The Coming Caliphate

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, 2018:

The Organisation (sic) of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest voting block in the United Nations and is comprised of every Islamic nation on earth – 57 states.

The OIC’s Charter states one of its goals is to “promote human rights.”  What does the OIC mean by “human rights?”

We need to look no further than the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, approved by the OIC in 1990 in an Extraordinary Session of Kings and Heads of State of every Islamic nation on earth, and submitted to the United Nations in 1993 as an official document from the entire muslim world at the leadership level.

Article 2 of the Cairo Declaration states:  “…it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason…it is the duty of the state to safeguard (life) and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.”

Article 19 of the Cairo Declaration states:  “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”

The last two articles in the Cairo Declaration read:  “All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah (Article 24)…The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration (Article 25).”

This means the official legal definition of “human rights” for the entire Islamic world is “the imposition of Sharia.”

Therefore, the entire Islamic world at the Head of State and King level defines “human rights” as:  killing homosexuals; killing those who leave Islam; forcing non-muslims to convert to Islam or submit to Islam/sharia and pay the non-muslim poll tax (jizya) or be killed; allowing sex slaves to be taken by muslims; and everything else that comes with sharia.

The Islamophobia campaign is married to the Islamic Law of Slander.  Islamophobia was created by the Muslim Brotherhood’s International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) to silence all honest discussion of Islam in the West.

In sharia, “Slander” is defined as saying anything about Islam a muslim would “dislike” and it is a capital crime.

In the OIC’s 10-year plan (2005-2010) it states:

“Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent and permanent body to promote human rights in Member states, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration.”

It goes on to say:

“Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia through the establishment of an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia…Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

So, the OIC wants to criminalize all offensive speech against Islam.

The entire leadership of the Islamic world is pursuing a line of operation that stands in direct conflict with U.S. founding principles and law.

The purpose of the Islamophobia campaign is to keep U.S. leaders from discussing sharia and its direct support for actions which are unlawful under U.S. law and to put police and investigators at the state and federal level on their heels when it comes to Islam.

One could argue this campaign has been wildly successful.

The overall objective of the OIC and its member nations is to establish an Islamic State (caliphate) under sharia (Islamic Law) – which also happens to be the same objective as Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, and every other main line Islamic organization on the planet.

Currently, Turkey is leading the effort to establish the caliphate under the banner of the OIC which, as some have said, is operating as the pseudo-caliphate.

Turkey’s Erdogan is positioning himself to be the Caliph with Turkey as the seat of the caliphate as it was when the last caliphate was dissolved in the 1920’s.

Why is it important for Americans to know all this?

The Global Islamic Movement is readying itself at all levels to re-establish the caliphate and, through the Islamophobia campaign, keeping the United States strategically heeled while they do it.

When the Islamic Movement establishes the caliphate, Europe will be it the crosshairs of the Caliph to be conquered and the United States will be the platform through which that goal is achieved.

The way to turn this around is to understand the threat at the local and state level so the Islamic/jihadi network inside the United States can be dismantled and defeated.

Also see:

Are UK Officials More Worried About Muslim Rape Gangs OR Those Who Speak About Them

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 1, 2018:

Tommy Robinson has been following, filming and reporting on muslim rape gangs for years.  He was arrested in the United Kingdom (UK) May 25, 2018 for breaching the peace after live-streaming video outside the courtroom of a trial of 26 men and 2 women charged with offenses including rape, trafficking, sexual activity with a child, child neglect, child abduction, supplying drugs and making of indecent images of children.

Robinson founded the English Defense League (EDL), an organization he developed to protect soldiers from violent muslims.  He left this group soon after its development, and is now a reporter and activist.

He exposes information about rape gangs, yet the British government works to silence free speech on the issue out of fear of being labeled “Islamophobic.”

The perpetrators of the UK Rape Gangs are muslims.

The judge in the case ordered a media blackout after Robinson’s arrest.  He is now in prison for 13 months.

Let’s understand the history of rape in Islam.

The Koran states Mohammad is an “exalted standard of character” (68:4) and a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (33:21) for Muslims to follow for all times.

The hadith is the collection of all the practices, sayings and traditions of Mohammad.  The most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam is a man named Bukhari, who lived in the 9th century.

Bukhari records Islam’s prophet Mohammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old, and consummated the relationship when Aisha was 9 (Bukhari 3894).

This means it is lawful under sharia for a 60 or 70 year old man to marry a 10 year old, for instance, because of the example of Islam’s Prophet.

Mohammed – the perfect example of a man in Islam – slaughtered two Jewish tribes and the remnants of a third at Khaybar, and instructed Muslims to wage jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.

