The CIA Report: A Partisan Petrol Bomb

/in , , , , /by

This week the political partisanship of Washington – which everyone has spoken about so much in recent years – dealt a devastating blow not only to itself but to the reputation of America.

The Senate Intelligence Committee looking into the actions of the CIA under the last Republican presidency split long before the majority report on the committee’s findings were published earlier this week.  Indeed the Republicans on the Committee left when they realised that the Democrat majority had decided in advance that its role was to damn the CIA for its actions during the Presidency of George W Bush.  One sign that this was the case was the Committee’s refusal to interview, speak with or otherwise hear the accounts of those people who had headed the Agency during the period in question.

Well this week the report came out.  And the world’s press reported not the Minority Committee’s rebuttals, nor the CIA’s detailed refutations, but the charges that over a sustained period in the last decade the CIA had brought a ‘stain’ on the reputation of America.

It is important to remember what is and is not accurate in this.  It is true – and has long been known from the memoirs of members of the administration among others – that for a brief period after 9/11 ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ were used on the most high-ranking captives among enemy combatants.  Water-boarding – the most extreme of these measures – was used on three individuals, including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  This was subsequently stopped from being used.

Among the permissible techniques this was the most serious.  But there are certainly other occasions when individuals within the system stepped beyond the lines of what they should have done.  It is for the CIA to investigate and make impossible any repeat of such events.  But in all of this there are important lessons to learn.

Firstly to remember that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the aim was to prevent another such attack.  That aim was achieved and it is likely – as with similar such historic events – that the public will never know what lengths were gone to to keep them safe.  In addition this all took place against the background of a new type of war which politicians and publics in Britain, America and other Western countries seem very reluctant to acknowledge or understand.  It is a war against an enemy which does not wear uniform, does not subscribe to the normal laws of war and which uses our own virtues as societies against us.

Damning the CIA is easy.  Explaining how you would do things better and keep the American people safe is not.  It is therefore striking that this week’s report carried not one recommendation.  It was all simply condemnation, condemnation, condemnation.  A more worthy action of a Senate committee would have been to acknowledge the problems we all face – and which our security services are on the cutting edge of – and then work out what went wrong, what went right and create a system to ensure the best is kept and the worst consigned to history.  Instead the Senate has this week simply delivered the most terrific blow to the reputation of the USA throughout the world.  There are ways for countries to release information about their flaws.  And then there are partisan political petrol bombs.  This week’s report was the latter.  And it will take years to put out its flames.

Are Power Plant Transformers America’s Weakest Link?

/in , , , /by

By Wallace Bruschweiler and Alan Kornman:

On November 6, 2014 The Guardian reports, “Three arrests fail to staunch mystery of Drones flying over French nuclear plants.”  Several drones were reported flying over the protected airspace of nuclear power plants raising questions about electrical grid security.

As the sophistication of commercially available drones increases our electrical grid becomes more vulnerable.

Who was piloting the drones and for what purpose?

What lies behind the suspicious flights at night?

What if these drones were outfitted with infrared cameras to spot the strong heat signatures emanating from the vulnerable ‘open air’ giant transformers responsible for delivering electricity from the generating plant, to the municipal substations, then to your home?

Plant To Home

If several of these ‘giant transformers’ were to unexpectedly go offline, for any reason, would it could cause a ‘cascade effect’ resulting in rolling blackouts all along France’s electrical grid?

California Attacks

On August 28, 2014, Matthew Wald, of The New York Times reports, “California Power Substation Attacked in 2013 is Struck Again.”

Federal experts who examined a California substation after an attack last April were attached to the Joint Warfare Analysis Center at Dahlgren, Va, yields clues about the importance of this issue.

The attack to the California substation went unchallenged for over an hour.

“The Silicon Valley power substation that was attacked by a sniper in April 2013 was hit by thieves early Wednesday morning, according to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, despite increased security.

The substation, near San Jose, Calif., is the source of energy for thousands of customers, and the idea that it was the target of a well-organized attack, and that it might have been disabled for an extended period, raised anxieties about the possible broader vulnerability of the grid.”

In the 2013 attack, shots were fired into the radiators of giant transformers.  Without these giant transformers no electricity would enter the grid disrupting power along that particular grid matrix.

power grid

Are there enough replacements of these giant transformers readily available and in the right locations to repair the damaged power stations without a significant disruption of electricity to its customers?

We should be aware the time delay of manufacturing and delivering these giant transformers can be a lengthy process taking months or even years.

Arkansas Attacks – You Should Have Expected US

Arkansas experienced three attacks to its electrical grid in August, September, and October of 2013.  These attacks were not as sophisticated as the California attacks but did cause over $2 Million dollars in damage and 10,000 people temporarily lost power.

The Arkansas attacker left an ominous note at the entrance of the electrical power station in black marker, “You should have expected US”

The drone nuclear plant flyovers are a wake up call to those who are tasked with the responsibility of protecting our United States, Regional, and Local power grids.

Remember when:  Ten years ago in Ohio, a high-voltage power line brushed against some trees, which shut down a power line, which knocked out a transformer, which cascaded through the northeast electric power grid until 50 million people from Ontario to New Jersey were without power. The Northeast Blackout resulted in 11 deaths and cost about $6 billion. It affected every segment of our society—from healthcare, transportation, and commerce to public safety and national security. In a modern world, electrical power is more than a convenience. It’s a necessity. (MITRE.org)

Important Questions

What would happen to the national and regional power grids if a small number of these giant transformers are put out of commission?

If a number of these giant transformers are simultaneously taken out, will an uncontrollable ‘Cascade Effect’ overwhelm our regional and or nationwide electrical grids?

What if a number of simultaneous attacks on these giant transformers were to happen today, are we prepared to successfully block the effects of this nightmarish scenario?

The Expert’s Cloudy Crystal Ball

/in , , , , /by

In late October I wrote a commentary “Is America in Decline?” based on a book by James MacDonald, “When Globalism Fails: The Rise and Fall of Pax Americana”, due for sale in January from Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Within days I received “The Accidental Super Power: The Next Generation of American Preeminence and The Coming Global Disorder” by Peter Zeihan.

Both authors have good credentials, but the former concludes our position as a super power will recede in the decades ahead and the latter says we will be the only one left as the rest of the world runs into problems that the U.S. will be able to ignore.

Zeihan, a geopolitical analyst, offers the scenario of an America, blessed by its location and ability to provide its own energy and agriculture, that will be largely untouched by a future in which most other nations will suffer various unpleasant levels of decline.

Both Zeihan and MacDonald see the U.S. abandoning its role since the end of World War II in 1945 as the generator and protector of free trade.

Our naval capability has kept the world’s sea lanes open and free of predators, a boon to all nations. A system for free trade set up at Breton Woods in 1944 has served the world well, including former enemies, Germany and Japan. Other nations, depending on their location, resources, and population, have had varying degrees of success.

“The conventional wisdom that the United States’ best days are behind it” says Zeihan, “isn’t simply wrong. It’s laughably so. In 2014 we’re not witnessing the beginning of the end of American power, but the end of the beginning. In fact, we’re on the cusp of a shift in the international order just as profound as those delegates back in 1944 experienced.”

While MacDonald sees the role of the U.S. as Pax Americana waning, Zeihan sees a national withdrawal from the international scene based on the wealth the shale oil and natural gas technology is generating and the productivity of our huge agricultural sector to keep us fed while other nations struggle to grow and find food sources.

I disagree with Zeihan. Americans don’t like having to be involved in the problems that other nations create, but they also see themselves as the solution whether it is deterring rogue nations that threaten their neighbors or aiding when a natural disaster occurs.

Cover - Accidental SuperpowerZeihan focuses on the role of maritime power on the oceans that gave rise to Great Britain and other nations that could field a navy that could trade at great distances from their homelands. The history of colonization reflects that power. Internally, he points out how blessed the U.S. has been with a waterway system of numerous navigable rivers that made it possible, for example, to grow wheat in the midland but ship it anywhere. This ability to transport food crops as well as people opened America to fairly rapid expansion and growth.

Unlike other nations, its population came from everywhere and reproduced at rates to meet its need for labor, while its free market system, along with the industrial revolution, stimulated innovation and growth. The oldest constitutional government in the world generated confidence in an “idea” called freedom and liberty instead of relying on blind nationalism.

While I may disagree with some of Zeihan’s predictions about the future, his book provides a wealth of information about the individual advantages and disadvantages of the nations whom we regard as either friendly toward or threatening our nation. Their locations are critical to their future and always have been. Their ability to transport people and goods within and beyond those locations are also critical factors.

Overlaying that is demographics, the statistics of population, identifying which nations whose people are “getting older” and which have enough younger people to generate wealth while the older generation retires and lives off their own savings and/or government programs such as our Social Security and Medicare.

Zeihan points out that “The United States is far and away the world’s largest consumer market and has been since shortly after the Civil War. As of 2014, that consumer base amounts to roughly $1.5 trillion. That’s triple anyone else, larger than the consumer bases of the next six countries—Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, China and Italy—combined, and double that of the combined BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).”

Zeihan believes that “the free trade era is closing (and) demography tell us that the era of consumption-driven growth that has been the economic norm for seventy years is coming to an unceremonious end.” He believes that the “global financial wave will crest at some point between 2020 and 2024” and predicts that “Poland and Russia will be among the nations whose populations will not keep up with their need for labor.”

“Between 2020 and 2024, thirteen of the world’s top twenty-five economies will be in the ranks of the financially distressed. The new arrivals will include Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and of course the United States. With 90 percent of the developed world in that unfortunate basket, the availability of capital and credit for all will plummet.”

