Phone Seminar with Steve Emerson: “After Brussels Terror Attack: Is the U.S. Next?”

Published on Apr 27, 2016 by emetonline

On March 22, 2016 Belgium was struck by three simultaneous terror attacks at its airport and subway system, killing 31 people and injuring more than 180. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. Saleh Abdeslam, one of the prime suspects of November’s horrific attacks in Paris, was arrested in Molenbeek, an inner-city suburb of Belgium, and the district where at least three of the Paris attackers grew up. Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said Tuesday, “What we feared has happened. We were hit by blind attacks.” Abdeslam is alleged to have taken part in November’s terror attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people. In December, Islamic terrorists in San Bernardino, California, killed 14 people; the deadliest terror attack on US soil since 9/11.

What lessons should the United States learn from the attack in Brussels? What is the current terrorist threat to our homeland, and what steps need to be taken to combat the rise of radical Islam in the US? Please join us for a phone seminar with terrorism expert Steve Emerson as he explores these critical issues.

Islamist violence threatens Judeo-Christian civilization

iptIPT, by Steve Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
Fox News
April 1, 2016

Imagine more of the African continent engulfed in the Islamist savagery of Libya and Nigeria. Imagine Jordan and Saudi Arabia undergoing the same turmoil as Iraq and Syria. Imagine a Europe that begins to resemble Lebanon more than its American cousin.

These are frightening scenarios that could unfold over the next few years should trends identified in a new analysis by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) continue unchecked. Western leaders will need to recognize that the Islamist threat is growing in lethality and geography because current strategies to combat it do not work.

Islamist violence has escalated to an unprecedented degree. Ground taken and controlled by ISIS provides bases for planning and preparing attacks throughout the Middle East, Africa and Europe, most recently in Brussels and France. Genocide against religious minorities in the Middle East is inflicting untold suffering. It is also causing millions of refugees to overwhelm the region and Europe.

Most problematic is that NATO and the U.S. signal no real reassessments in their failing approach to the rapidly spiraling viciousness as they help history to repeat itself.

Engaging jihadists in Libya resulted in the U.S. returning to conduct strikes with fighter jets and drones five years after leaving.

The Obama administration is abandoning a program of training Syrian rebels after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the futile effort.

Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt allowed for its disastrous rise to power, yet the White House still welcomes them into the conversation.

The IPT – through analyzing current and future radical Islamist threats based upon its extensive contacts, sources and internal databases — predicts that the situation will continue to deteriorate over the next 18 to 24 months without a course correction. Here are four reasons why.

1. Islamist brutality in Africa will increase in fatalities and territory. Terrorism in Africa was largely confined to Algeria from 2001 to 2006 when it experienced 275 deaths on average annually. It rose to nine countries with 11,085 fatalities on average annually during 2014 to 2015. Boko Haram, al-Shabaab and Al-Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) will lead its further expansion on the continent.

2. Relatively stable regimes in the Middle East will face increasing pressure from jihadists who will threaten the ability of central governments to provide security. With no change in strategy to confront ISIS, the governments of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE could break down.

Jordan recently killed seven Islamists linked to ISIS in an eight-hour raid that disrupted attacks against civilian and military targets within the country.

Turkish security forces have prevented 18 suicide attacks since the start of 2016. A car filled with explosives killed 29 people in Ankara in February. Yemeni rebels have murdered or captured hundreds of Saudi soldiers in cross-border clashes.

3. With the established ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and its new caliphate in Libya along the Mediterranean coast, the humanitarian crisis of refugees will overwhelm Europe’s internal security forces and social services. Islamist violence will increase significantly within its borders.

4. ISIS and like-minded groups will build upon their success to launch new attacks on perceived soft targets in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Thailand.

The West needs to recognize the current scope of failure and the momentum of the evolving jihadist threat.

Islamists will quickly capitalize on the current friendly environment. The damage to authority and stability in the Middle East, Africa and Europe could require decades to reestablish once lost.

Also, in a neighborhood like this, what happens to our strongest and most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel? Weapons are trained on the Jewish state on all sides from the likes of Hizballah, Hamas and Islamic jihad.

Western leaders must take measure of the defeat confronting them and understand that radical Islam directly jeopardizes Judeo-Christian civilization. A very disturbing future may already be written with no change in direction.

Steve Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Pete Hoekstra is the Shillman Senior Fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee.

Bloody tide: Terror deaths increased 8-fold since 2010, says study

The study says that the rise is due, in part, to the fact that Islamist terror groups are operating in more countries than ever, especially in the Middle East and Africa. ISIS, now has a presence or affiliation in several countries.

The study says that the rise is due, in part, to the fact that Islamist terror groups are operating in more countries than ever, especially in the Middle East and Africa. ISIS, now has a presence or affiliation in several countries.

Fox News, March 28, 2016: see interactive graphics at the link

The deadly toll of terrorism around the globe has jumped nearly 800 percent in the past five years, according to an exhaustive new report that blames the alarming expansion of Islamist groups across the Middle East and Africa.

The nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism found that an average of nearly 30,000 people per year have been killed by terrorists since 2010, when terrorism’s death toll was 3,284. The authors of the study, which tabulated the numbers through the end of 2015, say that the exponential increase shows two troubling trends: More attacks are happening, and they tend to be deadlier than ever.

“Everyone has known that terrorist attacks have generally been increasing yearly since 9/11,” Steven Emerson, executive director of IPT, tells FoxNews.com. “But the magnitude of the increase of the attacks surprised us, especially in the past five years. Even if you look back at the annual reports issued by the most senior analysts in the top five intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies, there is not one report that predicted or forecasted that we would likely see such a massive escalation of attacks.”

The study says that the rise is due, in part, to the fact that Islamist terror groups are operating in more countries than ever, especially in the Middle East and Africa. ISIS, which split from Al Qaeda in early 2014, now has a presence or affiliation in several Middle Eastern countries, Africa and Southeast Asia.

In addition to ISIS, groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al Shabaab in Somalia have been on the rise in the last few years. The Taliban has been resurgent in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where it took responsibility for Sunday’s Easter attack on Christians in Lahore; Kurdish-affiliated groups have been blamed for bombings in Turkey; Palestinian terrorists have waged at least two uprisings in Israel and Al Qaeda has continued to be active in Syria and Yemen, among other locations.

IPT’s report used data collected by the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database. Looking at various intervals following the 9/11 attacks, and sorting out deaths caused by clear acts of terrorism — not simply war involving known terrorist groups — IPT found annual terror deaths have jumped 774 percent since the 2007-11 average.

‘[The numbers] are striking when you take into account where the numbers were at the beginning period,” said Pete Hoekstra, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee when he represented Michigan in the U.S. Congress. “I don’t think people have grasped how significant these [death toll] numbers are.”

Hoekstra, an IPT fellow, helped the IPT analyze data from four separate time periods, between 2001-2015. From 2001-2006, there was an annual average of 2,508 terror fatalities around the world. That number rose to 3,284 between 2007 and 2011. During 2012-2013, the annual average tripled to 9,537, and, in the past two years, that number tripled again, raising the death toll to a staggering 28,708 per year, making it the current annual average.

The U.S. has had success fighting individual terror groups, including Al Qaeda, but when one is suppressed, others rise, said Emerson. What is needed is a comprehensive approach targeting the ideology, he said.

“There has never been a U.S. or allied strategy to go after radical Islam,” Emerson said. “There have been, however, strategies to go after specific groups like Al Qaeda or AQAP or ISIS. But these are all subsets of radical Islam.”

The IPT analysis shows that the growth in terror-related murder is not only attributable to the emergence of ISIS, but also to a wider theater of operations for terror groups overall. While the Islamic State is responsible for at least 10,780 deaths since 2013, the rise of other extremist groups like Boko Haram and Al Shabbab in Africa has accounted for tens of thousands of terror deaths in the past five years.

“It’s clear that they [terror groups] are focused in the Middle East and in Africa,” Hoekstra said. “And it’s in many of the countries where the U.S. has been involved. They have all become failed states.”

Alarmingly, IPT expects the wave of terror to continue to grow in 2016 and beyond. Analysts see continued violence in the trouble spots throughout Africa and the Middle East, with conflict spilling over into Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.

They also predict that Asia will see more terror attacks as countries like Thailand, The Philippines and India are perceived as soft targets, and that due to the migrant crisis, violence in Europe will increase over the next two years as extremists continue to exploit the immigration system throughout the EU.

Ironically, success in Iraq and Syria could lead to an expansion of ISIS’ footprint, he said.

“With ISIS losing large swaths of territory as well as key commanders, its center of operational gravity definitely appears to be shifting to Europe, where it can recruit among the more than 30 million Muslims who live in Europe,” Emerson said.

“Add to this mix the fact that thousands of mosques in Europe are controlled by Salfists, Wahabists and the Muslim Brotherhood – which indoctrinate their followers,” he said, “and you have a future recipe for a massive increase in Islamist terrorist violence.”

