-Semitism remain, pages that warn the public of the violence that is now often perpetrated in the name of Islam, but that do not incite violence, are removed.

Even in the United States, there was a Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 569, attempting to promote the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Defamation of Religion/anti-blasphemy laws, to criminalize any criticism of “religion” – but meaning Islam.

Yesterday, at an airport, an advertisement for Facebook read, “A place to debate.” Should it not instead have read, “A place to debate, but only if we agree with you”?

AP Report: Islamic State Used ‘Islam for Dummies’ to Train Recruits

Reuters/Stringer

Reuters/Stringer

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 18, 2016:

The Associated Press published a report on Monday, compiled from court testimony and interviews with former ISIS fighters, that painted a dim picture of the Islamic State’s recruits. The early waves, in particular, were so clueless that some of them had to order Islam for Dummies from Amazon.com to brush up on the religion.

That juicy little tidbit is, naturally, the basis for the AP’s headline: “Islam For Dummies: IS Recruits Have Poor Grasp of Faith.” However, only two recruits from Britain were that unclear about the concept of jihad. 70 percent of early recruits claimed to have “basic” knowledge of sharia law, while 24 percent described themselves as “intermediate” students of the Islamic legal code, and 5 percent “advanced.” This would suggest only one percent of the people ISIS roped in were largely ignorant of sharia law.

The takeaway from the Associated Press report is not that Islamic State recruits were broadly unfamiliar with Islam — it is that they knew just enough about “moderate Islam” to fall prey to the Islamic State’s appeal.

ISIS radicalizes young Muslims by telling them, in essence, the Islam you get from your parents, and the imam at the mosque you scarcely bother to attend, isn’t the real deal. We are the champions of authentic Islam. Here’s what the moderates don’t want you to hear from the Koran.

This message is mixed with appeals to factional and national solidarity. For example, the AP spoke with a European recruit who “thought he was joining a group to fight President Bashar Assad and help Syrians, not the Islamic State.” He ended up packed into a safe house with other recruits while ISIS imams indoctrinated them.

The Associated Press concludes this means ISIS preys on “religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.”

It would be equally valid to describe this as religious curiosity, added to the sense of alienation and frustration that drives so many radicals, violent or otherwise. There seems to be little evidence that would suggest intensive study of Islam halts or reverses the radicalization process — in fact, there is a dismaying shortage of evidence that ISIS recruits can be talked out of radicalization, once it passes a certain point.

The constant refrain from the families of Islamic State recruits and “lone wolf” jihadis is surprise: no one in the family ever seemed to realize just how far gone their ISIS-supporting child was until it was too late. One of the reasons radicalization seems so puzzling and sudden to experts is that such denials are accepted at face value.

Only later do we learn that the jihadi held radical beliefs for much longer than the press was originally led to believe, or the jihadi had a history of run-ins with the law. Alternatively, the families of Western jihadis may be missing important signs of radicalization because they have been taught not to see them, by the media/government that insists terrorism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

For example, the AP report quotes ISIS recruit Karim Mohammad-Aggad, who journeyed to the Islamic State in Syria with his brother and a group of friends after an Islamic State recruiter contacted them in Germany, claiming he was bamboozled with “smooth talk” from the recruiter.

“My religious beliefs had nothing to do with my departure. Islam was used to trap me like a wolf,” he said in court, insisting he didn’t “have the knowledge” to answer questions about sharia. A co-defendant gave the same answer, and the Associated Press points out that both Karim and his brother Foued said they had only “basic” knowledge of sharia when they filled out the ISIS entry questionnaire.

Those statements are a very thin reed to hang the “ISIS recruits don’t know anything about Islam” argument upon, especially since Karim’s little brother Foued was one of the monsters who carried out the unspeakable atrocity at the Bataclan nightclub in Paris last November.

Another assertion in the AP report, made by a study from the U.S. military’s Combating Terrorism Center, is that ISIS recruits who claimed advanced knowledge of sharia were less likely to volunteer for suicide missions.

“If martyrdom is seen as the highest religious calling, then a reasonable expectation would be that the people with the most knowledge about Islamic law (Shariah) would desire to carry out these operations with greater frequency,” said the Combating Terrorism Center report. However, “those with the most religious knowledge within the organization itself are the least likely to volunteer to be suicide bombers.”

That is a difficult assertion to evaluate without knowing a great deal more about the backgrounds of the individuals in question. A very small group, since as the AP noted, only 5 percent of incoming Islamic State fighters claimed to have “advanced” knowledge of sharia on the entry paperwork. Broad conclusions cannot be drawn from the way a tiny fraction of ISIS recruits described themselves. They might not have wanted to go on suicide missions, but they were still willing to fight for the Islamic State.

