Marxists Continue to Lie and Defend Jihadis in America

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, August 3, 2018:

Enemies of the United States continue to lie and provide cover for jihadis in the U.S. while defaming those speaking truth about real threats to the Republic.

In an article entitled “American Islamophobia’s Fake Facts” published July 31, 2018 in a little-known online blog,  the author lies and defends terrorists (jihadis) in an attempt to challenge the mountain of evidence reagarding the Islamic Movement in the United States.

While the article may never be read by more than a handful of people, the arguments in it are often raised by those collaborating with America’s enemies, so UTT thinks it wise to give our readers they ammunition they need to defeat these false and often nonsensical comments.

The article in question can be found here.

Here are the article’s main arguments followed by UTT’s rebuttal with facts:

“A major theme of those falsehoods is telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent actions, are still a threat to national security.”

In fact, all Islamic doctrine mandates war against non-muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.  There is no book of Islamic law (sharia) nor a text book used in U.S. Islamic schools – or any other Islamic school for that matter – that teaches another “version” of Islam.

That said, neither UTT nor other prominent national security organizations believe all “American Muslims are a threat,” but we have made clear that muslims who adhere to sharia and seek to impose it on others in any way, are a threat to liberty since sharia necessarily enslaves people, including muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) By-Laws state their objectives are to establish an Islamic State under sharia – same as ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The doctrinal writings of the MB make clear their main line of operation is in the non-violent realm.  Espionage, counterintelligence, subversion, political warfare, and the like are their primary tools to overthrow the U.S. government.

Conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government is a violation of U.S. Federal Code, Title 18, Sections 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) and 2383 (Conspiring to Overthrow the Government).

Evidence in the largest terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history [US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), Northern District of Texas, 2008] reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the U.S. are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement.

“The Brotherhood has not been designated as a terror organization by the U.S. government, and there are not the slightest grounds for thinking it, or any other secret force, controls any national Muslim-American group.”

Let us start with the fact that the designated terrorist group Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  If the finance department of a major corporation were laundering money, the indictment would not read “Finance Department, Company X” – the company would be indicted.

The fact the entire Muslim Brotherhood has not been designated a terrorist organization is a reflection of a failure by U.S. officials, not an indicator the MB is not a danger to the American people.

The evidence in the US v HLF trial reveals the most prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement here.  These include, but are not limited to:  Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Students Association (MSA), Islamic Medical Association (IMANA), Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), and many others.

Evidence from other federal trials reveal the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are both Muslim Brotherhood organizations with CAIR being the 4th organization created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

A declassified document from the FBI’s Indianapolis office dated December 15, 1987 states:

“The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was organized by the leaders of the Muslim Students Association of the United States and Canada (MSA) in 1973 as the parent organization of various Muslim groups in the U.S. and Canada. The leadership of NAIT, MSA and other Muslim groups are inter-related with many leaders and members of NAIT having been identified as supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Government of Iran (GOI). Their support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S. has been evidenced by the financial and organizational support provided through NAIT from Middle East countries to Muslims residing in the U.S. and Canada.”

A declassified FBI confidential informant (CI) report dated 8/17/1988, details the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United States at the time and states:

“(CI) advised that in addition to the internal political structure and organization of NAIT as controlled by the IIIT leadership that as members of the IKHWAN they are involved in organizing external political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government. (CI) has advised that the Ikhwan is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well organized in the United States to the point where it has set up political action front groups with no traceable ties to the IIIT or its various Muslim groups. They also have claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…the IIIT leadership has indicated that in this phase their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States Government and also American universities. (CI) noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic Revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool…”

The “Ikhwan” is the Muslim Brotherhood.

The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood does not control “any Muslim-American group” is ludicrous.

“The document, dated May 1991 and titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” is real, but there is no evidence that it represents the views of anyone other than the single Brotherhood member who wrote it.”

An Explanatory Memorandum was discovered during the 2004 FBI raid of the Annandale, Virginia home of senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative Ismail Elbarasse.

The author of the document – Mohamed Akram Adlouni – was a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council and is listed as the number 2 man for the U.S. MB’s Palestine Committee, also knows as Hamas in the United States.  Therefore, the author was not some random muslim as the article infers.