Islamist Terror Growing in Lethality and Geography, IPT Analysis Finds

1435by Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
IPT News
March 28, 2016

The massacres in Brussels and Paris are only the latest salvos in a heightening and devastating threat from radical Islamists globally.

They illustrate troubling and much larger trends that the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has identified in a new analysis based upon its extensive research, sources and multiple databases, including the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database.

The IPT’s analysis reached the following conclusions:

  • Islamist attacks in Europe will increase over the next 18 to 24 months.
  • Terrorism in Africa will expand numerically and geographically.
  • Radical Islamists will further destabilize the Middle East, targeting specifically Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
  • Jihadists will expand their efforts and focus in South and Southeast Asia.

IPT research found that on average of 3,284 people died in Islamist terror attacks only five years ago. Today, that average is 28,708 per year.

For this report, the IPT separated four time periods between 2001 and 2015, basing them upon similarities in the number and lethality of attacks. From 2001-2006, there was an average of 2,508 fatalities annually, which rose to 3,284 per year from 2007-2011, tripled to 9,537 per year in 2012-2013 and tripled again to 28,708 in the past two years.

Terror deaths today have skyrocketed 774 percent since the 2007-11 average.

The emergence and rapid success enjoyed by ISIS is an obvious cause for the spike. It is responsible for at least 10,780 deaths since 2013, the data show. However, the data highlights that the problem of Islamist terror is worsening beyond the reach of ISIS. The global statistics clarify that tactics employed by the United States and Western allies to counter the Islamist threat are failing and the threat may be much worse than what has been imagined previously.

The growth in terrorist victims corresponds to a wider theater of operations for terror groups. From 2001-2006, the threat was dispersed in area and occurring primarily in 10 countries, including the U.S. and Russia. By 2014-2015, significant Islamist terrorist activity could be found in 18 countries, with most concentrated in Africa and the Middle East.

The IPT analysis demonstrates that many of the new countries are those with which the U.S. has had significant engagement. More than half of all Islamist attacks since 2012 occurred in the failed states of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen.

Looking ahead, the IPT is pessimistic that the numbers will improve in the short and medium term. They are based on the following critical trends identified in the data.

Trend 1: Islamist Terror Engulfs More Lives

The chart below shows the stunning increase in deaths caused by radical Islamic terror since 2001.

IPT chart 1

Trend 2: Islamist Terror Shifts Primarily to the Middle East and Africa

The following table identifies the countries where terrorism claimed an average of at least 50 lives per year in a given time frame. The impact of Iraq’s slide into chaos since U.S. forces withdrew is clear. Afghanistan remains a troubled country. The growth of terror groups Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somalia is a key source driving the spike in terror deaths in Africa.

See chart at IPT

In Africa for example, Boko Haram, which translates to “Western education is forbidden,” waged the following attacks in February 2014.

  • Feb. 11 – 23 people die when Boko Haram torched a village called Konduga.
  • Feb. 15 – More than 100 people are killed in attacks on the Christian village Izghe. Terrorists targeted the village’s men, going door to door to find them.
  • Feb. 15 – Another 90 Christians died in a similar attack on the town Gwosa.
  • Feb. 25 – As many as 50 gunmen storm a government boarding school in Buni Yadi, Yobe State, killing 59 students. Many died inside a locked dormitory that the terrorists set on fire. Others were killed trying to escape.

Trend 3: Africa Becomes a Primary Growth Target

Islamists are consolidating gains and rebuilding capabilities to resume growing again in 2016-2017, especially in Africa.

Terrorism in Africa was largely confined to Algeria in 2001-2006, but it increased to nine countries with significant fatalities in the time period of 2014-2015. The increase will be led primarily by three Islamist organizations.

Boko Haram, an ISIS affiliate based in Nigeria, murdered 7,112 innocents in 2014, up from 1,729 in 2013. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliate based in Somalia, murdered 1,782 in 2014, up from 739 in 2013. Al-Qaida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb killed 873 in 2014, an increase from 370 in 2013.

Trend 4: Western Interventions Inflame Instability

Interventions by the U.S. and/or NATO or other Western coalitions inflamed the threat from Islamists, the IPT analysis finds. The five countries in which the U.S. involved itself militarily – Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Yemen – represent an outsized share of attacks and fatalities.

In 2014-2015, they accounted for 55 percent of all fatalities caused by radical Islamist terror, a statistic that remains nearly unchanged since 2012-2013 due to the overall increase in Islamist terror activity worldwide.

chart 2

Trend 5: Failed States Breed Islamist Terror

All five countries in the chart above can be considered failed states – those without functioning and effective central governments.

ISIS (responsible for 10,780 deaths since 2013) filled the vacuum in Iraq and Syria created by the lack of governance. Libya became a cesspool of extremism after NATO helped depose dictator Muammar Gaddafi. It was attractive enough that ISIS created a new caliphate along the Mediterranean with an estimated 6,500 fighters. From there, it exports weapons, jihadists and ideology to Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Iran are currently fighting a deadly proxy war in Yemen.

Nigeria (9,207 killed since 2001) and Pakistan (3,175 killed since 2001) do not have failed central governments, but they are unable to extend stability or authority to significant areas within their boundaries.

IPT’s Outlook for 2016-2017

Attacks will continue increasing in 2016-2017 in lethality and geography in the following countries in Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, in addition to Europe. There may be isolated successes against jihadist groups, but there still is no effective, broad-based strategy for containing or defeating them. We are losing this war.

map

The IPT predicts a dire 2016-2017 based upon its analysis. Until new and effective strategies develop, it offers the following insights into the near future.

The IPT predicts that the following trends will emerge or develop in 2016-2017 and beyond:

1. Europe’s security systems will become more stressed and unable to respond to the rising challenges associated with the mass migration of refugees. Violence in Europe will increase in size and scope as Islamists exploit its nearly unregulated immigration system and Muslim enclaves such as Molenbeek in Brussels become more widespread.
2. The proliferation of terrorism in Africa will proceed unabated.
3. The Middle East will experience growing destabilization in Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia as a result of regional conflicts spilling into their borders.
4. Thailand, the Philippines, India and Bangladesh will become more susceptible to an increase in attacks due to their perception as soft targets.

Video: IPT Senior Shillman Fellow and former U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra summarizes the finding and explains what they mean.

Breaking from the U.S., the U.K. Condemns the Muslim Brotherhood, Calling It a Terrorist Group

MB in Jordan

National Review, by Steve Emerson and Pete Hoekstra, Dec. 22, 2015:

Following an intensive 18-month governmental study, the United Kingdom issued a startling indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). It described the organization as fiercely anti-democratic, openly supportive of terrorism, dedicated to establishing an Islamist government, and opposed to the rule of law, individual liberty, and equality.

We use the word “startling” not because this is news but because, in such a politically correct world, it took guts for a world leader to acknowledge the obvious about a movement that purports to represent more than a billion people. If anyone at all — in particular our own president, former secretary of state, and high priesthood of political correctness, the New York Times — had simply bothered to read the Brotherhood’s own words, they would have inescapably reached the same conclusion.

The new account, resulting from an exhaustive investigation by respected foreign-policy experts, presents a brutally honest and in-depth examination of the movement. In breaking from the U.S., the U.K. has ironically shifted closer to Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia in identifying the MB as a terrorist group.

RELATED: Ted Cruz Is Right: The Muslim Brotherhood Is a Terrorist Organization

“Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities . . . run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs,” Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement.

Compare this to the description of the Muslim Brotherhood by James Clapper, America’s and the world’s top intelligence official, the director of National Intelligence. The MB was “largely secular,” Clapper said just a few years ago, and it “has eschewed violence.”

After years of witnessing the anti-democratic agenda of the MB firsthand and simply taking at face value the writings and sayings of its leaders and its offshoots, the Obama administration still clings to an Alice in Wonderland view of the organization that gave us al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Shabaab, and nearly every Sunni terrorist affiliate in the world.

RELATED: Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth — the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

Moreover, the Obama administration brazenly ignored every word of the detailed findings by the British team.

Within minutes of the release of the U.K. report, the Obama administration condemned it in an e-mail to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), citing the MB’s stated commitment to nonviolence and arguing that pushing back against the organization would lead to the radicalization of some of its followers. The “political repression of non-violent Islamist groups has historically contributed to the radicalization of the minority of their members who would consider violence,” the statement reads. “The de-legitimization of non-violent political groups does not promote stability, and instead advances the very outcomes that such measures are intended to prevent.”

Now read the words of the U.K.-government report, which manifestly demonstrates that the MB’s so-called non-violence was due not to its participation in an open society but rather to a calculated campaign based on “expediency” and using democracy as a means to take away freedoms and to institute “Islamisation.” On this complex subject, Sir John Jenkins, a co-author of the report, concluded that

for the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non-violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence — including, from time to time, terrorism — where gradualism is ineffective.

