Tag Archive for: Islam

VIDEO: Understanding Mohammedanism in 15 minutes

/in , , /by

A Mohammedan is one who follows the teachings of Mohammed regardless of nationality, ethnicity, race, color or creed. Mohammedans are orthodox believers and follow the Quran, Hadith and Surah as Mohammed’s followers did 14 centuries ago. I use Mohammedan versus Muslim to describe those who follow the teachings of Mohammad. Mohammedans are pure Islam and follow shariah (Islamic) law.

The more shariah compliant an individual Mohammedan, Islamic organization or nation state the more dangerous and deadly.

There is much public discussion about radical Mohammedans versus moderate Mohammedans. The answer to any difference lies in this short 15 minute video showing moderate Mohammedans, those preaching violence on the street, versus those Mohammedans who carry out violence on the street.

It is critical to take a Mohammedan at his word. Not to do so is naively dangerous. To call Mohammedans peaceful is Orwellian.

Hat tip to Aya for sending us this video:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why beheading? — The Boston Globe

Navy SEAL shot 27 times by four al-Qaida leaders tells miraculous story: ‘God, get me home to my girls’

Commander in chief Obama has no war-fighting creds, won’t listen to those who do

Our Pathetic President

/in , , , , /by

The first thing you need to keep in mind is that Syria and Iraq are now just lines on a map at this point. They don’t exist as national states because the former is locked in a civil war that will replace its dictator one way or the other and the latter’s alleged government is deeply divided between the usual schism of Sunni and Shiite.

More to the point, Iraq’s government is led by men who are the friends and pawns of Iran. In a recent issue of the Iranian newspaper, Eternad, an Iranian analyst commented on the new Iraqi cabinet noting that its new prime minister “enjoys Iran’s support and spend his formative years in Iran, and continued (the operation of the Islamic al-Dawa party) until the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

That fall was the result of the war waged against Saddam by President George W. Bush. The Iranian analyst noted that Iraq’s new foreign minister, Dr. Ebrahim Jafari “until recently lived in Tehran in Iran, and enjoyed Iran’s support in spite of his differences with Nouri al-Maleki (the former prime minister). The new Iraqi oil minister, transport minister, and minister of sport and youth were all described as “close to Iran, who either lived in Iran before, fought against the Ba’ath regime with Iran’s help, or constantly traveled to Iran.”

Iraq and Syria came into being when French and British diplomats created them as colonies following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Versailles.

In his September 10th speech, President Obama uttered the word “war” only once and then only to say “We will not be dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”

The speech, like everything he says, was a lie constructed to undue the truth he inadvertently admitted when he revealed “We have no strategy.”  If you do not intend to go to war, you do not need a strategy. Instead, you can pretend to the American public that the war will be fought by Iraqis and Syrians.

So far the Syrian civil war has cost that “nation” 200,000 lives and driven a million Syrians out of the country. As for the Iraqis, their military fled in the face of the ISIS forces, leaving behind the weapons we gave them. Between Iraq and Syria, ISIS now controls a landmass larger than the size of Great Britain.

In the course of the speech, Obama said he had dispatched 475 more troops to Iraq. We have an estimated 1,500 or more troops on the ground. That is barely the size of an infantry regiment, composed of two battalions of between 300 and 1,300 troops each.

Significantly, though, Obama opened the speech by reminding Americans that he had “brought home 140,000 American troops from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year.”

President Obama has announced he intends to send up to 3,000 troops to West Africa to help combat Ebola. He can find troops to put in harm’s way in Africa, but not to combat ISIS.

All he has ever wanted to do is to flee from our declared enemies whether they are al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS or other Islamic holy warriors. Those numbers signal his failure to follow up our sacrifices in those two nations.

Years after World War II and the Korean War, we still have combat troops in Europe, South Korea, and on bases around the world, but he is pulling out troops in the two nations where our interests are currently threatened. He called the enemy “small groups of killers.” He claimed that “America is safer.”