Also, sharia law does not require suicide bombing. There is an argument among Muslim scholars about whether sharia forbids suicide, or murder, but the Koran repeatedly encourages courageous battle against infidels, with a willingness to kill or die in the effort. It is a mistake to confuse sharia law with the totality of Islamic belief and tradition, as practiced by many different groups across an enormous worldwide population.

“Sharia forbids suicide, so suicide bombers don’t understand sharia” is a variation on the No True Muslim fallacy, a tautology which argues terrorists can’t possibly understand authentic Islam because no one who practices authentic Islam would be a terrorist.

The ultimate ends of such an argument — a reformation of Islam in which violence is expunged from the religion, and assimilation-minded moderates triumph in all of Islam’s many factions — is highly desirable. The question is how to get there, and ignoring or downplaying the importance of Islam in the appeal made by ISIS and other extremist groups is not likely to help either moderate Muslims or secular governments devise an effective strategy for combating the radicals.

History renders a grim verdict on that approach: the Western world has been pushing No True Muslim arguments with all of its might, especially after the 9/11 attacks, and yet ISIS happened. The young Western recruits described in the Associated Press report spent their entire lives in the “Religion of Peace”/”Terrorists are on the Wrong Side of History” era, but they still ended up fighting for the Islamic State in Syria. What they tell courts today, as they fight for reduced sentences, is very different than what they probably would have said when they first arrived in the “caliphate.”

Former CIA case officer Patrick Skinner told the Associated Press that most ISIS recruits are “reaching for a sense of belonging, a sense of notoriety, a sense of excitement,” and he claimed, “religion is an afterthought.” If that’s true, then why is the Islamic State so much more successful than the many other groups that offer disaffected youngsters a sense of belonging, notoriety, and excitement? Falling in with a local gang is easy; abandoning your family, and evading the law enforcement agencies of several nations, to join ISIS in Syria or Iraq is hard.

The Islamic State’s religious appeal may be only one ingredient in the fuel that drives people to make that awful choice, but discounting it as irrelevant is dangerous.

Also see:

What Do American Schools Teach About Islam? PC Or Nothing

Photo amrufm / Flickr

Photo amrufm / Flickr

The Federalist, by Joy Pullmann, Aug. 16, 2016:

Jenny McKeigue’s youngest child enters seventh grade this fall, and she plans to excuse him from a world history class requirement to recite a Muslim conversion prayer called the shahada. McKeigue spent four years attempting to convince her school board in Olmsted Falls, Ohio, to alter some lessons and replace history textbooks after her oldest son in 2012 showed her a reality TV episode his teacher had played in class.

In “30 Days: Muslims and America,” an imam tells a Christian man attempting to live as a Muslim for 30 days that Muslims and Christians worship the same god. The Christian struggles with that idea but ultimately accepts it.

Independent reviewers McKeigue requested also found errors in the district’s textbooks such as listing eleven biblical commandments and stating Muslims historically “practiced religious tolerance” by requiring Christians and Jews to pay extra taxes—not mentioning the alternative was often death. McKeigue said comparative class time and materials were not devoted to other major world religions such as Judaism and Christianity.

The district recently did buy new textbooks—a newer version of the one McKeigue had objected to, which contains many of the same errors.

Take and Read

Textbook errors are so common that several independent organizations review textbooks full-time. The Florida-based Citizens for National Security has issued the most comprehensive reviews about how textbooks treat Islam, and Chairman William Saxton says he fields about six related inquiries per day.

CFNS reports chronicle sins of omission and commission—such as saying “war broke out” between Palestinians and Israelis although one side was the aggressor, glossing over historical realities such as Muslims holding slaves and proselytizing by the sword, and inaccuracies such as stating Jesus was a Palestinian when Palestine did not exist until more than 100 years after his crucifixion.

One of CFNS’s YouTube videos points out that the high school history textbook used in the Boston bombers’ public school, Cambridge Latin School, makes straightforward religious claims about Islam no textbook would mimic in a description of any other religion: “Muhammad’s teachings, which are the revealed word of God…” An unbiased textbook would say something like “Muslims believe Muhammad’s teachings are the revealed word of God.”

Saxton is a retired U.S. intelligence officer with a Harvard University doctorate who volunteers for CFNS. He won’t say which agencies he’s worked for besides the Department of Defense, but will say he has investigated jihadist propaganda professionally. He began going through all the textbooks he could find after visiting a grandson in California in 2009 and looking up the sections on Middle Eastern history.

