“CAIR and the SJP have clearly hitched their star to the Black Lives Movement and are retailing it’s distortions”
“CAIR and the SJP have clearly hitched their star to the Black Lives Movement and are retailing it’s distortions”
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.
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”?
Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 16, 2016:
Catholic Charities is criminally irresponsible and suicidally short-sighted. They are endangering people in Maine and all over the United States by bringing these jihadis into American communities that are unprepared for them, all the while lying to them and telling them that there is no jihad threat related to the refugees, and that anyone who says otherwise is a racist and a bigot and a dissenter from the magisterium.
Adnan Fazeli went to the Islamic State to wage his jihad. What if he had decided to wage it right there in Portland, Maine? What’s to stop the next jihadi refugee that Catholic Charities brings to Portland from deciding to do just that?
“Documents: Freeport man died fighting for Islamic State,” by Scott Dolan and Megan Doyle, Portland Press Herald, August 16, 2016:
An Iranian man who came to Maine as a refugee in 2009 became radicalized in his Islamic faith while living here and was fighting for the Islamic State when he was killed last year in Lebanon, according to newly unsealed federal court documents.
Adnan Fazeli, 38, most recently of Freeport, came under investigation by the FBI for his connection to the terrorist group shortly after he left his job at Dubai Auto in Portland to fly to Turkey on Aug. 13, 2013, and never returned.
Fazeli, who also went by the names Abu Nawaf and Abu Abdullah Al-Ahwazi, was killed on Jan. 23, 2015, in a battle near Ras Baalbek in Lebanon as part of an Islamic State attack force of about 150 that was thwarted by the Lebanese army.
Those details, which were never revealed publicly before, were contained in an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland last Oct. 27 by Maine State Police Detective George Loder, who was acting as a member of an FBI task force investigating whether other people were aware of Fazeli’s plans to fight for the Islamic State, helped him travel to the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area or supported his efforts there. The affidavit remained under seal during the investigation, which ended with no criminal charges.
The affidavit gives the accounts of four anonymous informants for the FBI who described how Fazeli’s behavior began to change about a year after he came to the Portland area through Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services. They told the FBI that Fazeli frequently watched hours of Islamic videos online, grew a beard and began making anti-American remarks while at an Iraqi market in Portland.
While the informants are not named in the affidavit, Fazeli’s nephew, Ebrahim Fazeli, told the Portland Press Herald on Monday that he informed the FBI about his uncle after Adnan Fazeli called the family from Turkey. The affidavit describes one of the informants as a close relative of Fazeli’s.
“Fazeli’s change in behavior alienated him from many of his Shia and moderate Sunni friends in the area. However, there were a few local Sunnis who supported his fervor and treated him with a great deal of respect. Fazeli started holding occasional religious meetings at his home in Freeport,” Loder said in the affidavit, describing what one informant had said.
Ebrahim Fazeli, 25, said the family was unaware of his uncle’s plans to leave the United States. His uncle had become more religious and grew a substantial beard, but the nephew said no one realized he had become radicalized.
“That wasn’t enough for me to think an educated, smart guy has it in him to join an insane group of people,” said Ebrahim Fazeli, who lives in the Greater Portland area….
Fazeli initially came to the United States as a refugee in 2009, but did not adapt well. He told one informant that he hated Iran because the government was anti-Sunni and felt the United States had done nothing to help. Although Fazeli was raised a Shia Muslim, his family was not devout, one of the informants said. His behavior began to change while in the U.S., and he converted to Wahhabism, an austere form of Sunni Islam….
While Fazeli was abroad, he continued to communicate by Skype chats with at least one of the informants, who later shared videos of the chats with FBI investigators. In one video, Fazeli said that he and his Islamic State allies could kill 1,000 enemies for every 10 of their own killed. In another video, he wore a khaki camouflage military uniform and inquired whether any U.S. government authorities had begun asking questions about him….
Fazeli’s relative called the FBI on Jan. 26, 2015, to report that Fazeli had been killed, according to the affidavit. The same relative emailed a copy of a news article in Arabic from the Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar to the FBI on Jan. 28, 2015, that describes how “tens” of ISIS fighters were killed in a clash in Ras Baalbek, a Lebanese Christian town near the Syrian border threatened by both the Islamic State and al-Qaida in Syria. The article listed one of the dead as Abu Abdullah Al-Ahwazi, Fazeli’s other name….
Jalali said Fazeli self-identified as Arab, not Iranian, because he came from the southern and western part of Iran. In Maine, he mingled primarily with Iraqis.
“He talked about enjoying religious freedom here. That’s why I am so shocked,” Jalali said. “He praised this society for its openness.
“How he could go through that transformation, that’s a mystery. That’s quite heartbreaking. It reminds us of the power of social media, brainwashing bright, educated men and turn them into fighters or killers.”…
The medium is not the problem. The message is the problem. This is not a story about the power of social media. It is a story about the power of Islam’s call to jihad.