The Memorandum begins with confirming the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood previously approved strategic goal:  “The general strategic goal of the Group in America which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year [I987] is “Enablement of Islam in North
America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim
Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to
expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents
Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

Mohamed Akram Adlouni worked to bring the goal – stated above and approved the the Muslim Brotherhood leadership – to fruition.

Oddly, the author of the article admits Islam is working to be a “civilization alternative.”  What is this but a revolutionary strategy to replace the Constitutional Republic with and Islamic State under sharia, in violation of U.S. federal code?

Following the presentation of the Memorandum to U.S. Brotherhood leadership, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood officially published its “Implementation Manual” which implements many of the items discussed in the Memorandum.

Examples of this include:  programs for youth and women, creation of media and political organizations, and others.  Most notably, however, are:

(1)  The historical and ideological details in An Explanatory Memorandum are consistent with other Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, to include MilestonesToward a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy and the speech given by U.S. MB leader Zeid al Noman in Missouri in 1981 detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s history in America.  The transcript of this speech was entered into evidence in the US v HLF trial.

(2)  In section 20, An Explanatory Memorandum states:  ” We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”  After the Memorandum and the Implementation Manual were published, the number of Islamic organizations created, beginning in 1992, increased drastically and remains at 80-120 Islamic organizations created annually in the United States – exactly what these plans call for.

(3) The stated role of the MB in America per An Explanatory Memorandum is to wage Civilization Jihad to “destroy Western civilization from within” and to “sabotage” our “miserable house” by OUR hands – getting Western leaders to do their bidding for them.  The U.S. MB has succeed in doing this on numerous occasions.

When the U.S. State Department wrote the constitutions for Iraq and Afghanistan creating Islamic Republics under sharia – which fulfilled Al Qaeda’s objectives in those two places – that is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

When Muslim Brotherhood groups ISNA, MPAC, and CAIR petitioned President Obama to shut down training inside the U.S. government which factually detailed the domestic and international Islamic threat, but “offended muslims,” the President shut the training down.  That is Civilization Jihad by OUR hands.

“The other main thread in the anti-Muslim narrative — the charge that mainstream Muslim-American organizations generally, and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) in particular, have ‘terror ties’ — is similarly based on a single piece of ‘evidence’…The document that supposedly verifies the claim that CAIR and other groups are linked to Islamist terrorism is a list of ‘unindicted co-conspirators’…In the more than 11 years since the list was made public, no new information has emerged that corroborates the inflammatory assertion that CAIR or the other Muslim-American groups are terrorist organizations or fronts for Hamas.”

The fact the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization – a designated terrorist organization – is in no way based on the unindicted co-conspirators list.  It is, however, important to mention the U.S. government identifies CAIR in the unindicted co-conspirators list as being a “Member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee” which is Hamas, and Hamas members are called “terrorists.”

Here are a few of the many facts revealing CAIR is Hamas:

  1. The Palestine Committee (Hamas) Meeting in 1994 lists CAIR as the 4th organization operating under it (Hamas). This document was entered into evidence at the US v HLF trial.
  2. Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government and many governments around the world.
  3. In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on “radical Islam,” Senator Charles Schumer (NY) stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today, they declined to testify, also have intimate connections with Hamas.”
  4. In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal (Eastern District of Virginia), the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
  5. In a document retrieved from CAIR’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. by one of its interns – Chris Gaubatz who was actually working undercover – CAIR openly discussed supporting Osama bin Laden. The document was titled “Proposed Muslim Platform for 2004” (dated 3/08/04) and states, in part, “Attempt to understand Islamic movements in the area, and start supporting Islamic groups including Mr. bin Laden and his associates.”
  6. In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood leader, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found listed the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). On the list were the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya).
  7. In the government filing rebuking CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “As of the date of this response, the Court has entered into evidence a wide array of testimonial and documentary evidence expressly linking CAIR and its founders to the HLF and its principals; the Islamic Association for Palestine and its principals; the Palestine Committee in the United States, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook; and the greater HAMAS-affiliated conspiracy described in the Government’s case-in-chief.”
  8. In the government filing rebuking ISNA/NAIT’s motion to have their names removed from the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors stated, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”
  9. In ruling to leave CAIR on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case, Federal Judge Jorge Solis listed a portion of the overwhelming evidence against CAIR and wrote: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”
  10. In a 3-0 ruling, an Appellate panel agreed to leave CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT on the unindicted co-conspirator list in the HLF case because of the overwhelming evidence.
  11. In a February 2010 affidavit from an FBI Special Agent in the immigration proceedings for Hamas leader Nabil Sadoun in Dallas, Texas, the affiant declared the U.S. Palestine Committee was affiliated with Hamas. He further identified four (4) Hamas organizations created by the Hamas in America: Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, United Association for Studies and Research, and Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
  12. In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is) evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”
  13. In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