This goes to the heart of the problem. Ever since it took office, the Obama administration has accepted Islamist groups and regimes run by the Muslim Brotherhood into its fold, under the belief that, when allowed to participate in government, Islamists will no longer feel repressed and forced to engage in brutality. Rather, they will channel their frustrations into peaceful political action, support a pluralist form of government, and forgo any violence.

RELATED: Fighting for Victory Against Islamism

Really? Perhaps that is why the record of the administration’s Islamist regime change throughout the Middle East has now brought the United States to the precipice of World War III. It has allowed for the destabilization of our close Arab ally Egypt, the alienation of Jordan, the evisceration of Israel’s national security, and the ascendancy of the most ruthless, despotic, terrorist-supporting regime in the world, Iran.

During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four years in office, the Obama administration effusively embraced the top financial supporter of Islamist terrorist syndicates in the world, the oil-rich potentate of Qatar, which was simultaneously providing safe haven to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, who were issuing fatwas to kill Americans and Jews.

Don’t take our word for the evils and duplicity of the Brotherhood and its real agenda. Just read a select few bullet points from the U.K. report.

”The founder and first Supreme Guide (spiritual leader), Hassan al Banna, called for the religious reformation of individual Muslims, the progressive moral purification of Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under sharia law.”

”There is little evidence that the experience of power in Egypt [in 2012�€“13] has caused a rethinking in the Muslim Brotherhood of its ideology or conduct. UK official engagement with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood produced no discernible change in their thinking. Indeed even by mid 2014 statements from Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood–linked media platforms seem to have deliberately incited violence.”

”Literature in the Muslim Brotherhood movement in this country continues to reflect some of the concerns of the foundational Muslim Brotherhood ideology, notably that western society is inherently hostile to Muslim faith and interests and that Muslims must respond by maintaining their distance and autonomy.”

”Material still being promoted by UKIM [U.K. Islamic Mission] as of July 2014 continued to explicitly claim that it is not possible for an observant Muslim to live under a non-Islamic system of government (and anticipated the forthcoming ‘victory’ of Islam over communism, capitalist democracy and secular materialism).”

”However, in common with the Muslim Brotherhood elsewhere, Muslim Brotherhood–related organisations and individuals in the UK have openly supported the activities of Hamas. . . . Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”

None of this should surprise anyone alive in the past 90 years. Former schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in 1928, “accepted the political utility of violence, and the Brotherhood conducted attacks, including political assassinations and attempted assassinations against Egypt state targets and both British and Jewish interests during his lifetime,” the report states.

EDITORIAL: It’s Time to Get Serious about Screening the Terrorists

Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb promoted the stigmatization of other Muslims as infidels and their states as un-Islamic. He advocated extreme violence in pursuing the perfect Islamic society. The MB never officially disowned Qutb’s doctrine, known as takfir, and it continues to consist of those who support savagery and want to overthrow the West.

The British government is the first Western government to acknowledge the organization’s international reach and how its network — particularly in the U.K. – promotes its ideology, raises funds, and provides safe haven for members who left their home countries to support Brotherhood activity.

The U.K. report describes the MB’s shadowy and secretive front groups in its home country. It “shaped the new Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), dominated the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and played an important role in establishing and then running the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).”

RELATED: The Families and Friends of Terrorists Know about Their Radicalization

Their shadowy and secretive counterpart in the U.S. is the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Hundreds of newly declassified documents obtained and analyzed last week by the IPT provide an overwhelming amount of evidence that CAIR was formed as an extension of the Brotherhood in the United States. The IPT has extensively documented CAIR’s ties to the MB and its Palestinian affiliate Hamas.

The White House, which continues to welcome the organization as a participant in policy discussions, recently invited to a meeting on religious discrimination a CAIR official who accused the FBI of killing two men in cold blood in separate incidents.

RELATED: Obama Dishonors American Sacrifice by Minimizing the Terror Threat

To this day, the FBI, our nation’s top law-enforcement agency, refuses to engage with CAIR because of its relationship to Hamas, while the Obama administration treats CAIR as if it were the Rotary Club.

The release of the British study is only the latest in a string of embarrassments to our nation, which is flawed by a fatal error in its understanding of who its allies and partners are. Iran and Islamist regimes are the enemies of free peoples, of women, of Christians, of democracy, and of the West.

The Obama administration, in its embrace of Iran and other Islamist regimes in the Middle East and of Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas fronts in our homeland, has eviscerated U.S. national security and increased our vulnerability to Islamic terrorism and future Iranian aggression more than at any other time in our history. The shootings in San Bernardino and the rise of ISIS are only the beginnings of what we fear are much more horrific and lethal developments.

America is accustomed to its role as the Shining City on that Hill. In the past seven years, however, it has receded to being a mole hiding under a rock and waiting for an attack. We have only ourselves to blame. We need to remove from power those whose blind ideology placed the American people in such a vulnerable position.

— Steve Emerson is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Pete Hoekstra is the Shillman Senior Fellow at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and the author of Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.

Former Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf Presses Administration on ISIS Genocide

Source: The Investigative Project

Source: The Investigative Project

New English Review, by Jerry Gordon, Nov. 20, 2015:

Frank Wolf, former Northern Virginia Congressman in the US House of Representatives, and veteran human rights advocate, has been in the forefront of pressing the Administration to issue a rumored State Department ruling against ISIS for Genocide against Yazidis and hopefully threatened Christian and other non-Muslim Minorities in Syria and Iraq. We revealed the stalemate over including Syrian and Iraqi Christians in the proposed Genocide ruling in a post on a report by Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom, “State Department May Exclude Middle East Christians from ISIS Genocide Victim Ruling.”  Ann Patterson, Assistant Secretary of State who heads the Bureau of Near East Affairs, had allegedly excluded threatened Christian minorities from the proposed order. Patterson is the former US Ambassador to Egypt, who had supported the ousted Morsi regime backed by the Muslim Brotherhood. We are pleased that our Lisa Benson Show colleague, Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser, Vice Chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom supports inclusion of threatened Syriac and Assyrian Chaldean Christians in the proposed State department ISIS Genocide ruling.

Wolf’s campaign in support of the Genocide ruling against ISIS was reported in article by John Rossomando of Steve Emerson’s The Investigative Project, “Wolf Encouraged by Reported Administration Plans to Label ISIS Atrocities, Genocide:”  

“The administration from what we can gather is taking this very, very seriously,” Wolf said.

Wolf, a former Republican congressman from Northern Virginia, doesn’t agree with the Obama administration on many things, but the genocide issue may be one in which common ground is in sight.

“I commend them,” Wolf said. “I’m really pleased that they are moving ahead and doing this, but now that the administration is doing this, Congress ought to do something.”

A bipartisan resolution pending in the U.S. House describes crimes being perpetrated against Christians and other ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria as genocide under international law. It calls on the United Nations to “to assert leadership by calling the atrocities being committed in these places by their rightful names: ‘war crimes’, ‘crimes against humanity’, and ‘genocide’.”

In September, Wolf sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking that the genocide label be applied. He also asked that the U.S. prosecute ISIS’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and Mohammed Emwazi, aka “Jihadi John,” for killing American journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, and American aid worker Kala Mueller.

That was before a drone strike in Syria killed Emwazi last week.

Wolf’s investigation in Iraq reveals Genocide and threatened Yazidi and other religious minorities.

Wolf interviewed 75 Yazidi girls last winter during a trip to the region with the 21stCentury Wilberforce Initiative, where he is a distinguished fellow.

“When we got back, it was clear to me that what we saw was genocide, particularly against the Yazidis, but even the Christians,” Wolf said.

In addition to the Yazidis, Shiite Muslims and Turkomen also are genocide victims, Wolf said. Wolf’s quest received an added boost from the U.S. Holocaust Museum, which issued a report last week also calling on the administration to label the atrocities against the Yazidis as genocide.

The report stated:

“Our findings also suggest there is sufficient reason to assert that in addition to committing crimes against humanity and war crimes, IS perpetrated genocide against the Yezidi population living in Ninewa in August 2014. The determination of genocide against the Yezidi population is based on a preponderance of the evidence, and does not reflect the standard necessary for individual criminal responsibility. Any formal determination that genocide was perpetrated needs to be made by a court and based on careful consideration of the evidence.”

Why the Genocide ruling is important.

“It would help trigger the indictment of … Al-Baghdadi,” Wolf said. “Al-Baghdadi was directly responsible for the deaths of the four Americans, including the assault of the poor woman from Arizona.

“That would almost have to follow through because it would force the Justice Department … to indict Al-Baghdadi.”

A genocide declaration would open the way to prosecuting anyone who helps ISIS. It also could pressure the U.N. to similarly classify the atrocities as genocide, Wolf said. Such people could be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes tribunals similar to those that followed the Holocaust or the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s.

“Anyone who did anything at all would be guilty of genocide,” Wolf said. “They would be a participant in genocide, so that will kind of chill a lot of the support for ISIS.”

The curious role of Qatari and Saudi culpability in support of ISIS Genocide.