He appears to think the greatest threat of our time, the holy war being waged by fanatical Muslims, can be won with air strikes and measures that do “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”

Fighting on foreign soil is what American combat troops did throughout the last century and into this one. They helped defeat Germany and the Japanese Empire in World War II. They stopped the communist North Korean attack on the South, but had less success in the long Vietnam War. They were successful in the Gulf wars until Obama was elected.

We have a President who has displayed a lack of leadership, a lack of judgment, ignorance of history, a cowardly approach to the threats we face, and who has demonstrated over and over again that he is a liar. His administration is likely to be judged the most corrupt in the history of the nation, indifferent to the Constitution and our laws.

Proclaiming that he “could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform”, this is a President who has engaged in dramatically reducing the size of our military to pre-World War II levels. After a two-star general, Major General Harold J. Green, was killed in Afghanistan in April not one single member of the White House attended his funeral. Obama was playing golf.

America must survive a man who many have come to believe is “the worst President” in our history. An essential stop toward that will be to defeat as many Democratic Party incumbents and candidates for office in the November 4 midterm elections. Americans—patriots—can do no less at this point.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Naming The Enemy – 2 Million Bikers to D.C.

/in , , , /by

The 2 Million Bikers to DC rally is to honor the victims of 9-11, the survivors and first responders.

We salute our members of the Armed Forces and their families who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country. God bless America and God bless our troops.

Our country is rooted in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rule of law. Our national identity of freedom and liberty is what we’ve been fighting for since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. The names have changed but our enemies who hit us on 9/11, all fly under the black flag of Jihad. It is also under that black flag of Jihad they will be defeated.

Everyone is invited to join together, on the National Mall, in a celebration of American Exceptionalism.

People will be coming from all over the country by motorcycle, plane and car to remember 9/11 in our nations Capitol.
Last year a group called The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) led by Rabbi MD Alam were granted permits for a 9/11/2013 Million Muslim March on the National Mall.

AMPAC picked the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack on United States soil surpassing even Pearl Harbor, to hold their Million Muslim March. The devout followers of Islam coordinating the Million Muslim March knew they would offend most every American in the country who watched our commercial airliners hijacked by Islamic terrorists, fly into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the last plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA.

AMPAC did not realize its insensitivity toward the American people would result in the largest motorcycle rally ever to descend on our nations capitol.

When word began to spread about the 2013 Million Muslim March a grassroots counter demonstration called 2 Million Bikers To DC was started on a single lonely Facebook page. Belinda Bee and the original group of founders joined forces and upwards of 80,000 bikers descended on Washington D.C. capturing the imagination of the nation.

Belinda Bee, Mike Belair along with their army of volunteers say the 2014 2 Million Bikers To DC Rally will be far bigger than last year. Madison Rising will provide the live entertainment along with a host of speakers. Sponsors include Harley Davidson, Budweiser, Breitbart, The United West, Operation 300, Tea Party Community and America The Movie.com.

Speakers include Dinesh D’Souza, Jan Morgan, Tom Trento, Carl Higbie – Former Navy SEAL, Karen Vaughn, Pastor Manning, Pope Dan Johnson, Manny Vega and more than we can name here.

The War Neither Obama, Nor Any Other Nation Wants to Fight

/in , , , , /by

Two trends have emerged since President Obama’s September 10thAA - Obama Stop ISIS speech regarding his intention to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.

One is the understanding that he will not commit U.S. troops as “boots on the ground” to fight a force estimated variously between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on intelligence guesswork.

The other trend is the reluctance of any other nation to engage in the warfare that would be necessary to defeat the terrorist army occupying northern Iraq and a swath of Syria.

This was initially signaled at the NATO meeting in Wales and, according to a September 12 page one report in The Wall Street Journal, “A day after President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to combat Islamic State militants, Washington’s international allies didn’t make clear how far they would go to join military operations even as they pledged support.”

Who would support a President who said he had no intention of being “dragged back into a war in Iraq”?

That is not a “strategy.” It’s surrender. It is an admission of a lack of intent to confront what will surely emerge as a major threat to the Middle East and the West.