UTT encourages its readers to print this article and keep it handy when ignorant or nefarious people attempt to minimize the massive jihadi threat inside the United States.

We need a much greater sense of urgency in dealing with this threat, and that includes destroying the intentionally false comments and publications by enemy sympathizers and collaborators.

Congressional Muslim Brotherhood Hearing Reveals Danger of Not Speaking Truth About Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 12, 2018:

This is, as UTT has made clear in the past, an important line of operation in this war and one which should be pursued with great vigor.

However, statements made during the hearing raise serious concerns of a continued gross lack of understanding of the threat by drawing broad distinctions between Muslim Brotherhood doctrine and “true Islam.”

Since the “true Islam” referred to during the hearings does not exist, and in fact the “version” of Islam articulated by the International Muslim Brotherhood – as well as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and others – is core Islamic doctrine, the difference between the two is a fantasy and is no place to try to build strategies for victory.

Testimonies Raising Concern

The testimony of Dr. Hillel Fradkin from the Hudson Institute agreed the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to establish an Islamic State, yet placed the root of this idea at the feet of the Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna, and did not acknowledge Muslim Brotherhood doctrine is core Islamic doctrine.

Fradkin went on to say that “This approach entailed the gradual transformation of society to Brotherhood principles before the seizure of political power, in Egypt and elsewhere.”  Dr. Fradkin attributed this “gradualist” approach as an invention of al Banna.

In reality this “approach” comes from core Islamic doctrine.  It is progressive revelation, and simply reaffirms the exact same methods used by Islam’s perfect man, Islam’s prophet Mohammad, to implement Islam in society.

In his testimony,  Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies stated, “Many Muslim Brotherhood branches subject their members to rigid indoctrination processes and vet their
members for their commitment to the organization’s ultimate goal, which is to empower the Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam.”

The question must be asked, since this comment was made in testimony on Capital Hill, how is the “Brotherhood’s politicized and deeply intolerant interpretation of Islam” different from what 12 year old muslims are taught in U.S. Islamic schools?  How does it differ from what the highest authority in Islamic jurisprudence – Al Azhar – teaches Islamic scholars?

It does not.

Mr. Schanzer went on to say, “Factions of the Brotherhood without a history of violence or terrorism finance do not warrant scrutiny,” and recommended the U.S. should “Designate the violent actors while keeping a close eye on non-violent ones.”

Since the global Islamic Movement’s primary  road to victory is in the non-violent realm, to focus primarily on the violence – as the enemy wants us to do – is to lose the war.

Zuhdi Jasser, a muslim doctor from Arizona identified himself as a “devout muslim” in his testimony.

In his statement, Dr. Jasser said, “Neither Islam nor Muslims are monolithic and should not be treated as such by anyone.”

The problem with this statement is two-fold.  First, it is untrue.  The thing that binds the Islamic world together is the obligation, under penalty of death, for muslims to obey sharia and work to impose it on the world.  There is no “version” of Islam that does not require this.

Secondly, the statement that Islam is not monolithic and very hard to understand, is something UTT teaches its students to repel with the truth.  It is on UTT’s radar because it has been a talking point for the Islamic Movement for over 20 years.

Dr. Jasser also asserted, “For us (muslims) it is a very personal mission to leave our American Muslim children a legacy that their faith is based in the unalienable right to liberty and to teach them that the principles that founded America do not contradict their faith but strengthen it.”

