Tag Archive for: ISIS

The ISIS Bucket Challenge

Raising awareness, one drop at a time.


The ISIS Bucket Challenge: A life-saving activity involving dumping buckets of piss on the heads of Western pacifists with “Coexist” bumper stickers to raise their awareness about them actually having those heads, at least until ISIS shows up and chops them off.

Fake Biden is a RACIST

Offline

Biden Uses ‘Take Back America’ Phrase Obama And Holder Think is Racist

America’s National Treasure, Joe Biden has been replaced!

Federal policy on safety and consumption of marshmallows

Offline

Government publishes detailed instructions on how to safely roast marshmallows

Unrest in the Middle East, terrorism, immigration, healthcare, unemployment, Rethuglikkan gridlock, none of this is interesting, especially when Dear Leader is developing a dangerous hook with his 3 wood, but the citizens and new immigrant guests can rest easy this Labor Day weekend knowing that the Federal Government has pooled its talents and established policy in the best interest of the Children™.

USSA Citizens Ordered to Stop Using Pinkies

Offline

pinkie3.jpg

Socialist Democrat Party officials today announced that all Citizens of the USSA must, beginning next Tuesday, refrain from using their ‘pinkie’ fingers while holding objects.Following the example of Comrade Party Chairman Barack Barackovich Obama, citizens are to either curl the pinkie finger or lift it sufficiently so as not to make contact with any objects being grasped. For those workers and peasants having difficulty understanding the concept, they are ordered to visualize ‘playing tea’ with a five-year-old girl… indefinitely.

Those ‘Dead Americans’ in the Cali-Fate of Feckless Funk


From the desk of our friend Marion DS Dreyfus With a modicum of sociological parsing, can anyone doubt what the gangsta rappers and career losers bouncing to Syria and Islamic State “to fight” for these beasts of intransigent death are really after? Let’s see…

Defeat ISIS in the comfort of your own home

A three-step political fantasy to protect Americans and help Islam finally to become a religion of peace


President Obama’s White House statement on Aug. 28 was clear on two things: “ISIS must be defeated” and “we don’t have a strategy yet.”

With this in mind, let me offer a modest proposal that requires no military escalation, no additional defense spending, and no sacrifice of the American troops in the Middle East.

Solution to the immigration issue

Offline
ISIS_Nidal_Hassan.jpg
The issue of undocumented voters pouring across the southern border has a simple solution: brought to Party attention – from of all places – death row, Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas.

Obama to Create Five Year Plan for Iraq in 5 Years

Offline

The White Fortress has announced that it will be unveiling a new Five-Year Plan for dealing with matters in Iraq in five years.

Without strategy there will be no war

Offline


Our Dear Leader takes action against war on ISIS in a preemptive neutrality. No strategy means no war right?

The Times: Pavlovian Technology at Work in Newsrooms


The Internationalist Information Services Office #19 (commonly known as the The Times of Londonabad) is now using cutting edge technology based on the scientific discoveries of Comrade Ivan Pavlov to increase productivity.

Major League Goofball

Offline

Social Media To Be Monitored and Cleansed by Party


The National Socialist Science Foundation has contributed nearly a million People’s Dollars to Indiana Workers’ University for the development of a new program to eliminate bourgeois thought from Social Media.

The New York Times Censors anti-ISIS ad

The New York Times will publish the most awful Abu Ghraib photos but will not publish a picture of an ISIS terrorist holding a knife standing alongside an American.

Rabbi Shmuley

Rabbi Shmuel “Shmuley” Boteach, “America’s rabbi.”

This World – The Values Network founder Rabbi Shmuley in an email states:

‘America reinforces its values and thus its security by being transparent about even the worst abuses of those values, not by hiding the evidence deep in a file drawer.”

This sentence is from a New York Times editorial of August 30, 2014. The editorial was written in response to a decision by Federal district court Judge Alvin Hellerstein forcing the Obama administration to justify why it will not release approximately 2,000 photos that allegedly document abuse by the American military and investigators in Iraq and Afghanistan, which begs the question of why The New York Times forced us to remove a photograph of a hooded ISIS executioner holding a knife while standing by American journalist James Foley. We were forced to remove the photograph and replace it with one without a knife in order to have the ad appear this Tuesday in the Times.

Why did the Times condemn the American government for trying to suppress images of alleged abuse on the part of the American military, while it seeks to suppress the horrors of the world’s most monstrous terrorist organization, which decapitates Americans? But even that was a lot better than The Los Angeles Times that demanded the removal also of a second image which depicted Hamas terrorists standing alongside hooded “collaborators” which they were about to execute. The Telegraph in London demanded the same in order for the ad to be published.

Even The Wall Street Journal demanded the picture with the knife be replaced.

Here is the ad that the New York Times refused to publish:

SHMU-ISIS-NYT

For a larger view click on the image.

ABOUT RABBI SHMUEL “SHMULEY” BOTEACH

Rabbi Shmuel “Shmuley” Boteach, “America’s rabbi,” whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America,” is the founder of This World: The Values Network, the world’s leading organization promoting universal Jewish values in politics, culture and the media. The international best-selling author of 30 books, he has recently published Kosher Lust: Love is Not the Answer. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

The Ethics of Fighting with Terrorists

The United States is supporting, funding, and arming “terrorists.” Not through back channels, middlemen, Swiss bank accounts or CIA covert operations, but openly and publicly. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was designated as a foreign terrorist organization on October 8, 1997 by the U.S. Department of State after thirteen years of insurgency, including bombing attacks and kidnappings, against Turkish military personnel and citizens. Aside from its use of terrorist tactics, the PKK found itself on the wrong side of the strategically crucial alliance between the United States and Turkey. Now, however, the United States is actively supporting the PKK rebels in their fight against the Islamic State (IS). Additionally, the United States is arming the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) to combat IS; these two political parties were classified as “Tier III” terrorist organizations for their role in the armed uprising against Saddam Hussein in the 1990s, although Senator John McCain introduced a Senate amendment last November to have these groups removed from the terror list.

For months now, news headlines have updated the world on the Islamic State’s terrifyingly swift march through Iraq, as militants captured the major cities of Tikrit and Mosul and approached Baghdad and Erbil, where the United States retains military bases. Thousands, most notably the Christians of Mosul and the Yazidis trapped on the Sinjar Mountains, have been slaughtered or forced to flee their homes by IS militants. The Iraqi army failed to stop the onslaught of the Islamic State, even after the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters joined forces with them. But now, IS’s conquests have temporarily stalled in Iraq, due largely to the guerrilla fighters of the PKK, who have allied with the Peshmerga, their long-time rivals, to take back the Mosul dam with the aid of U.S. air strikes. This is good news for the embattled Iraqis and for the United States, which has suffered a loss of international respect for failing to intervene in the civil war and protect persecuted religious minorities sooner. However, these new Kurdish allies may create a legal problem for the United States concerning its terrorism laws.