After the assault on the Jews of Khaybar, Mohammad ordered Kinana bin al-Rabi be tortured until he disclosed the location of the group’s treasure.  A fire was lit on Kinana’s chest to force him to do so, and then Mohammad had him beheaded.  Mohammad then took Kinana’s wife Safiya for his own.  (Life of the Prophet, Ishaq, p. 515)

“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected.  Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai.”  (Bukhari volume 1, book 8, Hadith 367).

Does this mean taking captives and having sex with a nine year old is “a beautiful pattern of conduct”?

Muslim rape gangs involve teenage girls and girls as young as 9.  These girls are raped, passed around to members of a gang or family, and often sold into sex trafficking.  These girls might also be made to “recruit” other victims.

Today the “rape gangs” are often called “grooming gangs.”

The term “groomed” refers to the different types of coercion that might be used to entice the girls.  Suspects gain the girls’ cooperation by giving them drugs or alcohol, and force drugs on the girls to get them addicted so they will stay around without a fight.

Children can also be lured into a gathering where older men offer them nice things.  Sometimes older men will use young boys to lure female victims to them, and then rape the girls after they are in their control.

Peer on peer abuse is also prolific.  Younger boys will rape younger girls.  Many times victims are told if they don’t cooperate their family members will be harmed and family homes will be torched in an arson attack.  Victims are physically assaulted, and many report being raped by over 20 men at a time.

Suspects will often justify their behavior by saying the young girls are “prostitutes.”

The UK’s official response to this barbarism is to have a media blackout and underreport these crimes by ignoring the fact these assaults are perpetrated by muslims.

In the past, the U.S. response has been to regurgitate the lie that “Islam is a religion of peace” or that “Islam does not condone such behavior,” and work with the very Islamic leaders driving the jihadi network fostering barbaric behavior like child-rape.

Hollywood and the media give the rapists a soft place to land and refuse to speak truth boldly about these and other horrors coming from the Islamic community.  They instead attack those speaking truth by launching ad hominem attacks and invoking “Islamophobia” towards all who dare mention Islam in any way regarding these matters.

“I have been made victorious through terror.” – Mohammed (Bukhari, Vol 4, Book 52, 220)

Tommy Robinson sits in prison in the UK for reporting on Muslim rape gangs.

Will the United States allow the same thing to happen here?  Is it happening already?

***

****

Recording of a presentation by Dr Mark Durie at the Q Society of Australia in Melbourne on 18 July 2013: From Pakistan to the Streets of Oxford – Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam.

Democracy Promotion is Our Responsibility as Guardians of the Liberal Order

Center for Security Policy, by Luis Fleischman, March 1, 2018:

The concept of democracy promotion has a negative connotation, particularly since the War in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war and the public controversy over it generated an aversion towards democracy promotion. Such negativity was associated with idea that Americans soldiers are sacrificed for a cause that is not theirs. Losing lives over foreign democracies is not worthwhile and less so when instead of democracy what we see is civil war, anarchy and chaos.

The problem is not so much with the argument raised. In fact, it makes sense to think that sacrificing U.S. troops to build a foreign nation is too high of a price to pay. However, this argument has spilled into a general blindness regarding democracy promotion up to the point that there is aversion to even discussing the issue and against this background a neo-isolationist concept has developed in important sectors of the right and the left.

I will state that there is in the world today a deterioration of democracy that begins with elections, but quickly turns into a rule by executive decrees, subjugation of the branches of power, fraudulent elections, restriction of the press, and eventually violent repression of society.  They begin as illiberal democracies and end up in an authoritarian regime. The cases of Russia, Venezuela and Turkey are the clearest examples. Several countries in the Western hemisphere such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua have followed the Venezuelan example of establishing a powerful authority.  In Europe, countries such as Poland and Hungary are following suit.

The problem is that those regimes are not friendly to the liberal world order that the U.S. and its allies have tried to build. In the past, not every authoritarian regime was anti-American or anti-West. Many of them were authoritarian capitalistic or semi-capitalistic regimes that supported the U.S. during the cold war. The famous phrase attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he is “a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch” no longer applies.

The new authoritarian regimes not only reject democracy but are also afraid of the liberal world order. The European Union has supported the liberal order for decades as democracy was a condition to enter the European Common Market. Spain and Portugal were able to join the group only after they transitioned to democracy. The U.S. also moved from its “Realpolitik” approach to supporting the spread of democracy in the world.

Thus, by definition a modern illiberal regime considers the West an adversary directly or indirectly.  By the same token, it does not feel committed to the same geo-strategic goals and values that the West promotes. As an example, Turkey, a member of NATO, has made alliances with Iran and Russia. It has also allowed ISIS to use its territory to sell its oil. Most recently, Turkey’s president Recep Tayip Erdogan publicly spoke to a six-year-old girl encouraging martyrdom confirming Mr. Erdogan’s radical Islamist views.

