Posts

Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy singles out ‘radical Islamists’

Bolton says: “Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad. The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology. This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

The idea that there is a significant pushback to the jihad ideology within the Islamic world is a trifle overstated. The concept of jihad as meaning warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Islamic law’s hegemony over them is deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, as well as in Islamic law. Nonetheless, in 2011 the Obama Administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training; this is a strong step in the right direction, toward once again enabling counterterror analysts to study and understand the motivating ideology of the enemy.

“New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Sophie Keen on Unsplash.

Sudan Orders Demolition of 25 Church Buildings

We hope you read our engrossing, but disturbing series of articles on jihad genocide in the Sudan perpetrated by indicted war criminal, President Bashir.

Especially concerning was the disclosure of the Arab Coalition ‘final solution’ document captured in a Janjaweed truck by General Abakar M. Abdallah of Sudan United Movement. It presented evidence of Bashir’s plan to ethnically cleanse the indigenous African tribes in Darfur, Nuba Mountain, Blue Nile Region and South Kordofan regions dividing up the spoils among Arab tribes and exploiting gold and other natural resources with Saudi and Emirate funding.

Bashir is assembling a 150,000 Jihad army from across the Sahel region of Africa, include Islamic State foreign terrorists from Chad, Central African Republic, Niger, Mali, Libya and Syria.

Sudan’s ‘Orwellian’ Peace Force has been assembled in 16 training camps around the capital region of Khartoum.

You may have read our post of a bomb explosion in a Khartoum high rise on February 12th. SPLM-N secretary general Yasir Arman suggested the explosion was evdence of the presence of those foreign jihadi terrorists Bashir has assembled. 35,000 trained Peace forces have been deployed in both Darfur and the Nuba Mountains regions equipped with armed Toyota hilux pickup trucks.

This Gospel Herald report reveals the wanton destruction of churches ordered by the Bashir Regime in those Sudan regions, a practice begiun in 1990. That order came within a few years of issuance of the Arab coalition final solution in 1987, reissued in the 1990’s, 2003 and 2014 with a target of ‘completion’ by 2020, Bashir’s self proclaimed retirement year.

The Gospel Herald report noted the forced conversion to Islam of Christians especially directed at the vulnerable Nuba people. The Gospel Herald noted that the Sudan is the fifth leading counry of concern for indigenous Christian minorities.

Yesterday, my colleague Mike Bates of Northwest Florida’s 1330am WEBY Talk Radio and I interviewed Dr. Walid Phares Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Analyst and Fox News national security and foreign policy expert. Phares is the author of the acclaimed “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West,” and a recent book, “The Lost Spring: US Strategies in the Middle East and Catastrophes to avoid.” Phares is being considered for a possible post a the State Department. We had posted on Phares’ remarks at a gathering of Nuba emigres in Washington , DC just days following President Trump’s election on November 10th..

In yesterday’s interview with him, Dr. Phares noted the lifting of Sudan sanctions by the outgong Obama Administration as unconscionable in view of Bashir’s genocidal record. Further, he stressed the hope that the Trump Administration might reimpose the1997 sanctions within the six month look back provision of the executive order. Ultimately, he thinks the solution is regime change to stop jihad in the Sudan and Sahel region of Africa.

The order by Mohamad el Sheikh Mohamad, general manager of the land department in the Ministry of Physical Planning, urged that it be implemented immediately.”I
TOPBUZZ.COM

VIDEO: ‘Enemedia’ Lies yet again about the Threat of Radical Islam

It is important to expose the establishment media, both large outlets and small, until it is universally known that these are not news outlets, but lying propagandists with an agenda. I was sent this article several weeks ago and was struck by this: “Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.”

The implication was that I was relying on some emotional appeal, a rabble-rouser stirring up trouble: “The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where [sic] to be feared” said Norm Dyck.

I am a twentieth-century speaker. Anyone who peruses YouTube videos of my various talks around the U.S. (and in Europe, Israel and Australia, for that matter) will see that I never use PowerPoint, or film, or any audio-visual aids; I just speak. Usually I read a few things from the Qur’an. That’s it. So I was puzzled by this claim that when I spoke in Grand Prairie, Alberta, that I opened with video of the World Trade Center collapsing. I emailed the event organizer and asked him if he had shown such video before I arrived. He said he hadn’t, and would write a Letter to the Editor of the Daily Herald-Tribune, asking for a correction.