This could potentially ensnare the ISIS supporters in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and even Turkey, the latter of which failed to stem the tide of foreign fighters into Syria.

Numerous people warned Wolf during his trip of Qatari funding for ISIS. Wealthy Qataris who bankrolled ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida in Iraq, have maintained their financial support for ISIS. U.S. authorities repeatedly have cited Qatar for its failure to crackdown on terrorism financing.

“Qatar’s overall level of [counter-terrorism] cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region,” a top level State Department official wrote in a secret Dec. 30, 2009 State Department cable.

Saudi citizens “have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Syria in recent years, including to ISIS and other groups,” Washington Institute Fellow Lori Plotkin Boghart wrote in a June 2014 report.

Turkey’s Intelligence Facilitates ISIS Smuggled Oil Sales.

A declaration also could turn those involved in black market ISIS oil sales into accessories to genocide.

“Trucks are rolling out of ISIS-controlled territory up into Turkey,” Wolf said.

ISIS earns an estimated $50 million per month from selling oil, Iraqi and American officials told the Associated Press. Turkey’s shadowy intelligence agency, MIT, is alleged to be helping manage ISIS’s oil smuggling operation.

Wolf also condemned Turkey for failing to shut down the flow of foreign fighters into its territory.

“Anyone aiding and abetting [genocide] could be prosecuted,” Wolf said.

Jasser on the Problem of Excluding Christians from the ISIS Genocide Ruling.

“There is no doubt that that designation meets the parameters of the definition of genocide because of the declaration by ISIS that they wanted to wipe those (Christians) out,” said Zhudi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Form for Democracy. “Their policies really do not fit together.

“This designation becomes meaningless if it’s not applied in a consistent and rational way,” said Jasser, who also serves as vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. ”

Christians must be included in any final declaration, Wolf said, but added that he was unaware of any effort to omit them.

A State Department spokeswoman would not comment on which minority groups might be covered in a genocide declaration, saying the agency did not want to “comment on any internal discussions.”

“We certainly continue to be horrified by ISIL’s atrocities against the Yazidi people, as well as its continuing appalling atrocities against other minority communities including Christians, Shabak, Turkmen, Sabean-Mandean, Kakai and other minority populations through its horrific campaign of murder, kidnapping, sexual slavery and forcible transfer of populations,” State Department spokeswoman Julia Mason said in an e-mailed statement.

Wolf and Jasser’s comments and those of Ms. Mason of the State raise questions of what’s behind Ms.Patterson’s reluctance to include Syrian and Iraqi Christians in the Genocide ruling. Is it perhaps because, as Shea, Joseph Kassab of the Iraqi Christian Advocacy and Empowerment Institute contend that it would force the State Department Refugee Admissions Program (RAP) under Assistant Secretary Ann Richards to issue P2/P3 visas for Family Reunification to tens of thousands of accredited Christians?  This disputed State Department ISIS Genocide ruling comes amidst the roiling Congressional debate with the Obama White House over admission of an initial allotment of allegedly vetted Syrian Refugees.  Arkansas US Sen. Tom Cotton revealed that the RAP “inadvertently” discriminates against Christians. Of the 2000 Syrian Refugees that have been admitted under RAP during the last three years, less than 3 percent were Christians. That is due  UN High Commissioner for Refugees Program excludes virtually all Christians as they are “urban refugees” avoiding those detention camps because of threats on their lives from Muslim residents, some alleged ISIS sympathizers.

Someone Tell The President We Can’t Fight Radical Islam By Being Politically Correct

960x0IPT, by Steven Emerson and Pete Hoekstra
Forbes
November 16, 2015

Barack Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” But what does his record say? (OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images)

“This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share,” – President Obama hours after the terrorist attacks in Paris began unfolding.

The full statement by the president at first sounds lofty, courageous and dedicated to U.S. resolve in fighting the scourge that afflicted the City of Lights.

A closer analysis, however, reveals that it is empty hypocritical posturing designed to deceive the American public and feed his politically correct allies in the media their narrative.

First, it was not an attack on “all of humanity and the universal values we share,” as Obama claimed. It was an attack by Islamists who do not share “our universal values” on its infidel enemies.

Second, wouldn’t it have been appropriate for him to have issued a similar type of unequivocal condemnation of terrorism and his strong affiliation with Israel’s commitment to fight against extremism when it began experiencing its most recent wave of massive attacks? After all, just as he expressed the close alliance between the U.S. and France in vowing to attack the terrorists who struck, the President also reiterated the “extraordinary bond between the United States and Israel” during last week’s meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pledged to protect Israeli security.

Really?

Let’s roll the tape. When Palestinian terrorists began shooting and killing Israelis in every corner of their country, the Obama administration outrageously issued a contrived, evenhanded statement calling on both Israel and the Palestinians to reduce the violence. Perhaps—to be consistent with his so-called unequivocal views against terrorism expressed on Friday—he should have called on both France and ISIS to mutually reduce the violence.

The Obama administration’s role in the rise of ISIS

Third, Obama promised to “do whatever it takes to work with the French people and with nations around the world to bring these terrorists to justice, and to go after any terrorist networks that go after our people.” This is the same president who impeded the lawsuits against those who killed the 241 Marines in Beirut and won’t allow prosecutions of the Iranian Al Quds Force responsible for killing thousands of American soldiers in Iran and Iraq. He also refused to support FBI efforts to prosecute Hamas for killing scores of Americans, tried to interfere with civil law suits against the Palestinian Authority for murdering U.S. citizens and even prevented the victims of Iranian terrorism from collecting the billions of dollars of judgments awarded to them in dozens of lawsuits that Iran has lost. Jurists on both political sides have agreed that the president has violated U.S. anti-terrorism laws that mandate the prosecution of those who kill “our people.”

Fourth, this is a president who some claim is more responsible for the rise of ISIS than anyone else in the world. Recently declassified emails demonstrate that his administration sold the initial shipment of major weapons to ISIS in 2012 as a counterweight to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It’s quite ironic that Obama acts so sympathetically to the victims of ISIS attacks, much similar to how the man who murdered his parents pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.

Finally, expect the President and other Western leaders such as CIA Chief John Brennan to begin their apologia tour in claiming that the attackers had nothing to do with Islam, with a compliant media parroting their talking points. They will say that ISIS is not religious but a “death cult;” that “jihad” really means “peace” and those who carry out these attacks are “subverting a religion of peace.” The president has prohibited the term “Islamic terrorism” from the White House lexicon. Perhaps we should ban the terms “white racists,” the “Italian Mafia,” the “Hispanic drug cartels” and “black gangs.”

Even on Saturday, the Democratic presidential candidates refused multiple times to condemn “radical Islam,” falsely contending—as the many Muslim advocacy groups say today—that condemning radical Islam is racist. Also expect the mindless talking heads to claim that the majority of attempted terrorist attacks have been singularly stopped by the active cooperation of the American Muslim population.

Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam

Let’s set the record straight once and for all: Islamic terrorism has everything do with Islam. The violent tactics of ISIS, al-Qaida, Hamas and every other Islamic terrorist group invokes their legitimacy by practicing the religion its purest form. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam in inherently violent. There are vast numbers of peaceful Muslims. But Islam is defined by those who practice it. The decapitations by ISIS proscribed by the Koran were the dominant form of punishment by Mohammed’s armies against enemies who would not convert or accept Islamic supremacy.

The notion that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the invention of the leftist Western alliance with anti-civil rights Islamic advocacy groups. It is designed to mislead the public, especially because of the massive amount of terror the world has experience or observed since 9/11. ISIS is not subverting Islam, but it is derived from its basic tenants. It practices Islam the same way the Iranian Mullahs practice Islam, the way Saudi Arabia chops off limbs, the way Pakistan sentences to death anyone who converts to Christianity, the way that women are treated as second class citizens in traditional Muslim societies and the way that homosexuals are put to death.

Are we to think that the pro-violent and misogynist Muslim Brotherhood—which dominates the religious and social institutions of the Muslim world in both the East and West, and all of its offspring including al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Jama’at Islamiya, Boku Haram, Tabligi Jamat and others—have nothing to do with Islam?

Also, sorry to break the politically correct bubble, but it has been FBI intelligence that has stopped the vast majority of the more than 100 attempted Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, not the cooperation of the Muslim population with law enforcement. The sad reality is that radical Islamist front groups that masquerade as moderate—such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim American Society (MAS)—discourage Muslims from cooperating with authorities.

Censoring the discussion

Indeed, these groups, who have been welcomed into the White House hundreds of times, exhort their members and all Muslims in the U.S. not to trust or talk to the FBI. Most significantly, they espouse an incendiary conspiratorial narrative that lies at the motivational root of all Islamic terrorism: They claim there is a war against Islam by the United States, Israel and the West. The terrorists who hear this narrative are then persuaded to avenge the “crimes” of the U.S., France or Israel by carrying out “jihad” that they justify as “defensive.”