“That’s when the light lit,” he said. “I said ‘Whoa, we have a problem.’ This is a cultural jihad. It’s a dangerous form because no one is going to know about this.”

He quotes Shabir Mansuri, the founder of the Muslim-Brotherhood-connected Council on Islamic Education, who said their work reviewing textbooks for major publishers is intended to produce a “bloodless” cultural revolution. Reaction to such statements prompted CIE to change its name to the Institute for Religion and Civic Values, where Mansuri continues to review history textbooks for major publishers, write lesson plans, and give seminars to teachers.

Follow the Money

Taxpayers often fund these activities through government grants and contracts, and IRCV claims a “significant working partnership” with the U.S. State Department. It reviewed the textbook McKeigue objected to in her kids’ schools (Holt 2006).

Former CIE senior researcher Susan Douglass now runs a education outreach program for an influential Georgetown University center endowed in 2005 by a $20 million gift from Saudi prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. Recently declassified documents suggest links between the Saudi Arabian government, al-Qaeda, and the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Talal, one of the world’s richest men, has suggested America’s foreign policy deserved some blame for 9/11 and donated to the terrorist-linked Council for American-Islamic Relations. John Esposito, the founding director of Talal’s Georgetown center, has raised money for CAIR and publicly promoted organizations the U.S. government later designated terrorist organizations.

The center also receives federal Title VI funds for developing K-12 curriculum materials. Like Mansuri, Douglass travels the country giving seminars at museums, school districts, and conferences. Teacher resources she has written read like Muslim apologetics, including claims such as: “Customs such as honor killing are not part of Islam”; “Of the many current misperceptions about Islam, perhaps the most widespread is that women in Islamic law and Muslim society are oppressed and lack rights”; and “Jihad may not be conducted either to force people to convert or to annihilate or subdue people of other faiths.”

Talal also gave $20 million in 2005 to Harvard University for a similar, federally funded center of resources for K-12 teachers. Many U.S. campuses host such centers, whose employees present themselves as experts to textbook publishers, school teachers, and the media, said Winfield Myers, the director of academic affairs at the Middle Eastern Forum.

“You can see the actual genocide carried against the Christians in the Middle East with very little protest from these departments, because of so many years of Arab supremacism,” Myers said. “In the main, the Middle East studies departments are anti-Western and anti-Israel.”

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The prevalence of Saudi money in American higher education “gives incentives for not asking critical questions,” Myers said. Exacerbating this tendency is that asking questions about Islam quickly sparks accusations of racism, said Shireen Qudosi, an American Sufi Muslim who lives in California.

“Because we’re limited our ability to have these conversations it leads to this entitled attitude of ‘Because I’m Muslim I deserve something extra,’” she said from her cell phone in the car as her five-year-old son, Reagan, fussed in the back seat. She excused herself to hand him a snack.

Her frustrations with Islam in American schools are largely social: “Arabs see themselves as superior and their culture as the only authentic Islamic culture. And since they’re the ones with the money, what they say gets put into play.” Since they fear losing jobs and reputation if accused of racism, school administrators and social workers often sideline Muslim-related conflicts, leaving families to fend for themselves.

This also affects curriculum, because it motivates curriculum companies to similarly downplay religious and racial conflict, at the expense of accuracy and substance. High school teacher Elizabeth Altman, for example, spent eight weeks last summer with materials all over her dining room table, “tearing my hair out” to rewrite her Advanced Placement European history class to fit new guidelines: “I tried to take Sundays off. Tried.”

College Board’s AP tests can earn students college credit in high school. In 2015, 110,000 students took the AP European history exam, and for most it will be their last world history class.

“I was thinking ‘I hope I die before graduation so I don’t have to do this’” because the new material is so tedious and vague, said Altman, who is also the assistant principal at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart Academy in Rockford, Illinois, before diving into a detailed explanation of what the College Board left out of its new, 237-page course description.

Goodbye, Religion

Islam is almost completely absent, but it’s not just Islam. Religion, period, has been relegated to a few glancing mentions, notes an extensive review of the curriculum changes from the National Association of Scholars. For example, it treats the Holocaust as a political and racial episode, leaving aside the religious elements.

“To leave religion out as a motivation for war or for domestic policy decisions is to leave out half of the human character,” Altham said. “To treat religious belief as simply a convenient belief of the ruling class is to ignore that the ruling class generally has genuine belief.”

So while ISIS is destroying Roman ruins in Syria because they consider them pagan works of infidels not worth preserving, Western intellectuals are performing an analogous intellectual exercise by erasing major human motivations and pivotal historic events in ways that hamper young Americans’ ability to understand historic and current world affairs, said David Randall, the author of the NAS report.