In fact, there is no book of Islamic law or any Islamic school text used in the United States – or elsewhere for that matter – which teaches muslims to adhere to America’s founding principles.  In fact, the most widely used text book in U.S. Islamic schools, What Islam is All About, reads:  “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

In the end, Dr. Jasser recommends the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood gradually beginning with a few Islamic nations overseas, but NOT in the United States.

The testimony of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin denied the clarity of the International Muslim Brotherhood’s objectives and their controlling doctrine (sharia) when he testified, “There is no singular, monolithic Muslim Brotherhood…there is no central administration linking these disparate groups.  In character and matters of doctrine, they vary greatly…Does the Muslim Brotherhood constitute a global threat?  Here too, I would answer that it does not.  Most of the groups that are said to be Muslim Brotherhood affiliates or franchises support democracy and abjure violence.”

Setting aside the fact the leadership of the International Muslim Brotherhood hosts regular meetings to discuss strategy and assess their progress, these comments leave listeners/readers with the idea that different levels of sharia implementation in different Islamic nations by the Muslim Brotherhood is synonymous with a lack of unified doctrine or modus operandi, which is demonstrably untrue.

To say the MB rejects violence is to be wrong.  See their by-laws here.

The Brotherhood calls for the implementation of sharia on the planet.

It is all about sharia.  That is what links the entire global Islamic Movement together.

Notable are the comments by Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts during the hearing which reveal a continued lack of understanding of the Islamic threat by major components of the U.S. government.  After listing examples of violence advocated and perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Lynch said, in part, “Meanwhile, democratically elected political parties that also fall within the Muslims Brotherhood umbrella represent a significant voting block in the Parliaments and government coalitions of some of our key counterterrorism allies in the middle east and north Africa…the State department lists Tunisia along with Jordan and Morocco as our committed partners in the coalition to defeat the Islamic State.”

And therein lies the problem.  Tunisia, Jordan, and Morocco are all parties to the OIC which served the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam” to the United Nations in 1993 which states how all 57 Islamic states on the planet view the rest of the world and how non-muslims are to be treated – through the lens of sharia.

The Enemy’s Unified Objective

The enemy in this war unambiguously and unanimously identifies itself as “muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah to establish an Islamic State under sharia.”

Different elements of the enemy’s army have different roles and different methods to get to the same end – an Islamic State under sharia.

Every Islamic nation on earth is a party to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which calls for sharia on the earth.

Al Qaeda, ISIS, and thousands of violent jihadi organizations on the earth state their objective is an Islamic State under sharia.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s By-Laws state their purpose is to establish an Islamic State under sharia.

All Islamic doctrine (sharia) requires muslims to wage war against non-muslims, in accordance with sharia, until an Islamic State is established under sharia.

Enemy’s Main Line of Operation:  Non-Violent Action

The idea the U.S. should only focus on groups or individuals engaged in violence is the same failed idea bringing the U.S. closer to defeat in this war.

The enemy’s line of operation that continues to be wildly successful against the non-muslim world is their ability to create the optical illusion that one part of their forces is pitted against another part and, therefore, friendly to us.

For instance, when suit-wearing jihadis from Hamas doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stepped in front of television cameras and condemned the killings in San Bernardino, they appeared reasonable and “moderate” relative to the two jihadis and the dead bodies they left behind.

As the Islamic Movement moves forward and gains ground, they are increasingly willing to hold out the Muslim Brotherhood as the problem so long as it keep U.S. leaders from ever identifying Islam as the problem.

The concern UTT continues to voice is this:  time is growing short.

Leaders in the Islamic Movement know they need to keep us off target just a little bit longer.  So the closer American’s get to the truth, the more finely Islamic leaders parse the truth.

U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leaders have kept this administration from designating the MB terrorists for over a year and a half.  As there is a growing consensus to designate them, the calls now come for a partial designation because – we are told – people who want to non-violently overthrow America’s Constitutional Republic and replace it with a barbaric system which enslaves human beings (sharia/Islam) – should not be the focus of U.S. efforts against the Brotherhood.