That Ziehan’s scenario and he blames it on “aging demographies”, but he does not factor in the ability for various elements of the world’s population, the younger ones in particular, to move around the planet and respond to occupational opportunities.

A current example is the exodus from Mexico and some Latin American nations to the United States for jobs and better lives. Can we absorb the current numbers of illegal aliens? I think yes and I also believe being able to impose “security” along a two thousand mile southern border is probably a fantasy. If we actually enforced our immigration laws this problem would be reduced.

Mexico is our third largest trading partner. To the north Canada ranks second. Together we make up a continent, as Zeihan predicts, that will not be negatively affected as other nations.

So, while we worry about Russia, Zeihan sees it in rapid decline. While pundits tell us of China’s rise to financial preeminence, he reminds us that we felt the same about Japan not that long ago. And China has massive demographic problems, not the least of which is an aging population. He doesn’t hold out much hope for the European Union. Et cetera.

I do not possess Zeihan’s or MacDonald’s credentials, but my instinct tells me that a sudden, rapid international decline is unlikely to occur. It’s a different world in which we all live and far more connected in many ways. Adjustments and changes will be made as they always have, but we are not likely to see a century like the last one that was dominated by wars. They are just too expensive.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Benghazi Select Committee Hearing: “Why Were We There?”

/in , , , , /by

The Second Benghazi Select Committee Hearing on “Reviewing Efforts to Secure U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel” endeavored to see whether the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) 29 recommendations had been implemented to secure High Threat Posts following the 9/11-12/14 Benghazi terrorist attacks. The short answer to those who viewed the proceedings was major gaps and many unanswered questions remain. Suggesting that the Department of State hasn’t remedied the situation that led to the terrorist attacks that took the lives of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Aide Sean Smith and CIA security contractors, Tyrone Power and Glen Doherty.

Gowdy and Republican Members of the Select Benghazi Committee made a point of asking why were we there at all. This brought no answers from the panel of State Department representatives, Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security and Steve A. Linick, Inspector General. It raises the question of what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Administration knew. Ken Timmerman, author of author of Dark Forces: The Truth Behind what Happened in Benghazi in a Daily Caller op-ed on this question noted Chairman Trey Gowdy’s request and response by Ranking Committee Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD):

“She [Hillary Clinton] is a witness we would like to talk to. I cannot tell you when,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy.

But Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings poured cold water on that idea, saying “Mr. Schiff said today he could not see why she would be called, and I would agree with that,” referring to fellow Democrat, Adam Schiff.

The AP reported that the State Department has failed to release Hillary Clinton’s official papers:

The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year.

The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material.

The State Department denied the AP’s requests, and rejected the AP’s subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics.

In mid-September, former CBS 60 Minutes journalist, Sharyl Atkisson reported  in a Daily Signal article that aides had allegedly been vetting emails and documents related to Benghazi under the direction of former Near East Bureau aide, Ray Maxwell in a basement office in the State Department. Thus could the AP report and the Attkisson report be connected?

The opaque testimony of Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security doesn’t indicate that the culture at State has changed regarding shared responsibility for the more than 285 embassies, consulates, legations and the remaining 10 special facilities like Benghazi. Ken Timmerman tweeted: “Greg Starr throws Chris Stevens under the bus, ‘we had a little too much confidence in the chief of mission’ to determine security.” Further, Timmerman noted the response of Starr to a question from Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on the trend since the Al Qaeda Attacks on the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 that triggered an earlier ARB report, “More posts today categorized as high risk than ever” in past 35 yrs.

Gregory B. Starr, Assistant Secretary of State, Diplomatic Security.

Starr is a veteran diplomatic security expert having served in multiple functions at State over a 30 year career, including a prior stint in his current post before his retirement in 2010. Subsequently, he was appointed the Under Secretary for Security at the United Nations by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon until he was asked to return from retirement in 2013 to bolster security in the wake of the Benghazi attacks. Curiously, one of the ARB recommendations was to upgrade his position at State to that of Under Secretary to highlight commitment to enhanced security of diplomatic facilities, which we will see later, emerged in questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). This was the second appearance by Starr before the Select Benghazi Committee.

Steve A. Linick, Inspector General, Department of State.

The other panel witness was Steve A. Linick, Inspector General (OIG) at State, appointed by President Obama after confirmation by a bi-partisan vote of the Senate in June 2013. State IG Linick was Inspector General at the troubled Federal Housing Administration during the 2009 financial crisis and previously was a US Department of Justice official who successfully prosecuted Contractor Procurement Fraud during the Afghanistan War for which he received an award.

You may view the Select Benghazi Hearing C-Span video and transcript:

The OIG Report Framed Issues for the Special Benghazi Committee Hearing

Linick‘s submitted statement drew attention to issues addressed in the Committee questions to the State Department panelists. Linik’s responses were often at variances with Starr’s remarks. Linick’s statement noted:

OIG has issued a variety of reports covering significant security matters. I take this opportunity to highlight four areas of concern: (1) physical security deficiencies; (2) exceptions and waivers; (3) “stovepiping” of security issues within the Department; and (4) vetting of local guard forces protecting overseas facilities and personnel.

On Physical Security Deficiencies:

Recent OIG reports demonstrate that the Department is at increased risk because it lacks sufficient processes, planning, and procedures to ensure that the Department understands the security needs at posts around the world. For example, in March 2014 OIG reported in its audit on requesting and prioritizing physical security activities that the Department lacked a comprehensive list of physical security deficiencies and funding requests at overseas posts.

[…]

[A 2012 OIG report] cited security deficiencies common among the posts included the failure to meet minimum compound perimeter requirements; to properly conduct inspections of vehicles before entering posts; to maintain functioning anti-ram barriers, as required; and to install and/or maintain functioning forced entry/ballistic-resistant doors, as required.

On Exceptions and waivers:

Exceptions and waivers granted from compliance requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act (SECCA) or the security standards established by the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) also contribute to increased security risks at posts.

OIG has found conditions of non-compliance with security standards for which posts had not sought exceptions or waivers. A common example is the use of warehouse space for offices.

Under the Department’s security rules, office space must meet more stringent physical security standards than warehouse space. Department employees who work in warehouse spaces, which do not meet required physical security standards for offices are at risk. OIG also found that a number of overseas posts had not maintained accurate exception and waiver records.

On Stovepiping on Security Issues:

The Department also is at increased risk regarding security because it stovepipes or segregates relevant DS responsibilities. DS is the entity responsible for establishing standards and for keeping staff and facilities safe. A different Department bureau, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), is responsible for construction and maintenance of Department facilities overseas. Although DS and OBO share responsibility for ensuring that posts’ physical security needs are addressed, adequate coordination between the bureaus is lacking.

In OIG’s 2014 inspection of DS’ HTP Directorate, OIG found that OBO’s lack of a formal mechanism to expeditiously address urgent needs of high-threat posts served as an obstacle to the Directorate’s work of supporting those needs.

On Issues with Vetting Local Guard Forces:

DS oversees local guard forces that are a critical part of security at Department missions overseas. They typically are outside, or just inside, the perimeter of embassy compounds and are often responsible for searching individuals and vehicles entering posts.OIG conducted an audit of the DS local guard program to determine whether security contractors had complied with contract requirements for vetting the suitability of local guards at posts overseas and whether RSOs had performed adequate oversight of the local guard vetting process.

OIG found in its June 2014 report that none of the six security contractors reviewed by OIG fully performed the vetting procedures specified. Inadequate oversight of local guard vetting processes places missions and personnel at heightened risk. One bad actor—with the right position and access—can seriously endanger the safety and security of our personnel overseas.

The Hearing Testimony Revelations

A Twitter Rally using hashtag #BenghaziTruthMatters  was organized by the National Security Task Force of the Lisa Benson Show to parallel the testimony broadcast live on C-SPAN Channel 3. Upwards of 50 members of the NSTF were involved on a conference call hookup to provide a running commentary from the Select Benghazi Committee Hearing on the proceedings to aid in developing tweets and retweets. The Lisa Benson Show had produced five programs on the Benghazi terror attacks with guests, Ken Timmerman, Col. Dick Brauer of Special Operations Speaks and Kris “Tanto” Paronto one of the CIA security contractor team that fought terrorists in Benghazi on 9/11-12/2012. Paronto and Global Regional Staff team members were featured in the Fox News Special Report and book, 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi.  Listen to this interview with Paronto on The Lisa Benson Show.

Both Majority and Minority Committee members were afforded the opportunity to question the Department of State panel on these issues. Noteworthy by their pursuit of tough questions were Republican Members Jim Jordan (OH), Martha Roby (AL) and Peter Roskam (IL). Minority Members Adam Smith (WA) and Adam Schiff (CA) tended to express support of State and Administration positions. Ranking Minority Member Elijah Cummings (MD) posed pointed questions. However, both he and Democratic minority colleague Schiff objected to possible calls for former Secretary Hillary Clinton to testify. It was left to Chairman Gowdy at the conclusion to pose the broader question of who was responsible for setting policies that led to loss of four Americans in the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

Rep. Jordan cited 200 incidents and the assassination attempt on the British Ambassador in Benghazi as evidence of the serious threat to the temporary mission facility. He asked Starr pointedly in light of that why his post wasn’t upgraded in line with the other six Under Secretary positions such as Public Diplomacy to have access to Secretary Kerry. Starr replied that notwithstanding the ARB recommendation that he had access to Kerry. Benson of the NSTF texted, “such a minimal appointment for such an important job.” Jordan noted that both Linick and former State and Department Homeland Security official Todd Keil had approved of the upgrade in prior Select Benghazi Committee testimony.