The notion of Turkey as an ally was not revisited by Western leaders. When a sector in the military attempted a coup d’état against Erdogan in the summer of 2016, the U.S. and the West condemned the coup more than they condemned the repressive measures and massive purges carried out in response to the coup. But today, we know better. Turkey’s membership in NATO means nothing. Erdogan, will continue to perpetuate himself in power through fraudulent and manipulative elections. He will also continue to claim there is democracy in Turkey because the country holds elections while using the “democratic mandate” to give legitimacy to anti-democratic measures. He will repress the Kurds and if necessarily will make alliances with NATO enemies.

Turkey is not alone. Venezuela has been a major commercial partner of the United States. Its oil sales were mostly to the U.S. The U.S. also refined Venezuela’s oil. The country is located in the heart of the Western Hemisphere. Venezuelan authoritarian leaders openly declared hostility to the United States, made alliances with Iran, terrorist groups and drug cartels.   Lately, we have applied pressure on Venezuela to democratize and even imposed sanctions on some its political and military leadership. However, this is not significant enough considering it is coming a decade too late.

The countries of Central Europe present a worrisome trend as well. Poland took a series of measures and passed laws that subordinated the courts to executive prerogatives. Poland has also curbed public gathering and restricted the freedom of the press. Most recently. it passed a law outlawing public discussion of Poles’ collaboration with the Nazis, something that affects not only freedom of speech but also freedom of research. Hungary has also cracked down on nonprofits, the press and on the judiciary, and has vindicated dubious figures of the past that collaborated with the Nazis. As a result, Poland and Hungary are currently at odds with the European Union. Their conflict with the European Union over democratic practices affects the unity of the free world. Moreover, the illiberal character of these countries and these tensions with Europe may push these countries into Russia or China’s sphere of influence. In fact, Hungary is already very close to the Kremlin. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warmed up to Moscow and received large loans from Russia. Likewise, there were reports about connections between Russian intelligence officers and far right groups in Hungary. Poland still views Russia as a threat, but nothing guarantees that this situation would not be reversed.

In terms of these countries’ relation with China, Orban enthusiastically opened his country to China. Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto has proudly pointed out that Hungary’s is China’s best ally in Central Europe.  Poland is the largest trade partner of China in Central Europe and the overall trade with China in this area is 57 billion dollars.

Nobody can assure that in the future Poland and Hungary will remain loyal to NATO. Both countries may see the West as an annoyance to their authoritarian style rather than an asset. The concept of free world may mean nothing to them in the end. Thus, if Russia is not attractive enough to the Poles, China will certainly be. After all China abhors democracy, and as the most recent decision by the Communist Party shows, authoritarian rulers can rule forever until their deaths. So, Poland and Hungary could well find in China a great source of support.

In February, some of these illiberal authoritarian democracies suffered a setback. Hungary’s ruling party lost a mayoral election raising questions about its chances to win elections in April. Ecuadorians voted not to allow the illiberal president Rafael Correa to run again. In a referendum Bolivian citizens voted against the indefinite reelection of the illiberal Evo Morales, who like Correa is also an ally of the Venezuelan government.

People in those countries are reacting to the authoritarian tendencies through the ballot or through demonstrations. This does not mean that the authoritarian rulers will give up. It is certainly not the case in Venezuela and not likely to be the case in Bolivia, two declared enemies of the United States.

What the United States needs is to develop an active foreign policy that promotes and defends democratic rule. This policy needs still to be designed in order to prevent the emergence of illiberal democracies. Every time such regime surfaces it is a strategic wound to the free world.   This is not a matter of just spreading our values. It is a matter of strengthening world stability and doing it in the strategic interest of the U.S. and its allies.

The time has come for U.S. policy makers to understand that at the end of the day democracy reflects the strength of the free world more than anything. Democracies might elect the wrong leader but they must have the chance to remove him/her from power in the next elections. The U.S. needs to defend this principle since its might makes it responsible to be the main guarantor of an order based on freedom. We are currently far from developing any systematic strategy to undertake such responsibility.

UTT Throwback Thursday: Warnings of US Government Penetration Coming to Fruition

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 3, 2017:

In 2009, Congresswoman Sue Myrick (Charlotte, NC) held a press conference with other members of Congress detailing the counterintelligence dangers of Islamic jihadi penetration in our government.  In the press conference Myrick highlighted the information contained in the book Muslim Mafia, much of which resulted from the efforts of UTT’s Vice President Chris Gaubatz, who went undercover inside the U.S. Hamas group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

Gaubatz pulled over 12,000 documents out of CAIR’s headquarters and recorded over 300 hours of covert audio/video, revealing CAIR is involved in fraud, sedition, terrorism, and counterintelligence activities against the United States.