It is only a matter of time before the high priesthood of self-anointed civil rights groups begin to reclaim their dominance in censoring the discussion—abetted by the useful idiots in the mainstream media—of mentioning the term “radical Islam” by claiming it’s a slur against all Muslims. Already, the media are dutifully reporting the “condemnations” of the Paris attacks by groups like CAIR and MPAC, the very same groups that say that any mention of radical Islam is Islamaphobic racism. If so, how would they categorize the gruesome Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris?

Obama’s hollow words on the Paris attacks will fade in the coming days largely because they never meant anything in the first place. But the American and European publics are not stupid. They understand the problem. It is our leaders who are disenfranchising us. And they think they will get away with it. Remember that they blamed the Benghazi massacre on an Internet video. Perhaps they will blame the ISIS attacks on a TV show.

Terror Victims’ Lawsuit Seeks to Block Iran Deal’s Sanctions Relief

230730eby IPT News  •  Aug 5, 2015

A deal to provide Iran with as much as $150 billion in sanctions relief over its nuclear weapons program should be blocked until the Islamic Republic pays court-awarded damages to American victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, a lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York federal court said.

The plaintiffs, victims of attacks by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, have judgments worth $152 million that they have been unable to collect. Similar lawsuits in U.S. courts have generated billions of dollars more in damages. Iran, the lawsuit said, should not see a dime of sanctions relief until those victims are compensated.

By law, the lawsuit said, Iran should not be granted any relief until there is “a certification by the President that Iran is no longer a financier and sponsor of terror. That terrorism condition has not been satisfied.”

Even the White House admits that Iran continues to sponsor international terrorism.

The lawsuit, facilitated by Shurat Hadin, or Israel Law Center, names the departments of State and Treasury, along with their respective secretaries, John Kerry and Jacob Lew. The two departments are responsible for enacting and enforcing the sanctions against Iran.

Releasing the frozen Iranian assets strips victims of “their last remaining opportunity to pressure Iran to satisfy their judgments,’ the lawsuit said. And it violates terms of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, passed by Congress in 2002. The law aimed to help victims enforce their judgments by pursuing blocked assets belonging to terror sponsors. It contains the phrase “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” which should prevail over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name of the Iran deal, negotiated by the U.S. and the P5+1 allies, the lawsuit said.

The Iran deal therefore undermines “both (i) the intent of Congress to allow Plaintiffs, who are victims of Iranian terrorism, to enforce their judgments against a broad range of blocked assets and (ii) Plaintiffs’ judgments themselves, each of which was issued by a United States federal court, the lawsuit said.

The victims recently investigated funds held in foreign banks which belong to the Central Bank of Iran, one of the many financial institutions which stand to gain sanctions relief. But discovery efforts have been difficult, the lawsuit said. Once the sanctions are lifted, victims’ hopes of securing any of the money owed to them likely disappear.

Wednesday’s lawsuit comes as the Justice Department considers intervening in a separate case that resulted in as much as $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority for terrorist attacks that killed or wounded Americans between 2001 and 2004.

Read the full lawsuit about Iran’s sanctions here.

***

The Next Phase in the Destruction of Free Speech Has Begun

shut_up-300x200Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 7, 2015:

Sunday’s Washington Post published an article entitled “When Is Freedom of Speech Irresponsible” in which writer David Cole omitted many facts, lied, and used Muslim Brotherhood talking points in an attempt to silence the very people and organizations whose facts and evidence detailing the jihadi threat to the United States and the West are unassailable.

UTT (Understanding the Threat) and its founder John Guandolo along with Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism were specifically targeted in this article.

Cole’s article references a new book by David K. Shipler, which is a blueprint of the coming assault on those who stand on truth to explain the growing jihadi network in America.  Mr. Shipler was allowed to attend a UTT training program last year to help him understand the threat, yet his work leaves out so many facts that it is clear his intention was and is to deceive and manipulate readers to dismiss the imminent threat to our security from the Islamic Movement.

In fact, Mr. Cole states Shipler’s objective is not to suppress free speech “but simply to demonstrate that their (Guandolo, Gaffney, Emerson) claims are vastly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. In short, he answers their speech with his speech. An objective reader cannot help but come away with a better understanding of the truth. This is the freedom of speech at its best.”

Since what Mr. Shipler writes is objectively not true it means Mr. Cole is equating matching truths with lies and calling it a great debate.  In reality, it is a facade and a deceit.

Specifically, in the Washington Post article states the focal point of everything UTT and other organizations say about the Muslim Brotherhood’s Jihadi Movement is based on one document – “An Explanatory Memorandum” – which is the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

Since John Guandolo has written a book on this topic entitled Raising a Jihadi Generation, and the fact he spends nine hours or so in his 3-day training program laying out the evidence of the threat, the claim that the entire understanding of the threat rests on one document is absurd.

Mr. Cole naively states “(Shipler) finds that the central document underlying most of the claims is a 15-page “explanatory memo” found in an FBI search of an Annandale, Va., home in 2004. Signed by Mohamed Akram, a member of the Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood…Shipler shows that in fact the document is nothing more than a thought piece drafted by a single individual in the early 1990s, and that there is no evidence it was ever considered, much less adopted, by the Muslim Brotherhood or anyone else. Shipler’s research shows that other supposed evidence of the grand Islamist conspiracy is similarly speculative.”

Mr. Cole fails to detail other significant evidence supporting “An Explanatory Memorandum” as a major underpinning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in North America, nor does he do any due diligence on the mountain of evidence which exists revealing the MB Movement and modus operandi here – which UTT teaches to law enforcement and national security professionals who acknowledge its relevance and factual/evidentiary basis.

While Mr. Cole reveals “An Explanatory Memorandum” was written by a “member” of the MB’s Palestine Committee – Mohamed Akram – he also fails to reveal to the reader that the Palestine Committee is Hamas in the U.S.  Nor does he tell the reader that Akram is the number two man on the list of the “Palestine Section in America” discovered by the FBI in the raid in Annandale, Virginia.  Furthermore, he does not mention the Memorandum was found among the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader – Ismail Elbarasse.

The Muslim Brotherhood leadership – as well as David Cole and David K. Shipler – continue to dismiss “An Explanatory Memorandum” as just some document found in some garage written by some unknown guy.  In fact, the Memorandum was written by a leader in the MB/Hamas Movement, found among the MB archives in North America, and was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Dallas 2008).

In UTT’s 3-day “Understanding and Investigating Jihadi Network” course, an entire day is dedicated to walking through facts already in evidence revealing a massive Muslim Brotherhood jihad network threatening the United States.  This information does not hinge merely on “An Explanatory Memorandum” yet it does reveal the MB is doing exactly what the Memorandum says it should do in it’s pursuit of overthrowing the U.S. government and imposing Islamic rule.  This information includes details from dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas documents, the results of the fifteen year (15) FBI investigation culminating in the US v HLF trial, testimony of government officials,declassified FBI documents from related investigations of major Islamic organizations like ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), NAIT (North American Islamic Trust), and others, all of which reveals a coordinated, well-funded, and continuous Islamic Movement in the United States and elsewhere with the stated goal of waging “Civilization Jihad” to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islamic rule.

In fact, since 2006 when UTT founder John Guandolo created and implemented the first counterterrorism training program in the government specifically detailing the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Sharia, and the penetration of our system, he has openly and repeatedly stated he will remove any information from his briefing that is not factual and supported by evidence.  To date, he has never had to do this.

In fact, Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have attended his public presentations do not say what Guandolo is saying is not true, they tell him they simply do not like that he is saying it.

Most revealing, however, is the fact that this information has been presented to law enforcement officials, military, national security professionals, and senior leaders in America, nearly all of whom have stated the information was unknown to them prior to the course, yet the information details an “insurgency” or Movement in the U.S. which constitutes a major threat that needs to be addressed.

Many of the comments about UTT’s training programs can be found on the UTT website.  These comments from law enforcement, military, and security professionals, reveal how powerful this information is.  One FBI Agent states “This training should be mandatory for every cop and federal agent in America.”

UTT’s 3-day program is the only one like it in the nation, which is why the Muslim Brotherhood and their collaborators from the progressive left continually try to shut it down.  This, in and of itself, is evidence of the power of this program and the truth of the threat.

In April 2011, Director of Central Intelligence (1993-1995) R. James Woolsey, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (1988-1991) Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (2003-2007) Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, and Inspector General of the Department of Defense (2002-2005) Joseph Schmitz signed a letter supporting John Guandolo and the information he presents on the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In part, the letter reads:

“Every citizen in this country should hear what (John Guandolo) has to say. The facts he presents speak for themselves and require no commentary. For local and state law enforcement and intelligence officials, this information is critical to identifying, understanding, and thwarting threats in your locale. UTT gives specific details on how to practically implement this information in your area, which directly affects your community and your families…John is our go-to guy concerning these issues.  His research is thorough, fact-based and logically presented.  He is only biased by reality. We applaud this man of courage and hope you will make the time to hear this presentation.”