A Troubled History

The U.S. government has a history of arming controversial rebel groups, beginning with its global mission to prevent the spread of communist ideology in the aftermath of World War II and continuing in the late 20th and early 21st centuries with groups fighting against Islamic extremists and dictators. Major operations include those in Honduras, Chile, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and now Iraq.

Some of the most infamous rebel groups to receive U.S. support were the Contras, groups of guerrilla fighters working to overthrow the communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. In 1981, the Reagan Administration began financing and arming the rebels. This policy became controversial, not only because of the entanglement in the Iran-Contra Affair, but also because the Contras allegedly engaged in serious and frequent human rights abuses, including attacking and murdering non-combatant civilians, according to Human Rights Watch. Unsurprisingly, the Contras were never listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, but under current U.S. law, the group likely warranted the designation; 18 U.S. Code § 2331 defines “international terrorism” as:

violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Around the same time, on the other side of the world, the United States was arming another group of rebel fighters—the mujahideen of Afghanistan. Beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s until the collapse of the Soviet Union, mujahideen fighters received weapons and training from the CIA to push back Soviet forces and topple the communist government in Kabul. Unlike the U.S.-backed Contras, the mujahideen successfully drove out the Soviets, and liberated Afghanistan from communism. The ideology that succeeded this regime was even worse.

Dealing with the Consequences

From the U.S.-trained and -armed mujahideen sprung Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, responsible for the 9/11 attacks and deaths of more than 2,200 American soldiers and an estimated 20,000 Afghan civilians in the ground war in Afghanistan. A similarly dangerous and potentially more deadly situation is now unfolding with the Islamic State. Stalling in Iraq, IS has turned its attention to a renewed offensive in northern Syria, using U.S. Humvees captured from the faltering Iraqi army to transport militants and weapons across the border. Armed with American weapons, IS has increased its fighting capabilities and emboldened its fighters, which has added the brutal and tragic beheading of American journalist James Foley to its death toll.

While airstrikes in Iraq have been instrumental in the pushback against IS, President Obama has yet to authorize additional strikes in Syria; for now, America’s solution to the carnage wrought by IS is largely to fight terrorists with other terrorists. It goes without saying that IS must be stopped as quickly and effectively as possible. With an estimated 20,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, the PKK are by far the most experienced and well-trained group to lead a counter-ground attack against IS in northern Iraq and Syria, especially with American air support. After three decades of insurgency with Turkey, PKK rebels are battle-tested and well organized, whereas the Peshmerga and other Kurdish fighters have far less experience and have proven unable to take IS head on. The PKK’s support of besieged minorities and civilians against IS has spurred a lobbying effort in the United States to have the group taken off the State Department’s terrorist organization list. Since a cease-fire agreement with Turkey in March of 2013, the PKK has largely aborted the use of terrorist tactics; however, the group has launched several attacks against Turkish security forces in recent weeks, which could undermine peace negotiations and the recent attempt to declassify it as a terrorist organization.

Fighting in the Grey

It is difficult to determine whether the Contras should have been designated as a terrorist group or whether the United States should have been more cautious about arming the Afghan mujahideen; even hindsight isn’t 20/20. Supporting the PKK may well turn out to be a brilliant strategic move if it leads to the destruction of IS. Nonetheless, in this moment, the PKK is a terrorist organization, and that may put the United States government in a legally grey area. 18 U.S. Code § 2339B states, “Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

This section of the law would seemingly prohibit the United States from supporting the PKK, but a later section of the same law states, “No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term ‘personnel’, ‘training’, or ‘expert advice or assistance’ if the provision of that material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization was approved by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Attorney General. The Secretary of State may not approve the provision of any material support that may be used to carry out terrorist activity.” This is the exception. As long as the “material support” provided by the United States is not used in a terrorist act, the U.S. government, with approval from both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, can support foreign terrorist groups. Currently, the PKK is working to defeat IS; killing armed combatants is a legitimate act of war, not terrorism, so it seems that the United States is not acting illegally. However, there is a possibility that arms provided indirectly to the PKK through the Iraqi army and other Kurdish groups could eventually be turned against Turkish security forces and civilians, the latter of which would be an act of terror against a U.S. ally.

A Country Without a Moral Conscious?

What do these situations and potential scenarios mean for U.S. terrorism laws? The point is not whether the United States might entangle itself in grey areas of the laws concerning terrorism; it likely already has. The real question is, do these laws hold any weight? Do they have anything meaningful to contribute to the country’s foreign policy principles and decisions? The United States has chosen not to label groups as terrorist organizations if it is politically inconvenient or would get in the way of a greater policy objective; it provides funding and arms to rebel groups it cannot control, and who have often turned against the United States at a later date; most recently, it is using terrorists to fight other terrorists. If not illegal, this part of American history at least presents a moral predicament, one that we are actively dealing with in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq. Laws are fundamentally impositions of morality on society, but if the laws we write do not create a guiding moral framework, and instead allow us to do what is most convenient, expedient, or politically popular in the moment without serious regard to a higher set of common ethical principles, then where does a secular society based on the rule of law derive its morality from?

Last year, President Obama, now infamously, said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria constituted a moral red line that, once crossed, would result in severe consequences for the Assad regime. This ended up being an empty threat when proposed airstrikes against Syrian military targets failed to gain support on either side of the aisle in Congress. The decisions that need to be made regarding policy in Middle East are complicated, and they are rarely black or white. But that is the entire point of having a strong set of moral principles—you stick to them even when the choices are difficult or unpopular, or when cutting corners might be easier. The question is, what set of moral principles does the United States have, and do its leaders have the backbone to uphold them?

EDITORS NOTE: Featured image source: ntvmsnbc.com.

“Shock and Flaw”

Not a week goes by without our work at HJS turning out to be ever more prescient and ever more disconcertingly necessary. Sometimes it is our work on Russia and other autocratic states. Sometimes – and never more so than in recent months – it is our work on Islamic extremism, its causes, proponents and the possible answers to it.

The murder of an American citizen by a British subject would always be a cause of shame and horror. But never could it have been more shameful or horrific than in the murder of the American journalist James Foley this week. Everyone is shocked – David Cameron is shocked, the leaders of the opposition are shocked. But shock is not enough, and nor is horror or outrage. We are all capable of feeling that and all do. The question for political leaders is what they are going to do about it.