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the inaccuracies and falsehoods in the report on “Islamophobia” recently issued by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Breitbart, by John Hayward, Aug. 9, 2016:
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, joined SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon on Breitbart News Daily to discuss the open letter from 50 Republican national security officials, who declared, “None of us will vote for Donald Trump.”
“It’s really astonishing when you think about Hillary Clinton’s sorry record as secretary of state, in Benghazi, and everything else. The world on fire, the creation of ISIS, all these things can be laid at the feet of Obama and Hillary Clinton,” said Spencer.
These military leaders, who are indeed chop-blocking Donald Trump, are obviously part of a foreign-policy establishment that has failed, and knows that it has failed, and knows how threatened it is by the candidacy of Donald Trump, and is trying to protect its hold on power. But it’s really, incredibly, almost intellectually bankrupt for them to be going after Trump in defense of such a pitiable record.
Spencer agreed with Bannon that these officials denouncing Trump are the same people who have attacked critics of radical Islam, including himself, Frank Gaffney, and Pamela Geller, over the years.
“These are the same ones who made sure that I was removed as an FBI trainer and a trainer of the military,” Spencer recalled, adding:
I used to go in routinely, from 2005 to 2010, and show them the mindset of the terrorists. You can’t defeat an enemy that you don’t understand, much less one yourefuse to understand. They are the foremost exponents of the idea that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Meanwhile, the terrorists keep insisting that it does. And until we listen to them, and until we study what their motives and goals are, we will never be able to defeat them.
Bannon suggested the Republican officials lined up against Trump are angry because he is listening to critics of radical Islam like Spencer, instead of them.
“Absolutely, because the fact is, previously, under the administrations of both Bush and Obama, the foreign policy establishment has been the same,” Spencer agreed. He explained:
Their failed solutions have been applied again, and again, and again. The change of administration didn’t make any difference. Democrats, Republicans, they both buy into all these false assumptions and failed analyses. Trump is different, and that is why he so deeply threatens the political establishment – both the Republican establishment, as well as the Democrats.
Turning to President Obama’s controversial $400 million secret payment to Iran, Spencer said there is “no doubt at all” it was a ransom payment, and Iran is “rubbing their faces in it” by “showing how the hostages were not released until the plane touched down, until they made sure they had the money.”
“It’s an obvious equation, one to one: the hostages were released when they got the ransom payment. It’s very clear. Iran knows it, and they are gleefully showing up Obama as a liar,” Spencer said.
To hold President Obama accountable, he urged Congress to get “something done to make sure there are no more secret deals.”
“The Iran nuclear deal, on the face of it, is bad enough, as I show in the book,” he explained, referring to The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. “But now, all these secret parts of it have come out, the idea that they can inspect their own sites and all this.”
Bannon noted that the administration keeps pretending its secret deals and “side letters” with Iran were known on Capitol Hill long ago, as the American people reel in shock from each new revelation. Spencer strongly disputed this White House spin.
“They come out in the press, and then the Obama administration has consistently claimed that, oh, yeah, everybody already knew that. It’s all just deception. They’ve been caught lying several times,” he said.
“Of course, Ben Rhodes lied about making out the Iranian regime to be moderate. It was all false. He’s admitted lying. He’s boasted about lying about that. … He’s using them, and he’s continuing to use them, and they still haven’t woken up,” Spencer noted, referring to interviews with Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, in which he described reporters as lazy, poorly informed, and easy to manipulate for propaganda purposes.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
Robert Spencer’s new and indispensable book on the mullahs — and their aims of global conquest.
Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Thornton, Aug. 4, 2016:
Terrorist attacks, assassinations of police, and the presidential campaigns have sidelined the biggest, and perhaps most consequential news story of recent months: Iran’s serial subversion of the fatally flawed deal Obama made last October with the mullahs regarding their nuclear weapons program. German intelligence reports that Iran is carrying out “illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities” at a “quantitatively high level.” More recently, an AP reporter revealed yet another secret “side deal” to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), as Obama’s agreement is known. This one allows Iran to replace its 5060 uranium centrifuges with more advanced models, doubling the rate of enrichment. Along with Iran’s already documented cheating on the deal, these concessions bring ever closer the day when a fanatical, genocidal regime possesses nuclear weapons.
The urgency of this threat makes Robert Spencer’s The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran a must-read. Spencer is director of the Freedom Center’s Jihad Watch and author of fifteen books on Islam. His new book gives readers everything they need to understand the nature of the regime, its hatred of the West, especially the United States, and its religiously inspired aims of global conquest, which nuclear armaments would serve.