In March 2007, UTT Founder John Guandolo and Stephen Coughlin held a one-day seminar at the FBI Academy hosted by the Marine Corps Nation Capital Region Command Antiterrorism/Force Protection (MCNCRC AT/FP) Staff detailing the threat from the Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Sharai, and the strategy and modus operandi of this enemy.  In its official communication to the FBI following this presentation, the Colonel leading MCNCRC wrote, in part:

“The CT presentation provided a solid foundation for the pinpointed actual root of Islamic Fundamentalism that is fueling the Global War on Terrorism. In any battle, military personnel are taught to understand the enemy. This is exactly what this presentation provided: a solid understanding of the ideology the enemy is using. The presentation highlighted that the enemy knows who they are, where they come from, and what they want.

“All of the points discussed were backed up with appropriate research, citing and clearly articulating an understanding of the core issues. The research provided quotes and examples of the extremists supporting the Islamist ideological message. There is hardly a more convincing argument then using one’s own words and actions...As a result of this presentation, MCNCRC AT/FP has received numerous requests from DoD, state, federal, and local organizations and agencies who attended the CT seminar, specifically asking to receive this course of instruction and follow on training from SA Guandolo and Mr. Coughlin, in order to share this critical information with their colleagues and subordinates.

“SA Guandolo and Steve Coughlin have identified a critical information and education gap. They should be commended for their initiative to conduct such an in depth study of the enemy and their courage to share their vast knowledge in an effort to better educate others.

“It is recommended that this program be made more readily available to all levels of government and concerned citizens. It is imperative that we as leaders and as a nation understand and can contextualize this threat to our Nation.”

In fact, those who hear this information, realize the threat from the Islamic Movement is real, is present, and must be dealt with as a part of any National Security effort.

In September 2014, UTT hosted a one day training program in Phoenix, Arizona for 300 law enforcement officers from all over the state.  Prior to the course, six (6) Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas organizations in Arizona partnered with their collaborators at the ACLU loudly protested the training program calling it bigoted and hate filled.  They wrote a letter to the Maricopa County Attorney calling for the training to be cancelled.  One of the signers was Usama Shami, the leader of the Hamas/MB’s Islamic Community Center of Arizona – the home of the two jihadis killed in Garland, Texas several weeks ago who were looking to impose Sharia by shutting down free speech.

Also of note is that the MB/Hamas organizations identified by UTT as threats have supported jihadi operations across the nation as has been previously detailed by UTT.

At the end of this one-day program, only nine people in the audience raised their hands and stated they knew this information prior to the training.  Seven of them had been to a prior UTT training and two had been working with the Center for Security Policy.  Everyone in the audience raised their hands when asked if the information was critical to protecting citizens in their state.

The reality is that a strategic assault on our free speech by the progressives on the left is now unfolding and David K. Shipler’s book and support from those like David Cole of the Washington Post are simply the leading edge of this next phase.

Americans must boldly continue to speak truth, not back down, and not be silenced.  The assault on our free speech is, in the eyes of our enemies, is the key move in this war to silence us so we will go along quietly while the Republic burns.

Faithful Americans must not succumb to this.

Investigation Exposes AMP Leaders’ Ties to Former U.S-Based Hamas-Support Network

1186IPT News, June 24, 2015:

Federal investigators shut down a massive Hamas-support network in the United States between 2001 and 2008, prosecuting some elements and freezing the assets of others.

But the Investigative Project on Terrorism finds that many of the same functions – fundraising, propaganda and lobbying ­– endure, now carried out by a group called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). The IPT investigation identified at least five AMP officials and speakers who worked in the previous, defunct network called the “Palestine Committee.” It was created by the Muslim Brotherhood to advance Hamas’ agenda politically and financially in the United States.

Last year, AMP joined a coalition of national Islamist groups in forming the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is among the other founding members (for more on that coalition, click here). CAIR and its founders appear in internal Palestine Committee records admitted into evidence during the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history.

Several Palestine Committee entities were created by Mousa Abu Marzook, who remains a top Hamas political leader. One branch, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), was convicted in 2008 along with five senior officials, of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas. HLF’s role in the Palestine Committee was the chief fundraising arm for Hamas in the United States, prosecutors say.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis during a sentencing hearing.

A flow chart of other Palestine Committee entities includes the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) and a Northern Virginia think tank called the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR). IAP served as a propaganda outlet, organizing rallies and publishing magazines with articles supporting Hamas. CAIR was added to a Palestine Committee meeting agenda shortly after its 1994 creation.

UASR published an academic journal and, prosecutors say, was “involved in passing Hamas communiques to the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood community and relaying messages from that community back to Hamas.”

Today, AMP routinely engages in anti-Israeli rhetoric, sponsors conferences that serve as a platform for Israel bashers, and openly approves “resistance” against the “Zionist state.” One AMP official acknowledged the goal is to “to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel.”

An April 2014 AMP-sponsored conference in Chicago, for example, hosted Sabri Samirah, the former chairman of IAP, as a speaker. There was little to no talk about how to achieve peaceful coexistence.

“We are ready to sacrifice all we have for Palestine. Long Live Palestine,” Samirah said. “We have a mission here [in the U.S.] also to support the struggle of our people back there in order to achieve a free land in the Muslim world, without dictators and without corruption.”

The U.S. government had earlier deemed Samirah a “security risk” and he was barred from reentering the country for several years following a trip to Jordan in 2003. While in Jordan, he served as a spokesman for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Islamic Action Front. The charges against Samirah were subsequently dropped and he returned to the U.S. last year.

Read more

Also see:

Rasmieh Odeh Sentenced to 18 Months In Prison, Then Deportation to Jordan

Steven Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism,

Hot off the presses. Rasmieh Odeh, the female Palestinian terrorist who participated in the killing of two teenagers in Jerusalem in 1969 and then  immigrated to the US  and lived the good life in the US for 20 years by lying on her immigration forms that she was never convicted in Israel of a terrorist act (for which she served 10 years) and which she had confessed to WAS finally convicted today of lying, perjury and formally accused by the Judge of being a terrorist. 

But here are my comments on the case and on the scandalous ramifications of the success of the terrorist lobby “ said , Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Emerson’s organization has been tracking this case for more than 2 years and produced a five part documentary   series, “Spinning a Terrorist Into a Victim” (which you can link to on our website and utube) showing how her numerous “respectable” defenders turned truth on its head by spearheading a massive campaign to portray this terrorist killer as a “victim” of a conspiracy by the “Israeli lobby”, “Islamaphobic” prosecutors”, and “anti Palestinian bigots.”

“What was particularly outrageous about this case was the amalgamation of major human rights groups, Islamic groups (all of whom were just invited to the White House CVE Summit, who have been appointed to senior advisory positions by DHS and DOJ,  and all of whom have met repeatedly in Chicago with Mayor Rahm Emanuel) such as CAIR, ADC and nearly every other Islamic group in the alphabet that came to her defense and claimed she was innocent, that she was a victim of the “persecution of the Israeli lobby,” that the PFLP (which carried out the bombing in which she participated) was a ‘heroic resistance group,” etc.

And then there was a list of 124 female faculty members from around the country that supported this killer including the infamous  NYY Professor Lisa Duggan, an outspoken supporter of BDS.

“Even more galling in the end was how the judge, who first admonished her, succumbed to the political correct pressure of the pro terrorist lobbying groups and claimed in court that that this killer was, in his scurrilous words, now  a “reformed” person: “No doubt in my mind she [Odeh] has changed and reformed.” She is engaged in “positive and constructive activities right now.”

“Kudos to the prosecutors who pursued justice for so many years and refused to bow to political pressures from the Holder Justice Department to drop the case. These prosecutors are the real heroes. True American heroes who deserve the gratitude and deep respect of every American citizen.

“But make no mistake, said Emerson: the reason this was a seminal day in history was not because she was convicted but because of the successful influence of the  massive terrorist lobby in the United States which has been lobbying for years in claiming she was framed by the “Jewish Lobby.” That so many ‘mainstream Islamic organizations, human rights groups and academic professors came to the defense of a murderer and perpetuated the “big lie” perfected by Goebbels was scurrilously demonstrated today. That these groups– who have defended a confessed terrorist murderer and then claimed she never did it—have been so routinely welcomed as respected guests  into the halls of the White House, State Department, DHS, DOJ, FBI, Chicago Mayor’s Office and by the mainstream media especially the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times represents one of the most darkest days in American history. Yes we should rejoice that justice was finally achieved.

“But the legacy of the massive coalition of such allegedly respectable groups lobbying in support of a confessed terrorist killer is something this country needs to confront. And it starts at the White House and it extends to the mainstream media and to local city officials who by virtue of legitimizing these proterrorist lobby groups have blood on their own hands. “

!cid_image001_jpg@01D05D2B

IPT News by Steven Emerson
March 12, 2015

Odeh with her interpreter before Judge Drain (sketch by Jerry Lemenu)

Odeh with her interpreter before Judge Drain (sketch by Jerry Lemenu)

DETROIT – Rasmieh Odeh, a Palestinian woman who conceived of and led a deadly 1969 Jerusalem bombing plot that killed two civilians, has had her citizenship revokedand will serve 18 months in an American prison for naturalization fraud. Prosecutors had asked for her to serve five to seven years. Her defense maintains even her 18-month sentence in prison is “unjust”.