Word Games

The Obama administration was initially reluctant to even call it a war. It was a “counter-intelligence operation” according to Secretary of State Kerry.  The President and his administration have spent six and a half years labeling terrorist attacks as anything other than acts of war. But 9/11 was an act of war.

The killing of soldiers at Fort Hood was called “workplace violence” when it was clearly a terrorist act. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us that the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three security personnel was just a bunch of militants angered by a video no one ever saw.

In Iraq—a nation now in name only—its military fled from combat with ISIS. The result has been a demonstration of the barbarity of ISIS, killing Muslims and “infidels” alike in large numbers. The videos of the beheadings of two American journalists sent the U.S. a message that dramatically altered the simmering reluctance of Americans to make war on the Islamic State. The beheading of a British citizen will no doubt echo the U.S. population’s desire for revenge and a full-scale war on ISIS.

Middle East expert, Walid Phares, says ISIS’s message is that it has concluded that neither the U.S. nor Great Britain will engage it with troops, preferring only air strikes. No military expert believes that will be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

Turkey, that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran, is fearful for the lives of nearly fifty of its diplomats taken hostage in Mosul when it was captured in June. They have cause, but Turkey has been increasingly Islamic in its outlook for nearly a decade, shedding its secular approach to governance. It has refused to allow the U.S. to use bases there to fight ISIS.

In Europe, Germany said it would not take part in any airstrikes against ISIS. Other EU nations will likely follow its lead. In a similar fashion, Arab nations have not indicated any intention to actively—militarily—participate in what appears to be a “coalition” in name only.

A post by Steve Eichler, CEO of Tea Party, Inc. says it all:

“We are in the gravest of situations. Our military—once the most powerful in the world—is crumbling.

Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate.

He’s deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we citizens open to attack.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

Our Army has not trained for six months. Meanwhile there is tremendous domestic and foreign unrest taking place. “To have the Chief of Staff of the Army confess to the world that our Army has not trained for six months is highly disturbing,” says former Florida Congressman Allen West. ‘[It] should make us all sleep less soundly at night.’”

Obama has been destroying our military in every way he can and, other than air power, he has a greatly reduced infantry and other forces with which to wage a ground war in Iraq. ISIS knows this and so does the rest of the world.

Not since the end of World War II and our ascendance as a superpower has America fallen to such a loss and lack of real power both militarily and economically.

The years since Obama’s election in 2008 have been an unqualified disaster for the nation, the West, and the rest of the world. They have looked to the U.S. to lead and now see a U.S. that has twice elected a man whose entire agenda has been to abandon leadership.

To some, his actions reek of treason.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Islam is the Face of Evil

/in , , , , /by

“ISIS is not Islamic”, said  Barack Obama as he gave yet another vapid speech to say what he will or will not do next about the threat of Islam. What he said is both idiotic and a lie. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State.

Obama used the word “war” only once, but ISIS is all about war—an Islamic holy war that has been waged since 632 AD.

The one person neither named, nor blamed is the so-called prophet, Mohammad, yet everything being done by the jihadists today is being done in his name.

In his memoir, “Dreams from my Father”, Obama, in the preface to its second edition, wrote: “Nor do I pretend to understand the stark nihilism that drove the terrorists that day (9/11) and that drives their brethren still. My powers of empathy, my ability to reach into another’s heart, cannot penetrate the blank stares of those who would murder innocents with abstract, serene satisfaction.” And therein is the problem that he, as President, and we as citizens must address.

Political correctness is so dominant in the Obama White House that no one in the U.S. government dares say anything that might be deemed critical of a so-called “religion” that sanctions beheadings, amputations, stoning, kidnapping hostages, ransoms, polygamy, and slavery. To anyone deemed an infidel or unbeliever or a Muslim who questions anything about Islam, death is the only option other than dhimmitude, a second-class citizenship.

The pure evil of Islam was seen most recently in the two videos of American hostages being beheaded by the Islamic State, but despite decades of attacks on U.S. embassies, the taking of U.S. hostages in Beirut and Tehran, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon, Americans have been slow to realize the intensity and size of the threat that the Middle Eastern and North African nations represent along with wherever else a large Muslim population exists.