To date, the political reaction in Britain has been woeful. The normally hawkish former Security Minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones was reduced to advocating more ‘tweeting’ to extremists from Britain in Syria. The shadow Home Secretary was reduced to complaining about the coalition government’s watering-down of Control Orders into ‘TPIMs’. Nothing could have been more grossly partisan or inept. Even if the very slightly watered-down ‘TPIMs’ were turned back into Control Orders immediately it could have had no impact on the life or death of James Foley.

So the paucity of debate is striking. Our political leaders remain strangely fearful of trying to answer the problem that we are all now aware of and increasingly concerned by. But that gap of political leadership will at some point have to be filled. And that is one of the areas where The Henry Jackson Society is able to tread. Because we have been ahead of the curve in identifying this problem, we are also in a good position to be ahead of the curve in providing the answers to it.

Obama’s No-Win Dilemma

Most of the nation states of the Middle East, as we know them today, were created in 1916 by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, otherwise known as the Asia Minor Agreement, between Britain and France. The states created include Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. In that agreement, national boundaries were drawn without regard to sects, Shiite or Sunni, and without regard to tribes or clans, setting up an explosive mixture of religious animosities.

After the creation of Iraq and Syria, the French and British drew a line from the Mediterranean due east to Mount Hermon. North of that line, the French created a coastal nation, largely Christian, called Lebanon. While south of that line, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, the British created a coastal Arab nation which they called Palestine. The territory south of Iraq and east of the Jordan River was divided between two Arab tribes that were allied with the British during World War I, but who didn’t care much for each other. The Sauds were given a large tract of land called Arabia… hence Saudi Arabia… while the Hashemites were given a much smaller territory east of the Jordan River, which they named Trans-Jordan… now Jordan. Thus, six nations were created between the Mediterranean and the Tigris, and south of Turkey. These six nations became seven when the United Nations created Israel in 1947.

As might be expected, the many disparate religious sects found it difficult to occupy the same territory and chaos reigned for most of the next century. For example, in early August we learned that some 40,000 Yazidis, a minority religious sect, had taken refuge on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. Their choices were to either stay on the mountain, short of food and water, or they could descend the mountain and be slaughtered by terrorists of the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). The Yazidis were aware that ISIS forces were beheading children elsewhere in Iraq, so rather than risk that terrible fate, many families killed their own children by throwing them off the mountain. Within a week of that report, Yazidi women were also found to be leaping to their death from the mountain rather than face being captured, raped, and sold into slavery.
In other reports, hundreds of Shiite soldiers of the Iraqi military were captured, executed, and buried in mass graves… some of them while still alive. These were the same ISIS jihadists who recently posted a YouTube video showing American newsman James Foley being beheaded by his captors. According to best estimates, some 191,000 people in Syria and Iraq have lost their lives in sectarian fighting since March 2011.

A strong case can be made that the map created in 1916 is now being redrawn through force of arms, and that what is now occurring in the region represents nothing more than a realignment of national boundaries, consistent with religious convictions and backed by the use of terror and military might. It is a struggle in which western powers find it difficult to decide who’s who without a scorecard, or to find any clear national interest amidst all the violence.

It is into this maelstrom of warring factions that the United States and its coalition partners waded in 2003 to depose the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, foolishly believing that the many warring states and factions could be defeated, pacified, or managed. To paraphrase an old Mark Russell line, “Their plan was to make the Shiites and the Sunnis act like Christians.”

What they should have understood, but didn’t, is that no amount of bombing and no amount of ground forces can win a war against the forces of Islam… in the same sense that Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II. The best we can ever hope to accomplish is to contain the forces of Islam in their home countries and to do whatever is necessary to protect our homeland from ISIS-style atrocities. So whatever “strategy” Obama ultimately decides on, it must have an international component and a domestic component… neither of which involve military power.

For example, what few Americans understand about the James Foley video is that it was far more than an unspeakably grisly scene; rather, it was a political statement intended for American audiences as a means of terrorizing them, frightening them into putting anti-war pressure on Congress and the Obama administration.

Even the normally clueless New York Times appears to have recognized the “information warfare” subtleties of the Foley video. In a story dated August 30, the Times reported that, “ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, is using every contemporary mode of messaging to recruit fighters, intimidate enemies, and promote its claim to have established a caliphate, a unified Muslim state run according to a strict interpretation of Islamic law. If its bigotry and beheadings seem to come from a distant century, its use of media is up to the moment.” As crude and cruel as the beheadings were, the video message is proof that radical Islam is far more adept at the use of modern communications than any western power, including the United States.

So why does the United States, the most powerful and resourceful nation on Earth, not have a sophisticated information warfare, or SOFTWAR, capability to use against radical Islam? Why has the Obama administration not spread the word throughout the Muslim world, covertly, that members of ISIS are not good Muslims? Instead, they engage in Hirabah (prohibited war against society), and that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a Mufsidoon (an evil-doer condemned by the Koran). Why are we not spreading the word throughout Islam that those who follow al-Baghdadi and ISIS will surely suffer Jahannam (eternal hell fire) unless they repent?

While ISIS is experiencing some success in Syria and Iraq, they should not deceive themselves that the caliphate they are establishing can ever encompass any major portion of the western world. Aside from protecting the lives of U.S. citizens who live and work in the Middle East, our primary national interest is in seeing to it that they do not establish a foothold on our shores.

So, as sympathetic as I may be to any dilemma that might cause Barack Obama some sleepless nights, I understand that no amount of conventional military power will stop the ISIS onslaught in that region of the world. Any time we spend debating whether or not to commit military forces against ISIS, or how much, is wasted time. Instead, we should be spending our time thinking in terms of how to discredit radical jihadists throughout the Muslim world through the skillful use of information technology, and how we might protect our American homeland. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has recently warned, “If we ignore (ISIS), I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month.” We simply cannot allow that to happen and military power is not the answer.

Instead, we must make the Muslim presence here so unpleasant that they will long for a return to whatever hellhole they came from. To do that, we must make membership or participation in any organization advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government a major criminal offense. In the spirit of Eisenhower’s signing statement as he signed the Communist Control Act of 1954, we must resolve that, “The American people are determined to eliminate from their midst organizations which, purporting to be “religious,” in the accepted sense of that term, are conspirators dedicated to the destruction of our form of government by violence and force…”

To accomplish that end, the Congress should take immediate steps to amend Section 2 of the Communist Control Act of 1954 to read as follows:

The Congress hereby finds and declares that Islam, although purportedly a religious sect, is in fact an instrumentality of a foreign conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to individuals of other religious denominations, but denying to all others the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution…

As a segment of the U.S. population, Islam is relatively small numerically and gives scant indication of its capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political means. The peril inherent in the existence of Islam arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence. Holding that doctrine, its role as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of Islam, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the organization known as Islam shall be outlawed in the United States.