Ranking Member Cummings questioned Starr on staffing and dual waiver exemptions. Starr outlined some changes including fire rescue equipment. When asked if the Department culture had changed, Starr responded that he believed the Department had bought into the shared responsibility for 30 high threat risk posts.  Cummings later returned to query Starr about vetting of local perimeter security such as the Benghazi Eclipse subcontractor to Blue Mountain in Benghazi. Starr indicated that some host countries objected to such vetting, and that DS Security endeavored to find work-arounds. Linick when asked demurred that the vetting issue had been resolved.

Roby of Alabama questioned Starr about the upgrading of Marine Security Detachments at diplomatic posts under ARB recommendation 11. Starr noted that only 40 percent of Marine Security Guard teams had been assigned to high risk posts. Starr noted that 9 posts did not have Marine Guards because of host country objections. State had to rely on Department Security and contractors. Four posts were still in danger without Marine Guards. Starr said they were trying to augment with mobile teams. Timmerman in his Daily Caller op-ed noted  that Starr got his facts wrong about the Site Security Team (SST) assigned to Ambassador Stevens in Libya being “static.” Ambassador Stevens had frequenting gone jogging with the Tripoli Embassy 16 man US Army Special Forces SST members who “normally accompanied him everywhere.” Linick reinforced the OIG audits finding there was no adequate vetting of local security contractors. Allowing guards without vetting he said constituted a security threat.

Minority member Adam Schiff then rose the matter of the whether the trend of terrorism threats had worsened, to which Starr responded that it had in high risk posts. He cited a litany of multiple attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan including bombings, RPG and IED attacks against motorcades. He indicated it had gone up significantly since the Al Qaeda attacks on the East African Embassies in 1998. Starr acknowledged that many temporary posts were manned at high risk and not without costs. That led to the discussion of how State was filling those posts from the ranks of existing Foreign Service personnel and even retirees. A twitter comment from Timmerman, said, “AQ defeated? State dept now asks more & more [diplomats] to do 2 year tours without families at high risk posts, says asst/sec Greg Starr.” Schiff also rose to defense of former Secretary Hillary Clinton, suggesting that there was no need for her to testify.

Rep. Peter Roskam vigorously pursued the matter of waiver/exceptions from national security requirements under ARB recommendations 13. He noted that the State Department criticized the ARB position. He asked Starr if the risks were high “why were we there in Benghazi?” To which Starr said we have to assume reasonable risks. Roskam rebutted that it doesn’t square with mitigation of high threat risks and the alleged inability to establish physical setbacks as a deterrent in the case of attacks.

Chairman Gowdy hammered at the Committee majority mantra, “why we were there in Benghazi?” He cited an email written by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes a few days following the attack in which Rhodes says that “the US was doing everything to protect diplomatic posts under a broad policy.” Gowdy asked who within State should answer those questions, to which Starr said Anne W. Patterson, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. The irony is striking because Patterson was Ambassador to Egypt at the time of the Benghazi attack, when Muslim Brotherhood jihadists had penetrated the compound in Cairo in a protest organized by the brother of AQ leader Ayman al Zawahiri. Gowdy then noted that the 1999 ARB following the deadly attacks on the East African Embassies proposed shutting down high risk unprotected posts. He illustrated that in the Benghazi case Ambassador Stevens had filed several “pleadingly plaintive” requests for additional security, including one in August 2012 for a machine gun to be placed on the roof of the temporary mission facility. He queried Starr as to who denied the request, a rhetorical question noting that Assistant Secretary Charlene Lamb rejected that request and others for additional DSS team support. Starr was then asked what DS support the Ambassador had that night. Starr responded saying that Ambassador Stevens usually traveled with at least two DS personnel and that there may have been five aides with him on the night of 9/11/2012. Starr alleged that the Army Special Forces SST had been replaced by a mobile team of DS officers. Gowdy then asked did Stevens go over Lamb’s head to the Secretary. Starr said there was a dissent channel that the Ambassador might have availed himself of to seek resolution of the security requests. Gowdy concluded with a question of “what weighing and balancing” took place at the highest echelons of State and perhaps at the White House that countenanced putting the Ambassador at risk.

Stay tuned for further developments.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in the New English Review.

When Liberal Preferences Meet Islamic Principles

/in , , , , /by

There was a recent scandal that, as much as anything else, illustrates the intellectual emptiness and moral ennui of the modern liberal man. It occurred in Britain but reflects a wider phenomenon; what can be said about it can be said about happenings in Sweden, France, Holland, Canada or Belgium — or the United States.

It was discovered recently that Muslims in seven London schools were indoctrinating children with Islamic propaganda, ignoring Western culture and refusing to inculcate the “British values” of the moment. The situation was such that all of one school’s library books were in Arabic and many students couldn’t tell investigators whether they should follow British or Sharia law or which was more important. And one of these schools, mind you, was a state-run Church of England institution — that happens to now be upwards of 80 percent Muslim.

When hearing about the subordination of British law to Sharia and other such Islamic cultural inroads, one of my instincts is to say “So what?” Cry me a river of multiculturalist tears.

Multiculturalism, we’ve been told, dictates that all cultures are morally equal and deserve the same respect and footing within “Western” civilization. Never mind that the ideology is self-defeating. After all, since different cultures espouse different values, not all cultures can be “morally” equal unless all values are so. This makes multiculturalism not only a corollary of, but also a Trojan horse for, moral relativism. And consider the implications. If all values are equal, how can showing cultures equal respect be superior to cultural chauvinism? And what if another culture does prescribe the latter? It then follows that the people within it cannot both have their own culture, unaltered, and accept multiculturalism.

Nonetheless, since multiculturalism is considered enlightened by Western pseudo-intellectuals, it’s time for some personal petard hoisting. A Daily Mail piece on the Londonistan school situation tells us that some students told inspectors “it would be wrong to learn about other religions” and that “it was a woman’s job to cook and clean.” The paper furthermore reported that schools were criticized for “failure to give girls equal opportunities,” narrow curricula, not preparing students “for life in a diverse British society,” not encouraging students “to respect other people’s opinions” and for creating a situation in which students’ “understanding of the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance, is underdeveloped.”

And the problem is…?

What if these Muslims’ faith and culture dictate that women should be steered toward domesticity and shouldn’t have equal opportunity; that there should be not diversity but Islamic homogeneity; that not all opinions should be respected and that it is wrong to learn about other religions; and that Islamic theocracy is preferable to democracy? And the matter of “tolerance” is an interesting one. Since the term implies a perceived negative — you wouldn’t tolerate a delectable meal or fine car, but would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather — the reality is that tolerance is only admirable under two circumstances:

  • When something you dislike isn’t objectively bad, such as when you tolerate a vegetable you’re not partial to for health reasons.
  • When you’re powerless to change something that is objectively bad, such as an irremediable crippling condition.

But if something is objectively wrong and can be eliminated, it is an abdication of moral responsibility to refuse to do so. And has it occurred to anyone that pious Muslims may instinctively realize this and, considering Western culture a misbegotten force (their perspective), view changing it a divine mission?

Be that as it may, given that multiculturalism espouses cultural equivalence and its correlative moral relativism, by its lights none of the bemoaned Islamic curricula standards and outcomes can be any worse than what secularists prefer. So what gives? Are you liberals denying these Muslim immigrants their culture and creed?

You certainly are. But this hypocrisy is nothing new. Multiculturalism has been used for decades, at every turn, as a pretext for denuding Western traditions and Christian symbols and messages from our cultural landscape, using “tolerance” and “diversity” as rallying cries. Even as I write this, a Washington state high-school senior faces expulsion from school for sharing his Christian faith, the idea being that such expression is “offensive.” Multiculturalism was always nonsense. “Anything goes” — as long as it’s branded “culture” — could never be a recipe for organizing anything because it doesn’t allow for distinguishing between anything and any other thing. A standard of some kind must be applied when devising laws, regulations and social codes; and standards, by definition, involve the upholding and imposition of values.

This is why G.K. Chesterton once noted, “In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.” Except for leftists possessed of evil genius, most are in the latter camp. Multiculturalism certainly felt right when useful for purging an element of tradition contrary to the liberal agenda; it doesn’t quite have the same glitter, however, when it would allow the institution of such an element. Multiculturalism is for use on other people’s dogmas; it’s not for use on the Left’s own.

Now, one pitfall of being a slave to one’s age who unknowingly embraces its dogmas is that you generally make the mistake of mirroring. This is when you project your priorities, feelings and basic suppositions onto others; in a nutshell, you assume that they take for granted the things you do.

Consider, for instance, Muslims’ subordination of host-country law to Sharia law. Outrageous? Impudent? Perhaps.

Shocking?

In reality, you should expect nothing less — or more.

When pondering this, realize that devout Christians (of which I’m one) are very similar to Muslims in this regard. This statement may raise eyebrows and even some dander, but just consider the recent cases in which Christians have accepted career destruction and punishment rather than be party to same-sex “weddings” or homosexual activism. Why are these Christians opposing the “law of the land”? And what standard informs them man’s law is wrong? What standard are they subordinating the law of the land to?

What they see as the only law that could be, and must be, above it: God’s law.

This isn’t to say Christians and Muslims are the same. They certainly have different conceptions of God’s law. And in keeping with this, Christian law generally didn’t clash with Western “secular” law — until secularists started holding sway — because our secular law reflected Christian morality; it was authored by Christian men, such as the Founding Fathers, who naturally imbued their system of law with their world view. As an example, the Declaration of Independence enunciates the basis for our constitutional rights, stating that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The situation with Sharia is far different. Since the tree of Western secular law wasn’t germinated from the seed of Islam, it was traditionally and remains today largely incongruent with Muslim principles; thus is a clash, in which Islam will ever try to burn that tree root and branch, inevitable.