“Islam is the great inheritor and great rival” to Christian civilization throughout European history, Randall said. “You need to know that.” Since “the war-torn edges between Islam and Christianity depend on the rivalry of religious claims,” it’s impossible to understand European history without understanding exactly what motivated people then—and today.

Joy Pullmann is managing editor of The Federalist and author of the forthcoming “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.

CAIR To Donald Trump: The Constitution Says Government Can’t Study or Criticize Radical Islam

AP

AP

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Aug. 16, 2016:

An Islamic group tied closely to jihadi terror groups is complaining that Donald Trump will violate the constitution by helping Americans better understand the nature of radical, jihad-promoting Islam.

“One of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community,” Trump declared  in a reformist foreign policy speech on Monday.

“The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization … [and] we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism,” he said.

That promise of legal charges is a direct threat to the jihad-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has many material links to domestic and foreign groups that support Islamic war. CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. 

CAIR responded to Trump’s speech by suggesting that rhetorical and religious support (although not actions) for Islamic jihad terrorism is a constitutional right, both for Americans and for would-be immigrants who wish to introduce jihad and other Islamic ideas into the United States.

Trump’s proposal for a ‘commission’ that would identify for Americans the tenets of ‘radical Islam’ crosses the line into government interference in religious beliefs. Will a Trump administration entangle itself in interpretation of [Islamic] religious principles? Who will Trump appoint to decide what constitutes ‘radical Islam’? His current stable of Islamophobic [sic] advisers indicates that this commission would be packed with anti-Muslim bigots.

This government promotion of a state version of a particular religion would violate the First Amendment and put America on a path to a society in which those in power get to choose which beliefs are ‘correct’ and which are ‘incorrect.’

CAIR is so closely entwined with Islamists and with jihadis that court documents and news reports show that at least five of its people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated for various financial and terror-relatedoffenses.

Breitbart News has published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

In 2009, a federal judge concluded that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.”

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

Trump’s call for a better understanding of Islam is part of his plan to reorient U.S. foreign policy to crush and delegitimize political Islam.

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.

The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners…. Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.

To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.

Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home

…. But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.

Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society. Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion.

Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.

This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country. Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

Jihad is part of orthodox Islam, which also opposes the separation of religious law and the state. That makes it very different from Christianity, which theologically postpones the enforcement of religious law into the afterlife and so can theologically co-exist with secular governments, such as the United States government.

Islam’s twinning of  jihad with religious piety explains the relative frequency of bloody jihad violence throughout the Muslim world, especially when inflicted on non-Muslims in the United States, Paris, Germany snd many other countries.

Also, Islam’s focus on Earthly rule, says critics, means that it is a hybrid idea that combines religion (which gets the protection of the First Amendment) with a violent political movement that can be constitutionally suppressed.

For example, Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

Also, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims today.

In contrast, some Western Muslims are trying to develop a modern, pacific Islam that emphasizes the long-discarded early and relatively peaceful commandments in Islam.

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech: A Presidential Address

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, Aug. 16, 2016:

Yesterday in Youngstown, Ohio, Donald Trump delivered the best speech of his campaign to date. Newt Gingrich rightly called it the most important since Ronald Reagan left office.

In fact, in many ways, it was very Reaganesque. After all, long before he became president, Mr. Reagan warned that every generation faces an existential threat to freedom. Mr. Trump made clear that he recognizes the threat to freedom in our time, which he explicitly characterized as “Radical Islam” and its guiding, supremacist ideology, Sharia.

The GOP nominee also channeled President Reagan by espousing a comprehensive strategy highly reminiscent of the one the Gipper formally adopted in his National Security Decision Directive 75 and employed to defeat freedom’s last existential threat: Soviet communism. Mr. Trump recognizes that now, as then, we must bring decisively to bear all instruments of national power – economic, military, intelligence, information and ideological.

The last element, which was emphasized repeatedly in the Trump speech, reflects an essential understanding that has eluded past administrations of both parties and some of the candidate’s most vociferous critics, Democrats and Republicans alike: Jihadists who seek the destruction of our country, its Constitution, and people employ different tactics – including violence, migration, material support for terrorism, recruitment, indoctrination, conversions and stealthy subversion. But they are all motivated by the same ideology: Sharia. Donald Trump declared yesterday that if you embrace that supremacist doctrine, you must seek to supplant our Constitution and, therefore, you are not welcome here.