In focusing primarily on the violent elements of the Islamic Movement, the United States is in grave danger of losing a war it could easily win if it simply identified the threat – sharia adherent muslims.

Coda

Yesterday’s hearing did a good thing by moving the ball forward in America’s effort to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.  As government officials move forward in their efforts to protect and defend this Republic, they will do well to remember that TRUTH is the standard to which national security professionals must cling if victory is still the objective.

Our objective, not the enemy’s.

Homegrown Terror Threats Increasing

New York City Police Department officers and other first responders work the scene after an attempted terror attack in a passageway linking the Port Authority Bus Terminal with the subway / Getty Images

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, July 10, 2018:

Jihadist threats from homegrown terrorists in America continue to increase each month, with at least nine foreign born individuals living in the United States arrested or convicted in June of attempting to launch attacks on behalf of ISIS and other global terrorist organizations, according to newly released information by Congress.

“Cases of homegrown Islamist extremism in the U.S. continue to be an issue of concern,” according to the House Homeland Security Committee’s monthly report of terrorism in America, which has been tracking an increase in homegrown jihadists for some time. “Since 2013, there have been 154 homegrown jihadist cases in the United States” from at least 30 different states.

The information highlights the ongoing threat posed by rogue jihadists influenced by international terror groups, but not necessarily directly tied to them, which makes these would-be attackers more difficult to track for federal authorities.

The committee’s monthly report has tracked an uptick in this activity for some time, highlighting the federal government’s difficulty in thwarting terror plots across America. Domestic terror threats in the United States also have grown due to an even greater number of Western jihadists operating in Europe, where it is much easier to travel freely into the United States.

At least nine would-be jihadists were arrested or convicted of terror plots in June alone, amounting to more than one per week, according to the House report.

On June 20 alone, three would-be jihadists either pleaded guilty or were sentenced to providing material support to jihadists. The terrorists were in New York City, Ohio, and Alabama.

Domestic terror convictions and sentencing also occurred on June 1, June 4, June 11, June 13, June 21, and June 25, according to the report.

At least 10 plots were foiled in Europe over the same period.

A full list of those arrested and convicted in June, as well as a summary of other Western terror plots can be found in the committee’s full report, found here.

Did Jihadis Just Execute a Bombing Operation at a CA Mall?

Understanding the Threat, by Jon Guandolo, July 9, 2018:

Evidence reveals jihadis attempted to bomb the Los Cerritos Center in California this past weekend.  This is one more in a string of numerous incidents across the United States indicating an increase in willingness by jihadis to use violence to silence those who speak truth about Islam.

Recently UTT has reported:

  • Some local police work harder to protect jihadis in their communities than the citizens.  See UTT article here.
  • Senior leaders of the FBI aid and abet known jihadi leaders and Islamic Centers.  See UTT video here.
  • U.S. Islamic schools teach what ISIS teaches.  See UTT article here.
  • Jihadis are in control of operations of some U.S. ports. See UTT article here.

So it should come as no surprise when a muslim slides his backpack under the table at the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) booth in Cerritos, California and walks away.  Literally.

UTT assesses this incident as a thwarted jihadi attack.  Lets look at the facts.

Those of you who follow UTT may remember in August of 2017 UTT published an article on the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) and its leader Steve Amundson.

This weekend, Steve and his team, including a pastor, set up their booth in a busy part of a mall called The Los Cerritos Center in Cerritos, California near Los Angeles.  As they always do, CJC hands out literature about Islam and the threat it poses to America and free people.

Over the last 6 months, Steve has reported an increase in physical assaults on him and his team.

The day began with two men snapping pictures of the CJC booth, then getting on the phone.  Steve Amundson witnessed this and recognized it as “red flag one.”

Steve has seen this behavior before, and it is usually the scouts looking for the CJC booth in order to alert others.

Later, two muslim women approached the booth and began cursing CJC’s people and calling them liars.  As mall security, which was standing in the immediate vicinity, was speaking with the women, a white haired muslim male moved over to the booth and slide his backpack under that table.  He then began speaking with the pastor from CJC.

After a short conversation, the muslim man walked away.