He did so. His letter is below. Not surprisingly, the Daily Herald-Tribune did not publish it or make any correction. Meanwhile, here is video of my talk in Grand Prairie last year. It begins with the introduction, while I am standing by (with my late great security man, Floyd Resnick, visible in the first few seconds of the video). Then I come up. No sign of any World Trade Center footage in either the introduction or the beginning of my speech.

“The first casualty is the truth,” eh, Mr. Dyck?

Of course, Svjetlana Mlinarevic of the Daily Herald-Tribune made no effort to contact me or the event organizer, or even to search out the YouTube video of the event, to see whether Norm Dyck was telling the truth. Why bother, when he confirmed the establishment propaganda line?

“A meeting of the faiths,” by Svjetlana Mlinarevic, Daily Herald-Tribune, February 2, 2017:

It was a meeting of two religions that wished to share their beliefs and open their minds to each other.

St. Paul’s United Church invited members of the Islamic Association of Grande Prairie and District (IAGPD) into their sanctuary on Wednesday to pray together, to share their experiences and fears, and to sing in unity….

Norm Dyck attended an information session in Grande Prairie last year by controversial author Robert Spencer, who is a self-proclaimed expert on Islam. Spencer introduced his speech, according to Dyck, by showing footage of New York’s World Trade Center crumbling to the ground.

“The connection was immediately made for us that Islam and the Muslim people where to be feared. This gentleman (another parishioner) talked about confronting falsity. That is extremely difficult. With a media predisposed to play on our fears (for) us and the others out there who are our enemy. The first casualty is the truth,” he said.

Dyck called on people searching for the truth to pursue it courageously regardless of where it takes them saying, “Truth denied, closes us from the light.”…

Here is the Grand Prairie event organizer’s letter to the Daily Herald Tribune, which the paper of course ignored. I present it unedited:

I think dialogue is important and as Norm Dyck emphasized that truth should be pursued. To clarify regarding the speaking engagement of Robert Spencer, there was no footage of world trade center’s crumbling, you can view the whole talk on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X36LSw7X5Bs. Robert has written many books on Islam and presents facts. As far as the suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace, that is a myth. It was said that radicalism, racism, terrorism and violence are not virtues of the Islamic faith, that is also a myth. There are peaceful Muslims to be sure, as there are in Grande Prairie, but when you are talking about the Ideology of Islam or it may be better described as Mohammadism, then questions should and must be asked. To understand the Ideology of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith’s and Sira of Mohammad are the norm. The leader of Islam was Mohammad. The Quran speaks of Mohammad as the great example 33:21, 68;4 and being that, Muslims must follow him. If Mohammad did it, said it, they are to emulate him. A historical summary of Mohammad shows him as a warlord, who killed, raped, terrorized, subjugated anyone who got in his way. He prescribed to what is called pedophilia. He married a girl Aisha at 6 years old and had sex with her when she was nine. Hadith and Sira 8:3309, 58;234,8:3311. That may have been common in the seventh century but not in the 21st century at least in Canada, US and other free nations. There have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since 9/11 www.thereligionofpeace.com. 270,000,000 killed in 1400 years of Jihad htpps://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad. Reliance of the Traveller is on Islamic Sacred Law, I would encourage everyone including politicians, judges to read this book.
Truthful and frank dialogue is needed before Canada finds itself like Europe, possibly living under Sharia Law. Unfortunately, we are 40 years behind in our conversation. As Norm said “Truth denied, closes us from the light”.

This letter could have stood a little editing and clarification of the citations, but its points are generally correct. They’re just not issues that the establishment propaganda media wants brought to light.

RELATED ARTICLES:

More faked hate: Ohio Muslim charged with painting anti-Arab graffiti on garage door of Muslim family

Daniel Greenfield once again (humorously) explains how the SPLC lies about ‘groups’

Muslim from UK blows himself up outside Mosul for the Islamic State

Maryland: Mosque hosts celebration to honor jihad murderer of foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Anti-Free Speech, Pro-Radical Islam Reporting

Attention Canadian Broadcasting News Agency (CBC),

My name is Shabnam Assadollahi. I am a Canadian of Iranian origin, an award winning human rights advocate and freelance writer.