Specifically, the speech adopted a basic principle: As a foreign national and would-be immigrant to this country, you must share our values to gain admission. That filter has for too long been absent and has greatly contributed to the ominous demographic trends facing not just Europe, but this country, as well: growing numbers of transplanted and inherently hostile populations, most of whom have no interest in assimilating and, rather, insist that freedom-loving Americans accommodate their demands and, ultimately, submit to Sharia.

Finally, the Republican candidate to be our next Commander-in-Chief spoke of a reality that can no longer safely be ignored: There are “networks” in America that support “radicalization.” In so doing, he recognized another hard lesson from Europe’s experience. Violent jihadists rely upon and exploit the infrastructure (including Islamist mosques, societies, cultural centers, front groups, influence operations, etc.) that has been systematically put into place in the West over the past fifty years by Islamic supremacists, notably those associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We have no choice but to identify, designate and roll-up such operations.

Donald Trump’s remarks in Youngstown implicitly addressed another important issue about his candidacy. Particularly for those who have been uncertain about the GOP nominee’s propensity to make provocative comments, concerns played upon by critics’ assailing his judgment, this speech should be comforting. It not only displayed a discipline on the part of the Republican nominee to “stay on script.” It also spoke volumes about the quality of the people who are advising Candidate Trump and writing that script – and, presumably, who would be advising him should he win the White House. At no point since 9/11, and arguably for thirteen years before, has there been a better articulation of what’s at stake and what needs to be done to secure freedom, namely by seeking and achieving Victory over Jihad. We desperately need more such visionary and collaborative leadership.

Donald Trump set the stage yesterday in Youngstown for the sort of national debate – and choice – that is long overdue and absolutely necessary. Bring it on.

***

Levin: Trump is 100 percent right on ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants 

By: Phil Shiver | August 16, 2016 at Conservative Review

Donald Trump’s national security speech Monday generated a great deal of buzz, especially due to his call for “extreme vetting” of immigrants and the temporary suspension of immigration from countries affected by ISIS.

Trump set the tone that under his administration all incomers to the United States would either accept American values and assimilate, or simply not be allowed in. The Left went crazy. The New York Times editorial board dedicated an entire op-ed to attacking “Mr. Trump’s Foreign Policy Confusions.”

On his radio show Tuesday night Mark Levin fought back. “I want Donald Trump and his team to understand that they are 100 percent right about this issue of ideology and assimilation,” he said.

Listen to the Levin tear into The New York Times and explain why assimilation is so important:

Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Failures: A Recent History

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Tera Dahl, Aug. 15, 2016:

On Monday, fifty Republican national security veteransreleased a letter saying that none of them will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. They said in their letter that Trump would be a “dangerous President” on foreign policy and national security.

Monday also marked the 2-year anniversary of the war launched by the U.S. against Islamic State. NBC recently released a map showing the global expansion of Islamic State, showing how the U.S. policy to defeat them clearly has failed.

According to NBC:

U.S. State Department documents indicated that in 2014, when the U.S. military began its campaign to destroy the extremists, there were only seven nations in which the fledgling state was operating. A map from the National Counterterrorism Center shows the worldwide expansion of ISIS as of August 2016. By 2015, according to the State Department’s own numbers, there were nearly double that — 13 countries. The current briefing map shows 18 countries where  ISIS is fully operational. The map also displays a new category — “aspiring branches” — and lists six countries where  they’re taking root: Egypt, Indonesia, Mali, the Philippines, Somalia and Bangladesh.

We are currently facing a humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East not seen since WWII. In 1945, Democratic President Harry Truman used the atomic bomb against the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending WWII, killing over 150,000 people. Truman stated that he did it to save lives and end the war. He argued that it wasn’t an option to prolong the war resulting in more bloodshed. President Obama has done nothing in the Syrian conflict and little in the global war on Islamic State, which has resulted in over400,000 deaths in Syria alone and displacing millions under his Presidency. Prolonging the war costs lives and money.

A do-nothing foreign policy as we have seen under President Obama and Hillary’s State Department is dangerous, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump would win and end the war against Islamic State, ultimately saving lives.

It is Hillary Clinton that has a proven record of a dangerous foreign policy. As Secretary of State, she has a consistent track record of supporting our enemies and alienating our allies.

A short list of Hillary’s policies that have jeopardized American national security include: undermining the service and sacrifice of thousands of men and women in uniform by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops; supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of Islamic State; supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt,UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined America’s Muslim allies; refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria; undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009; and supporting the Iran Nuclear deal.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton refused to designate Islamic State affiliate Boko Haram in Nigeria, which was named the deadliest terrorist organization in 2015, a terrorist group. She not only refused, but she hindered the efforts of Members of Congress who were trying to make the designation.