Amundson approached the pastor assuming the man was a friend.  When the pastor told Steve the man was an irate muslim complaining about CJC’s activities, Steve was immediately concerned for their safety.  He called security to stop the man, which was done.

Here are Steve Amundson’s words to describe what happened:

“I told security he left a backpack underneath our booth. The Moslem refused to take the backpack. We started to take cover behind cement pillars and told security to either call the bomb squad or have the guy pick up the backpack. He finally agreed to very carefullypick it up and security escorted him away. Security will not say at least right now if he was arrested, if the bomb squad was called or what. Was this a dry run or the real thing?”

Based on conversations Steve Amundson had with authorities, it does not appear the man’s backpack was ever searched.

This is a very serious incident, and either a dry run for a jihadi attack or the real thing.  The evidence leads UTT to believe this was the real thing.

The jihadis continue to ratchet up their aggressiveness, attacks, and violence here in America.

Will the FBI aggressively pursue this, or continue working with the jihadis to ensure no one puts a piece of bacon on the door knob of the local mosque?

Iran Revolutionary Guard Closer to Terrorist Designation

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

CSP, by John Bauer, July 6, 2018:

The Trump administration is considering naming the powerful Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization. The final decision comes from the State Department; the internal debate within the administration has been going on for months and may soon be coming to an end. One main issue that arises here is the problem with blacklisting an official military body, especially one that has the regional influence and global reach of the IRGC.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was founded in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The IRGC’s purpose is to preserve the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ideals from the 1979 revolution. The IRGC combines military and secret police roles in order to carry out its work of exporting the Islamic Revolution around the world. The IRGC is organized into two divisions: the Basij militia and the Quds Force (IRGC-QF). The Basij militia works within the country of Iran to suppress anti-regime activity as well as provide defensive military training to protect from foreign invasion. The Quds force provide training and support to several non-state military entities including the jihadi groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated terrorist organizations by the United States.

Since IRGC’s founding in 1979, the group has been engaging in terrorist attacks around the world. In the 1980’s the IRGC worked to integrate multiple Lebanese Shiite groups to form the organization Hezbollah, currently Iran’s most viable proxy. Hezbollah is responsible for carrying out various violent attacks against the United States over the last several decades including the 1983 Beirut U.S. Marine barracks bombing that killed 238 service members as well as the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that left 19 Americans dead. Further, in 2011 the IRGC conducted its first attack within the United States. They attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US at a popular restaurant in Washington D.C.

The government of Iran spends billions of dollars a year bank rolling foreign operations. Pro-Iranian Iraqi forces are known to get around $150 million a year while the Lebanese-based Hezbollah terror group is known to receive around $800 million annually. The largest cost to Tehran right now is the war in Syria that cost them around $15 dollars per year. The IRGC has also been a main pillar of support of the Syrian military and of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout the duration of the civil war in Syria. Another $150 million is sent to various organizations. All told Iran spends over $16 billion helping fund terrorist organizations around the world

Given all the support for terrorist organizations that IRGC has engaged in over the years Secretary of State Pompeo is supportive of adding the IRGC to the terrorist organization list. If the United States does list IRGC as a terrorist organization it would allow both the Justice Department and US Treasury to freeze assets of the IGRC, a move that would restrict travel for the group and provide arguably the best way for the United States to diminish the influence of the IGRC.

Terror Plot Against Iranian Dissidents Foiled In Europe

The foiled terrorist plot takes place amidst a backdrop of growing discontent within Iran. For more than six months, Iranians have been protesting and in some cases, striking.

The Federalist, by Matthew Brodsky, July 3, 2018:

The regime in Tehran must be growing nervous. European officials disrupted a terrorist plot aimed at a large conference in France for exiled Iranians opposed to the ruling regime.

An Iranian diplomat was arrested in Germany, along with two others suspected of plotting the bomb attack at the gathering. Three others of Iranian origin were arrested in France. Apparently, as both internal and external pressure mounts against the regime, they are recklessly lashing out against the West.

The two Belgian nationals, identified only as Amir S. and his wife, Nasimeh N., of Iranian origin, were charged with “attempted terrorist murder and the preparation of a terrorist offence,” according to a statementfrom the Belgium prosecutor. They were found with approximately 500 grams of a homemade explosive and an ignition mechanism inside their Mercedes.