Some moderns will now say that this is why no “religious” law should influence society. But not only is this a philosophically unsound position that fails to recognize the basis of just law (Absolute Truth), it also places a person in bad company: The Marxists and Nazis also aimed to neuter the Church and squelch belief in religious law. After all, a devout statist wants the state’s law to be pre-eminent; “Thou shalt have no gods before thy government.” And this won’t happen if people recognize a higher law.

And this recognition is what believing Christians, Muslims and Jews all have in common. It is also why it is silly, in the extreme, to expect Muslims to subordinate Sharia to Western secular law. You are literally asking them to place government ahead of what they see as God. This simply isn’t going to happen, and no amount of blather about “tolerance,” “diversity” and multiculturalism — which is just another way of saying “Accept our liberal dogmas” — is going to change that. And when the population of believing Muslims becomes great enough in a Western land, they will succeed in Islamizing governmental law.

German chancellor Angela Merkel announced in 2010, finally, that multiculturalism in her country had “utterly failed.” Talk about being a biblical day late and a budget deficit short. And she and other Western leaders still don’t get it. One can’t understand ideologies such as multiculturalism if he views them as disconnected social mistakes; they are all part of a deep philosophical/spiritual malaise. It isn’t just that the multiculturalist branch needs to be pruned or even cut off. It’s that the devout Muslims are right: the liberal-secularist tree, that Gramscian mutation, must be pulled up and incinerated in the Hell fires whence it came. And it will be. The only question is whether we will return to our roots or allow the complete erasure of Western civilization.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Islamic State releases pamphlet justifying sex slavery of infidel women

Biden tried to lecture Hirsi Ali about Islam

/in , , , /by

Even though Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised a Muslim in a Muslim country, and Joe Biden has almost certainly never opened a Qur’an, Biden believed he knew more about Islam than she did. Why? Because her opinion of the religion was negative, and the possibility that such a view could have any merit whatsoever is inconceivable in Washington circles. Those who hold it must be ignorant.

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights radical Islam’s real war on women,” by Ashe Schow, Washington Examiner, December 8, 2014:

In early April of this year, Brandeis University, under pressure from student activists and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reversed its decision to give an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a global advocate for women’s rights.

The decision was triggered by Hirsi Ali’s outspoken criticisms of Islam. The Somali-born activist has sounded alarms about the prevalence of extremism in Muslim countries and the misogyny that pervades even mainstream Islam.

During the Brandeis controversy, a CAIR spokesman called her “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam-haters in America.”

But Hirsi Ali’s warnings about Islamic extremism were quickly supported by world events, as just a week after Brandeis rescinded her honorary degree, the Islamist terrorist organization Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 Nigerian schoolgirls in the first of many such abductions throughout the summer. A few months after the kidnappings began, news spread that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, another terrorist group, was selling Yazidi women into sexual slavery….

Bundled up and fearful of shaking hands because of a cough, Hirsi Ali sat down with the Washington Examiner in November before being presented an award by the Independent Women’s Forum at its Women of Valor Dinner in Washington. She noted that where extremist ideology spreads, death and mayhem flourish.

“That consequence you see today in parts of Iraq and Syria,” Hirsi Ali said. “You see it in what Boko Haram is doing. You’ve seen it with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Everywhere where that idea is implemented it has a sudden pattern.”

Critics have attacked Hirsi Ali as Islamophobic and have argued that the portrait she paints is not representative of Islam at large. But her disagreements with Islam are rooted in her own East African upbringing.

Hirsi Ali was subjected to female genital mutilation at the age of 5 in her home country, Somalia, while her father, who opposed the traditional practice, was in prison. Her father escaped and moved the family to Saudi Arabia, then to Ethiopia and finally to Kenya when Hirsi Ali was 11 years old.

She grew up as a Muslim woman, reading and accepting the Quran and its teachings. But when her family prepared to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to the Netherlands. She eventually became a translator, speaking on behalf of Somali women who, like her, were seeking asylum….

Liberals, she said, protect Islamic extremists partly because the Left has no idea what really goes on in Muslim countries.

“They feel all religions are the same, and they’re not,” she observed. “I think if I adopt the position in good faith to multiculturalists and leftists, I would say [they take the position they do] because they see them [Muslims] as victims. They see them as victims of the white man and so they think: ‘Let’s protect them from the white man. Let’s protect them from capitalism.’… That is misguided at best and malicious at worst.”…

“Wherever [Islamists] gain power, you see exactly what they do: The first thing they do is they chase women out of the public space, force them to cover up, beat them up, rape them, sell them into slavery,” Hirsi Ali said.

Such violence against women needs to be exposed, and Western liberals need to “review their thinking,” she said.

That will prove difficult. In her speech to the dinner guests in Washington, Hirsi Ali recalled meeting Vice President Joe Biden. He informed her that “ISIS had nothing to do with Islam.” When she disagreed with him, Biden actually responded: “Let me tell you one or two things about Islam.”

“I politely left the conversation at that,” Hirsi Ali said, to laughter. “I wasn’t used to arguing with vice presidents.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: On the Islamic State beheading children and more

Afghanistan: Jihad suicide bomber attacks play condemning suicide bombings

Islamic Republic of Iran: Muslim cleric says “unclean” Baha’is must be banished from city

HIGH TREASON: FBI SPY Probe of Powerful Clinton Ally Robin Raphel

/in , , , /by

In the article below you may read how Robin Raphel, who was appointed to a number of important positions by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, subsequently committed High Treason. Clinton’s extremely poor judgment in the appointment of Robin Raphael, and her failure to protect the US Ambassador to Libya, two Navy SEALs, and a U.S. Embassy Communications Expert in the Battle of Benghazi highlights the fact that she is a one woman wrecking ball. Hillary Clinton is unfit for duty as President.

HIGH TREASON: FBI SPY Probe of Powerful Clinton Ally Robin Raphel

Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs, in FREEDOM OUTPOST

A longtime Clinton ally, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration, former Ambassador to Tunisia and donor, Robin Raphel, is at the center of an FBI counterintelligence (spy) probe. She was a registered foreign agent for the Pakistani government up until just days before she was appointed to run the U.S. State Department’s Pakistan aid team ….. (read more)

American investigators intercepted a conversation this year in which a Pakistani official said that his government was receiving American secrets from a prominent former State Department diplomat, officials said, setting off an espionage investigation.

If this were a Republican (think Scooter Libby, who was falsely accused of a bogus leak to the press), the media would be all over this like white on rice. Instead, it has caused barely a ripple in the traitor press.

But the Indian media has been reporting on it closely. Raphel alienated our ally India and damaged our close relationship with that key ally when she recognized Pakistan’s jihad claims to Kashmir, changing longtime American policy.

In 1995, U.S. diplomat Robin Raphel was the toast of the State department. President Bill Clinton appointed her the first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia (the post later included Central Asia), and she was known to be close to him and Hillary Clinton …. more here.

Between Huma Abedin, Robin Raphel, and Benghazi, former Sec of State Hillary Clinton became a one-woman American wrecking ball.

Robin Raphel, a veteran State Department diplomat and longtime Pakistan expert is under federal investigation as part of a counterintelligence probe and has had her security clearances withdrawn, according to U.S. officials.

The FBI searched the Northwest Washington home of Robin L. Raphel last month, and her State Department office was also examined and sealed, officials said. Raphel, a fixture in Washington’s diplomatic and think-tank circles, was placed on administrative leave last month, and her contract with the State Department was allowed to expire this week. (Washington Post)

The Republic is infiltrated with traitors like Robin Raphel, Marxists, and Communists appointees of Obama.

In 1993, President Clinton appointed Raphel as the first Assistant Secretary of State for a newly created position within the State Department[3] that would focus on a growing array of problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, including democratic stability, nuclear proliferation, energy access, Islamist and Taliban extremism, poverty and women’s rights issues.

Raphel was an early and adamant supporter of the Taliban.

She alienated our ally India in her “signature characterization of Kashmir” as “disputed territory,” a first in the annals of U.S. diplomacy, and it made her quick friends in Pakistan. Her predilections were obvious.

A second major policy directive that Raphel advocated and developed during her tenure was engagement and cooperation with the Taliban

Robin Lynn Raphel is a former American diplomat, Ambassador, CIA Analyst and an expert on Pakistan affairs.[1] Until November 2, 2014, she served as coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan, carrying on the work of the late Richard Holbrooke, whose AfPak team she joined in 2009.[2] In 1993, she was appointed by President Bill Clinton as the nation’s first Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, a newly created position at the time designed to assist the U.S. government in managing an increasingly complex region.

Robin Raphel later served as U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia from November 7, 1997 to August 6, 2000, during President Bill Clinton’s second term in office.

In the 2000s, Robin Raphel held a number of official positions related to her expertise on South Asia.

In 2009, Robin Raphel joined the Afghanistan-Pakistan task force known as AfPak, joining the late Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for the Af-Pak region. Her focus was how to allocate U.S. resources committed under the proposed Kerry-Lugar Bill. That legislation was enacted in late 2009, tripling civilian U.S. aid to Pakistan to approximately $1.5 billion annually (Wikipedia)

“Raphel probe triggered by intercept of Pakistan official’s chat,” Indian Express (via the NY Times)| Washington | November 21, 2014 (thanks to Lookmann)

American investigators intercepted a conversation this year in which a Pakistani official suggested that his government was receiving American secrets from a prominent former State Department diplomat, officials said, setting off an espionage investigation that has stunned diplomatic circles here.