The FBI, CIA and Justice Department wanted Boko Haram designated but, ultimately, the State Department opposed the designation despite hard evidence from our Intelligence services.

Clinton’s refusal to designate them a FTO could be because of conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation and a Nigerian businessman. Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigerian businessman with Lebanese dual citizenship and land developer, gave $5 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation throughout the years and pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009 through the Chagoury Group. He hosted former President Bill Clinton in Nigeria as head of the Clinton Foundation.

Chagoury would have a financial interest in the impact on Nigeria that would have followed a FTO designation. The FTO designation would affect his developments in Nigeria.

Boko Haram is responsible for kidnapping over 260 young female students in 2014. If the designation for Boko Haram occurred sooner, the search for the girls could have started sooner. Boko Haram gained significant footing and expanded during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Boko Haram has killed more than 20,000 people and displaced 2 million.

Hillary calls herself a “champion of women’s rights,” but did not designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization despite being responsible for killing and kidnapping thousands of people, including women and children, using them as sex slaves and suicide bombers.

One of the most strategic consequential failures of the Hillary State Department was in 2009 when the U.S. undermined the Iranian Green Revolution. Not only did the U.S. do nothing to help the opposition against the terrorist Iranian regime, but US funding was cut for democratic organizations/programs in Iran under Clinton’s State Department. Democracy funding under the State Department continued in countries like Egypt, where the US supported “democratic” opposition groups which led to the removal of US ally Mubarak, but were cut for opposition groups that were pro-western against a terrorist regime.

According to a Wall Street Journal article published in October 2009, democratic organizations that were funded under the Bush Administration were cut under Hillary’s State Department. The article states

Less widely known is that Freedom House, the nonpartisan watchdog group founded in 1941, also lost State Department funding. It applied in April for significant funds to support initiatives including Gozaar, its Farsi-English online journal of democracy and human rights, and was turned down in July. Since 2006, Freedom House had received over $2 million from the U.S. and European governments for Iran-related efforts. “We might have to close Gozaar if we run out of money,” deputy executive director Thomas O. Melia told us this week…then there’s the International Republican Institute (IRI), which for several years received State Department support to train Iranian reformers and connect them to like-minded activists in Europe and elsewhere. IRI’s recent application for funds was denied, an IRI official told us last week.

The article continued saying, “In a recent letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about Iran policy, seven congressmen including Chris Smith (R., N.J.), Bob Inglis (R., S.C.), and James Moran (D., Va.), wrote: ‘We are particularly concerned by reports that the State Department and USAID are being ‘extremely cautious’ in their funding decisions, have stopped funding projects, and have approved no new strategy for promoting civil society and the rule of law.’ Mrs. Clinton has not responded.”

The war in Libya is another one of Hillary’s greatest foreign policy mistakes, leading to thousands killed and millions displaced. Gaddafi was not a good man, but he had a stake in the global war on terrorism after he allegedly dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. In 2007, the United States removed Libya from the list of state sponsors of terrorism andresumed normal diplomatic relations.

Under Gaddafi, Islamists were consistently trying to overthrow his regime, so he had an interest in standing up against Islamist terrorists, using state force against them. Libyan intelligence worked with the CIA and the US intelligence during the Iraq war to arrest members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda.

The LIFG has been a U.S. designated terrorist organization since 2004. According to aWest Point study conducted in 2007, Libya contributed far more foreign fighters in Iraq to fight American troops per capita than any other country.

It was Hillary Clinton’s State Department that gave a contract to the February 17th Martyrs Brigade in Libya to protect America’s Consulate, who were known sympathizers to Al Qaeda and are main suspects in the Benghazi attack on the U.S. consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

In Afghanistan, Hillary undermined American and Afghan troops by leading and spearheading the negotiations with the Taliban, pushing for an office in Qatar while the Taliban refused. She led negotiations with the Taliban while they were killing American troops.

As Secretary of State, the US failed to secure the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, leaving a vacuum for ISIS – undermining the sacrifice that thousands of Americans gave in securing victory in the war.

In Yemen, Hillary Clinton met with one of the leading members of the opposition, Tawakkol Karman, who is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Yemen and was a leader in the overthrow of President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime. Hillary Clinton stated, “”the United States supports a democratic transition in Yemen and the rights of the people of Yemen – men and women – to choose their own leaders and futures.”  The White House issued a statement supporting the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution that called for a peaceful transition in Yemen, stating, “a united and unambiguous signal to President Saleh that he must respond to the aspirations of the Yemeni people by transferring power immediately.” Today, Yemen is a failed state and fighting a proxy war, another disaster of Hillary’s Arab Spring.