UTT’s Chris Gaubatz with US MB/Hamas Leader Nihad Awad

[To get your copy of Muslim Mafia click HERE]

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB)  World Underground Movement Plan reveals a significant part of their plan is to “Establish a shadow government (secret) within the government.”  Prior to seizing power in the United States, the purpose of the shadow government is to influence decision-making and gather intelligence.  Numerous declassified FBI documents dating back to the early 1980’s detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s subversive activities in the United States.

One such document dated 1988 confirms the MB’s intentions to infiltrate the government in order to overthrow it:

“Source advised that the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) is a secret Muslim organization that has unlimited funds and is extremely well-organized in the United States…They have also claimed success in infiltrating the United States government…in Phase I of the Islamic revolution…their organization needs to peacefully get inside the United States government and also American Universities.  Source noted that the ultimate goal of the Islamic revolution is the overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and that violence is a tool and a part of the Islamic revolution.”

Current events reveal the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement is following its plan and has several recent successes.

The IT scandal perpetrated against members of Congress by muslim Imran Awan (and family) – recently arrested while trying to flee the country – is much more than a “bank fraud” case.  It is a counterintelligence operation with notable success, including almost $300,000 being wired to Pakistan and access to numerous cyber accounts of Members of Congress.

mran Awan (right) with former President Bill Clinton

The Department of Defense reported this week that its MAVNI (Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest) program to accelerate U.S. citizenship for foreign-born individuals has military leaders concerned about “foreign infiltration.”

More significantly, it was reported by The Atlantic on August 2nd that the National Security Advisor to the President, Herbert McMaster, fired Richard Higgins a few weeks ago.

This particular firing is significant because Richard Higgins ran the Pentagon’s Combatting Terrorism and Technical Support Office before joining the President’s National Security team.  From UTT’s perspective, Higgins was the most knowledgeable and strategically savvy man inside the national security apparatus with regards to the Islamic Movement and its marriage to the hard-left Marxist Movement.

Higgins’ firing is another victory for our enemies, and they know it.

Listen to Mr. Higgins measured and detailed explanation of the ideological threat from July 2016 HERE.

Readers should know that after the election of President Trump, UTT worked with a couple allies and brought to light that one of the two men vetting national security positions for the administration was a self-professed Christian conservative who was sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and was excluding all individuals who had an understanding of the Islamic threat from getting hired.

Herbert McMaster has made it clear he does not understand the threat from the Islamic Movement.  One of his many comments about Islamic jihadis includes:  “Groups like ISIL who use this irreligious ideology…this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence, they depend on ignorance.”

The enemy definitely depends on ignorance for its successes.

Mr. McMaster’s counter-factual understanding of Islam and jihad are the intentional outcome of the Islamic Movement’s hostile information campaign which ensures our leaders and security professionals never get a reality/fact-based understanding of the Islamic threat because our leaders rely on our enemies – Muslim Brotherhood advisors – to tell us how to fight this war.

Our enemy controls the narrative.

This is also why federal/state/local law enforcement are shocked by the information they receive in UTT’s training programs.  FBI JTTF agents/officers and local police are unaware of the MB’s extensive jihadi network in he U.S. and how active the network is in communities all across America, and how much the MB has penetrated our society, especially the federal government.

UTT has to go to battle with the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, local/national media, and others nearly every time we conduct training.

This is how the Red-Green Axis (Marxists working together with jihadis) works to control the message. Terrorist groups like CAIR work with local media, the ACLU, the SPLC and others to shut down all discussion of threats related to Islam.

The warnings given to America by Congresswoman Sue Myrick eight years ago were in line with our enemy’s stated plan and supported by evidence collected by Chris Gaubatz inside the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas front group CAIR.

Now we see it all coming to fruition.

This begs the question:  Why is Herbert McMaster, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, purging the National Security team of people who understand the threats (Richard Higgins and others) and ensuring others who also have a deep strategic understanding of the threats – like Stephen Coughlin – are not brought onboard?

This battle to get and keep professionals who understand the threat inside our national security apparatus is the Gettysburg of this war.

This “New Battle of Gettysburg” is a battle for a reality-based assessment of real threats from which a strategy for victory can be built versus establishment statists who refuse to identify and destroy America’s enemies.  It is a battle inside the White House and the national security sector of our government which will cripple America’s ability to fight and win this war going forward if it is lost.

We must win this battle, and it must begin with firing of Mr. McMaster.