That conversation led to months of secret surveillance on the former diplomat, Robin L Raphel, and an FBI raid last month at her home, where agents discovered classified information, the officials said.

The investigation is an unexpected turn in a distinguished career that has spanned four decades. Raphel rose to become one of the highest-ranking female diplomats and a fixture in foreign policy circles, serving as ambassador to Tunisia and as assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration.

Raphel, 67, considered one of the leading American experts on Pakistan, was stripped of her security clearances last month and no longer has access to the State Department building .

Raphel has not been charged with a crime. The scope of the investigation is not known, and it is unclear exactly what the Pakistani official said in the intercepted conversation that led to suspicion about Raphel.

Still, the new details shed some light on the evidence that Justice Department prosecutors are weighing as they decide whether to bring charges. And they help explain why the FBI viewed the matter seriously enough to search her home and State Department office, steps that would bring the investigation into the open.

Raphel is among a generation of diplomats who rose through the ranks of the State Department at a time when Pakistan was among America’s closest allies and a reliable bulwark against the Soviet Union. After retiring from the government in 2005, she lobbied on behalf of the Pakistani government before accepting a contract to work as a State Department advisor.

While the FBI secretly watched Raphel in recent months, agents suspected that she was improperly taking classified information home from the State Department, the officials said. Armed with a warrant, the agents searched her home in a prosperous neighbourhood near the Maryland border with Washington, and found classified information, the officials said.

Andrew Rice, a spokesman for Raphel, said: “Nothing has changed for Ambassador Raphel. She has not been told she is the target of an investigation, and she has not been questioned.”

In a sign of the seriousness of the case, Raphel has hired Amy Jeffress, a lawyer who until recently was one of the Justice Department’s top national security prosecutors. Jeffress served as a counsellor to Attorney General Eric H Holder Jr on security matters, as the Justice Department’s attaché to London, and as chief of national security at the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington. She joined the law firm Arnold & Porter this year. Jeffress declined to comment.

While the US and Pakistan remain allies in the war on terrorism, tensions between the two countries have been frequently strained. American officials suspect Pakistan of supporting the Taliban and believe Pakistan has dispatched several double agents to collect intelligence from the US government. Pakistani officials bristle continued…

Democrat Controlled Senate ‘Water Boards’ the CIA

/in , , , , /by

Okay, why don’t we just raise the white flag, surrender to the Islamic State and learn to say, “As-salamu-alaykum.”

If the leaders of this country, like Senator Diane Feinstein, continue to give comfort to the enemy as she did with the release of a partisan report that attacks the CIA, then it is just a matter of time before the USA loses the “information war,” and more good Americans will die due to Democrat political retribution.

So, why is Republican Senator McCain in support of Feinstein and the publication of this attack on the CIA? Watch the show and get answers to this and other very important national security questions.

How I discovered the ‘Voice of Israel’ [+Audio]

/in , , /by

How I discovered Voice of Israel radio and rediscovered my precious friend Danny Seaman, valiant chief of the Government Press Office when we first met about ten years ago, one of the first and finest and onliest in the Israeli government bureaucracy to declare, without ever flinching, that the al Dura news broadcast is a hoax. Later Danny moved on to the Ministry of Public Diplomacy. That didn’t last too long.

In October, finally able to visit Israel after a two-year interruption, I had lunch with my cousin Bernie Kaminetsky and his wife Melanie from Boca Raton… in their Jerusalem apartment. Bernie gave me contact information for Jeremy Gimpel from Voice of Israel, a new English language radio station broadcasting from Jerusalem and beaming out to the world. I was booked for a program on October 20th.

I walk into the studios or more exactly rush in… about 5 minutes before the broadcast, start to meet staff, hold out the (illegible) taxi receipt (that’s another story… my friend S.N. convinced me that letting them pay for the taxi was good career strategy), and a voice behind my back says something about “…too cheap to pay for the taxi.” I turn. It’s Danny!

Big hugs . Danny: “I didn’t know it was you. They told me ‘a woman’ was going to be on the show with us today.” Me: “I didn’t know you were with Voice of Israel.”

With that we rushed into the studio and geared up for the show. My segment starts at around 26 minutes, but you’ll enjoy listening to the whole broadcast. The first half of my segment is with Danny. The second half with Bassam Eid.

Ten Ways the Mafia and Islam are Similar

/in , , , , /by

The following article by Raymond Ibrahim was published on PJ Media where it is supplemented with clips from various mafia-related movies like The Godfather to help demonstrate the ten similarities.  Portions of this article were earlier serialized on FrontPage Magazine. 

During a debate on HBO’s Real Time last October, host Bill Maher declared that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Maher was apparently referring to Islam’s “blasphemy” laws, which ban on pain of death any “insult”—as found in a statement, a picture, a book—to Islam and especially its prophet, Muhammad.

While Maher has been criticized for his “Islamophobic” assertion, he and others may be surprised to learn that the similarities between Islam and the mafia far exceed punishing those who say, draw, or write “the wrong thing.”

In what follows, we will examine a number of these similarities.

We will begin by looking at the relationship between Allah, his messenger Muhammad, and the Muslims, and note several parallels with the relationship between the godfather, his underboss, and the mafia.

Next, we will examine the clannish nature of the mafia and compare it to Islam’s tribalism, especially in the context of the Islamic doctrine “Loyalty and Enmity.”  For example, in both Islam and the mafia, members who wish to break away, to “apostatize,” are killed.

We will consider how the mafia and Islam have both historically profited from the “protection” racket: Islam has demanded jizya from non-Muslims under its authority/territory and the mafia has demanded pizzo from people that fall under its jurisdiction.

Finally, we will consider what accounts for these many similarities between Islam and the mafia, including from an historical perspective.

1.  Allah and Muhammad/Godfather and Underboss

The padrino of larger mafia organizations and families—literally, the “godfather” or “boss of bosses”—has absolute control over his subordinates and is often greatly feared by them for his ruthlessness.  He has an “underboss,” a right-hand man who issues his orders and enforces his will.  The godfather himself is often inaccessible; mafia members need to go through the underboss or other high ranking associates.

Compare this with the relationship between Allah and his “messenger” Muhammad (in Arabic, Muhammad is most commonly referred to as al-rasul, “the messenger”). Unlike the Judeo-Christian God—a personal God, a Father, that according to Christ is to be communed with directly (Matt 6:9)—Islam’s god, Allah, is unreachable, unknowable, untouchable.  Like the godfather, he is inaccessible.   His orders are revealed by his messenger, Muhammad.

If the Judeo-Christian God calls on the faithful to “come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18), Allah says “Do not ask questions about things that, if made known to you, would only pain you” (Koran 5:101).  Just follow orders.

2.  A “Piece of the Action”

The godfather and his underboss always get a “piece of the action”—a “cut”—of all spoils acquired by their subordinates.

So do Allah and his messenger, Muhammad.  Koran 8:41 informs Muslims that “one-fifth of all war-booty you acquire goes to Allah and the messenger” (followed by Muhammad’s family and finally the needy).

3.  Assassinations

The godfather, through his underboss, regularly sends mafia men to make “hits”—to assassinate—those deemed enemies of the family.

So did Allah and his messenger.  One example:  A non-Muslim poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, insulted Muhammad, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close enough to assassinate Ka‘b he be allowed to lie to the poet.

Allah’s messenger agreed. Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that the poet took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka‘b’s guard was down, slaughtered the poet, bringing his head to Muhammad to the usual triumphant cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

4.  Circumstance is Everything

While the mafia adheres to a general code of conduct, the godfather issues more fluid orders according to circumstances.

This is reminiscent of the entire “revelation” of the Koran, where later verses/commands contradict earlier verses/commands, depending on circumstances (known in Islamic jurisprudence as al-nāsikh wal-mansūkh, or the doctrine of abrogation).

Thus, whereas Allah supposedly told the prophet that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256), once the messenger grew strong enough, Allah issued new revelations calling for all-out war/jihad till Islam became supreme (Koran 8:39, 9:5, 9:29, etc.).

While other religions and scriptures may have contradictions, only Islam rationalizes them through abrogation—that is, by giving prominence to later verses which are seen as the “latest” decision of the deity.

5.  Clan Loyalty

Loyalty is fundamental in the mafia.  Following elaborate rituals of blood oaths, mafia members are expected to maintain absolute loyalty to the family, on pain of death.

Similarly, mafia members are expected always to be available for the family—“even if your wife is about to give birth,” as one of the mafia’s “ten commandments” puts it—and to defend the godfather and his honor, even if it costs their lives.

Compare this to the widespread violence and upheavals that occur whenever Allah or his prophet is offended—whenever non-Muslim “infidels” blaspheme them.  Or, as Bill Maher put it: “Its’ the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Islam’s “Loyalty and Enmity” doctrine (al-wala’ wa’l bara’)—which calls on Muslims to be loyal to one another even if they dislike each other—is especially illustrative.  Koran 9:71 declares that “The believing [Muslim] men and believing [Muslim] women are allies of one another” (see also 8:72-75).  And according to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him….  All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor”—precisely those three things that mafia members respect among each other.   This is why Muslims like U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan, whose “worst nightmare” was to be deployed to fight fellow Muslims, often lash out.)

6.  Death to Traitors

Once a fledging mafia member takes the oath of loyalty to the mafia—including the Omertà code of silence and secrecy—trying to leave the “family” is seen as a betrayal and punishable by death.   Any family member, great or small, is given authority to kill the traitor, the “turncoat.”