As the U.S. and threatened Middle Eastern nations hurtle toward a military confrontation with the Islamic State, the name it has given to territory it has seized from northern Syria and into Iraq, a new book, Fault Lines: The Layman’s Guide to Understanding America’s Role in the Ever-Changing Middle East, ($00.00, Elevate, Boise, Idaho, softcover) provides one of the best, short histories on U.S. involvement and why, at this point, its influence has reached a low point.

Liebich writes of the way the U.S. policy regarding the Middle East changed over the years, particularly in the wake of World War II and the Cold War that followed as the Soviet Union challenged us for the implementation of communism worldwide. Dependent on the flow of oil from the Middle East, much of our strategic interest in the region was based on exercising our influence, often bringing about the removal of leaders whom we regarded as a threat to that necessity. After 9/11 that went into overdrive.

Liebich notes that our concept of nation-building proved costly, not just in the lives of our troops, but which included $50 billion in Iraq “and it didn’t work. Before you can build a nation you have to have a nation and only the citizens of that nation can decide what kind of a country they want to have.” The problem the U.S. encountered was that “In the Middle East, people related much more to the Ummah (the Muslim community) and to their own tribes.”

The problem that George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, encountered was that “The Middle East is a part of the world where many odd alliances appear. One is never sure who is allied with whom and whatever one thinks may all change tomorrow.”

Liebich takes note of the “Arab Awakening” that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein. It began “with so much promise” followed by “its subsequent descent into chaos, has drastically changed the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Liebich says “My definition of a vital national interest is one that deals with an existential threat to the United States, and one for which the U.S. is willing to spill its blood and to spend its treasure in order to accomplish its objectives. By this definition, the U.S. has no vital national interest in events in the Middle East.” Written prior to the emergence of the Islamic State, a new existential threat is facing the U.S.

Liebich says our strategic interests in the Middle East for many years included access to stable supplies of oil at reasonable prices; support for the state of Israel; preventing adversaries or potential adversaries from coming to power or achieving influence in the region; improving life for the people of the region; and preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. territories and citizens.

“The region has become the epicenter for terrorist groups, some of which have ambitions for a global reach.” That alone will require a renewed military involvement by the U.S. as we are the only nation with the capacity to alter the facts on the ground.

It comes at a time when the U.S. is close to having developed its oil reserves to a point where the oil of the Middle East will not determine our policies, but it is that oil which other nations such as those of Europe depend upon. China and India need it as well so its protection by and for the West as well as the developing Asian nations affects our decisions. Even Russia whose economy is dependent on oil and natural gas has cast its support for Syria along with Iran.

Everything, though, depends on understanding the true nature and intent of Islam.

Liebich ends his book with a quote from Winston Churchill who said, “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Right now, the right thing is the destruction of the Islamic State.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry Mr. President, ISIS Is 100 Percent Islamic

VIDEO: Top ten Qur’an verses to help you understand the Islamic State [ISIS]

/in , , /by

The learned analysts know that you cannot look at the scriptures of a religion in order to understand that religion. After all, you can find violent passages in all scriptures, right? And all scriptures are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation, emphasis and de-emphasis, etc. Religions, we are told, are what their believers make them to be.

Very well. The Islamic State leaders say they are Muslim believers. They claim to be following the teachings of the Qur’an. Are they? Watch David Wood’s video and see —

Are they misunderstanding or misinterpreting these passages? So far no Muslim spokesman in the West, not one, has taken up these Qur’an passages and argued that. All they have done is proclaim the Islamic State to be un-Islamic, without confronting its Islamic case for itself.