Reference your February 18th article “Protesters outside Masjid Toronto call for ban on Islam as Muslims pray inside.

As an Iranian, a former refugee and former child prisoner of Evin for 18 months by the Islamic Republic of Iran who has been advocating for democracy and woman’s rights, I am strongly against the Political and Radical Islam and openly have shared my views about Motion-103. I am also appalled by a small group of people protesting in front of the mosque on Friday, some held hateful banners while ordinary Muslims were in and out and praying. IMHO, what that minority small group did yesterday was NOT activism but another form of hate.

I read your bias coverage of the demonstration at the mosque in Downtown Toronto and the connection you made between the demonstration and the controversy over Motion-103 which reminded me of what Muslim Brotherhood’s frequent cover up in Egypt and Iran’s Qods Forces propaganda in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

Religious freedom is part of our Canadian values and such small group’s hateful rally will only harm our Free speech but we already have laws to protect Every member of our nation. Shouldn’t your remind ALL Canadians to take pride to know that in 1982 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms made all Canadians equal? Don’t you think that this is the most important value that has been holding us together as Canadians?

As a former radio producer working for over twelve years knowing the ethics in journalism, I have observed that you frequently give a disservice to all Canadians by not sharing the complete information which can have an effect on one’s response to an issue. The last thing any of us should do is promote divisiveness because of lack of information especially coming from taxpayers funded media outlet.

This well documented article by CIJNews-Canada shows the supplications at Masjid Toronto Mosque located in downtown Toronto which is affiliated with the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC). According to this investigative journal, the mosque operates in two locations in downtown Toronto: Masjid Toronto at Dundas (168 Dundas St. West) and Masjid Toronto at Adelaide (84 Adelaide St. East).

Dr. Wael Shihab was appointed in April 2014 to a full-time resident Imam of the mosque Masjid Toronto. Shihab has a PhD in Islamic Studies from Al-Azhar University and he was the head of the Fatwa (Islamic opinion) Unit of IslamOnline.net (English website) and the Shari’ah (Islamic Law) consultant of the Shari’ah department of OnIslam.net. Shihab is also a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) headed by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who played a major role in launching both aforementioned websites.

Shihab’s views as presented in articles and Islamic rulings posted on Onislam.net:

“Slay them one by one and spare not one of them; The solution to the global violence, extremism and oppression is Islam; Qaradawi’s book “Jurisprudence of Jihad” should serves as a guidance to Muslims; Thieves’ hands should be chopped off no matter their social status; Person who underwent gender reassignment surgery should return to his original gender; Muslims should avoid gays as homosexuality is evil and succumbing to the temptations of the Satan; Wife should not reject her husband’s call for having sex”

The above preaching is also against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which ONLY creates hate and spreads radicalism among the worshipers, especially the youth. At the same time, a group of protesters rallying in front of this mosque and shouting for banning a religion in Canada is no difference from what the Islamic Republic of Iran is doing to atheists, Sunnis, Bahais Christians, and Jews, to name a few. Islamic republic of Iran also does not recognize Bahai as a religion/ faith. What is the difference between this small group of protesters, the radical Imams as such and what Iran regime is doing to Bahais? IMO: No difference.

Going in front of a place of worship calling to ban the worshipers’ faith on a “FRIDAY” especially a few weeks after a mass shooting happening in a mosque is NOT Canadian and it is not defending Free speech; but IMO is Hate Speech. The acts of radicalism by the small group of people is absolutely unacceptable. What they do will only assist the MSM and the Muslim Brotherhood to take advantage and to attack Freedom loving Canadians and to silence Freedom of Speech.

It is very sad that some Canadians from Islamic faith express that they don’t feel safe under Canada’s Charter of Rights and equality laws. When government and the media choose one group over another in a country that is diverse, they attack the very fabric that holds all of us together by saying that we are failing at diversity. If we do not treat all groups equally and say no to hatred to all; not singling out one group over another, then would only degrade our Charter.

It is appalling that when NCCM calls Canada to pass M-103, Canadian MSM such as yours cries for their call and yet QC imam Sayed AlGhitawi calls for the annihilation of the Jews and CBC and the rest of Canadian MSM won’t give any coverage on his hate speech.