Spencer’s book begins, in a chapter appropriately called “The Ultimate Screwing,” with a summary of the JCPA and its dangerous appeasement of Iran. He explodes the mendacious claims of Obama such as “every pathway to a nuclear weapon” had been blocked and “we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in the region.” Nor does he let John Kerry off the hook for his equally preposterous claims that “we are watching their centrifuge production with live television, taping the whole deal 24-7 for 20 years.” Subsequent revelations about the deal and Iran’s violations of its terms have shown that the Ayatollah Khamenei’s jubilant boast–– that the U.S. has been “forced to accept and stand the spinning of thousands of centrifuges and the continuation of research and development in Iran” –– is more accurate.
As Spencer reminds us, other terms of the deal represent dangerous concessions to the mullahs rather than ways to change their terroristic foreign policy and prevent them from acquiring the bomb. The deal expires in 15 years, with no mechanism to keep Iran from continuing research and development. Inspectors must give the mullahs up to 24 days’ notice before entering suspect sites. Iran doesn’t have to prove it’s living up to the deal, since sanctions have already been removed, a windfall worth as much as $700 billion from renewed trade deals like the $25 billion agreement just inked with Boeing. A secret side deal allows Iran to inspect its own sites of nuclear related work. And as we have already seen, there are no consequences for violating the terms of the deal, the much touted “snap-back sanctions” being nothing but a fantasy. As former Democratic Senator Joe Leiberman and U.N. Ambassador Mark D. Wallach reported last November, “Iran continues to act as a nuclear weapons outlaw.”
The bulk of the book is aimed at explaining through Iranian history and Shia doctrine the mullahs’ true motives that Obama and Kerry either don’t know or simply ignored in their search for a “legacy” diplomatic achievement. Particularly relevant is the history of the 1979 revolution that created the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just like today, those running our foreign policy back then completely missed or downplayed the religious nature of the overthrow of the Shah. Rather than an anti-colonial movement to establish national self-determination and consensual government, the revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a reaction against the liberalizing, secularizing, and modernizing program of the Shah and his father before him, who had ordered Iranians to wear Western clothes, allowed more mixing of the sexes, and encouraged women to stop wearing the hijab.
In 1962 the Shah angered the clerical class when he gave women the right to vote and allowed office-holders to take their oath of office on any scared book, not just the Koran. The next year he launched the White Revolution, which also allowed women to hold political office, and instituted land reforms. In the following years he introduced more reforms, such as changing the calendar to mark the years not from Mohammed’s emigration to Medina, but from the creation of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great. These changes reduced the influence of Islam and clerics on public life, a repudiation of sharia law. And traditional Muslims saw these reforms as reflections of the malign influence of the secular West, which Islamic theorist Jalal Al-e Ahmad dubbed “Westoxication,” a “disease that comes from without, fostered in an environment [the West] made for breeding diseases.”
As Spencer documents with copious quotations, the cure was a return to the purity of Shia Islam. The eventual leader of the revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, made the religious origins of the revolution clear: “What is happening is a calculated plot against Iranian independence and the Islamic nation, and it is threatening the foundation of Islam.” And he made explicit the need for a theocratic form of government based on the model of Mohammed, “who headed the executive and the administrative institutions of Muslim society” and “undertook the implementation of law and the establishment of the ordinances of Islam [Sharia law], thereby bringing into being the Islamic state.” Hence the current rule by clerics established by the revolution, and a government that believes democracy and human rights to be un-Islamic imports from the West.
The role of the U.S. as the “Great Satan” spearheading the Western assault on Islam and the Islamic Republic became established by an act of war–– the storming of the embassy in Tehran in November 1979 by the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s [Khomeini’s] Line. The Ayatollah called this egregious breach of international law the “second revolution” that would neutralize the West and keep it from interfering in the establishment of the theocracy, correctly judging that “our opponents do not dare act against us.” The taking of the hostages was the de facto declaration of war on the U.S, a war Iran has waged for 37 years and regularly celebrates in public chants of “Death to America.”
Moreover, the revolution was just the beginning of a global Islamic revival fueled by jihad. Contrary to Western jihad deniers, Khomeini made it clear that “Islam wants to conquer the whole world” and that Islam says “kill all the unbelievers” and “kill in the service of Allah” the infidels who allegedly want to kill Muslims. Iran began to fund and train numerous jihadist terror organizations still active today, most notoriously Hezbollah, which in 1983 murdered 241 American military personnel in Beirut and today threatens Israel with 150,000 rockets and missiles. As Khomeini’s successor the Ayatollah Khamenei said in 2011, “Wherever a movement is Islamic, populist, and anti-American, we support it.”
As Spencer shows, these strains of grievance over perceived wrongs, and the sense of entitlement to world domination are reinforced and legitimized by the Twelver Shiism followed in Iran. Shiism arose in the 7th century out of a struggle for leadership between Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali and the Prophet’s father-in-law Abu Bakr. Ali and his faction lost, and he eventually was murdered in 661; his son Hussain and Hussain’s infant son were likewise killed in 680. Shiism became a minority strain in the Muslim world, one characterized by a high value placed on martyrdom arising from Ali’s reported self-sacrifice for the sake of Muslim unity; and by a sense of inevitable defeat at the hands of heretics who unjustly stole the leadership of the Islamic world. But as Spencer writes, “Only with the coming of the Islamic Republic did a sense of victory arising from the ashes of defeat become combined with a new and lethal aggressiveness.”