Herbert McMaster, the National Security Advisor to President Trump

If Americans allow men like Herbert McMaster to continue to push a counter-factual narrative of the threat we face and keep those who understand the threat out of our national security apparatus, America will not have a functional national security apparatus inside the federal government for decades to come.

UTT continues to clearly articulate this war – because it is an insurgency – will be won or lost at the local level.  However, victory will come more swiftly if the federal government is also focused on identifying and defeating the enemy.

Also see:

Western Leaders Confuse Endangering the Innocent for Compassion

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, April 3, 2017:

In London, the Prime Minister (and the previous Prime Minister) and many members of Parliament say the recent jihadi attack in Westminster has nothing to do with Islam, and call for embracing the Islamic community.

In Germany, Angela Merkel has opened German borders to people from sharia-adherent jihadi nations, has defended jihadis as being “un-Islamic” and, in the face of towns being overrun by jihadis, she has doubled-down on her posture.

In France, establishment leaders continue to denounce Marine Le Pen’s call for a truthful dialogue about the threat from Islamic refugee populations, and a call for French pride and liberty as being bigoted and closed-minded.

In Canada, similar malaise sweeps the land as leaders fight for who will bend over backwards farther to appease and please their Islamic residents and immigrants.

In the United States, the previous three Presidents and five or six recent Secretaries of State have belched out comments that Islamic teachings are contrary to those of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayef, Boko Haram, or any of the other hundreds of jihadi organizations on the planet despite the fact they all claim to act in the name of Islam and all of their actions are supported by core Islamic teachings and sharia.

Leaders of North American and European Jewish organizations unwittingly stand with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders because they “know” what its like to be singled out and wrongly targeted for persecution and bigotry.

The same is true in European and American churches where pastors of all denominations throw the Apostles Creed out the window in order to be liked by their “Muslim neighbors” under the guise of “Jesus told us to love everyone – even our enemies.”

Since both government and church leaders hold that love and compassion should be our guide – a noble and just pathway – we must contemplate this from an objective, rational, and reasonable perspective.

Does compassion towards a group of people whose doctrine and belief system call for the destruction of yours take precedence over protecting the innocent in society?

Do muslims who do not believe in or want to abide by sharia constitute a “different version” of Islam? Since objectively, muslims who are speaking out against Sharia are unanimously threatened with death, we must take this into consideration if our thought process is to be considered reasonable.

Did Jesus merely command his followers to be “gentle as doves” which has been extrapolated by some Christian leaders to mean soft-hearted and soft-minded like fools, or was there more to it?  “Wise as serpents” maybe?  Has the bar for what is right and just become only those things that make our enemies “happy” or is there more to love than that?

These are relevant questions because the fate of Western society hangs on the answers.

From the perspective of Western civilization, the government has a role to play as does the Church in civil society.  In neither case is the intentional destruction of innocent civilians an acceptable trade off for surrendering authority and power to an enemy whose stated goal is the killing of innocent non-muslims. We are called to lay our lives down for others in pursuit of righteous causes, not to allow evil to destroy what is good.

That requires us to know objective good and objective evil.

As Sir Winston Churchill said:  “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the
religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas was clear as well:  “Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.”

It appears the fate of Western civilization is in the hands of the people.  Citizens of free nations will either once again stake a claim in liberty and truth and risk everything for its future, or they will risk being extinguished by the cancer called Islam spreading across the globe.

The future of counterterrorism: Addressing the evolving threat to domestic security

joscelynLONG WAR JOURNAL, BY THOMAS JOSCELYN | February 28, 2017 | tjoscelyn@gmail.com | @thomasjoscelyn

Editor’s note: Below is Thomas Joscelyn’s testimony to the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee Counterterrorism and Intelligence, on the future of counterterrorism and addressing the evolving threat to domestic security.

Chairman King, Ranking Member Rice, and other members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. The terrorist threat has evolved greatly since the September 11, 2001 hijackings. The U.S. arguably faces a more diverse set of threats today than ever. In my written and oral testimony, I intend to highlight both the scope of these threats, as well as some of what I think are the underappreciated risks.

My key points are as follows:

– The U.S. military and intelligence services have waged a prolific counterterrorism campaign to suppress threats to America. It is often argued that because no large-scale plot has been successful in the U.S. since 9/11 that the risk of such an attack is overblown. This argument ignores the fact that numerous plots, in various stages of development, have been thwarted since 2001. Meanwhile, Europe has been hit with larger-scale operations. In addition, the U.S. and its allies frequently target jihadists who are suspected of plotting against the West. America’s counterterrorism strategy is mainly intended to disrupt potentially significant operations that are in the pipeline.