The Middle East is on fire because of Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Obama Administration’s policies of fighting against the rule of law and supporting those that break the law – creating anarchy and safe havens for terrorists. Hillary will bring anarchy and lawlessness, which she has already done as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is dangerous for America’s national security, not Donald Trump.

Tera Dahl is the Executive Director of the Council on Global Security.

Muslims Paying ZAKAT are Funding Terrorism

zakat2Understanding the Threat, by Jon Guandolo, Aug. 15, 2016:

Zakat is defined in Islamic Sacred Law (sharia) as “the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions (specified in sharia).”

Zakat is also one of the five pillars of Islam.

According to Islamic sharia, “Zakat is obligatory for every free Muslim (male, female, adult, or child) who has possessed a zakat-payable amount for one lunar year.”

Sura (Chapter) 9 in the Koran is the “sura of the sword.”

Verse 9:60 states:  “Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect zakah and for bringing hearts together for Islam and for freeing captives or slaves and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the stranded traveler – an obligation imposed by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.”

From this Koranic verse, sharia declares:  “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients – meaning that zakat goes to none besides them, one-eighth of the zakat to each category.”

Sharia states the eight (8) categories are:  (1) the poor; (2) those short of money; (3) zakat workers; (4) those whose hearts are to be reconciled; (5) those purchasing their freedom; (6) those in debt; (7) those fighting for allah; (8) travellers needing money.

Specifically, category 7 is defined in sharia as:

Those Fighting for Allah.  The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster, but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged.” [Um dat al Salik, Book H Zakat, H8.17]

This means that all sharia compliant Islamic organizations in America which accept Zakat payments, must send 1/8 of all the money they collect to support jihad.

Paying zakat that supports jihad is a violation of U.S. law because it necessarily is “material support for terrorism.”

This is why some of the largest and most prominent Islamic charities have been identified by the U.S. government as funding “terrorism” (jihad).  It is a command from allah.

Every law enforcement agency in the United States has probable cause right now that all Islamic organizations in their jurisdiction which receive zakat payments are in violation of the law and are materially supporting terrorism.

As a matter of fact, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) stated on it’s website it gives 100% of their zakat to category 7 (the “cause of allah” / “fisabilillah”) – jihad/”terrorism.”  Why wouldn’t they?  They are Hamas after all.

On another note, President Obama publicly stated “That’s why I am committed to working with American muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”

Dr. Sebastian Gorka Talks ‘Defeating Jihad’ on Glazov Gang

gorka3
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the author of Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War and Professor of Strategy and Irregular Warfare at the Institute of World Politics.

Dr. Gorka unveils the winning strategy against Jihad, unmasks the Radical-in-Chief, describes the horrific scenario of a Hillary victory, and much, much more.

***

Dr. Sebastian Gorka said  on his  facebook  that he will be appearing at this special FOX townhall event in Milwaukee Tuesday with Sean Hannity and Donald Trump:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/hannity-exclusive-one-hour-event-with-trump-in-milwaukee-tickets-24793306447

Canadian Jihadi Created ‘Martyrdom Video,’ Pledged Allegiance to Islamic State

National Post/screenshot

National Post/screenshot

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 122, 2016:

At a news conference on Friday, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said that Canadian jihadi Aaron Driver, shot by the police after detonating a bomb in a taxicab, filmed a “martyrdom video,” pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and was planning a “dreadful” attack.

In the martyrdom video, Driver dresses in a black balaclava, like the garb favored by ISIS militants, “cites a phrase from the Koran, refers to crimes against Muslims and pledges an imminent attack on a Canadian city,” as Reuters describes it.

“Oh Canada, you received many warnings, you were told many times what would become of those who fight against the Islamic State,” begins the aspiring jihadi, who went by the name “Harun Abdulrahman” on social media.

The National Post provided an edited copy of the video, plus a full transcript of Driver’s tirade, which ends with the formal vow of allegiance to ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi that the Islamic State demands from “lone wolf” recruits:

Oh Canada, you received many warnings. You were told many times what will become of those who fight against the Islamic State. You watched as your allies in Europe and America had their bullets and bombs returned back to them. You saw bodies of the filthy French laying in their own streets.

You saw explosions in Paris and Brussels, similar to the explosions they were dropping on citizens of the Islamic State. You saw brave men and women respond to the call of jihad. You saw that each member of the coalition of crusaders was being punished for their aggression against the Muslims. Then, perhaps, you found yourself safe from retaliation because you ran away from the battlefield. No, no by Allah you still have much to pay for.