Compare this to Islam.  To be born to a Muslim father immediately makes the newborn a Muslim—there are no oaths to be taken, much less any choice in the matter.   And, according to Islamic law, if born Muslims at any point in their lives choose to leave Islam, they are deemed “apostates”—traitors—and punished including by death.   Any zealous Muslim, not just the authorities, is justified in killing the apostate (hence why Muslim families that kill apostate children are rarely if ever prosecuted).

In the words of Muhammad—the messenger (“underboss”) of Allah (“godfather”):  “Whoever leaves his Islamic faith, kill him.”

7.  Distrust and Dislike of “Outsiders”

Aside from loyalty to the family, mafia members are also expected not to befriend or freely associate with “outsiders”—who by nature are not to be trusted, as they are not of the “family”—unless such a “friendship” helps advance the family’s position.

Similarly, the second half of the doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity—the enmity (al-bara’)—calls on Muslims to maintain distance from and bear enmity for all non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Thus Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them.” According to the mainstream Islamic exegesis of al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” that is, a defector, an apostate, an enemy.

Similar scriptures include Koran 4:89, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims—“even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.” Koran 60:1 declares, “O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy [non-believers] for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth [i.e., while they deny Islam]?” And Koran 4:144 declares “O you who believe! Do not take the infidels as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah [“godfather”] a clear case against yourselves?”

8.  Deception and Dissimulation

As mentioned, close relations to non-mafia individuals that prove advantageous to the family (for example, collaboration with a “crooked cop”) are permissible—as long as the mafia keeps a safe distance, keeps the outsider at arm’s length.

Compare this to Koran 3:28 which commands “believers not to take infidels for friends and allies instead of believers… unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” According to the standard Koran commentary of Tabari, “taking precautions” means:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [but know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

After interpreting Koran 3:28 as meaning that Muslims may “protect” themselves “through outward show” when under non-Muslim authority, Ibn Kathir, perhaps Islam’s most celebrated exegete, quotes Islam’s prophet (“underboss”) saying: “Truly, we smile to the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”

Similarly, a few years ago, Sheikh Muhammad Hassan—a leading Salafi cleric in Egypt—asserted on live television that, while Muslims should never smile to the faces of non-Muslims, they should smile, however insincerely, if so doing helps empower Islam, especially in the context of da‘wa.

The idea of hating “outsiders” is apparently so ingrained in Islam that another leading Salafi cleric, Dr. Yasser al-Burhami, insists that, while Muslim men may marry Christian and Jewish women, they must hate them in their heart—and show them that they hate them in the hopes that they convert to the “family” of Islam.

(For more on the doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity,” including references to the exegetical sources quoted above, see al-Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman Zawahiri’s comprehensive treatise by that name inThe Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 63-115.)

9.  “An Offer You Can’t Refuse”

Although the novel-turned-movie, The Godfather, is fictitious, it also captures much of the mafia’s modus operandi.  Consider, for example, that most famous of lines—“I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse”—spoken by the Godfather to one of his “godsons,” an aspiring actor and singer.  After being turned down by a studio director for a role that he desperately wanted, the godson turned to his Godfather for aid.

As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that the offer that can’t be refused consists of nothing less than violence and death threats: after the Godfather’s messenger to the director asking that the actor be given the role is again rejected, the director awakens the next morning to find the bloodied and decapitated head of his favorite stallion in bed with him.  The godson subsequently gets the movie role.

Throughout the context of the entire Godfather trilogy (which captures well the mafia’s approach to business) making someone “an offer they can’t refuse” means “do as I say or suffer the consequences,” possibly death.

Compare this to Islam’s threefold choice.  On Muhammad’s orders, whenever Muslims conquer a territory in the name of Islam, its non-Muslim inhabitants are given three choices: 1) convert to Islam (“join the family”), 2) keep your religious identity but pay tribute (jizya, see below) and live as an “outsider,” a subjugated dhimmi or 3) execution.

Throughout history, converting to Islam has been an “offer” that countless non-Muslims could not refuse.  In fact, this “offer” is responsible for transforming much of the Middle East and North Africa, which were Christian-majority in the 7th century when the jihad burst forth from Arabia, into the “Muslim world.”

And this offer is still alive and well today.  For example, several older and disabled Christians who were not able to join the exodus out of Islamic State controlled territories opted to convert to Islam rather than die.

Like the mafia, then, Islam’s offer to conquered non-Muslims (“outsiders”) is basically “join our ‘family,’ help us and we will help you; refuse and we hurt you.”

10.  The “Protection” Racket

Once the mafia takes over a territory, one of the primary ways it profits is by collecting “protection money” from its inhabitants.  While the protection racket has several aspects, one in particular is akin to an Islamic practice: coercing people in the mafia’s territory to pay money for “protection,” ostensibly against outside elements; in fact, the protection bought is from the mafia itself—that is, extortion money, or pizzo.   Potential “clients” who refuse to pay for the mafia’s “protection” often have their property vandalized and are routinely threatened and harassed.

Compare the collection of pizzo with the Islamic concept of jizya:  The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad—in our analogy, the “underboss”—regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya from non-Muslims:  “If they refuse to accept Islam,” said the prophet, “demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something.  According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money.  As one medieval jurist succinctly puts it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya” (Crucified Again, p. 22).

And to top it off, just as the mafia rationalizes its collection of “protection money” by portraying it as money that buys mafia protection against “outsiders”—when, as mentioned, the money/tribute serves only to protect the client from the mafia itself—so too do Islam’s apologists portray the collection of jizya as money meant to buy Muslim protection from outsiders, when in fact the money/jizya buys protection from Muslims themselves.

Conclusion: Mafia—What’s In a Word?

What accounts for all these similarities between Islam and the mafia?  One clue is found in the fact that the very word “mafia,” which means “hostility to the law, boldness,” is derived from an Arabic word, mahya, which in translation means “bragging, boasting, bravado, and swaggering.”

This etymology is a reminder that Sicily, birthplace of the mafia, was under Arab/Islamic domination for over 200 years.  Aside from a borrowed etymology, could some of the mafia’s modus operandi also have been borrowed from Islam?  Isolated on their island, could native Sicilians have co-opted the techniques of social controls that they had lived under and learned from their former overlords—albeit without their Islamic veneer?

The mafia is not the only historical example of a non-Muslim criminal organization to be influenced by Islam. For example, the Thuggees — whence we get the word “thug” — were a brotherhood of allied bandits and assassins who waylaid and savagely murdered travelers in India, often by first feigning friendship. Although they were later associated with the Hindu cult of Kali, the original Thuggees were all Muslim. As late as the 19th century, a large number of Thuggees captured and convicted by the British were Muslim.

The similarities are clear: Along with assassinating his opponents, including, as seen, through treachery, Muhammad also personally engaged in banditry, ransacking the caravans of enemy tribes.

And if the words “mafia” and “thug” have Arabic/Islamic etymologies,  the words “assassinate” and “assassin” are derived from a Medieval Islamic sect: the Hashashin, who pioneered the use of political assassination—with promises of a hedonistic paradise for the assassin who almost certainly died—in the name of Islam.

At any rate, when HBO personality Bill Maher recently proclaimed that Islam is “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book,” he was barely touching on the similarities between the mafia and other criminal organizations, and Islam.

ABOUT RAYMOND IBRAHIM

Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians

Islamic State releases pamphlet justifying sex slavery of infidel women

/in , , /by

The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

This Islamic State justification of the practice invokes the Qur’an and Muhammad. Where are the Islamic scholars explaining to Muslims (not just to credulous non-Muslims) how their use of the Qur’an and Sunnah is wrong?

islamic state slaver pamphlet

Cover of Islamic State pamphlet on the topic of female captives and slaves.

“Islamic State (ISIS) Releases Pamphlet On Female Slaves,” MEMRI, December 8, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

The Research and Fatwa Department of the Islamic State (ISIS) has released a pamphlet on the topic of female captives and slaves. The pamphlet, which is dated Muharram 1436 (October/November 2014) and was printed by ISIS’s publishing house, Al-Himma Library, is titled Su’al wa-Jawab fi al-Sabi wa-Riqab (“Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves”). It was presumably released in response to the uproar caused by the many reports this summer that ISIS had taken Yazidi girls and women as sex slaves. Written in the form of questions and answers, it clarifies the position of Islamic law (as ISIS interprets it) on various relevant issues, and states, among other things, that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with non-Muslim slaves, including young girls, and that it is also permitted to beat them and trade in them.

The following are excerpts from the pamphlet, which was posted on a pro-ISIS Twitter account.[1]

“Question 1: What is al-sabi?

“Al-Sabi is a woman from among ahl al-harb [the people of war] who has been captured by Muslims.

“Question 2: What makes al-sabi permissible?

“What makes al-sabi permissible [i.e., what makes it permissible to take such a woman captive] is [her] unbelief. Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us].”

“Question 3: Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?

“There is no dispute among the scholars that it is permissible to capture unbelieving women [who are characterized by] original unbelief [kufr asli], such as the kitabiyat [women from among the People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians] and polytheists. However, [the scholars] are disputed over [the issue of] capturing apostate women. The consensus leans towards forbidding it, though some people of knowledge think it permissible. We [ISIS] lean towards accepting the consensus…”

“Question 4: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?

“It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said: ‘[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are free from blame [Koran 23:5-6]’…”

“Question 5: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking possession [of her]?

“If she is a virgin, he [her master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of her. However, is she isn’t, her uterus must be purified [first]…”

“Question 6: Is it permissible to sell a female captive?