At Thursday’s sentencing hearing, both the courtroom and media overflow rooms were filled to capacity with over a hundred supporters from the larger Arab American community attending the hearing. Her support base anxiously tweeted a rolling commentary on the verbatim transcript of court proceedings being relayed to them online. “Just f..k the US justice system”. “The appellate judge(s) better be wiser than this douchebag” #RasmiehOdeh.

Odeh never would have been allowed into the United States, and never would have been naturalized as an American citizen, had immigration officials known about the 10 years she spent in Israeli prisons for helping bomb a Jerusalem supermarket, killing two Hebrew University students. But Odeh, 67, failed to disclose that history, checking “no” on her immigration and naturalization applications to questions that asked if she had ever been arrested, convicted or imprisoned.

Those false answers allowed her to live an idyllic life in America for 20 years. Her lies ultimately caught up with her, and the prosecutors, to their credit, initiated an investigation and prosecution that resulted in her conviction on one count of naturalization fraud last November.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism exposed Odeh’s terrorist history and spin strategy in a five-part video series, “Spinning a Terrorist Into a Victim.”

U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain said Thursday that Odeh’s case was about “lying under oath” but had been “politicized” to make the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the “rallying point to engender sympathy.”

Regular naturalization fraud guidelines, in this case, recommend that Odeh serve 15-21 months in prison, but prosecutors urged Judge Drain to go far beyond those guidelines due to the nature of the crime she hid from authorities. A sentence of five to seven years fits the crime, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel argued, saying the original guideline range would fail to deter other terrorists who might consider seeking entry into the United States by failing to disclose their terrorist backgrounds.

Judge Drain cited the prosecution’s deterrence argument saying he wanted to “impose a sentence that will make people think twice before lying under oath to enter the country.” He chided Odeh saying, “you don’t have respect for the law.” He added that “people are watching this case” and he wanted to set a precedent that “promotes respect for the law.”

Judge Drain also said that Odeh not only committed perjury in how she filled out the application, claiming she thought it only applied to her time in the U.S., he also pointed out that she testified about her alleged “torture” and Israeli conviction despite repeated instructions by the court not to do so. For these actions, he not only revoked her citizenship, he sentenced her to 18 months in prison – still far below a prison term of five to seven years that the prosecution requested.

Odeh apologized for knowingly disobeying the judge’s instructions during her trial, explaining that the words just “came out on their own”. Yet she continued to speak at length at her sentencing about her “difficult and harsh” childhood growing up under “Israeli occupation.”

She justified her membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (PFLP), a known terrorist group, as understandable: “As a woman in an occupied territory, everyone struggled against occupation and I was one of them,” she said, adding that it was not her fault if people made her into an “icon.”

“Every time I do something, something happens and takes me to the zero point,” Odeh said, citing her birth in Palestine and refugee experience in Jordan, while denying responsibility for the murders she participated in.

Footage from a 2004 film, “Women in Struggle” and from a 1993 video, entitled, “Tell Your Tale Little Bird” revealed incriminating evidence of Odeh’s role in the Supersol supermarket bombing in 1969. Footage from a 1970 hijacking showed a female PFLP terrorist identifying her group as “Task Force Rasmieh Odeh.”

Defense attorneys did not want Odeh to have to serve any prison time. They emphasized her community activism in Chicago and persisted in attacking the credibility of Odeh’s conviction in Israel.

In their sentencing memorandum, Odeh’s attorneys wrote that the government’s recommendation was a “draconian sentence, for illegitimate political purposes” designed to “curry favor with their American Zionist constituents and obfuscate 67 years of Israeli terrorism.”

Odeh’s principal attorney, Michael Deutsch who has defended Islamic terrorists for years, emphasized Odeh’s  “extraordinary” work within the Arab American and larger community in Chicago. Unfortunately, he said, the sentencing guidelines “do not talk about a person’s contributions to society. But here was a woman who came to the country, she had not taken but given of herself to make this a better place for the immigrants who come here.” He cited her age and “physical and psychological conditions” as reasons justifying a more lenient sentence. Odeh has been “punished enough” and “to use the fact that 45 years ago that she may have been involved in resistance activity seems to me to be unfair and unnecessary,” he said.

“Deutsch’s description of [Odeh’s] participation in the killing of two civilians as ‘resistance activity’ is nauseating, revolting, appalling and reflects the same justification invoked by terrorists around the world when they kill innocent civilians”, said Steven Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Odeh is the associate director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago. Her prosecution sparked a campaign by colleagues and supporters aimed at pressuring the U.S. Attorney to drop the case. Dozens of people traveled from Chicago, where Odeh now lives, to Detroit, to pack the courtroom during the trial and demonstrate in front of the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse.

Among the groups who protested Odeh’s prosecution and organized demonstrations claiming she was innocent are the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee,American Muslims for Palestine, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a group of 124 feminist academics.

Despite his recognition of Odeh’s repeated flouting of U.S. law, Judge Drain also nodded to the influence of her campaign of supporters.

To the dismay of anti-terrorism experts who have been following the trial, Judge Drain applauded Odeh’s social activism within the Arab American and larger community, stating that Odeh was once a “terrorist”, but “that was a situation decades ago.” He said that today she was a “reformed” person: “No doubt in my mind she [Odeh] has changed and reformed.” She is engaged in “positive and constructive activities right now.”

Even still, Judge Drain pointed out that Odeh’s background did not excuse her involvement in terrorist acts and subsequent lies. “You grew up in a war environment. It’s not a whole lot different from a lot of people I see in some ways,” he said.

Odeh was automatically stripped of her citizenship and faces deportation after completing her prison sentence. She will remain free on bond while she appeals her conviction and sentence—which she promises she will do, saying, “I want to say about today and the future, I hope to find justice with you.”

If her conviction is ultimately upheld, she will be summarily deported to Jordan—her former country of citizenship—when she completes her incarceration.

‘No-go’ zones ‘fact of life’ in Europe

islam_for_franceWND, By Jerome Corsi, Jan. 30, 2015:

NEW YORK – Amid controversy over whether or not Muslim “no-go” zones exist in Europe, Soeren Kern, a senior fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute and also at the Madrid-based Strategic Studies Group, contends they are “a well-known fact of life” in many parts of the continent.

“Europe’s no-go zones are the byproduct of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated from – rather than become integrated into – their European host nations,” Kern wrote Jan. 20 in a Gatestone Institute paper titled “European ‘No-Go’ Zones: Fact or Fiction.”

Kern asserted the “problem of no-go zones is well documented, but multiculturalists and their politically correct supporters vehemently deny that they exist.”

“Some are now engaged in a concerted campaign to discredit and even silence those who draw attention to the issue,” he said.

As WND reported, Steven Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, ignited the furor when he said in a Fox News interview Jan. 11, “there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo threatened to sue Fox News, charging its coverage of the issue “insulted” Paris, and the news channel issued an apology. But contrary to how it was widely reported, Fox News didn’t apologize for saying there were “no-go” zones, and supporters of Emerson argued he was guilty only of overstatement, not fabrication.

“I think Steve Emerson’s biggest mistake was to apologize so profusely,” Kern argued. “If Emerson had just said, ‘I made a mistake and what I meant to say was parts of Birmingham, not all of Birmingham,’ that would have been OK. But once you apologize and show the slightest bit of weakness, the attackers attack and try to devour. I think that’s what happened to Steve.”

In an interview with WND, Kern said supporters of multiculturalism typically have derided any news source or politician who dares openly proclaim the existence of “no-go” zones throughout Europe.

He believes the damage done to Emerson by the comment will pass.

“Emerson is a solid researcher, and his work is very well respected,” Kern said. “I think this will blow over; but we’re already entering presidential campaign mode for 2016, and I believe the entire controversy over ‘no-go’ zones in Europe is a completely fake, contrived controversy.

“I think the controversy is really only in the United States, and the French picked up on it,” he said. “If you read the readers comments in the French newspapers on the Fox News controversy, it is overwhelmingly, like nine comments out of 10, that readers agree with what Fox News said originally. Ordinary readers in France know what’s going on, even if the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic are trying to cover it up.”

Failed model

Kern believes the “multicultural model in Europe is failing.”

“There has been so much invested in this over the last 30 years, that those people who are promoting this are very afraid this is going to be reversed,” he said.

Kern stressed that uncontrolled immigration of a growing Muslim population is the underlying issue in many European countries.

“In Europe, like in the United States, immigration is literally out of control,” he said. “But the big difference is that in the United States, when you have Latin American immigrants coming across the border, they have a Roman Catholic Western worldview. But in Europe, with mass immigration coming from North Africa and the Middle Eastern countries, it’s a completely different worldview.”