Why does this matter? Because the Qur’an isn’t owned by the Islamic State. Muslims the world over read it. The Muslims in the West claim to reject and abhor the Islamic State. Very well. What are they doing to teach against its understanding of Islam, so that more Muslims from the West don’t go to Iraq and Syria to join it?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kerry: Anti-Islamic State coalition means “demolishing the distortion of one of the world’s great peaceful religions”

UK prof: Islamic State has “reverted to a model that has been the reality in parts of the Islamic world for most of its history,” but “what they are perpetrating is not Islam”

Islamic State fighters using US arms

Austria: Imam says Muslims join Islamic State because of “Islamophobia”

Turkey aided rise of Islamic State, yet NATO promises to defend Turkey from Islamic State

Boston Muslim running Islamic State’s social media campaign

/in , , /by

Ahmad Abousamra is a Muslim from the Boston area. He is the son of a doctor. He is a computer expert, a graduate of Northeastern University, where he made the dean’s list. If only we could alleviate the grinding poverty and social marginalization of young men like this, they wouldn’t turn to jihad.

“The American computer wiz running brutally effective ISIS social media campaign: College-educated son of top Boston doctor is on FBI Most Wanted list,” by Michael Zennie, MailOnline, September 4, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A college educated American citizen with a knack for computers is believed to be one of the men running the brutally effective ISIS social media operation, which is helping to attract hundreds of fighters from across the world – including the U.S., Britain and Canada.

Ahmad Abousamra, 32, was born in France and raised in the upscale Boston suburb of Stoughton. His father is a prominent endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital. He attended the exclusive Xaverian Brothers Catholic high school and made the Dean’s List at Northeastern University.

He graduated with a degree in a technology field then took a job at a telecommunications company.

U.S. officials tell ABC News that he is now putting his skills to work for ISIS, the brutal terrorist organization that has been effectively using 21st century methods like Twitter memes, Facebook posts, selfies and YouTube videos to promote its radical 6th century Islamic ideals.

In 2004, federal authorities say, Abousamra left his American life behind and traveled to Iraq in the hopes of fighting U.S. soldiers as part of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Instead, he was recruited to the groups ‘media wing.’

‘If you do have a European language ability, if you have computer skills, if you are quite clever and you come join ISIS, you are likely to be used for social media output,’ Peter Neumann, the director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, told ABC.

When he returned to the U.S. in 2006, he was questioned by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. He was released without charge and slipped out of the country and back to Syria.

In 2009, he was charged with federal terrorism offenses. He is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted list and the government has offered a $50,000 reward for his capture.

Most Wanted: The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for the capture of Abousamra, who is wanted on federal terrorism charges

Most Wanted: The FBI is offering a $50,000 reward for the capture of Abousamra, who is wanted on federal terrorism charges

Brutally effective: ISIS has managed to use 21th century tactics to promote its brutal 6th century worldview

Brutally effective: ISIS has managed to use 21th century tactics to promote its brutal 6th century worldview. For a larger view click on the image.

Authorities now believe Abousamra is in charge of running social media for ISIS, according to ABC.

ISIS has shown remarkable sophistication with its online presence. When the group released its video showing the execution of journalist James Foley, it was simultaneously posted on dozens of online forums, Twitter accounts of other social media sites.

A slew of Twitter and Facebook accounts spread the group’s message by posting pictures of the brutal executions and torture that ISIS terrorist bestow on their enemies – all while staying a step ahead of Silicon Valley’s attempts to shut them down.

Jihadist fighters who join ISIS, meanwhile, project an image of a certain kind of twisted glamour, showing off their new life and posing with weapons and on military vehicles.

‘ISIS understands very well that in order for an act of terrorism to be effective, it needs to actually terrorize people,’ Mr Neumann told ABC.

‘The act of communication that follows the act of violence is almost as important as the act of violence itself.’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State propagandist was regular worshiper at Islamic Society of Boston

Ex-Muslim and son of imam: Islamic State following “steps of Islam’s prophet Muhammad to the letter”

600 Muslims from Britain now waging jihad for the Islamic State

Italy: 11 Muslims investigated for jihad activities, waging jihad in Syria

Islamic jihadists vow to free Iberian Peninsula from “Spanish and Portuguese occupation”

Obama: We will defeat the Islamic State like we did al-Qaeda

Report: More “Americans” Killed Fighting with ISIS in Syria

The Ethics of Fighting with Terrorists

/in , , , /by

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”

/in , , , /by

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.