You still have a heavy debt which has to be paid. You still have Muslim blood on your hands, and for this we are thirsty for your blood. There’s a fire burning in the chest of every Muslim, and this fire can be cooled only by the spilling of your blood. Your war on Islam is not the kind of crime we allow ourselves to dismiss, to forgive or to forget, insha’Allah.

You will pay for everything you ever brought against us. Whether you drop a bomb or fire a single bullet, we will hold you accountable for this, insha’Allah. Whether you spend millions in the war against Islam or you spend a single cent, we will hold you accountable, insha’Allah.

When you creep an inch towards the lands of Islam or you set foot over its boundaries, we will hold you accountable, insha’Allah.

You call yourselves peacekeepers on this Earth, but (Allah) has already warned us against you. You’re nothing but mischief-makers, and all you do is spread oppression and corruption. So today is the day you experience what it’s like to be targeted for your belief, insha’Allah.

I give my pledge of allegiance to (ISIL leader) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi … who’s called for jihad in the lands of crusaders, and I respond to this call.

Inshallah means “as Allah wills.” Driver’s taunt that Canadians could not find safety by “running away from the battlefield” refers to new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pledge to withdraw Canadian forces from combat missions against the Islamic State.

According to Reuters, the martyrdom video was the crucial “actionable threat intelligence” provided by the American FBI to Canadian authorities. The video also reportedly helped the RCMP identify Driver and locate his residence. The police confronted him as he was attempting to use a taxicab to leave the home, and shot him after he detonated an explosive device, causing minor injuries to the cab driver.

“It was a race against time,” said RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mike Cabana. He said Driver was planning a “significantly more dreadful” attack if he had not been stopped in time.

The UK Guardian quotes Cabana addressing the issue of Driver being a known terrorist threat, who was theoretically under police supervision at the time he came dangerously close to pulling off a mass-casualty attack:

“Mr Driver was one individual among others that had potentially criminal intentions. And our ability to monitor people 24 hours a day and 7 days a week simply does not exist, we can’t do that. When individuals have intentions, such as Mr Driver had, there are no conditions that can be put in place that will prevent them from taking action.”

Newsweek reports that the ISIS news agency, Amaq, has described Driver as a “soldier of the Islamic State,” conceding that he made a mistake by “releasing his video… before carrying out the attack.”

***

 

Duck And Cover — It’s Jihad!

DuckAndCover2CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 12, 2016:

The threat of jihadi terror affects almost all sectors of society, since Islamic terrorists target both government/military as well as civilian sectors.  The French have suffered especially.  In January of 2015 after the kosher market attack in Paris, we saw how the French government resorted to drastic measures in protecting its citizens by deploying thousands of soldiers around “sensitive sites” – including Jewish schools, synagogues, airports, and more. One of the most frightening areas of concern are schools. French schools have already been a target of jihadi barbarity such as the Toulouse incident in March of 2012 when a teacher and three children were murdered at a Jewish school. In addition, Breitbart reports how late last year ISIS issued a statement “commanding Muslims to pull their children out of French schools and to ‘kill teachers’, who Dar al-Islam [ISIS’s French online magazine] refer to as ‘corrupters.’” Now we’re seeing more of a concerted effort by the French in prepping school children for possible terror attacks. The French government recently gave an announcement ensuring the public that “security of schools is a top priority.” Breitbart lists some of the safety measures, which include:

From September, children will undergo three ‘exercises’ during the school year, including one bomb threat drill. Schools will also install a second bell, distinct in tone from the fire alarm, which the pupils will be taught to recognise as signalling [sic] that they are under threat, and administrators will also implement SMS text messaging warnings to all pupils in the event of an attack.

In addition, pupils in the third form (14-year-olds) will be taught first aid, and “resilience” – i.e., preparedness and how to react when caught up in a terrorist attack.

Headteachers will be responsible for securing all vulnerable areas of the schools’ premises, increasing surveillance on public roads in the vicinity, and appointing a “security manager” to oversee security and crisis management.

Furthermore, there will be the (translated by Bing) “monitoring of students and staff reported as entered a process of radicalization[.]” It will be interesting to see if France uses this as an opportunity to examine more closely the Sharia ideology that is a driver behind radicalization leading to jihad. In fact, France is starting to take this “radical Islamic ideology” head-on and has even been shutting down mosques where this ideology is preached. For example, since December of 2015, France has closed about twenty mosques/prayer halls. One hopes France will take additional preventive measures when addressing the threat of jihad. French children’s very lives are being targeted and their safety is on the line!