It is the responsibility of our officials, educators and the media to remind all people living in this country that we are all equally protected-that no one needs an extra motion or extra protection-for that would make some “more equal” than others.

I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam” which I sent to MPs, and Senators Thank you.

Kind wishes,

Shabnam Assadollahi

RELATED ARTICLE: Quebec legislature adopts sharia blasphemy motion condemning ‘Islamophobia’

EDITORS NOTE: According to Wikipedia CBC News.

In 2009, CBC President Hubert Lacroix commissioned a study to determine whether its news was biased, and if so, to what extent. He said: “Our job — and we take it seriously — is to ensure that the information that we put out is fair and unbiased in everything that we do”. The study, the methodology of which was not specified, was due to report results in the fall of 2010.

In April 2010, the Conservatives accused pollster Frank Graves of giving partisan advice to the Liberal Party of Canada, noting his donations to the party since 2003. Graves directed a number of public opinion research projects on behalf of the CBC as well as other media organizations, and also appeared on a number of CBC television programs relating to politics. An investigation conducted by the CBC ombudsman found no evidence to support these allegations, stating that personal donor history is not relevant to one’s objectivity as a pollster.

In March 2011, the Toronto Sun accused Vote Compass, an online voter engagement application developed by political scientists and launched by CBC during the 2011 federal election campaign, of a liberal bias. The accusation centred on the observation that one could provide identical responses to each proposition in Vote Compass (i.e., answer “strongly agree” to all propositions or “strongly disagree” to all propositions) and would in each case be positioned closest to the Liberal Party in the results. This claim was directly addressed by Vote Compass representatives, who noted that the propositions in the application are specifically constructed in such a way as to avoid acquiescence bias and that the result described by the Toronto Sun was arrived at by gaming the system.[11] Vote Compass also released analyses of the data it gathered from the federal election, which have further negated efforts to discredit it. It is widely speculated that suspicions of bias were fuelled by Sun Media in an effort to promote its anti-CBC agenda and the concurrent launch of its cable news channel. The criticism appears to have been isolated to the 2011 Canadian federal election edition of Vote Compass and has not re-emerged in any subsequent editions of Vote Compass, either in Canada or internationally.

In February 2015, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made comments relating to the allegations. Speaking to Radio-Canada, the outlet’s on-air Quebec division, Harper commented saying he understood that many at Radio-Canada “hated conservative values”. Radio-Canada did not deny the allegations.

During the 2015 federal election, CBC was again accused of bias by some viewers and outlets. The majority of these claims spawned from a promise by the Liberals and New Democratic Party of Canada after the two groups promised to increase funding for CBC. The pledges came after the then Conservative government had cut $115 million from the CBC in the 2012 budget. Shortly before the pledges were made, CBC president Hubert Lacroix complained of the Conservative cuts, saying “the cuts make us weaker and affect morale, critics, key stakeholders and even some of the citizens we serve.”

Relegating Radical Islam to the ‘Ash Heap of History’

On June 8th, 1982 in a speech before the British Parliament President Ronald Reagan blazed forth with his belief that ”[T]he march of freedom and democracy . . . will leave Marxist Leninism on the ash heap of history.” Nine years later, on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet flag flew over the Kremlin in Moscow for the last time.

Fast forward to February 15th, 2017 and the meeting between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, D.C.

During a press conference Prime Minister Netanyahu said to President Trump,

“Under your leadership, I believe we can reverse the rising tide of radical Islam, and in this great task, as in so many others, Israel stands with you and I stand with you. Mr. President, in rolling back militant Islam, we can seize an historic opportunity because for the first time in my lifetime and for the first time in the life of my country, Arab countries in the region do not see Israel as an enemy, but increasingly as an ally.”

Breitbart’s Edwin Mora reports:

President Donald Trump’s deputies intend to overhaul President Barack Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” program to focus only on Islamist extremism, says Reuters.

The shift is not finalized, but is expected to reduce federal focus on non-Islamic extremism, reports Reuters, citing five unnamed people briefed on the matter. The shift may also cut off pending federal funding for Islamic groups.

The pending reorganization comes after widespread reports that Obama’s program has already failed, largely because of opposition by resident Muslim activists and groups, say some Republican lawmakers and news outlets.