Their contact, Assadollah A., an Iranian diplomat at the Austrian Embassy in Vienna, was also arrested. The failed plot is all the more brazen considering that Iran’s President Rouhani landed in Zurich on Monday and is scheduled to visit Vienna for talks regarding the nuclear agreement on Wednesday.

The choice of target was undoubtedly intended to send a message as well. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella bloc of Iranian opposition groups that demands regime change, hosted the event, in which tens of thousands attended in Villepinte, just outside Paris. Aside from the range of European and Arab officials who attended and spoke, President Trump’s lawyer and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also addressed the gathering, along with former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

They were joined on stage by many former U.S. diplomats and politicians from both sides of the aisle, who included former UN ambassador and Democratic governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. In response to the foiled attacked, Giuliani expressed his appreciation of the “fine work of law enforcement particularly in Belgium and France.”

An Untrustworthy Iran Denies Involvement

Naturally, Iran’s silver-tongued foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, dismissed his government’s complicity in the planned operation via Twitter: “How convenient: Just as we embark on a presidential visit to Europe, an alleged Iranian operation and its ‘plotters’ arrested. Iran unequivocally condemns all violence & terror anywhere, and is ready to work with all concerned to uncover what is a sinister false flag ploy.”

The problem, however, is that lying is somewhat of a regime specialty. For example, in April Zarif also told reporters, “We don’t intend to get a bomb,” and “Iran never raced towards a bomb, nor will it race towards a bomb. End of story.”

A few days later, Israel revealed a half ton of documents and digital files, blueprints it says it lifted from a secret warehouse in Tehran that detailed Iran’s plans to build nuclear weapons. Zarif’s condemnation of terrorism also rings hollow given that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and forces loyal to it have killed thousands in Syria in the regime’s effort to keep Bashar al-Assad in power.

Nor is it the first time such an audacious Iranian terrorist plot was thwarted in the West. For example, a scheme to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States with a bomb at a popular Washington restaurant was uncovered in 2011.

Iranians Are Fed Up With Their Authoritarian Leaders

The foiled terrorist plot takes place amidst a backdrop of growing discontent within Iran. For more than six months, Iranians have been protesting and in some cases striking, and their numbers are increasing. Unlike the crowds that took to the streets to protest the sham elections in 2009, the current outpouring of anger towards the regime has leapt from small cities in the Iranian hinterland to the capital in Tehran and more than 140 cities and towns. The demonstrations involve a cross-section of Iranian society that has included farmers, truck drivers, students, and bazar merchants, among many others. Unfortunately for the regime, the movement is proving durable.

The people have denounced the regime for spending money and other resources on foreign military adventures rather than using the $100 billion financial injection from the nuclear deal to improve the situation for ordinary Iranians at home. They’ve chanted, “Leave Syria alone, deal with us” along with “Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I give my life for Iran.”

In recent weeks, Iranians were even seen chanting “Death to Palestine,” an indication that standard regime-sponsored rallying cries, such as “Death to Israel” or the United States, are fast fading from fashion. In fact, whatever the regime promotes is increasingly being seen as antithetical to what everyday Iranians are striving for.

Iran’s rulers are bound to be further squeezed financially. When President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, it triggered a wind-down period to the return of biting economic sanctions set to go into effect on August 6 and November 4, respectively.

Those will target Iran’s energy sector (oil, petroleum, and petrochemicals), and all of the ancillary sanctions associated with it, such as the banking sector, shipping, shipbuilding, and ports. That is in addition to the U.S. Treasury Department terminating licensing for civil aviation, no longer dealing financially with Iranian rial, and not providing precious metals to the Iranian regime. European businesses are already fleeing the Iranian market in advance of the deadlines. If the Iranian rial is currently in a tailspin, it’s bound to nosedive in August.

It remains to be seen how the Trump administration or America’s European allies will respond to the latest Iranian terrorist challenge in France. Long before taking up the post of defense secretary, Jim Mattis told those gathered at the 2013 Aspen Security Forum that he thought the United States made a serious mistake by not responding more assertively to the 2011 foiled Iranian plot in Washington.