Additionally, Iranian Shiism reveres the tradition of the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Mahdi, who disappeared as a child in the 10th century and according to prophecy currently is in hiding until a third of the world’s population is destroyed and Muslims suffer a great persecution. In the words of another prophecy attributed to Ali himself, a humble man would arise and “conquer the whole world. All would enter the fold of religion willingly or unwillingly. He would fill the earth with justice, equity and proof. No disbeliever will remain without accepting the faith.” And according to another Shiite tradition, “The Imam who will create a world state will make the ruling nations pay for their crimes.”
Western leaders have discounted these beliefs for decades, dismissing them as mere rhetoric used to express political and economic grievances. That’s why Obama in 2009 hoped that the regime would respond to the protests against a rigged presidential election “not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed.” Like many Westerners before him, Obama has not paid attention to repeated rejections of democracy and human rights by Muslim religious leaders and Islamic theorists. More importantly, the president ignores the powerful hold these tenets and traditions of Shiism have on the Iranian ruling class. Khamenei continually refers to the Twelfth Imam and his historical role, and sees the Iranian Revolution as an important step toward the fulfillment of the venerable prophecies of his return.
Given these apocalyptic and triumphalist doctrines, Spencer argues, allowing the mullahs to acquire nuclear weapons is lunatic. Such weapons will help the believers to initiate the times of destruction and disorder that are prophesized to usher in the return of the Twelfth Imam and the global utopia he will create. Secularized Westerners who dismiss religion as a quaint lifestyle choice of course sneer at such superstitions. But however strange or fanciful to us Westerners, such beliefs nonetheless can be powerful motivators of destructive human behavior.
There are many other useful analyses in this important book, from Iranian genocidal antisemitism and daily life in an oppressive theocracy, to the history of Persia and the 2009 short-lived Green Revolution. Spencer ends his book with a list of common-sense prescriptions for dealing with Iran, most important of which are understanding accurately the origins and nature of the the mullahs’ religious beliefs, and responding forcefully to provocative behavior in order protect American prestige and power of deterrence. Every president from Carter to Obama has failed at these imperatives, thus emboldening the regime to even greater aggression, and now has brought it closer to the possession of nuclear weapons. For those who want to correct this sorry record, Robert Spencer’s informed, thoughtful, and clearly written book is the best place to start.
To order “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran,” CLICK HERE.
His son died in service of the U.S. military; now his father is using his memory to advance a different cause.
Front Page Magazine, August 1, 2016:
The mainstream media is wild with enthusiasm these days over Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous anger, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered what the Washington Post dubbed a “brutal repudiation of Donald Trump.” Trump responded, elevating Khizr Khan to the status of full-fledged flavor-of-the-moment media celebrity. There’s just one catch: Khizr is using his son’s memory not to advance the cause of the United States, as his son apparently died trying to do, but to advance a quite different cause: that of the global umma.
The well-heeled and powerful backers of the global jihad – those who have enabled the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups to grow as powerful as they have today — are enraged at Donald Trump. They are deeply worried by his call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the United States, as that will make it much more difficult for jihadis to get into this country. They are anxious to stigmatize any and all resistance to jihad terror – and so, happily enough for them, is the Democratic Party, which has eagerly signed on to the longtime strategy employed by Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S., to demonize all effective measures against jihad terror as “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”
So it was that Khizr Khan, in the full fury of his indignation at the DNC, trotted out a straw man, falsely claiming that Trump wanted to “ban us from this country.” Trump has said nothing about banning Muslim citizens of the U.S. from the country, only about a temporary moratorium on immigration from terror states. Even worse, all the effusive praise being showered on Khizr Khan in the last few days overlooks one central point: he is one man. His family is one family. There are no doubt many others like his, but this fact does not mean that there is no jihad, or that all Muslims in the U.S. are loyal citizens.
Khizr Khan is enraged at Donald Trump, but is Trump really the cause of his problem? Jihad terrorists, not Donald Trump or “Islamophobes,” killed his son in Iraq. And if Donald Trump or anyone else looks upon Muslims in the U.S. military with suspicion, it is with good reason: does any other demographic have as high a rate of treason as Muslims in the U.S. military? In 2003, a convert to Islam, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, murdered two of his commanding officers in Kuwait. In 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood.
Other than those attacks, a Muslim in the U.S. Navy discussed sniper attacks on military personnel. A Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave an Egyptian agent information on how to sink a U.S. carrier. In 2015, a Muslim National Guard soldier in Illinois planned an Islamic State jihad attack against a U.S. military base.Last February, a U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas. Just days ago, a U.S. Air Force veteran was convicted of trying to join the Islamic State.