With that statute on the books we can make it very uncomfortable for radical Islamists. With eyes and ears planted in every mosque in America, radical Imams such as Anwar al-Awlaki could be quickly exposed and FBI agents could be on the scene within hours to make arrests.

An old adage tells us that “the enemy of my friend is my enemy,” but, as much as that adage has been applicable throughout history, it does not apply in the Middle East today. Recent events in that part of the world should be enough to convince us that the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. Other than Israel, we have no “friends” in the Middle East; there are only enemies and potential enemies.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said, “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.” Will Barack Obama be wise enough to take that advice? We shall see.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of pedestrians waiting at a trolley stop in Oslo, Norway in front of a sign of Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama Wednesday December 9, 2009. Source: AP.

Is it time for a Free World ‘intifada’ against the Islamic State?

jan sobieski king of poland

King Jan Sobieski of Poland.

As the world remembers the 13th anniversary of the attack on September 11, 2001 perhaps it is time to remember another September 11th. This September 11th occurred three-hundred thirty-one years ago in 1683.

Walter Leitsch in History Today wrote:

[I]n the summer of 1683, the main army of the Ottoman Empire, a large and well-equipped force, besieged Vienna. The town was nearing the end of its ability to resist: but just as the capture of Vienna was becoming only a matter of time – not more than a week away, at most – an army came to its rescue [on September 11th]. On September 12th, in an open battle before Vienna, the Ottoman army was defeated, and the city escaped pillage and destruction. There is probably no book on the general history of Europe that does not record these events.

The Chief Commander of the army that rescued Vienna was the Polish King, Jan Sobieski. He brought with him about 23,000 soldiers, without whom the combined forces of the Emperor and the Imperial princes were not have ventured an open battle. It was only the combination of all three that made victory possible.

Read more.

Perhaps it is now time for another alliance made up of members of the free world to take a stand against the Islamic State. Is it time for an “intifada” (uprising) against those who are spreading violence globally? But who will lead this army?

In 1683 the world was looking for a leader. The major world leaders at the time did not see the danger of the Ottoman Empire. They were so focused on their petty political intrigues and infighting to notice the real threat. Europeans were tired of the fighting that occurred during the Hundred Years’ War, a series of conflicts waged from 1337 to 1453 pitting the House of Plantagenet, rulers of the Kingdom of England, against the House of Valois for control of the Kingdom of France.

It was Jan Sobieski, the King of Poland, who stepped up and took on the Ottoman Army. Who is today’s Jan Sobieski?

Leitsch notes:

The battle of Vienna was a turning point in one further respect: the success was due to the co-operation between the troops of the Emperor, some Imperial princes and the Poles. In previous wars against the Ottoman Empire the German princes had frequently sent auxiliary troops; even Italian princes and the Pope had occasionally sent troops and funds. However the co-operation between the two non-maritime neighbours of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, the Emperor and Poland, was something new.

Since the Ottoman Empire had become a menace to the Christian lands in East-Central Europe both countries had repeatedly tried to ensure they received help from the other in case of danger. All their efforts to build up a common defence against the Ottoman Empire remained unsuccessful.

This inability of two states under the same threat to unite was due first of all to the military superiority of the Ottoman Empire. Even the combined forces of the German Habsburgs and the Poles were not necessarily superior to the Ottoman forces. This made any such campaign a risky affair. [Emphasis added]

The free world, the West, must unite once again or ISIS will not stop until it reaches the gates of Vienna.

Defeat ISIS in the comfort of your own home

A three-step political fantasy to protect Americans and help Islam finally to become a religion of peace.

President Obama’s White House statement on Aug. 28 was clear on two things: “ISIS must be defeated” and “we don’t have a strategy yet.”

With this in mind, let me offer a modest proposal that requires no military escalation, no additional defense spending, and no sacrifice of the American troops in the Middle East.

The president has already recognized the beheading of an American journalist as a terrorist attack on the United States and is said to be considering all options to protect Americans from the ISIS threat reaching the U.S. So let’s take him at his own word and propose that his list of “all options” should begin with (1) an end to political correctness and (2) a moratorium on pandering to immigrant groups in order to win elections for the Democrats.

Let’s call them Option One and Option Two. Like it or not, they must be in place before the president can even begin to think about protecting our borders and profiling terrorists at the airports in order to prevent any of the 3,000 members of ISIS who have U.S. or European passports from slipping into America, where they know they have an extensive and well-funded support base.

Which brings us to Option Three: extinguish their support base inside the U.S.

Limited airstrikes overseas have only limited benefits. Under the circumstances, it is similar to shooting at one tentacle of a global monster whose other tentacles have long ago worked their way into America and are recognized by the U.S. government as legitimate entities.

Terrorism in itself is never a goal, but rather a means in the arsenal of an entity whose other means include media, economic, cultural, and political manipulations that can bring down our society more effectively than terrorism alone.

It is this entity than needs to be killed, and here’s how the president can do it if he is really serious.

Let Obama continue praising Islam as a constitutionally protected religion of peace. At the same time he must outlaw Sharia, stripping this pseudo-religious practice of the First Amendment protection. The president must honestly and officially acknowledge that Sharia is, in fact, a hostile, supremacist political ideology of total domination in a purely physical, not spiritual realm.

Let me explain.

How would you like to live in a world ruled by an unelected dictator, where religious beliefs of one denomination are enforced by the state, while all other beliefs are either forbidden or subject to a heavy taxation. Women are decreed as inferior creatures by the government; they are barred from education and must cover themselves lest they invite legitimate harassment and rape by superior males. Charging interest on a loan is a crime and therefore no one gives loans, at least not openly. Music and alcohol are forbidden, but the penal code includes public amputation of arms and legs, as well as stoning to death.

It will be a world of total conformity where all thought is regimented by a few religious texts, which also regulate your daily activities, from nutrition to personal hygiene. The citizens’ highest duty is to impose their way of life on the outsiders, and the highest virtue is death in the name of these ideals. Questioning these rules is a crime and leaving the state religion means death.

What if you were promised that if you submit to such a political system, you will automatically obtain a superior “member” status with unlimited rights to dominate the inferior “non-members”? And if you were to agree, would you be able to describe your motives as purely spiritual and keep a straight face?