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

/in , , , , , /by
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.

New Jihadi Entitlement Program — A One Way Ticket to Paradise

/in , , , /by

I have a plan to deal with American traitors who want to be Islamic jihadis.

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Sermon “ISIS Was Born From Hillary Clinton’s Filthy Womb”

EDITORS NOTE: The featured edited image originally appeared on Jihadmin.

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

/in , , , /by
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

/in , , , , /by

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.

Rage over Robin Williams Emmy tribute including “racist” joke about oppression of Muslim women

/in , , , /by

What race is the oppression of Muslim women again? I keep forgetting. In any case, are women oppressed in Iran? Certainly, but do not speak of it: to do so would be “racist.” This is the number that Leftists and Islamic supremacists have done on the popular culture: any reference, even a joke, to Sharia-related oppression or jihad violence is immediately denounced by the programmed and dutiful as “racist.” This is the same impulse that led the teenager who stumbled upon the Fort Dix jihad plot to hesitate about reporting it to police — he was afraid it might be “racist” to do so. The comfortable, self-righteous Leftists who are denouncing the Emmys today will be congratulating themselves on not being “racist” right up to the moment that the knife sawing through their throat brings an abrupt end to their conscious thoughts.

EDITORS NOTE: Below is the full video of Robin Williams’ impromptu “pink scarf (hijab)” performance courtesy of Bravo TV’s Inside the Actor’s Studio:

“Robin Williams Emmys tribute led by Billy Crystal criticised for including ‘racist’ joke about Muslim woman,” by Jenn Selby, the Independent, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Williams racist tweets

For a larger view click on the image.

“He could be funny anywhere. We were such close friends,” Billy Crystal said of Robin Williams in a special tribute to the comedian aired midway through the Emmy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles last night (25 August).

“He made us laugh. Hard. Every time you saw him – on television, movies, nightclubs, arenas, hospitals, homeless shelters for our troops overseas. And even in a dying girl’s living room for her last wish, he made us laugh. Big time.

“I spent many happy hours with Robin on stage,” he continued. “The brilliance was astounding. The relentless energy was kind of thrilling. I used to think if I could just put a saddle on him and stay on him for eight seconds I was going to do OK.

“It is very hard to talk about him in the past because he was so present in all of our lives. For almost 40 years he was the brightest star in the comedy galaxy.

“While some of the brightest of our celestial bodies are actually extinct now, their energy long since cooled, but miraculously, because they float in the heavens so far away from us now, their beautiful light will continue to shine on us forever.

“And the glow will be so bright it will warm your heart and will make your eyes glisten and you will think to yourselves, ‘Robin Williams. What a concept.’”

And for the most part, the audience at home and in the Nokia Theatre crowd appeared visibly moved by the segment.

That is until the honour ended in a series of clips of the comedian in action, cracking jokes during televised interviews and in stand-up.

In particular, it included a short snippet of a stand-up performance during which Williams borrows a pink scarf from an audience member in the front row and wraps its round his head to simulate a Hijab, or Islamic headscarf.

“I would like to welcome you to Iran… Help me!” he cries.

Viewers participating over Twitter were quick to criticise the inclusion of the joke as “racist”:

After that, people who’d never heard of Robin Williams would think he’s Billy Crystal’s racist friend who was on a lot of talk shows?
Eric Harvey (@marathonpacks) August 26, 2014

Williamsracist2

Click on image for a larger view.

The Williams Emmys tribute followed a shorter honour to the late comedian at the MTV VMAs on Sunday (24 August).

The VMAs tribute was also branded “offensive”, this time down to the lack of care fans felt had gone into the short pictorial montage.

“It would have been less insulting to do nothing,” one Twitter follower wrote.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim groups demand mandatory retraining of all federal, state, local law enforcement officials who may have learned truth about jihad
Tennessee imam who called Jews and Christians “filthy” uses ban on Foley video to argue for blasphemy laws
Ohio: School on lockdown after Muslim threatens to murder children over Israel-Hamas conflict
Boston Marathon jihad murderer’s sister charged in NYC bomb threat