Consequently, he said, a “huge clash of civilizations develops in Europe, and I think that’s why many want to cover this up and discredit anybody who talks about this openly.”

He thinks “the writing is on the wall,” and many more terrorist attacks like the one on Charlie Hebdo in Paris are inevitable, particularly in Europe.

Kern cited the rise of populist politicians such as Marine Le Pen in France, with polls showing that if there were a presidential race in France today there would be a blowback, as “a lot of French people are upset that immigration, security and integration issues have been swept under the carpet too long.”

Read more at WND

Center Field: European no-go zones become conversational no-go zones

Women dressed in traditional burqa garments in Berlin. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Women dressed in traditional burqa garments in Berlin. (photo credit:REUTERS)

The Jerusalem Post, by Gil Troy, Jan. 27, 2015

For over two weeks now, politically correct bullies have been making yet another legitimate topic off-limits.

Anyone who dares suggest that some Muslim-dominated neighborhoods in Europe are hostile to non-Muslims risks mass mockery. I’m not a Europeanist, a sociologist, a criminologist or an urban anthropologist, but I know an intellectual mugging when I see one: Muslim “no-go zones” are becoming conversational no-go zones.

Such thought suppression is all too familiar. In the 1960s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan dared to admit that the black family was in crisis. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and pope John Paul dared to suggest that the Soviet Union might fall. In the 1990s, Dan Quayle dared to question encouraging single parenthood by attacking the television character Murphy Brown’s decision to become an unwed mother. Each time, these truth-telling deviants from the conventional wisdom were called not just wrong, but stupid and racist. Today, the Soviet Union no longer exists, and many acknowledge the growing gap, overall, between kids raised in single-parent homes and traditional homes, black or white.

The pile-on began on January 10, when Steven Emerson appeared on Fox News. Emerson has the annoying habit of anticipating problems most of us prefer to ignore.

Long before 9/11, this award-winning investigative reporter warned about the dangers radical Islamist terrorism posed.

Now, discussing the underlying causes of the Parisian massacres, Emerson described the alienated, marginalized, majority-Muslim and dangerous neighborhoods that breed radicals, as “no-go zones.”

“They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens, and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany, they don’t exercise any sovereignty,” Emerson said. Overstating the problem, Emerson added: “And in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in!” Simultaneously, other Fox commentators, and Rupert Murdoch, discussed “no-go zones” in categorical, occasionally judgmental, ways.

Within 24 hours, Emerson had apologized for using exaggerations such as “totally,” and had made a charitable donation to Birmingham Hospital as an act of good faith.

His efforts were ignored. The New York Times, diminishing more than three decades of investigative journalism, including a prestigious George Polk Award, repeatedly called him “a self-described” terrorism expert. The prime minister of Britain, who should have more pressing concerns, called Emerson an “idiot.”

Suddenly, the artificially high, absolutist standard Emerson quickly repudiated became the baseline: just because there are no areas of total Muslim domination and total French, British, or Belgian, abdication, the “no-go zones” characterization became a “blunder” and a “myth.” Fox News and CNN apologized for broaching such topics.

Then, shamelessly, after celebrating France’s commitment to free speech, including politically-incorrect cartooning, Paris’s mayor threatened to sue Fox News for defaming her city.

Meanwhile, the self-described “newspaper of record,” used “self-described” to insult this serious expert. The Times has only used the phrase pejoratively, with “self-described” snipers, pedophiles and slackers. We never see Jane Fonda called a “self-described” fitness expert; Michael Beschloss called a “self-described” presidential historian – a profession that has no formal designation; or Al Sharpton called a “self-described” civil rights activist. The Times stylebook – and that of every serious journalistic enterprise – should ban the phrase in news reports, unless quoting some critic mocking a rival’s credentials.

The backlash has stifled an important discussion. Boston’s “combat zone” has no soldiers. Most red-light districts have no crimson illumination. Similarly, no-go zones are threatening and dangerous, not formally separate and necessarily lethal. Scary, crime-ridden immigrant neighborhoods are not a new phenomenon, nor are they limited to Europe or Europe’s Muslim immigrants.

But normal patterns of urban and suburban dysfunction are superimposed on the sensitive European Islamist issue, and now filtered through a mechanism of denial. The challenges of unemployment, crime and other structural forms of marginalization, mixed with some radical Muslims’ desire for self-segregation, caused the problems demonstrated most dramatically with the riots that began on October 27, 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois.

Anecdotally, there are certain neighborhoods where, as one retired French immigrant to Israel with close family still in Paris reports, “a non-Muslim would be very uncomfortable,” out of fear of being “hassled and possibly attacked.” My British friends feel it less. The French government apparently has an official list of “sensitive urban zones,” known by the French shorthand, ZUS.

Without degenerating into anti-Muslim bigotry, Europe is not America and many Muslim immigrants to European are not like America’s Irish, Italians, or Jews. America still values the melting pot while Europe prefers the salad bowl.

Some – emphasize some – radical Muslim clerics and their followers reject the multicultural mutual love-in. These Islamist extremists take a salad-dressing approach, emphasizing that just as oil and water don’t mix, neither should Muslims and non-Muslims. European multiculturalists are so tolerant they even tolerate Islamist intolerance.

Given the Islamist terrorist menace, considering the thousands fighting for Islamist fundamentalists like Islamic State, analyzing the separate Muslim enclaves is legitimate, even using the sloppy “no-go zones” shorthand.

Citizens in pluralistic democratic societies are constantly debating the different balance for ethnic and religious group identities amid broader nationalist and humanistic visions. Jews in particular have spent three centuries vacillating between assimilation and integration.

This sorry episode reflects the partisan nature of too much political discourse today. From climate change to no-go zones, where you stand politically often shapes your perception of reality. The question of Islamism’s relationship to Islamist terrorism – obscured by America’s president, among others – stirs worries about other important issues suppressed by the PC thought police.

In the 1990s, the problem of radical Islamist terrorism didn’t disappear even as many ignored Steven Emerson’s warnings. Similarly, the problem of marginalized and radicalized Islamists in these neighborhoods won’t disappear, even if people mock Emerson and others for raising it.

The author is a professor of history at McGill University and a Visiting Professor at the IDC in Herzliya. The author of eight books on American history, his most recent,
Moynihan’s Moment: America’s Fight Against Zionism as Racism, won the J.I. Segal award for best non-fiction Jewish book.

ISLAM IN EUROPE NOW A NO-GO SUBJECT

WhiteHouse.gov

WhiteHouse.gov

The American Spectator, By Aaron Goldstein, Jan. 28, 2015

A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’sJustice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments whileFNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlanticby David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:

Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.

Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.

Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is … planning new attacks on the US…. [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.

Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?

So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republicreported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?

Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in anarticle discussing European anti-Semitism.

Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will  the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?

It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.

In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:

YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIAH CONTROLLED ZONE

ISLAMIC RULES ENFORCED

The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”

If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Today praising the attacks:

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:

Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well. I believe our patrols are a means to an end.

In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated theCharlie Hebdo attacks.

It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols have also surfaced in Germany.

In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his face by one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.

It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.

This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:

Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.

Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?

So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipesreassessed his view:

I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject.

Steve Emerson Speaks Out: It Was ‘Like I Was Guilty of Murder’

The Blaze, by Erica Ritz,  Jan. 21, 2015:

Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo said Monday that the city will be suing Fox News over commentator Steve Emerson’s discussion of “no-go zones” in the city. Emerson appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio program Wednesday to discuss why he spoke about “no-go zones,” and said some have reacted to his comments as though he was “guilty of murder.”

“Governments don’t recognize that term,” Emerson began. “It’s an informal reference in which policemen or firemen or government agencies won’t go in to areas where there are dense Muslim concentrations for fear of their lives. And it’s been reported on since 2002 in of all places, the New York Times.”

Though Hidalgo said Emerson’s comments “insulted” the image of Paris, Beck and his co-hosts said Emerson’s description was how they understood the term. They never thought it was an “official edict.”

But Emerson was quick to note that he did make a false statement when he referred to Birmingham, England as “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”

“I made a total error,” he said. “I was totally wrong. Within hours of making that statement, I issued a declarative, unmitigated, unreserved, unambiguous apology.”

When Beck asked how Emerson’s statements on Fox News became an international controversy, Emerson said he believes a “hatred of Fox” and a hatred of his work in exposing radical Islam “combined to spiral out of control to the point where it seems like I was guilty of murder.”

“The irony of course is that the mayor of Paris — Paris being symbolically now the top city in the world … of free speech, having seen the massacre of people trying to exercise free speech — is now going to sue Fox for emphasizing free speech?” Emerson said.

Emerson apologized for his comments about Birmingham, but took offense to being called a “complete idiot” by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Mr. Cameron himself said ISIS and ISIL, all these groups have nothing to do with Islam and they’re just monsters,” Emerson said. “That statement is more idiotic than any statement I’ve ever made.”

More video from the interview at The Blaze