There is a big difference between religion (a system of faith and worship) and political ideology (a blueprint for a certain social order). Not knowing the difference is no excuse, and delusions of grandeur don’t make one the master of the universe.

In order to exercise their supremacy, the “believers” must first build a society based on the above blueprint, with an oppressive state to enforce their “right” to dominate others. This alone blows their religious cover and places their intentions into the realm of utopian political ideologues. Their inability to create a functioning civilization with a full set of the above rules has been a source of frustration, resentment, and violent outbursts throughout the centuries.

The latest attempts include the Taliban in Afghanistan, Boko Haram in Nigeria, and most recently the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) who, in spite of their “religious” name, are driven by a very earthly goal of forcing everyone, through mass murder and terror, to submit to their supremacy. In this, they enjoy a broad support of “true believers” worldwide, who flock to the Islamic State from all corners of the earth, hoping to get their piece of the pie in the Utopian totalitarian theocracy they call the Caliphate.

In this and other scenarios, Sharia has always served as a blueprint for a brutal supremacist theocracy. Given that the White House has rejected the word “Islamism” because it might give Islam a bad name, why not actually help Islam save face and declare all past bad behavior to be the result of Sharia?

Once dealing with Sharia as a hostile political ideology becomes fair game, this problem can finally get the treatment of the Ebola epidemic that it deserves. Like the Ebola virus, Sharia is lethal and is prone to deadly outbreaks – as seen in New York, London, Madrid, and thousands of other places around the world, taking hundreds of thousands of lives.

Just like Ebola requires careful quarantine, so does Sharia. Think of the Boston Marathon bombing as a Sharia outbreak. Think of the Fort Hood shooting as a Sharia outbreak. Once the culprit is known and isolated, it will only be a matter of time before all the hot spots are identified, quarantined, and extinguished.

Once the United States rids itself of the Sharia virus, others will follow, leaving fewer and fewer host bodies for Sharia to incubate and destroy.

In case anyone would rush to judgment and label this modest proposal “Islamophobic,” consider that the official separation of Islam-the-religion from Sharia-the-totalitarian-ideology would benefit the proverbial peaceful and law-abiding Muslims in more ways than pandering to Islamic radicals ever could. With Sharia out of the way, Islam can finally have a chance to become a religion of peace in real life and not only in the speeches of double-speaking clerics and politicians.

The Democrats are known for their amazing skills to turn crises into opportunities. The ISIS crisis may not have been intentional, but here’s a real opportunity to not let it go to waste – without leaving the comfort of the Oval Office or a golf course as the case may be.

Let’s face it: a Republican president would never be able to do any of this effectively, lacking the support of the media and the cultural establishment. President Obama, on the other hand, is the darling of the media, academia, and the arts, which makes him uniquely positioned to employ these options and save the world from the threat of Islamic terrorism once and for all.

If Obama really meant what he said about considering all options, he should be using his phone and his pen right now.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Who’s Who of the Good Guys and Bad Guys in the New Jihad

President Obama’s lack of a strategy to deal with ISIS is ‘grossly negligent’

Amerli Hassan

After his family escaped the ISIS-besieged town of Amerli in northern Iraq, 2-year-old Hassan was wounded in a suicide bombing. His family reportedly died in the blast. (Photo: Courtesy Ali al-Bayati)

President Obama publicly announced with respect to the Islamic State “We don’t have a strategy yet.” This is mind chilling.

The U.S. Commander in Chief just announced to the leaders of the Islamic State they have nothing to fear from the U.S. at this time because we have no strategy to deal with them. To say the least this is a green light for these terrorists to proceed with their murderous rampage.

It is hard to account for Obama’s statement which is a gift to the Islamic State. However there are a number of possibilities:

  1. Obama is pushing off a decision until Congress convenes thereby endangering U.S. security for domestic political reasons and because he is indecisive. This may be a replay of his failure to act against the Assad regime when Obama’s red line was breached and his failure to arm the rebels when it could have made a difference and prevented the emergence of the Islamic State.
  2. In disregard of warnings from high ranking Administration members Obama doesn’t believe the Islamic State is a substantial threat and seeks containment instead of its destruction, but won’t admit it publicly.
  3. To avoid or postpone taking action at this time Obama is lying to the American public when he says that the U.S. has no strategy to deal with or destroy the Islamic State.

In any event President Obama’s public statements gives aid and comfort to the enemy and further distances the U.S. from its allies in the region. If in fact after numerous recommendations from our military and intelligence services the White House has failed to create a strategy against this terrorist organization President Obama and his advisers have been ‘grossly negligent’.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ALERT: UK Terror Threat Raised to ‘Severe’ – ‘Attack Highly Likely’
CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror
Found: The Islamic State’s Terror Laptop of Doom – Buried in a Dell computer captured in Syria are lessons for making bubonic plague bombs and missives on using weapons of mass destruction. – Foreign Policy Magazine
What Leading From Behind Looks Like
Obama: “We don’t have a strategy yet” on the Islamic State
Israel accepted ceasefire without demilitarization of Hamas under U.S. pressure
Islamic jihadists capture 43 UN peacekeepers in Golan Heights
Obama: We Have No Strategy to Fight ISIS; Ukraine Wasn’t Invaded

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

ISIS in America

More Americans are beginning to catch on that there are very evil people who in the name of Islam commit atrocities unimaginable to the human mind. ISIS represents Islam in its purest form. Mohammed would be smiling from ear to ear if he were able to see ISIS carrying out his planned agenda for world domination. For years I have been conducting first-hand research at mosques around the world. For years I have been warning innocent people that Islam in its purest form is being taught in the mosques. Most people have ignored the warnings and blamed the violence on just a few ‘radical Muslims’. Many people continued to believe there are moderate Muslims and Islam is being hijacked.

unnamed (14)

American IS fighter in Syria Douglas McAuthur McCain, 33, has been killed by FSA fighters in Syria. For a larger view click on the image.

In plain terms a moderate Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. They do not exist and these people who claim to be Muslims are actually Apostates of Islam. Indeed they are good people who do not desire physical Jihad and world domination. Nevertheless they are ignoring the true teachings and basic beliefs of the Islamic ideology. These people are subject to death in accordance with Shariah law and groups such as ISIS are fulfilling the deeds of Mohammed. Around the world practicing Muslims are killing men, women and children who have departed from Islamic teachings.