“It is permissible to buy, sell, or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property, which can be disposed of [as long as that doesn’t cause [the Muslim ummah] any harm or damage.”

“Question 7: Is it permissible to separate a mother from her children through [the act of] buying and selling?

“It is not permissible to separate a mother from her prepubescent children through buying, selling or giving away [a captive or slave]. [But] it is permissible to separate them if the children are grown and mature.”

“Question 8: If two or more [men] buy a female captive together, does she then become [sexually] permissible to each of them?

“It is forbidden to have intercourse with a female captive if [the master] does not own her exclusively. One who owns [a captive] in partnership [with others] may not have sexual intercourse with her until the other [owners] sell or give him [their share].”

“Question 9: If the female captive was impregnated by her owner, can he then sell her?

“He can’t sell her if she becomes the mother of a child…”

“Question 10: If a man dies, what is the law regarding the female captive he owned?

“Female captives are distributed as part of his estate, just as all [other parts] of his estate [are distributed]. However, they may only provide services, not intercourse, if a father or [one of the] sons has already had intercourse with them, or if several [people] inherit them in partnership.”

“Question 11: May a man have intercourse with the female slave of his wife?

“A man may not have intercourse with the female slave of his wife, because [the slave] is owned by someone else.”

“Question 12: May a man kiss the female slave of another, with the owner’s permission?

“A man may not kiss the female slave of another, for kissing [involves] pleasure, and pleasure is prohibited unless [the man] owns [the slave] exclusively.”

“Question 13: Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?

“It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.”

“Question 14: What private parts of the female slave’s body must be concealed during prayer?

“Her private body parts [that must be concealed] during prayer are the same as those [that must be concealed] outside [prayer], and they [include] everything besides the head, neck, hands and feet.”

“Question 15: May a female slave meet foreign men without wearing a hijab?

“A female slave is allowed to expose her head, neck, hands, and feet in front of foreign men if fitna [enticement] can be avoided. However, if fitna is present, or of there is fear that it will occur, then it [i.e. exposing these body parts becomes] forbidden.”

“Question 16: Can two sisters be taken together while taking slaves?

“It is permissible to have two sisters, a female slave and her aunt [her father’s sister], or a female slave and her aunt [from her mother’s side]. But they cannot be together during intercourse, [and] whoever has intercourse with one of them cannot have intercourse with the other, due to the general [consensus] over the prohibition of this.”

“Question 17: What is al-‘azl?

“Al-‘azl is refraining from ejaculating on a woman’s pudendum [i.e. coitus interruptus].”

“Question 18: May a man use the al-‘azl [technique] with his female slave?

“A man is allowed [to use] al-‘azl during intercourse with his female slave with or without her consent.”

“Question 19: Is it permissible to beat a female slave?

“It is permissible to beat the female slave as a [form of] darb ta’deeb [disciplinary beating], [but] it is forbidden to [use] darb al-takseer [literally, breaking beating], [darb] al-tashaffi [beating for the purpose of achieving gratification], or [darb] al-ta’dheeb [torture beating]. Further, it is forbidden to hit the face.”

Question 20: What is the ruling regarding a female slave who runs away from her master?

“A male or female slave’s running away [from their master] is among the gravest of sins…”

“Question 21: What is the earthly punishment of a female slave who runs away from her master?

“She [i.e. the female slave who runs away from her master] has no punishment according to the shari’a of Allah; however, she is [to be] reprimanded [in such a way that] deters others like her from escaping.”

“Question 22: Is it permissible to marry a Muslim [slave] or a kitabiyya [i.e. Jewish or Christian] female slave?

“It is impermissible for a free [man] to marry Muslim or kitabiyat female slaves, except for those [men] who feared to [commit] a sin, that is, the sin of fornication…”

“Question 24: If a man marries a female slave who is owned by someone else, who is allowed to have intercourse with her?

“A master is prohibited from having intercourse with his female slave who is married to someone else; instead, the master receives her service, [while] the husband [gets to] enjoy her [sexually].”

“Question 25: Are the huddoud [Koranic punishments] applied to female slaves?

“If a female slave committed what necessitated the enforcement of a hadd [on her], ahadd [is then] enforced on her – however, the hadd is reduced by half within the hududthat accepts reduction by half…”

“Question 27: What is the reward for freeing a slave girl?

“Allah the exalted said [in the Koran]: ‘And what can make you know what is [breaking through] the difficult pass [hell]? It is the freeing of a slave.’ And [the prophet Muhammad] said: ‘Whoever frees a believer Allah frees every organ of his body from hellfire.’”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: ISIS Beheads Four Christian Children in Iraq for Refusing to Convert to Islam

Taliban indoctrinates kids with jihadist textbooks paid for by the U.S.

Upper Egypt: Christian Copts pay 120 million Egyptian pounds in ransom money

UK: Sikh teacher forced out by Muslims for teaching British values

Islamic State appoints new Mosul governor

/in , , /by

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—The Islamic State (ISIS) has appointed a new Mosul governor (Wali) to replace the former governor who was killed in an airstrike last month, a source inside the city said.

The source said that Hassan Saeed al-Jubouri known as Abu Talut was appointed by ISIS as governor of Mosul.

Mosul was named by the ISIS as Wilayat Naynawa (Nineveh State) after the group declared itself an Islamic State last summer.

Radhwan Hamdouni known as Abu Laith, the former ISIS governor of Mosul was killed along with the group’s military commander in an airstrike near Mosul last month.

Also on Saturday a Rudaw source inside Mosul said that ISIS has raided people’s homes and arrested young men to fight for the group.

The source said that the group also fears that the young men might defect to the Iraqi army or other forces for a potential attack on Mosul.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an Islamic State military parade in Mosul, Iraq.

“Egypt and Syria have long ties to Nazi Germany”

/in , , /by

“However, below the back scratching lay a deep and dark underpinning to the relationship between the crescent and the swastika. That was, of course, a hatred of the Jews, and in particular, a desire to see the eradication of Israel.” Indeed so. Islamic Jew-hatred was a useful tool for the Nazis in gaining Muslim recruits, such as the Bosnian Muslim SS division that the Mufti of Jerusalem raised up.

Nowadays, those who are the sons and heirs of the Muslims who collaborated with the Nazis charge foes of jihad terror with Nazi sympathies. They know, in other words, how to dazzle and co-opt the Left: charge their foes with being “Nazis,” and sit back and watch the Pavlovian reaction.

“Hitler’s Henchmen in Arabia,” by Guy Walters, The Daily Beast, December 7, 2014:

Nazi Alois Brunner’s confirmed death in Damascus reveals an uncomfortable truth: Egypt and Syria have long ties to Nazi Germany and long provided sanctuary to fugitive war criminals.

When most of us think of the premier retirement destination for unrepentant Nazis, our minds immediately turn to South America. We think of Josef Mengele hidden on a lonely estancia in Paraguay, or Adolf Eichmann ensconced in a two-bit suburb of Buenos Aires.

This perception was magnified by a slew of sensational books that were published in the early 1970s, many of which promoted a very iffy thesis that former Nazis were using the continent as a launchpad for a “Fourth Reich” that would, yes, take over the world.

This culminated in Ira Levin’s 1976 thriller, The Boys from Brazil, in which fiendish Nazis hatch a diabolical plot to unleash several cloned Hitlers onto the world. The book was made into a film in 1978, and starred no less than Gregory Peck and Laurence Olivier, who were presumably behind on the rent.

But as the recent declaration of the death of the former SS officer and Eichmann henchman Alois Brunner reveals, the boys didn’t just go to Brazil. For Brunner, like so many other Nazis, found the Middle East an equally hospitable location, and far less out-on-a-limb than a chalet in Patagonia, no matter how gemütlich.

Brunner, who sent an estimated 130,000 Jews to their deaths, made his home in Damascus, Syria, where he found the conditions much to his liking. Although there has been much guff peddled about Brunner’s postwar activities over the past few days—some of which may be true—there is no doubt that he worked in cahoots with the Assad regime, or at least certainly enjoyed its protection.

However, Brunner was not the only perpetrator of the Holocaust mooching around the streets of the Syrian capital. In terms of gruesome numbers, Franz Stangl, the former commandant of Treblinka extermination camp, had some 800,000 murders on what remained of his conscience, and he arrived in Damascus in September 1948 with the assistance of a Roman Catholic bishop.

That puts even our current crop of “Don’t Say Anything About Jihad Terror or Muslim Persecution of Christians, It Will Harm the ‘Dialogue’” Roman Catholic bishops to shame.

Although Brunner is said to have variously worked as an intelligence agent, an arms dealer, and a security advisor, Stangl took more menial positions in textile firms. Life was somewhat frugal, but manageable. Unfortunately for Stangl, the local chief of police took a fancy to his 14-year-old daughter and wanted to add the child to his harem. Stangl didn’t tarry, and packed his bags and shepherded his entire family to—you guessed it—Brazil.

Stangl seems to have been one of the few Nazis who didn’t find the air pleasing in Syria. Most, such as Major-General Otto-Ernst Remer, prospered on Arab Street. Remer was, frankly, a real piece of work, and having founded the swiftly-banned Socialist Reich Party in West Germany in the early 1950s, decided that working as an arms dealer with the likes of Brunner more rewarding.

What made the relationship between these former Nazis and the Egyptians and Syrians so successful was that it was a genuinely two-way deal.

Unlike Brunner, Remer was itinerant, and spent much time in that other nest of postwar Nazis—Cairo. If anything, the Egyptian capital was even more appealing than Damascus, and had been playing host to Nazis immediately after the war, when King Farouk opened his arms to scores of former SS and Gestapo officers.