Reuters notes:

The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

The news outlet cites Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), who said she learned of the push to refocus the CVE program “from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism” from unnamed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials last week.

MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and has previously advocated for the removal of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U.S. State Department list of designated terrorist groups.

Read more…

President Trump has now named the evil empire bent on stopping the march of freedom and democracy in the world. That neo-evil empire is lead by radical Islamic supremacists. It is called “the Caliphate.” The restoring of the caliphate has been and remains the ultimate goal of radical Islamists.

Marxism, Leninism and radical Islam share a common ideal, the replacement of freedom with subjugation and replacing democracy with a totalitarian ideology based upon a fanatical world view.

President Trump understands this, others do not. The others are the followers of Marx, Lenin and Mohammed.

RELATED ARTICLE:

New Hamas Leader, a Vicious Killer, Portends New Rounds of Violence by Yaakov Lappin

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

Researcher finds over 50 million Muslims support radical Islamic terror attacks

Bring in more Muslim migrants! What could possibly go wrong?

“More than 50 million Muslims are willing to support those who carry out terror attacks to defend their religion, migration expert warns the EU,” by Allan Hall, MailOnline, February 13, 2017:

A migration expert warns that there are more than 50 million Muslims willing to accept violence and support those who carry out terror attacks to defend their religion.

Professor Ruud Koopmans of the Netherlands warned the EU on Monday to block the entry of any refugees whose identity cannot be categorically confirmed.

Koopmans said that of the 1billion adult Muslims in the world, ‘half of them are attached to an arch-conservative Islam which places little worth on the rights of women, homosexuals, and people of other faiths’.

In an interview with a German news website he claimed that of these 500million conservative Muslims, at least – and probably more – than 50million are willing to sanction violence.

Koopmans, who is a professor of sociology and migration research at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the director of integration research at the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, stressed that not every one of them was ready to exert violence directly.

But he added: ‘They support the radicals, they encourage them and provide them shelter or simply keep their mouths shut when they observe radicalization.’

He says he considers his own estimate of 50million ‘an understatement’, citing studies that show eight per cent of German Muslims agreed to the use of violence against ‘Infidels,’ while in his own country 11 per cent of Muslims agreed with the statement: ‘There are situations in which it is acceptable for me from the perspective of my religion, that I use violence’.

In several Islamic countries, 14 per cent of local Muslims think suicide attacks against innocents are ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ justified to defend Islam, said Koopmans, citing a study by the US-based Pew Research Center.

‘I’m very conservative with my estimate of 50million violent Muslims,’ added Professor Koopmans.

The expert sees a ‘clear difference’ between anti-Islam baiting and justified criticism of Islam.

He went on: ‘There is nothing wrong with foreign cultures, as long as they are looking for the connection to the majority in society and actually enrich our countries.

‘But those who are here to spread their medieval beliefs, which are unfortunately widespread in Islamic countries, must be met with zero tolerance’….

That greasy Islamophobe!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

FBI contacting newly arrived Syrian refugees, is the FBI doing this on its own?

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part IV)

Denmark: 16-year-old Muslima plotted jihad bombings at schools, including Jewish school

Remembering the 1979 Russian Invasion of Afghanistan: How Democrats created radical Islamic terrorism

Don Hank in an email titled “This is how the terror started (in 1979)” provided this quote:

In his 1993 memoirs [“From the Shadows“], ex-Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Robert Gates revealed that direct CIA involvement in Afghanistan had commenced almost six months before the Soviet invasion. Jimmy Carter signed a presidential decree in July 1979 to covertly aid the Mujahideen insurgents.

Hank then wrote, “And then came Al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attack, and then ISIS and the invasion of Europe. It all seems to have started with the CIA. If you want a war on terror, you have to start with the people who spawned the terror. A true war on terror would include a war on the CIA. It starts with education.”

Hank provided a link to a Daryl Morini, paper dated January 3rd, 2010 titled “Why Did the Soviet Union Invade Afghanistan?.” Morini wrote:

The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was a costly and, ultimately, pointless war. Historical hindsight has made this evident. However, exactly why the Red Army wound up in direct military conflict, embroiled in a bitter and complicated civil war—some 3,000 kilometres away from Moscow—is a point of historiographical uncertainty. The evidence available suggests that geopolitical calculations were at the top of the Kremlin’s goals. These were arguably to deter US interference in the USSR’s ‘backyard’, to gain a highly strategic foothold in Southwest Asia and, not least of all, to attempt to contain the radical Islamic revolution emanating from Iran. The subsidiary goal of the invasion was to secure an ideologically-friendly régime in the region.