If you were to ask any Islamic scholar they would tell you to faithfully practice Islam you must to the following basic principles:

  1. A Muslim must adhere to all aspects of Shariah law, not just ones they feel like following. The acceptance of Shariah law cannot be separated. It is not a pick and choose system. For those who neglect portions of Shariah law they have left Islam and became Apostates.
  2. A Muslim must have in their heart a desire to engage in physical Jihad in all places and all times. For those who can’t fight they must provide financial and other support to the Mujahadeen (fighters). If they do not have the means to do this, at the very least they must support Jihad in their hearts.
  3. A Muslim must desire a Caliphate. This is for Islam to be the dominate ideology in all parts of the world. You will hear numerous Muslims say this is not true, but basic common sense and Shariah law prove this to be accurate. Does not every Christian desire the world to accept Christianity and follow the beliefs? The same is true for Islam and Muslims.
  4. The basic fundamentals of Islam dictate that slavery is authorized under Shariah law. This is why all of the Islamic terrorist groups kidnap and sell girls into slavery.
  5. The marriage of girls as young as six years old is a standard practice within Islam. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old and all practicing Muslims state that Mohammed is an example for other Muslims to follow, and they do. Child marriages are not only being conducted in the Middle East in the name of Islam, but there are numerous mosques in America that advocate to the Muslim men to marry children.
  6. Shariah law authorizes the Muslim man to beat his wife or wives.
  7.  Shariah law is not compatible with any man-made law and the Islamic ideology declares man-made laws do not have to be followed. Islamic leader’s state Shariah law and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible.
  8. Islam teaches that the Quran and Shariah law are applicable to all, and they can never be changed.
  9. The Islamic ideology teaches that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims are the enemies of Islam.
  10. Islam teaches that the land currently Israel belongs to the Muslim people and Shariah authorizes the destruction of the Israeli state and all Jews.
unnamed (15)

Second image of American IS fighter in Syria Douglas McAuthur McCain. For a larger view click on the image. WARNING GRAPHIC.

Now for the important question. Are ISIS terrorists in America? The best way I can answer that is to advise people not to get wrapped up in the dozens of Islamic acronyms. All of the Islamic terrorist groups follow the 10 points I mentioned above. All practicing Muslims follow the 10 points. Remember non practicing Muslims are apostates of Islam.

This means my analysis is that there are approximately 6 million Muslims in America (no one knows for sure how many). There are around 2300 mosques and Islamic Centers in America. I have been to hundreds of mosques in America and outside of America. I estimate only about 25% of people who identify with Islam are practicing Muslims. This correlates to mean that about 1.5 million Muslims in America practice Islam as Prophet Mohammed dictated 1400 years ago.

When ISIS started rumbling through Iraq they had a couple of thousand people. Soon they had several thousand because the practicing Muslims knew ISIS is the true example of how Islam must be practiced. In America if there are 1.5 million practicing Muslims it is only a matter of time when they feel comfortable and secure about trying to form a caliphate to include America. 1.5 million Islamic terrorists can do a non- recoverable amount of damage to our country. So, yes ISIS and their supporters are operating in America and we will soon be provided proof in the way of isolated terrorist attacks simultaneously all across our great country.

Could our country have survived twenty 9-11 types of attacks being conducted at the same time? Our government was not prepared for even a natural disaster as in New Orleans (hurricane Katrina). We could not withstand several major attacks at the same time. If we don’t stop the Islamic ideology from being spread in America, we will have ISIS and there followers placing a black flag of Jihad at the White House in the near future.

Final Analysis:

The Islamic ideology itself must be destroyed by continuously calling it for what it is…Evil. We must have the vile taste in our mouths when anything Islamic is mentioned, just as we do when anything Hitler is mentioned. He had an ideology and we were able to destroy it. We can do the same in regards to Islam.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of ‘The American’: Abu Muhammad al Amriki pictured earlier this year when he declared himself a follower of ISIS having defected from the Al Nusrah Front. He claims to have lived in America for ’10 or 11 years’ before travelling to Syria. The photo is courtesy of the DailyMail UK.

Why it is important to address this group as “ISIS”, and not “IS”

I know I’ve mentioned this before but one of my favorite songs from the 80’s is “Words” by Missing Persons. The refrain goes:

What are words for when no one listens anymore
What are words for when no one listens
What are words for when no one listens it’s no use talkin’ at all

This week I listened to two Obama administration spokesmen, Josh “Not So” Earnest from the White House, and Rear Admiral Kirby from the Pentagon in relation to the Islamic terrorist army freely operating in Iraq and Syria. These two individuals and many other voices out of the Obama administration refer to them as ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). The group has professed the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and refers to itself as IS (Islamic State). The manner in which we should all be referring to this savage and barbaric group is ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria).

Why should that matter? What are words for?

First, if you choose to refer to this group as ISIL, you have basically rewritten the map of the Middle East and fallen into the trap of not recognizing the existence of Israel and also Lebanon. If you use ISIL you are then validating the Islamic totalitarian and jihadist claim that the modern day Jewish State of Israel is an occupation state and does not exist in the eyes of Muslims.

Need I remind you of the faux pas — or perhaps purposeful use — by then-Obama counter-terrorism advisor John Brennan who, at a Ramadan dinner celebration in the White House, referred to the capital of Israel as Al Quds, not as Jerusalem — what are words for indeed? They convey a certain meaning — just like calling the Ft Hood massacre “workplace violence” and not an Islamic jihadist attack.

Second, if you fall into the trap of referring to this group as IS, you have validated the existence of an Islamic caliphate and through your words lend it recognition and credibility. Some may say, so what? Well, here is the so what: remember when the Clinton administration recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government and even welcomed their Foreign Minister to the White House?

Yeah, well the Taliban welcomed someone into their arms as well. And look what happens when you send your Secretary of State to sit and negotiate a cease fire with Qatar and Turkey — two Islamist-supporting countries — on behalf of a terrorist organization, Hamas . And don’t forget, Barack Hussein Obama’s first phone call as president to an international leader was made to Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen — not exactly a nation-state or world leader. What are words for? They’re for realizing what is a declared and recognized state as opposed to a terrorist organization that doesn’t deserve validation.

Lastly, we need to address this group as ISIS because it is seeking to establish an Islamic state within the borders of two recognized nation-states; Iraq and Syria. ISIS can attempt to break down any borders and not recognize them, but we must. We cannot allow this group to reestablish some 7th century regional caliphate and therefore must fight to reestablish sovereignty.

Now, I would much rather use this crisis as a means to establish something long since needed — a separate country called Kurdistan — but my focus would be on destroying ISIS. There is an opportunity here to truly promote a country where there can be respect and coexistence of Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities. A place that would thoroughly reject the idea of Islamic jihadism and would continue to be a reliable ally of the United States.

It was the dream of Kemal Ataturk to have a secular Muslim country, Turkey, but thanks to the Islamist Recip Tayyip Erdogan, that dream has turned into a nightmare.