That hospitality continued even after Farouk was deposed by the Free Officers Movement in 1952, as Nasser regarded German scientific and intelligence expertise as being an essential component of his regime. No less a figure than Joachim Daumling, the former head of the Gestapo in Düsseldorf, was tasked with establishing Nasser’s secret service.

In fact, the list of some habitués of Cairo in the 1950s and the 1960s reads like a who’s who of Nazi Germany, featuring as it did the rescuer of Mussolini, Otto Skorzeny; the ace Stuka pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel; the leader of a notorious SS penal unit, Oskar Dirlewanger; and the particularly odious and violently anti-Semitic stooge of Goebbels, Johannes von Leers.

What made the relationship between these former Nazis and the Egyptians and Syrians so successful was that it was a genuinely two-way deal. The Arabs offered the Nazis a haven, as well as a market for all their nefarious dealings in arms and black market currency. The Nazis, meanwhile, were able to provide technical and military experts, as well as the knowhow of establishing the instruments of repression.

However, below the back scratching lay a deep and dark underpinning to the relationship between the crescent and the swastika. That was, of course, a hatred of the Jews, and in particular, a desire to see the eradication of Israel….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave agent info on how to sink carrier

FBI adds Texas Muslim honor murderer to Ten Most Wanted list

“Waging jihad against the West…is beyond a shadow of the doubt a religious obligation binding upon every Muslim”

Hamas-linked CAIR claims businessman who died in 1965 refuted Robert Spencer

Wars, Past, Present and Future

/in , , , /by

No, Pearl Harbor is not ancient history. It’s part of my history and many others who were alive at the time. I was just an infant, but the Japanese sneak attack on our Hawaii naval base led to early memories of being on trains filled with young soldiers, many of whom did not live to return home.

The attack was on December 7, 1941 and a day later in a speech to Congress, Franklin Delano Roosevelt called it a “date that will live in infamy.” War was declared on Japan and on Germany. Four years later both enemy nations were conquered, largely due to America’s capacity to gear up to provide everything our armed forces needed. It was won, too, because it was a war to protect freedom from authoritarian, anti-Democracy enemies.

A new book, “Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn”, has been published by the Rand Corporation that describes itself as a “research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, health and more prosperous.” It was formed after World War II to connect military planning with research and development decisions. It is an independent, non-profit organization. The study looks at eight strategic blunders.

As David C. Gompert, the lead author of the book and senior fellow at Rand, said, “Leaders who blunder into war tend to have unwarranted confidence in their ability to script the future and control events. They favor information, analysis, and advisors that confirm their beliefs over those that contradict them. In essence, blinders cause blunders.”

While Americans are still debating whether we should have gone to war in Iraq in 2003 or whether our troops should have been withdrawn by 2011, the cold fact of Islamic aggression has seen President Obama reintroduce and increase our “boots on the ground.” Enemies cannot be ignored. At best they can be “contained” until, like the former Soviet Union, they collapse or change in some fashion. Assuming, as our current negotiations with Iran suggest, that they do not harbor extremely dangerous intentions can be fatal.

The authors of the Rand study call Japan’s decision to bomb Pearl Harbor “a blunder of the highest order.” It followed a succession of decisions the Japanese leadership, largely military, had made to invade China and southern Indonesia in the quest to secure the oil and raw materials it needed for its industrial sector. They saw themselves as a people superior to others in Asia and the world. As Herbert Feis, the author of “The Road to Pearl Harbor” wrote, “The Japanese people came to believe that the extension of their control over this vast region was both natural and destined.”

World War II had its roots in the sanctions meted out to Japan and Germany after World War I. In Japan’s case, its invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937 put the U.S. on guard and produced sanctions that included halting exports of scrap iron, steel, and aviation fuel, as well as arms, ammunition, and critical raw materials. The U.S. began to build up its naval forces as well. It was a good decision.

AA - Pearl Harbor HeadlinesThe attack on Pearl Harbor sealed Japan’s fate. “On December 7, 1941, Yamamoto, commander of the carrier task force north of Hawaii, order the attack. Two waves of Japanese aircraft, 353 in total, damaged all eight battleships in Pearl Harbor. Four were sunk, two of which were raised eventually. Six of the eight returned to service later in the war.”

“Significantly, the three U.S. aircraft carriers were at sea on routine maneuvers. No U.S. submarines were destroyed. A third wave of attack was not ordered by Yamamoto due to fuel shortage; consequently, facilities such as dry docks, ammunition dumps, power stations, and fuel storage facilities were not destroyed…Despite the tragic losses, Pearl Harbor and most of its fleet were able to recover fairly quickly.”

The Japanese leaders had seriously misunderstood Americans. “America instantly took a war footing. Six months later, at Midway, Japan sought to finish off the American carriers. Instead, aided by code breaking and some luck, planes from three U.S. carriers sank four of the six Japanese carriers that had struck Pearl Harbor.”

The arrogance and miscalculations of the Japanese leadership led to the loss of 2.3 million of their people, the firebombing of its major cities, the invasion of Okinawa, and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs.

The Rand study has lessons for America today. “Japan saw the United States as having weak will and capability. The U.S. military had been allowed to deteriorate over a twenty-year period; isolationism and neutrality reflected America’s interwar mood.”

Today, our military is as small or smaller than it was at the beginning of World War II. A President elected on the promise to remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is having second thoughts, but is emptying out our detention center in Guantanamo, returning its inmates to the battlefield in the Middle East. After six years in office, he is about to appoint his fourth Secretary of Defense.

We have been in a state of war with Islamic fascists since even before September 11, 2001. They have even declared themselves to be the Islamic State.

There have been three generations of Americans born since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and that is time enough for many of them to either never have learned or to have forgotten the lessons of that event. The Obama administration has done everything in its power to deflect any anger toward the Muslim fanatics killing people in the name of their holy war. We are constantly warned against “Islamophobia.”

To avoid a sneak attack, you have to know who your enemy is and why. Despite a previous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, we let down our guard. We cannot do that again for a very long time to come.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of DW4Me.me.

Profiling: Sin or Survival Instinct

/in , , , , /by

It was after dark. I was taking a short cut to the convenience store through an alley. Ahead of me, a middle-aged white woman was walking down a side street and started to enter the alley. Upon realizing that I would be walking behind her, she made a quick turn out of the alley. Once inside the convenience store, I saw the woman come in. We were headed to the same destination, but she chose to take a different route.

As a black man, should I be offended for being racially profiled? Well guess what? The night before, a late night craving sent me headed to the convenience store down that same alley. A block away, I saw a white guy as he began to enter the alley. He and I would eventually cross paths. I immediately did a quick turn out of the alley. It was late and dark, without another single soul in sight.

Common sense dictated that I not unnecessarily put myself in a vulnerable situation. The white woman who chose to change her direction made the same wise decision. Does that make us both racists? No. It means we both used our brains and instincts to protect ourselves.

And yet, liberals who are obsessed with political correctness absurdly condemn such street-smart judgments, declaring them racial profiling and racist.

The reality is profiling is normal, expected and necessary. People dress to create their desired image/profile. For example: Stockbrokers wear suits to create a profile of trustworthiness. Hookers dress that they may be profiled as open for business. Gang members wear various colors and styles of apparel to specify their gang affiliation.

And yet, liberals expect us to ignore all signals sent out by people that telegraph who they are. Liberals are nuts.

I remember a horrific incident that happened in a white upscale neighborhood in Maryland. Three young black men were walking wearing gangster style apparel. Clearly, the men were out of place. Residents chose not to call security for fear of being called racist. The thugs hijacked a mom’s car, dragged her clinging to the door during their get-a-way and threw her toddler in the back seat out the window. If only political correctness had not prevented residents from following common sense and their instincts.

A Hispanic co-worker of mine was mugged while walking down a street in Baltimore by a bunch of gangster-attired black guys. My co-worker admitted that he was caught off guard because his mind was elsewhere. Had he been paying attention, he would have profiled the gang as they walked towards him and crossed over to the other side of the street. Liberals would call my co-worker a racist.

As a visual and musical artist (singer/songwriter) my appearance (signature hat and braid) is a bit distinctive. Add in the fact that I am black, and people assume I am liberal. Well, 90% of the time, their assumption/profile of people presenting themselves like me would be correct. The public is only using experience and common sense to read the messaging of who I am based on how I choose to present myself. Rather than scolding people for profiling me incorrectly, it is my responsibility to inform people that while my appearance reflects my artistic nature, I am a proud to be an American, and a Ronald Reagan conservative.

My wife has noticed that men relate to her more respectfully when she is wearing heels and a dress than when she is attired in flat shoes and jeans. When she is dressed, doors are held open for her and so on. A black male wearing a suit and tie is perceived differently than a black male with his cap turned around backwards and his pants worn below his butt. This is not racism. It is common sense, a logical response to how people present themselves.

Like many other liberal politically correct sacred cows, profiling is another item on their list that liberals bully us and demand that we go brain-dead. They decree that profiling of any kind is unacceptable — deemed racist, sexist and homophobic.

The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks have been committed by Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18-35. And yet, such men wearing Islamic apparel breeze pass TSA at the airport, due to hypersensitivity against profiling. Meanwhile, an old white-haired Caucasian grandmother confined to a wheel chair is all but strip searched by TSA.

I realize that liberals are going to have a cow over what I am about to say. Profiling is a necessary God-given survival instinct.

As a black man, if I wandered into a setting in which everyone is wearing white sheet hoods and robes, it would be prudent to profile them quickly and get the heck out of there. It would also be unwise to quote Cleavon Little in the movie, Blazing Saddles: “Where the white women at?”