-Over the past several years, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies claim to have struck numerous Islamic State (or ISIS) and al Qaeda “external operatives” in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. These so-called “external operatives” are involved in anti-Western plotting. Had they not been targeted, it is likely that at least some of their plans would have come to fruition. Importantly, it is likely that many “external operatives” remain in the game, and are still laying the groundwork for attacks in the U.S. and the West.

-In addition, the Islamic State and al Qaeda continue to adapt new messages in an attempt to inspire attacks abroad. U.S. law enforcement has been forced to spend significant resources to stop “inspired” plots. As we all know, some of them have not been thwarted. The Islamic State’s caliphate declaration in 2014 heightened the threat of inspired attacks, as would-be jihadists were lured to the false promises of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s cause.

-The Islamic State also developed a system for “remote-controlling” attacks in the West and elsewhere. This system relies on digital operatives who connect with aspiring jihadis via social media applications. The Islamic State has had more success with these types of small-scale operations in Europe. But as I explain in my written testimony, the FBI has uncovered a string of plots inside the U.S. involving these same virtual planners.

-The refugee crisis is predominately a humanitarian concern. The Islamic State has used migrant and refugee flows to infiltrate terrorists into Europe. Both the Islamic State and al Qaeda could seek to do the same with respect to the U.S., however, they have other means for sneaking jihadists into the country as well. While some terrorists have slipped into the West alongside refugees, the U.S. should remain focused on identifying specific threats.

-More than 15 years after 9/11, al Qaeda remains poorly understood. Most of al Qaeda’s resources are devoted to waging insurgencies in several countries. But as al Qaeda’s insurgency footprint has spread, so has the organization’s capacity for plotting against the West. On 9/11, al Qaeda’s anti-Western plotting was primarily confined to Afghanistan, with logistical support networks in Pakistan, Iran, and other countries. Testifying before the Senate in February 2016, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper warned that the al Qaeda threat to the West now emanates from multiple countries. Clapper testified that al Qaeda “nodes in Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey” are “dedicating resources to planning attacks.” To this list we can add Yemen. And jihadists from Africa have been involved in anti-Western plotting as well. Incredibly, al Qaeda is still plotting against the U.S. from Afghanistan.

Both the Islamic State and al Qaeda continue to seek ways to inspire terrorism inside the U.S. and they are using both new and old messages in pursuit of this goal.

The jihadists have long sought to inspire individuals or small groups of people to commit acts of terrorism for their cause. Individual terrorists are often described as “lone wolves,” but that term is misleading. If a person is acting in the name of a global, ideological cause, then he or she cannot be considered a “lone wolf,” even if the individual in question has zero contact with others. In fact, single attackers often express their support for the jihadists’ cause in ways that show the clear influence of propaganda.

Indeed, al Qaeda and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) first began to aggressively market the idea of “individual” or “lone” operations years ago. AQAP’s Inspire magazine is intended to provide would-be jihadists with everything they could need to commit an attack without professional training or contact. Anwar al Awlaki, an AQAP ideologue who was fluent in English, was an especially effective advocate for these types of plots. Despite the fact that Awlaki was killed in a U.S. airstrike in September 2011, his teachings remain widely available on the internet.

The Islamic State capitalized on the groundwork laid by Awlaki and AQAP. In fact, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s operation took these ideas and aggressively marketed them with an added incentive. Al Qaeda has told its followers that it wants to eventually resurrect an Islamic caliphate. Beginning in mid-2014, the Islamic State began to tell its followers that it had already done so in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Baghdadi’s so-called caliphate has also instructed followers that it would be better for them to strike inside their home countries in the West, rather than migrate abroad for jihad. The Islamic State has consistently marketed this message.

In May 2016, for instance, Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al Adnani told followers that if foreign governments “have shut the door of hijrah [migration] in your faces,” then they should “open the door of jihad in theirs,” meaning in the West. “Make your deed a source of their regret,” Adnani continued. “Truly, the smallest act you do in their lands is more beloved to us than the biggest act done here; it is more effective for us and more harmful to them.”

“If one of you wishes and strives to reach the lands of the Islamic State,” Adnani told his audience, “then each of us wishes to be in your place to make examples of the crusaders, day and night, scaring them and terrorizing them, until every neighbor fears his neighbor.” Adnani told jihadists that they should “not make light of throwing a stone at a crusader in his land,” nor should they “underestimate any deed, as its consequences are great for the mujahidin and its effect is noxious to the disbelievers.”

The Islamic State continued to push this message after Adnani’s death in August 2016.

In at least several cases, we have seen individual jihadists who were first influenced by Awlaki and AQAP gravitate to the Islamic State’s cause. Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife were responsible for the December 2, 2015 San Bernardino massacre. They pledged allegiance to Baghdadi on social media, but Farook had drawn inspiration from Awlaki and AQAP’s Inspire years earlier.