Then there is the U.S. Muslim who gave the Islamic State U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical gear, firearms accessories, and thousands in cash. Where are those uniforms now?
It is good that there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal. But can we have a discussion about those who aren’t, and why they aren’t, and what can be done about it? Such a discussion is vitally necessary, but it wouldn’t serve the classic objective of the global umma, to increase the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) at the dar al-harb (house of war). Nor would an open discussion of Khan’s Sunday morning assertion on Meet the Press that terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam.”
We constantly are told this, but the repetition doesn’t make it true. In the first place, jihadis repeatedly make clear that they think what they’re doing has everything to do with Islam:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” —Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari
PJ MEDIA, BY ROBERT SPENCER, JULY 19, 2016
The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the terror attack has finally been released (although with substantial portions still redacted). We now know why one president who held hands with the Saudi king and another president who bowed to him worked so hard all these years to keep these pages secret. The 28 pages confirm that the 9/11 jihad murderers received significant help from people at the highest levels of the Saudi government.
However, Saudi involvement in 9/11 was not the only subject of a cover-up: Iran’s little-noted role in 9/11 has been covered up as well.
As I detail in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, on December 22, 2011, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled in Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., that Iran and Hizballah were liable for damages to be paid to relatives of the victims of the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks in New York and Washington.
Judge Daniels found that both the Islamic Republic and its Lebanese proxy had actively aided al-Qaeda in planning and executing those attacks. He found that Iran and Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11, and continued to do so after the attacks.
Before 9/11, Iran and Hizballah were implicated in efforts to train al-Qaeda members to blow up large buildings. This training resulted in the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
Shortly after the Cole attack, the 9/11 jihad plot began to come together — and Iran was involved.
Former MOIS operative Abolghasem Mesbahi, a defector from Iran, testified that during the summer of 2001 he received messages from Iranian government officials regarding a plan for unconventional warfare against the United States. The plot was entitled Shaitan dar Atash (“Satan in Flames”).
“Satan in Flames” was the Iranian’s elaborate plot to hijack three passenger jets, each packed full of people, and crash them into American landmarks: the World Trade Center, which jihadis took to be the center of American commerce; the Pentagon, the center of America’s military apparatus; and the White House.
A classified National Security Agency analysis referred to in the 9/11 Commission report reveals that eight to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers traveled to Iran repeatedly in late 2000 and early 2001.
The 9/11 Commission called for a U.S. government investigation into Iran’s role in 9/11 — but none was ever undertaken.
So Kenneth R. Timmerman of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran was, in his words, “engaged by the Havlish attorneys in 2004 to carry out the investigation the 9/11 Commission report called on the U.S. government to handle.”
Timmerman noted that during the 9/11 hijackers’ trips to Iran, they were “accompanied by ‘senior Hezbollah operatives’ who were in fact agents of the Iranian regime.” Iranian border agents did not stamp their passports so that their having been inside the Islamic Republic would not arouse suspicion when they entered the United States. The CIA, embarrassed by its failure to recognize the import of these trips, tried to suppress this revelation.
However, Timmerman contends that even the available evidence is explosive enough. In his words, he reveals that the Islamic Republic of Iran:
The Ayatollah Khamenei knew about the plot. During the summer of 2001, he instructed Iranian agents to be careful to conceal their tracks. He told them to communicate only with al-Qaeda’s second-in-command — Ayman al-Zawahiri — and Imad Mughniyah of Hizballah.
Mughniyah was Iran’s key player in the 9/11 “Satan in Flames” plot. During theHavlish trial, former CIA agents Clare M. Lopez and Bruce D. Tefft submitted an affidavit stating:
Imad Mughniyah, the most notable and notorious world terrorist of his time, an agent of Iran and a senior operative of Hizballah, facilitated the international travel of certain 9/11 hijackers to and from Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan, and perhaps various other locations for the purpose of executing the events of September 11, 2001.This support enabled two vital aspects of the September 11, 2001 plot to succeed: (1) the continued training of the hijackers in Afghanistan and Iran after securing their United States visas in Saudi Arabia, and (2) entry into the United States.
The Obama-era CIA went to great pains to try to ensure that information about Iran’s role in 9/11 did not come out in the Havlish case.
In August 2010, a CIA official pressured a Havlish witness to withdraw his testimony in exchange for a new identity, new passport, and new job.
In December of that year, another CIA operative approached a different Havlishwitness, showed him documents stolen from the case, and took him to a U.S. embassy where he was subjected to five hours of interrogation. He was finally offered cash if he recanted his testimony. Says Timmerman:
After I reported those attempts at witness tampering to a Congressional oversight committee, they ceased.