So what are words for in this case? They are to properly define your enemy and not allow them to define their goal and objective, which we must reject. However, it does concern me that the Obama administration seems to be embracing the ISIL terminology, which reflects their dismissal of our best ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Am I thinking too deeply in this? Nope. Because America has only been around for 238 years and we fail to realize the nuances of history, language and terminology. During the Clinton administration we didn’t understand the nature of the Balkans and took sides against the Serbians. If we’d studied the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 it would have helped in understanding why the Serbs still harbor angst against Muslims.

In any event, I will continue to say ISIS — and I recommend we all do the same — especially the Obama administration.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Idiotic comments from State Dept: Foley beheading not about the U.S. [VIDEO]

Just a warning. Before you watch this video, make sure you don’t have anything in your mouth.

I’m thinking that when Obama referred to the “JV team” back in January he was talking about his own collection of knuckleheads. I’m amazed you don’t hear more laughing from the press corps when his spokespeople get in front of the cameras. Where did he find this group of cub scouts?

And now the latest from Marie Harf — who infamously claimed that Bergdahl’s platoon mates were lying and had no idea what they were talking about. Take a gander her at comments regarding the beheading of James Foley.

As reported by CNS News, “Deputy State Department spokesperson Marie Harf on Wednesday condemned the beheading of American journalist James Foley by Islamic terrorists, but she also stated that the ISIS threat “is not about the United States and what we do.” Harf spoke after President Obama told the nation that “governments and peoples across the Middle East” should come together in a “common effort to extract this cancer, so that it does not spread.” He then went golfing.”

Ms. Harf, if beheading an American is not about America, then what is it about? Maybe ISIS is upset Germany won the World Cup? Or perhaps ISIS is angry about global warming and how the world community isn’t tackling the situation? No, you’re right, when an American gets beheaded, it has nothing to do with America – even though the beheader himself said it was because of what America has done.

Look, I’m not making this up. Watch the video! But I’m warning you – make sure you don’t have anything in your mouth.

“I think ISIL wants to make this about the United States and our actions. And I think what the President was trying to say was that this is not about the United States and what we do. This is about countries in the region coming together to fight a shared threat, and this is not about us.”

Who the heck is this about when an American is beheaded Ms. Harf? When someone tells you they’re going to kill you, have you choke on your own blood, and blood will flow in your streets, i.e. American streets, it is about YOU, and you can’t dismiss this because you won’t confront the threat. You can’t just wait and “hope” that you can convince others to join you. It is the responsibility of the president of the United States to protect the citizens of the United States and not lead from his own behind.

Regardless of what the enemy expresses, the pursuit of political correctness remains a central theme to the Obama administration. “ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion. The president has been very clear about that, and the more we can underscore that, the better,” Harf said.

Excuse me young lady, these monsters are doing exactly what is commanded to them by Mohammad. Perhaps you should read about the breaking of the Treaty of Hudabiyya, the Battle of the Trenches, or read his letter to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius.

Trust me, if I were ISIS watching American news and these comments by Harf, I’d be totally inspired to swell the ranks of my jihadist fighters and continue to march towards my goals and objectives, because clearly there’s nothing to stop me.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the voice of foreign policy and national security in your federal government – your tax dollars Harf at work. If we can’t do better than this, we are indeed screwed. Folks, in plain southern lexicon, this sucks!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

Real Islamophobes are the American media: jihadist mass murder in U.S. goes unreported

Everyone is focused on ISIS and their horrific actions abroad. But what if there were a series of jihadist murders here in the United States that went virtually unreported by the national media – impossible, right? Not so fast.

As American Uncensored News reports, “For two bloody months, an armed jihadist serial killer ran loose across the country. At least four innocent men died this spring and summer as acts of “vengeance” on behalf of aggrieved Muslims, the self-confessed murderer has now proclaimed.”

“Meet Ali Muhammad Brown. His homicidal Islamic terror spree took him from coast to coast. The 29-year-old career thug admitted to killing Leroy Henderson in Seattle in April; Ahmed Said and Dwone Anderson-Young in Seattle on June 1; and college student Brendan Tevlin, 19, in Essex County, New Jersey, on June 25. Tevlin was gunned down in his family Jeep on his way home from a friend’s house. Ballistics and other evidence linked all the victims to Muhammad Brown. Police apprehended him in July hiding in an encampment near the Watchung Mountains of West Orange, New Jersey.”

So why are we just now learning about this? I know, I’m just a despicable Islamophobe and a fear monger attempting to scare everyone.

I realize all the cultural jihadi apologists just cannot wrap their minds around the simple fact that Islamism is a threat to western civilization and our liberty and freedoms.

Muhammad Brown told investigators that Tevlin’s slaying was a “just kill.” The devout Islamic adherent proclaimed: “My mission is vengeance. For the lives, millions of lives are lost every day.” Echoing jihadist Fort Hood mass killer Nidal Hasan, Muhammad Brown cited Muslim deaths in “Iraq, Syria, (and) Afghanistan” as the catalysts for his one-man Islamic terror campaign. “All these lives are taken every single day by America, by this government. So a life for a life.” When a detective asked him to clarify whether all four murders were “done for vengeance for the actions of the United States in the Middle East,” Muhammad Brown stated unequivocally: “Yes.” He added that he was “just doing (his) small part.”

Four men lost their lives due to a single jihadist — now what if there are 1,000 like Ali Muhammad Brown in America right now? Could there be other instances of jihadist murders occurring in America and not being reported as such? It’s irresponsible to say the least and complicity dangerous at its worst. We continue to dismiss this threat globally and we have a president who refers to it as a JV team. Domestically, we are enslaved to the false gods of political correctness and the cultural jihad enablers who attempt to force us into silence.

Consider the fact that we have a massive media army in Ferguson, Missouri but hardly a peep on this very disturbing series of jihadist murders. At least there has been some news on this out of Seattle, but otherwise it has been muted. America Uncensored goes so far as to say it was completely censored: “(We) did a search on the confessed Muslim mass murder’s name, and CNN has not even mentioned him once, ever.”

Here we have Eric Holder whisking off to Ferguson and talking about opening a “criminal investigation” by the FBI into the beheading of Foley and vowing to bring “justice.” What about the necessity of investigating these horrific murders? How are Holder and the Department of Justice going to track down an armed terrorist army? I wish he’d focus on this case and Obama would declare war against ISIS. Like that’s going to happen.

Islamophobic? That implies a fear of the Islamist threat – seems like that term should apply to our national media, not to me.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. The featured image of Ali Muhammad Brown is courtesy of NWCN.