Omar Mateen swore allegiance to Baghdadi repeatedly on the night of his assault on a LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida. However, a Muslim who knew Mateen previously reported to the FBI that Mateen was going down the extremist path. He told the FBI in 2014 that Mateen was watching Awlaki’s videos. It was not until approximately two years later, in early June 2016, that Mateen killed 49 people and wounded dozens more in the name of the supposed caliphate.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, the man who allegedly planted bombs throughout New York and New Jersey in September 2016, left behind a notebook. In it, Rahami mentioned Osama bin Laden, “guidance” from Awlaki, an also referenced Islamic State spokesman Adnani. Federal prosecutors wrote in the complaint that Rahami specifically wrote about “the instructions of terrorist leaders that, if travel is infeasible, to attack nonbelievers where they live.” This was Adnani’s key message, and remains a theme in Islamic State propaganda.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has alleged that other individuals who sought to support the Islamic State were first exposed to Awlaki’s teachings as well.

These cases demonstrate that the jihadis have developed a well of ideas from which individual adherents can draw, but it may take years for them to act on these beliefs, if they ever act on them at all. There is no question that the Islamic State has had greater success of late in influencing people to act in its name. But al Qaeda continues to produce recruiting materials and to experiment with new concepts for individual attacks as well.

Al Qaeda and its branches have recently called for revenge for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who died in a U.S. prison earlier this month. Rahman was convicted by a U.S. court for his involvement in plots against New York City landmarks in the mid-1990s. Since then, al Qaeda has used Rahman’s “will” to prophesize his death and to proactively blame the U.S. for it. Approximately 20 years after al Qaeda first started pushing this theme, Rahman finally died. Al Qaeda’s continued use of Rahman’s prediction, which is really just jihadist propaganda, demonstrates how these groups can use the same concepts for years, whether or not the facts are consistent with their messaging. Al Qaeda also recently published a kidnapping guide based on old lectures by Saif al Adel, a senior figure in the group. Al Adel may or may not be currently in Syria. Al Qaeda is using his lectures on kidnappings and hostage operations as a way to potentially teach others how to carry them out. The guide was published in both Arabic and English, meaning that al Qaeda seeks an audience in the West for al Adel’s designs.

Both the Islamic State and AQAP also continue to produce English-language magazines for online audiences. The 15th issue of Inspire, which was released last year, provided instructions for carrying out “professional assassinations.” AQAP has been creating lists of high-profile targets in the U.S. and elsewhere that they hope supporters will use in selecting potential victims. AQAP’s idea is to maximize the impact of “lone” attacks by focusing on wealthy businessmen or other well-known individuals. AQAP has advocated for, and praised, indiscriminate attacks as well. But the group has critiqued some attacks (such as the Orlando massacre at a LGBT nightclub) for supposedly muddying the jihadists’ message. AQAP is trying to lay the groundwork for more targeted operations. For example, the January 2015 assault on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris was set in motion by al Qaeda and AQAP. Inspire even specifically identified the intended victims beforehand. Al Qaeda would like individual actors, with no foreign ties, to emulate such precise hits.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State has lowered the bar for what is considered a successful attack, pushing people to use cars, knives, or whatever weapons they can get in their hands. The Islamic State claimed that both the September 2016 mall stabbings in Minnesota and the vehicular assault at Ohio State University in November 2016 were the work of its “soldiers.” It may be the case that there were no digital ties between these attackers and the Islamic State. However, there is often more to the story of how the Islamic State guides such small-scale operations.

The Islamic State has sought to carry out attacks inside the U.S. via “remote-controlled” terrorists.

A series of attacks in Europe and elsewhere around the globe have been carried out by jihadists who were in contact, via social media applications, with Islamic State handlers in Syria and Iraq. The so-called caliphate’s members have been able to remotely guide willing recruits through small-scale plots that did not require much sophistication. These plots targeted victims in France, Germany, Russia, and other countries. In some cases, terrorists have received virtual support right up until the moment of their attack. The Islamic State has had more success orchestrating “remote-controlled” plots in Europe, but the jihadist group has also tried to carry out similar plots inside the U.S.