“We caught them in the act,” Mattis said, “and yet we let them walk free.” There’s a new sheriff in Washington today, who is bound to be less forgiving than his predecessor. The first indication of Europe’s response will be seen by Wednesday, when Iran’s president sits down with European diplomats.

Matthew RJ Brodsky is a senior fellow at the Security Studies Group in Washington, D.C. He can be followed on Twitter at @RJBrodsky .
Photo Mohammad Ali Jafari / Wikimedia
Also see:

Sharia: Religious Guide or Foreign Law

Understanding the Threat, by Stephanie Ameiss, June 28, 2018:

Sharia is what all jihadis unanimously state is the thing they seek to impose on the entire world, and the blueprint by which they are fighting us.

There are two sources of sharia:  the koran and the sunnah.

According to Islam, the koran is the “uncreated word of Allah.”  Allah is the Islamic god.

According to Islam, the contents of the koran were revealed to Islam’s prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. through an angel.  The koran has 114 chapters or suras which are not arranged in chronological order.

Islamic scholars have authoritatively put the chapters of the koran in chronological order, which is critical to understanding Islam, sharia, and the koran.

Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  In the koran (2:106, 16:101) Allah said whatever was revealed to Mohammad chronologically later overrules anything that was revealed to Mohammad earlier.

Specifically, the chronologically last sura (chapter) in the koran to discuss jihad is sura 9.  The violent verses in sura 9 calling for jihad (warfare against non-muslims) as a permanent obligation upon the muslim community until the world is conquered for Islam (9:5 and 9:29 among others), legally control earlier more peaceful sounding verses.

The koran commands muslims to wage war against non-muslims until they:  (1) convert to Islam, (2) pay the jizya (non-Muslim poll tax) and submit to sharia, or (3) are killed.

The last sura to discuss relations between muslims and non-Muslims is Sura 5.

“Take not the Jews and Christians as your friends…” (5:51)

Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time. His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (sira) and the reports (hadith) of what Mohammad did and said.

The sira and hadith make up the “sunnah.”

In Islam there are many hadith scholars, but the most authoritative is a man named Bukhari.  The second most authoritative hadith scholar is a man named Muslim.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this behavior is wrong.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad (the perfect man) said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be confusion about war against non-muslims in sharia, which comes from the Koran and the example of what Mohammad said and did (sunnah)?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  (Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim)
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

There is no such thing as a “different kind” of sharia which does not mandate jihad until the world is under the rule of the sharia, and there is no other legal definition of “Jihad” in sharia other than “warfare against non-Muslims.”

The hudud crimes are specifically listed in the koran (7 of them), for which the koran also provides some punishments.

These crimes are: Apostacy; Armed Robbery, Terrorism, and Perpetrating Corruption; Theft; Drinking Intoxicants; Illicit Sexual Intercourse; False Accusation of Illicit Sexual Intercourse; and Rebellion in the Land.

For instance, the punishment for hirabah (Armed Robbery et al) states:  “The punishment for those who wage war against God and His messenger and pursue corruption on earth is:  execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land (Islamic Criminal Law, The Hudud, Muhammad ‘at a Alsid Sid Ahmad, Malaysia).

Because the punishments come from Allah via the Koran, the guilty party must be punished in the manner prescribed.

A sharia judge may not show “mercy,” because that would directly contradict Allah, which is a capital crime.

Sharia is how the Islamic enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial to use the filter of sharia when our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.

In the Sharia, “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right; “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993); and “Extremism” is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

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

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

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

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

Specifically, category 7 is defined in sharia as:

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

This means that all sharia compliant Islamic organizations in America which accept Zakat payments, must send 1/8 of all the money they collect to support jihad.  In other words, all sharia compliant Islamic organizations in America are funding what U.S. law defines as “Terrorism.”

Sharia is real law.  Is sharia compatible with U.S. laws?

How can Sharia be so clearly defined and implemented by Islamic legal scholars and jurists around the world, taught to elementary and junior high school students in Islamic schools around the world, yet be confusing to leaders in the West?