[ … ]

Following the 1970s period of détente between the United States (US) and the Soviet Union, the latter seemed to be in an advantageous strategic position, compared to the post-Vietnam paralysis which plagued its main opponent. Scott McMichael, a military historian, argued that this “turned out largely to be an illusion,” although there is substance to the claim that the Soviet Union was ahead of the game in the lead u p to 1979. This is exemplified by Moscow’s increasing assertiveness in foreign affairs during this period. As a direct result of the so-called ‘Brezhnev doctrine’, the USSR asserted its “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if and when an existing socialist regime was threatened.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Is Russia, under Putin, making the same mistake that his predecessors in the Former Soviet Union made by exerting Russia’s “right and duty” to go to war in foreign countries “if an when an existing socialist regime [like Assad’s Syria] was threatened.” According to Wikipedia:

The Ba’ath Party, and indirectly the Syrian Regional Branch, was established on 7 April 1947 by Michel Aflaq (a Christian), Salah al-Din al-Bitar (a Sunni Muslim) and Zaki al-Arsuzi (an Alawite). According to the congress, the party was “nationalist, populist, socialist, and revolutionary” and believed in the “unity and freedom of the Arab nation within its homeland.” 

[ … ]

The party merged with the Arab Socialist Party (ASP), led by Akram al-Hawrani, to establish the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Lebanon following Adib Shishakli‘s rise to power. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Has President Obama made the same mistake as Jimmy Carter did in 1979 by arming the anti-Assad Mujahideen insurgents? Is the CIA complicit, once again, in doing the wrong thing for what it believes is in America’s national interests?

President-elect Donald J. Trump has expressed his doubts about the CIA and other U.S. national intelligence agencies, especially when it comes to Russia, Iran, North Korea, China and Syria.

On January 20th, 2017 Donald J. Trump will be sworn into the Office of the President of these United States. Will a President Trump learn from the failures of both Democratic President’s Carter and Obama? Me thinks so.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Kerry’s Speech on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

President-Elect Trump — Where He Stands on Radical Islam

Policies to watch once Trump has a perspective from the Oval Office: opposition to the nuclear pact with Iran and not arming Syrian rebels.

Donald Trump, president elect of the United States, spoke out on the campaign trail against radical Islam. Trump opposed the Obama administration’s pressure on former Egyptian president and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak to resign. That resignation paved the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East. Expect President Trump to support anti-Islamist regimes in the Arab world and those individuals in America.

Trump has also said he would shut down extremist mosques in America, which would be a welcome policy to stop radicalization of America’s Muslims. He will need an expert team of legal experts to accomplish that goal since opponents will argue that the line between freedom of speech and religion and incitement to violence is razor thin.

Policies to watch once Trump has a perspective from the Oval Office will be his stated opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran and his opposition to regime change and arming the rebels in Syria.

Below is the platform that Trump campaigned on:

Domestic Islamists

  • Shut down mosques that preach extremism
  • Would revoke the passports of Americans who travel abroad to join the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). Initially advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and has since scaled it back to only Muslim countries with major terrorist activity. In his national security speech in June, he proposed using ideological vetting such as support for extremist beliefs or links to extremist groups (not necessarily terrorists) in deciding who gets to enter the U.S. He cited polls showing high levels of support for Sharia governance in countries like Afghanistan.

Egypt & the Muslim Brotherhood

  • Opposed the Obama Administration’s pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to give up power.

Intelligence

  • Supports enhanced interrogation of terror suspects (considered torture by critics).

Iran

  • Opposes the nuclear deal with Iran, calling it “terrible,” but “loves the concept” of a good deal.
  • Thanked by the wife of an American pastor imprisoned in Iran for bringing attention to his captivity.
  • Endorsed airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program in 2007.