Judge Daniels determined that Iran, Hizballah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and other Iranian government departments — as well as the Ayatollah Khamenei himself and former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — were all directly implicated in Iranian efforts to aid al-Qaeda in its 9/11 plot.
Daniels awarded the plaintiffs in the Havlish case $394,277,884 for economic damages, $94,000,000 for pain and suffering, $874,000,000 for mental anguish and grief, $4,686,235,921 in punitive damages, and $968,000,000 in pre-judgment interest for a total of $7,016,513,805.
The Havlish plaintiffs will not receive a check for that amount from the Islamic Republic of Iran neatly signed by the Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the judgment provided a small bit of solace for the loss of life and years of trauma these families suffered as a result of the Islamic Republic’s war against the United States.
Most importantly, the judgment stands as an acknowledgment of Iran’s role in the 9/11 attacks.
Clearly, Iran is and has been at war with the United States. Over a period of many years, Iran has conducted that war on numerous unconventional fronts while threatening conventional attacks if its agenda is thwarted in any way.
For the Islamic Republic this war is very real, a principal focus of its energy and expenditures. But it appears that only one side is fighting.
This was underscored in March 2016, when it came to light that Iranian hackers who were accused of being tied to the Islamic Republic had attempted to hack into the operating system of the Bowman Avenue Dam north of New York City, as well as into financial conglomerates Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and HSBC – and the New York Stock Exchange.
Said Attorney General Loretta Lynch:
These attacks were relentless, they were systematic, and they were widespread.
Such attacks, if they had been successful, could have caused catastrophic damage to New York City and the American economy. Yet true to form, the Obama administration only indicted the accused (none of whom it had in custody).He took no measures against the Iranian government.
After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on terror and entered Afghanistan and Iraq. But if Bush had really been serious about attacking jihad terror at its root, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran instead. Under Obama, the denial and willful ignorance have only gotten exponentially worse.
Breitbart, by Robert Spencer, July 14, 2016:
The Islamic State (ISIS) is a gang of thugs who glory in their sadism, videoing their beheadings of their captives, taunting gays with tweets of #LoveWins accompanying photos of their executions of gays, and boasting of their plans to bring about imminent mass murder and destruction inside the United States.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, is a major player in Middle Eastern and global politics, courted by the Obama administration and the recipient of its largesse as sanctions have been lifted.
Yet as I show in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, although ISIS is the object of the world’s scorn and horror and Iran is accorded respect and accommodation, in numerous important ways, Iran is worse, and a more significant global threat, than ISIS.
This network’s foremost member is Hizballah, which is active not only in Lebanon but in South America’s Triple Frontier region, as well as in Mexico, where there is evidence that it has trained and collaborated with drug cartels. Other members include the Sunni jihad groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as the Houthis in Yemen and the Iraqi Shi’ite group Kata’ib Hizballah.
Iran doesn’t work only through jihad terror groups. It has funded the Spanish left-wing populist party, Podemos, and in July 2012, Hamid Mohammadi, the Iranian cultural affairs counselor at the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, gave an extraordinarily revealing Farsi-language interview intimating that Iranians in Canada had “preserved their strong attachments and bonds to their homeland” and should strive to “occupy high-level key positions” so that they could “be of service to our beloved Iran.” Mohammadi’s words sparked an investigation of espionage and subversion in the Iranian embassy in Ottawa that ultimately led to its being shut down.
Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who remains influential in the Iranian government, boasted in December 2001 that a nuclear bomb “would not leave any thing [sic] in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.” It could also, with millions of Muslim dead, move the Twelfth Imam to return, to put a stop to this unprecedented persecution of the Muslims.
This could mean that the Iranians might want to nuke Israel in order to draw retaliatory nukes that would induce the return of the Twelfth Imam – and no concessions from Obama or his successor would dissuade them.
That puts the blood of nearly 3,000 Americans on the Iranian mullahs’ hands. And if the mullahs get their way, they will be following up that carnage with many more like it.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
First anniversary of Iran nuclear deal marred by massive cheating (centerforsecuritypolicy.org)
Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 15, 2016:
The truck was loaded with explosives and hand grenades as it plowed into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, Thursday night. It was no accident: Nice authorities emphasized that it was a terror attack, which was fairly clear already from the fact that the driver exchanged gunfire with police after he rammed into the crowd.
At least eighty people are dead and 68 wounded, and Nice Mayor Christian Estrosi calls it “the worst tragedy in the history of Nice.” But given the harsh realities of the contemporary world, it probably won’t be the worst for long.
Jihadis have had their eyes on France for quite some time. The Islamic State issued this call in September 2014:
So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….
Yes, “run him over with your car.”
Then again from the Islamic State in May 2016:
“The French must die by the thousands…. Towards paradise, that is the path….Come, brother, let’s go to paradise, our women are waiting for us there, with angels as servants. You will have a palace, a winged horse of gold and rubies….With a little rocket-launcher, you can easily get one of them… you do something like that in the name of Dawla (Islamic State), and France will be traumatised for a century.”