Americans among 12,000 Muslims from 50 countries waging jihad in Syria

Where did these Americans learn their understanding of Islam? We all know, on pain of charges of “Islamophobia,” that no Muslims in the U.S., none, agree with the Islamic State, or want to bring Sharia Westward, or have any desire to restore the caliphate. None, you greasy Islamophobe. So how did these Americans come to misunderstand Islam? Were they reading “Islamophobic” writings that they mistook for the genuine article?

“Americans among 12,000 foreign fighters in Syria: US,” AFP, August 21, 2014:

Washington (AFP) – Some 12,000 foreign jihadists from 50 countries, including Americans, have gone to fight in Syria since the conflict began, the US State Department said Thursday.

A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, estimated that more than 100 US citizens have traveled or tried to travel to Syria to join the conflict.

They have traveled to join radical groups including the Islamic State (IS), militants fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria who have expanded into neighboring Iraq.

“We think that there are approximately 12,000 fighters from at least 50 countries in Syria — foreign fighters, including a small number of Americans — that may have traveled to Syria since the beginning of the conflict” more than three years ago, said deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.

“They may all not still be there,” she said, without revealing an estimated number of Americans.

US officials have been unable to identify an organized recruitment effort aimed at US citizens, as is the case in Europe.

Washington has publicly stated that Western fighters pose an especially dangerous risk, especially when they return to their countries of origin.

In late September, President Barack Obama is scheduled to host a Security Council summit with other heads of state focusing on the acute threat posed by foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq.

During his August 12 visit to Sydney, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Washington and Australia agreed to take concerns about the threat posed by jihadist foreign fighters in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to the United Nations.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

California: Black convert to Islam killed waging jihad for ISIS in Syria
Hagel: Islamic State “an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else”
Islamic State threatens jihad mass murder attack in Chicago
Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad: “Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and security”
Kentucky Catholic church paints ن on door in solidarity with Christians persecuted by Islamic State

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of demonstrators chant pro-al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as they wave al-Qaida flags in front of the provincial government headquarters in Mosul, 225 miles (360 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, June 16, 2014. (AP).

CAIR: A Shocking Textbook Expert on Peace and Religion

Why is the above image wrong?  Let us count the ways.

1. The quote does not come from the Council on American Islamic Relation (CAIR). It does not even come from a press release. It comes from a fatwa issued by the Fiqh Council of North America at a press conference convened by CAIR. The press release, dated a day earlier, did not contain any such line.

2. CAIR is not a religious authority. It is an activist and advocacy group. In fact, in that press release, CAIR described itself as, “America’s largest Muslim civil rights group.” Educational material should not use advocacy groups as authorities, let alone as experts on religious interpretation. Perhaps the textbook should have quoted a Muslim religious scholar or just explained that the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa on this issue. Maybe the authors thought that using the correct terminology would be scary or confusing. But that would be kind of bigoted, wouldn’t it?

3. Neither the quote provided in the text nor the full fatwa actually validate the textbook’s claim that “people may mistakenly think that Islam encourages violence.” This fatwa does call on Muslims to refrain from violence against civilians, including terrorism. But it does not state anything about the religion encouraging or not encouraging other forms of violence, such as against militaries.

And finally…

4. No one should listen to CAIR on the issue of peace. The organization simply is not credible. If you are wondering what we mean about this, just look up the following phrases together: CAIR, unindicted co-conspirator, joint venturer, U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation.

If you care about accuracy in textbooks, contact Verity Educate to find out what you can do.

Does The Vatican Need A Quick Reactionary Force?

By Alan Kornman and Wallace Bruschweiler –

The events in Iraq by the Islamic State and other Islamist groups against Christians and  ‘others’ are only the last of a long (and very little reported) series of horrible “events” in Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, Lebanon, Sudan, etc.

The Vatican has called on Muslim leaders to denounce unambiguously the persecution of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq – and ‘hinted’ that it is ‘considering’ breaking off dialogue with Islamic representatives if they fail to do so.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue said ISIS had committed “and was continuing to commit unspeakable criminal acts”. To reinforce the point, it listed some of the atrocities for which ISIS is reported to have been responsible. They included “the massacre of people solely for reasons of their religious adherence”; “the execrable practice[s] of decapitation, crucifixion and hanging of corpses in public places”; “the choice imposed on Christians and Yazidis between conversion to Islam, payment of a tax (jizya) and exodus”; “the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of people, including children, old people, pregnant women and the sick”; “the abduction of women and girls belonging to the Yazidi and Christian communities as war booty (sabaya)”, and “the imposition of the barbaric practice of infibulation”.

The Guardian reports, “Pope Francis gave an early indication of the Vatican’s hardening attitude last Sunday when he said that news from Iraq had left him “in dismay and disbelief”. Last Friday, the pope named Cardinal Fernando Filoni as his personal envoy to the region. The cardinal was due to fly out on Tuesday after his departure was postponed on Monday, apparently because of security fears.”

How come ‘security fears’ of Cardinal Filoni are valid and not being applied to the rest of the ‘normal’ Christians?

St. Peter’s Doors Closed, Armed Neutrality

In September of 1943, the Nazis entered Rome and the gates of the Vatican were shut, and closed for the first time ever.  The doors of the Vatican are partially closed to the cries from hundreds of thousands of Christians being slaughtered, tortured, raped, and displaced by the followers of Islam fighting under the black flag of Jihad in Iraq, Syria, Middle East, and the world.

Pope Francis must realize the threshold of ‘prudential judgement’ to go to war has been crossed a long time ago. The Pope must acknowledge this fact by acting decisively, with no further delay, to engage the Islamist enemy wherever Christians are attacked and slaughtered.  For the Vatican to consider breaking off interfaith dialogue with Islamic representatives is feckless bluster.

Pope Francis can no longer hide behind the neutrality of the Corps of Gendarmerie of Vatican City.  In today’s world, there is no active military force that will come to the aid of persecuted Christians with a singularity of purpose.

Conclusion

The so-called news media (written and TV) is either blind and deaf or just “politically correct”. The sleazy advances of violent Islamic extremists must be stopped before it is too late.

Action today is imperative.

The Vatican must utilize its vast resources in forming a Quick Reactionary Force (QRF) of mercenaries to protect and defend Christians wherever and whenever they are under attack around the world.

Wallice bruschweiler

Wallace Bruschweiler

ABOUT WALLACE BRUSCHWEILER

Wallace Bruschweiler, a quadri-linguist and subject matter expert on counter terrorism and national security issues. Over 30 years experience operating in Europe, Middle East, and North Africa.