ISIS, Iraq & Syria

  • Only candidate to support Russia’s military intervention in Syria against rebels fighting ISIS, as well as ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
  • Opposes involvement in the civil war and arming rebels.
  • Opposes a policy of regime change towards the Assad dictatorship.
  • “I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left.”
  • “I would hit [ISIS] so hard. I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head ,would spin.”
  • U.S. should not get involved in Syria by supporting the rebels or launching airstrikes in retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.
  • Opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
  • Opposed the invasion of Iraq and any policy aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power.
  • U.S. should take Iraq’s oil and reimburse the countries who were involved in the 2003 invasion and give $1 million to the family of every U.S. soldier who died in Iraq.

Libya

  • Would only support military action in Libya against the Muammar Gaddafi leadership if the U.S. gets to take the country’s oil.

Gulf States

  • Would force Saudi Arabia and other countries to pay for the U.S. military presence that protects them.

Military Spending

Would increase military spending to foster deterrence.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Call for Muslim Immigration Ban Now Off Trump’s Website

ISIS Warns of End of US Following Trump Victory

Muslim Community Ponders a President Trump

Vice President-Elect Mike Pence — A Balance to His ‘Boss’

VIDEO: Five Policy Issues for Donald Trump on Radical Islam

Clarion Project’s National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro examines some of the key challenges a president Donald Trump will likely face in office.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Recruits Learn to Beat Asylum-Seeker Checks

Raw Footage From the Front Line (GRAPHIC)

Russia Thwarts ISIS Attacks on Moscow and St Petersburg

Pakistan Bomb Blast Kills 52 at Sufi Shrine

Law Enforcement’s Failure to Understand Radical Islam

On Saturday evening, September 20, 2016, a pressure cooker bomb exploded in a dumpster in New York’s Chelsea district.  The bomb was powerful enough to blow the heavy steel container more than 120 feet through the air and metal fragments from the explosion were found more than 600 feet away. Thirty-one people were injured.

Within hours, NYPD officers found the bomber, radical Islamist Ahmad Khan Rahami, asleep in a doorway.  After a brief exchange of gunfire, Rahami was arrested and taken into custody.  In a subsequent interview, Rahami’s father explained that, in 2014, he informed New Jersey police that his son was a terrorist.  The father explained, “Two years ago I go to the FBI because my son was doing really bad, O.K.?  But they check almost two months, they say, ‘He’s O.K., he’s clean, he’s not a terrorist.’ I say O.K… Now they say he is a terrorist. I say O.K.”

It is a story that is repeated time and time again.  The once highly-touted  FBI, as symbolized by men such as J. Edgar Hoover and Elliott Ness, and as portrayed by Efrem Zimbalist. Jr. in the long-running television series, The FBI, has suffered a major loss of credibility in recent decades.  The bureau’s unprofessional mishandling of episodes such as Ruby Ridge, Idaho; the Branch Davidian siege at Waco, Texas; the Oklahoma City bombing, and, most recently, the politically tainted bungling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, has caused the bureau to lose much of its reputation as the world’s foremost law enforcement agency.

In the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992…in which the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI laid siege to the mountain residence of Randy Weaver and his family… his wife, Vicki; his son, Sammy; the family dog, Striker; and Deputy Marshal William Degan lost their lives.  The federal agents were attempting to serve a weapons warrant on Weaver, charging him (falsely) with having sold a sawed-off shotgun to a neighbor.  When Weaver refused to cooperate with the federal agents a 12-day standoff ensued in which several hundred federal agents surrounded the Weaver cabin.

On April 19, 1993, a 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Texas, came to a violent end.  The Branch Davidians were suspected of weapons violations, and when they refused service of a federal warrant Attorney General Janet Reno gave the order to attack with military-style weaponry.  The authorities, including members of the ATF, the FBI, and the Texas National Guard, set fire to the Branch Davidian compound and 83 members of the religious sect… men, women, and children… and four ATF agents lost their lives.  Most burned to death.

Exactly two years later, on April 19, 1995, a team of Islamic terrorists, with the assistance of American anti-government activists Timothy McVeigh and Larry Nichols, bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  However, as local authorities and investigative  journalists produced irrefutable evidence pointing to the involvement of radical Sunni Muslims, former members of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard, FBI agents placed their hands behind their backs, refusing to consider or even take custody of the evidence.  FBI agents also ordered surveillance cameras removed from nearby buildings and confiscated the associated video tapes, none of which have ever been produced, even under court order.