The French are already traumatized. The BBC reported last week that “more than 5,000 French police will be deployed at key venues in and around Paris ahead of the Euro 2016 football final between France and Portugal,” and that “there will be no victory parade if France win.” Why not? For fear of jihad terror attacks.
The Bastille Day jihad massacre demonstrates that the answer to jihad attacks is not to curtail one’s activities and cower in fear. Even if free people do that, the jihadis will strike anyway. Even without a victory parade, the jihadis struck yet again in France. The response should not be to cower in fear, but to recognize that this is a war and act accordingly. France has just suffered a fresh attack in a war that is being fought by people in service of an ideology that France, like other Western countries, refuses to acknowledge even exists.
France, even as it is under serious attack by the warriors of jihad, continues to pursue policies that will only result in the arrival of still more Muslims to France – and with them will come jihad terrorists, and many, many more jihad massacres like the one on Bastille Day in Nice. French curtailing their activities for fear of being struck by jihadis did not save them. The Bastille Day jihad attack should be the last to take place under the regime of politically correct fantasy that forces law enforcement and intelligence officials to pretend that the threat is other than what it is, and that the remedy is to apply, one more time, policies that have failed again and again and again.
Bastille Day should be a day for the releasing of prisoners. In the war against the global jihad, the truth has been prisoner for too long. It is time to set it free – before it, too, becomes irrevocably a casualty of this war against an enemy no one dares name.
“On behalf of the American people, I condemn in the strongest terms what appears to be a horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France, which killed and wounded dozens of innocent civilians,” Obama said.
Question: did Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on behalf of the American people, condemn in the strongest terms every German and Japanese strike during World War II? Did he add that the U.S. administration was in touch with Hawaiian or Polish or French or Midway etc. officials and was ready to offer any assistance in the investigation?
The answer is no, because there was no need to offer such condemnations. The world was at war, and the world knew it was at war. The fact was obvious, as was which side each combatant was on. Nor was there any need for an investigation after each battle. Everyone knew what was going on, and why.
The reason why Obama offers these condemnations now after each jihad massacre is because he treats each as if it were an isolated incident, not as if it were one more battle in a long war. And he offers help in an investigation for the same reason: if U.S. officials do end up helping the French with an investigation of this latest jihad massacre, they will like come back with a characteristically Obamoid conclusion: they’re unable to determine the motive of the perpetrator.
In reality, there is no need for an investigation, because the jihadi’s motive is obvious. There needs to be an admission that we are in a full-scale war — not just lip-service as French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve offers, but a genuine acknowledgment, followed by a genuine war footing, and an end to the weepy memorials, empty condemnations, and po-faced get-nowhere investigations. This is not crime. This is war.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn sounded off on the terror attack in Nice, France, tonight, saying that he wants to see the leaders of Muslim-majority nations stand up against “this radical form of this ideology in their bloodstream and declare that this thing cannot exist on this planet.”
The former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said he doesn’t know who exactly carried out the attack, but said there’s been a lot of “chatter” by jihadist soldiers praising what happened.
“I want these leaders in this Muslim world that have this radical Islamic ideology festering, metastasizing, to stand up, and stand up tonight and be counted, and say something to condemn this attack that we have just seen.”
Flynn said “we have not set up an international set of strategic objectives to go after this very vicious, very barbaric enemy.”
He also called the current situation a “world war,” though not like one anyone has read about in history books.
Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House and talked-about pick for Donald Trump’s vice presidential slot, said on Fox News while discussing the Nice, France, terrorist attack that the United States ought to implement a testing system to root out Shariah-compliant Muslims and deport them.
On “Hannity,” Gingrich said the country “should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization.”
“This isn’t about workplace violence or some other label. This is again an instance of the jihadis taking the war to the infidel on their home territory,” said Gorka.
Center for Security Policy, July 13, 2016:
Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.
Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.
As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.
Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination. However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.
As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:
“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”
Muise went on to explain:
“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts. Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”
David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:
“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”
“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West. Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”
AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, along with the plaintiffs in this case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, will hold a Press Call from 2:00-2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13. To access this press conference call, dial (641) 715-3655 and enter code 111815.
Breitbart, by Jamie Glazov, July 13, 2016:
While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor.
Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism:
1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment.
The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law).
2. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.”
“Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country.
For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security.
The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage.
3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.
The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it.
4. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy.
After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them.
Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing.
4. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.
The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch.
Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam.
Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.”
The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands.
6. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious.
Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious.
7. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools.
Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5).
Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now.
8. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government.
Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam.
(P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.)
9. Ridicule the Enemy.
Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.
Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.
We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other.