Read more

***

Homeland Security Committee:

Multiple terrorist networks actively plot attacks against the United States, and American interests, or encourage adherents to conduct inspired attacks inside the U.S Homeland without specific direction. Though significant progress has been made in improving American counterterrorism efforts since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, challenges persist. Over the last several years, the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence (CT&I) has continually worked to identify and address these weaknesses and improve U.S. domestic security. This hearing provides an opportunity to examine the continued evolution of the terrorist threat and review recommendations for improvement from national security experts.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Rep. Pete King (R-NY), Subcommittee Chairman
Opening Statement

WITNESSES

Mr. Edward F. Davis
Chief Executive Officer
Edward Davis, LLC
Witness Testimony

Mr. Thomas Joscelyn
Senior Fellow
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy
Witness Testimony

Mr. Robin Simcox
Margaret Thatcher Fellow
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
Witness Testimony

Mr. Peter Bergen
Vice President, Director
International Security and Fellows Programs
New American
Witness Testimony

“What A Mess!” – Pentagon At War With CIA In Syria

20160906_syriaZero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Sept. 6, 2016:

What a mess! In the crazy Syrian war, US-backed and armed groups are fighting other US-backed rebel groups. How can this be?

It is so because the Obama White House had stirred up war in Syria but then lost control of the process.When the US has a strong president, he can usually keep the military and intelligence agencies on a tight leash.

But the Obama administration has had a weak secretary of defense and a bunch of lady strategists who are the worst military commanders since Louis XV, who put his mistress, Madame de Pompadour, in charge of French military forces during the Seven Year’s War. The French were routed by the Prussians. France’s foe, Frederick the Great of Prussia, named one of his dogs, ‘la Pompadour.’

As a result, the two arms of offensive US strategic power, the Pentagon and CIA, went separate ways in Syria. Growing competition between the US military and militarized CIA broke into the open in Syria.

Fed up with the astounding incompetence of the White House, the US military launched and supported its own rebel groups in Syria, while CIA did the same.

Fighting soon after erupted in Syria and Iraq between the US-backed groups. US Special Forces joined the fighting in Syria, Iraq and most lately, Libya.

The well-publicized atrocities, like mass murders and decapitations, greatly embarrassed Washington, making it harder to portray their jihadi wildmen as liberators. The only thing exceptional about US policy in Syria was its astounding incompetence.

Few can keep track of the 1,000 groups of jihadis that keep changing their names and shifting alliances. Throw in Turkomans, Yzidis, Armenians, Nestorians, Druze, Circassians, Alawis, Assyrians and Palestinians. Oh yes, and the Alevis.

Meanwhile, ISIS was inflicting mayhem on Syria and Iraq. But who really is ISIS? A few thousand twenty-something hooligans with little knowledge of Islam but a burning desire to dynamite the existing order and a sharp media sense. The leadership of these turbaned anarchists appears to have formed in US prison camps in Afghanistan.

The US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey armed and financed ISIS as a weapon to unleash on Syria, which was an ally of Iran that refused to take orders from the Western powers. The west bears heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country.

At some point, ISIS shook off its western tutors and literally ran amok. But the US has not yet made a concerted attempt to crush ISIS because of its continuing usefulness in Syria and in the US, where ISIS has become the favorite whipping boy of politicians.

Next come the Kurds, an ancient Indo-European stateless people spread across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They have been denied a national state by the western powers since WWI. Kurdish rebels in Iraq have been armed and financed by Israel since the 1970’s.

When America’s Arab jihadists proved militarily feeble, the US turned to the Kurds, who are renowned fighters, arming and financing the Kurdish Syrian YPG which is part of the well-known PKK rebel group that fights Turkey.

I covered the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in eastern Anatolia in the 1980’s in which some 40,000 died.

Turkey is now again battling a rising wave of Kurdish attacks that caused the Turks to probe into northern Syria to prevent a link-up of advancing Kurdish rebel forces.

So, Turkey, a key American ally, is now battling CIA-backed Kurdish groups in Syria. Eighty percent of Turks believe the recent failed coup in Turkey was mounted by the US – not the White House, but by the Pentagon which has always been joined at the hip to Turkey’s military.

This major Turkish-Kurdish crisis was perfectly predictable, but the obtuse junior warriors of the Obama administration failed to grasp this point.

Now the Russians have entered the fray in an effort to prevent their ally, Bashar Assad, from being overthrow by western powers. Also perfectly predictable. Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS but in fact is targeting US-backed groups. Washington is outraged that the wicked Russians are doing in the Mideast what the US has done for decades.

The US and Russia now both claim to have killed a senior ISIS commander in an air strike. Their warplanes are dodging one another, creating a perfect scenario for a head-on clash at a time when neocons in the US are agitating for war with Russia.

Does anyone think poor, demolished Syria is worth the price? Hatred for the US is now seething in Turkey and across the Mideast. Hundreds of millions of US tax dollars have been wasted in this cruel, pointless war.

Time for the US to stop stirring this witch’s brew.

*  *  *

And if that didn’t 1) drive you crazy, and/or 2) confuse you, here is UK’s Channel 4 to explain in pictures…