Jamie Glazov is the editor of Frontpagemag.com. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of United in Hate, the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Breitbart, by John Hayward, July 12, 2016:
When Bannon surveyed the current state of Sunni-Shiite tensions in the Middle East, coalescing into a regional conflict with Saudi Arabia and Iran as the respective leaders, and wondered if Western powers might be best advised to just let them slug it out, Spencer replied, “I don’t see why not.”
“In the 1980s, Iran and Iraq fought a war for eight years,” he recalled, describing it as “essentially a stalemate” akin to World War I trench warfare, with “immense casualties for both sides.”
“The Islamic Republic almost fell. Saddam Hussein had his own troubles. And the thing is, during that time, neither one of those were causing trouble for the West,” Spencer pointed out. “So, what’s the downside? We cannot prevent Sunnis and Shia from hating each other. Western leaders need to recover a sense that their primary responsibility is to protect their own citizens.”
Spencer said the arrogance Iran displays toward the West is a fusion of ancient Persian culture and Islamic supremacy. “It’s both. They’ve reinforced each other.”
“There’s no doubt that the Persians had a great civilization, long before Islam, long before they fell to Islam,” he said, adding:
That was a culture and a civilization that was always at odds with the West, always fighting the Roman Empire. So it’s really just a continuation of that ancient conflict. But Islam then reinforces that by giving the idea that Muslims have a responsibility to wage war against non-Muslims, and of course this is the basis on which Khomeini built the Islamic Revolution, and has kept Iran on a war footing against the U.S. ever since 1979, on Islamic principles.
In his book, Spencer makes the case that Iran is a far more dangerous and persistent adversary for the West than ISIS or al-Qaeda.
“Iran is what ISIS wants to be when it grows up,” he said. He continued:
Iran has a global network of terrorist organizations under its control – not only Shiite, but also Sunni Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is also Sunni. And those groups, Hezbollah most notably, have a presence in the West. Hezbollah is working actively in Mexico with the drug cartels, teaching them to behead, teaching them their tactics, and that’s all aimed at getting into the United States.
“They already have sleeper cells in the United States,” he warned. He elaborated:
Nine years ago, there was an FBI report that said there are Hezbollah sleeper cells in the United States – that’s Iran, essentially – and that they were waiting for a time to strike, but right now, they were making so much progress without striking that they were going to lay low because, of course, they didn’t want the police attention that would come from the strikes. Those cells are still in place, and there’s nothing but more of them now.
Spencer said the danger from these long-term terrorist plans is largely ignored by the U.S. government and media, even though it’s a “central” agenda for Iran and its proxies.
“Every week, in the mosques, they chant, ‘Death to America’ during the Friday prayers,” he said. “It is central to them to hate the United States, and to consider themselves to be at war with the United States.”
“Americans don’t know this,” Spencer said, “because it hasn’t been taken seriously by the U.S. military because the Iranian military doesn’t have anything near the capability of ours.” He added that “the idea that they would go to war with us, in an actual shooting war, is something that would just set them up for destruction, and so the military and the political establishment have not taken it seriously.”
He worried that the intelligence community does not take the asymmetrical threat of Iranian terrorist warfare seriously enough, either.
“I think that the Obama administration has made a conscious decision to empower Iran to be the stabilizing force in the Middle East,” Spencer said, adding:
I think they don’t take seriously the Islamic Republic’s ideological basis. They refuse to understand that Islam is not a “religion of peace,” that it is on a war footing with non-Muslims. And so a whole country that’s based on that proposition? They can’t even see it. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a possibility.
He described this mindset as a “period of irrationality” regarding Iran, in which the political establishment of the United States has become effectively insane because “they refuse to accept the fundamental premise, which is that this is a religion that counsels war, and that this is a state which is based on those religious teachings.”
In 1979, when Khomeinei took over, nobody in the State Department had read a single book that he had written. Nobody knew anything about what he was all about. They just thought he was a religious fanatic. Nobody understands, or takes seriously, the depth and the power of the Islamic ideology, whether Shiite or Sunni.
He speculated that since the U.S. government has become ideologically incapable of seeing Islam, it looks at Iran and sees only the faded glory of the Persian Empire. Obama Administration strategic planners view Iran as “a powerful state, the only powerful state left with Saddam gone, in that region, and so if they are kind to it, it will be kind to us, and bring stability to that region.”
“They’re basing their principles on the way Western people think, and thinking we can sit down, and talk out all our differences, and figure this all out,” he said. “The idea that there’s this implacable ideology that will never compromise, never come to terms and be friends with us – they refuse to admit that as a possibility. They think we’re way beyond that stage in the world.”
Spencer found the Saudis, and other Sunni allies of the United States, unsurprisingly “appalled” by the Obama administration’s pivot to Iran – prompting the Saudis, and perhaps Egypt as well, to consider securing their own nuclear weapons as a check against nuclear Iran.
“What was intended to be a stabilizing force for the Middle East is essentially going to set the region even more on fire than it already is,” he predicted.