This occurred at a time when federal investigators on the scene were given instructions from the Clinton White House and Janet Reno’s Justice Department… at the insistence of radical leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center… that they were to divert their attention from the pursuit of Middle Eastern terrorists, concentrating instead on members of domestic right wing militia groups.  As a result of the FBI’s mishandling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation, their handling of the terror attack, which focused only on McVeigh and Nichols, has become the  “conventional wisdom.”  The explosion killed 168 people and injured more than 680 others.

In early 2011, Russian authorities warned the FBI that Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, may have been a radical Islamist.  The FBI acknowledged that it had investigated the Chechen immigrant.  However, after interviewing him and members of his family they could find no evidence of terrorist activity.  But then, on April 15, 2013, Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, planted two pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon and walked away.  When the bombs exploded, 3 spectators were killed and some 264 others were injured.

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a heavily armed radical Islamist, opened fire inside a popular Orlando, Florida, nightclub, killing 49 and wounding 53 others.  The FBI was informed of his radical views in 2013.  However, when agents put him under surveillance they could find no hard evidence of terrorist activity.  They dropped the investigation.

There are many more such examples on the record in which the FBI was forewarned about potential terrorists, leading many Americans to conclude that the bureau has become either sloppy or incompetent.  But is that a fair assessment?  What are the chances that an FBI background check, along with surveillance and a series of interviews, would provide hard evidence of planned terrorist activity?  The chances are very slim.

And what are the chances that, if informed by the FBI that a certain individual is under suspicion of terrorist activity, local authorities could intervene successfully?  Again, the chances are very slim.  In the absence of evidence of an actual crime, local police are limited in what they can do to prevent terrorist activity.  Even when there is strong suspicion, local police must first provide a court with reasonable cause before a telephone tap or a search warrant can be authorized.

It is in this gray area, between mere suspicion and deadly terrorist activity, that radical Islamists operate, skillfully using our laws and our system of justice against us.  So who are these people who kill and maim so indiscriminately?  Who are these terrorists who gleefully behead their enemies, douse them with gasoline and burn them alive, or place them in steel cages and lower them into deep water?  Who are these religious fanatics who welcome death and who cherish death over life?  Who are these extremists who dutifully swear allegiance to a prophet who has commanded them to either kill or convert every other human being on Earth?  Who are these militants who have been actively pursuing a goal of world dominion for more than 1400 years?

Those of us who have been born and raised in western Christian or Judeo cultures have difficulty getting inside the minds of such people.  However, what is most helpful is a study of the genetic makeup of Islamists and the impact that 1400 years of inbreeding, in which cousins marry first cousins, has had on an entire religious sect.

One published report tells us, “Medical research suggests that, while British Pakistanis are responsible for 3% of all births, they account for one in three British children born with genetic illnesses.  The question arises, could the practice of interbreeding be the key to the success and longevity of Islam?  Could it be that the genetic and mental illnesses, borne of interbreeding, are a factor in the unquestioning nature of the majority of Muslims regarding religion?  Successive generations of cousin marriage damage the genes and produce widespread idiocy and insanity.”

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist and recognized expert on Muslim inbreeding, writes that, “This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generation in the Muslim world… This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.  The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.”

Sennels explains that close to half of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are inbred.  In Pakistan, the number approaches 70%.  In the U.K., roughly 50% of Pakistani immigrants are married to first cousins.  In Saudi Arabia, 67%; in Jordan and Kuwait, 64%; in Sudan 63%; in Iraq, 60%; and in the Emirates and Qatar, 54%.  The risk of having an IQ lower than 70, the official threshold for being declared “retarded,” increases by roughly 400% among children of cousin marriages.

Mental illness is also a product of inbreeding.  Sennels tells us that “the closer the blood relative, the higher the risk of schizophrenic illness.  The increased risk of insanity may explain why more than 40% of the patients in Denmark’s biggest ward for the criminally insane have an immigrant background.”

As matters now stand, we in the West are being bombarded with propaganda aimed at making Islam acceptable in civilized cultures.  It is arguable that Western Europe is already lost because they have been invaded by millions of Muslim immigrants.  It is only in Eastern Europe where political leaders have taken a firm stand against Muslim immigration.  We can only hope that American political leaders will also come to their senses.  Until western leaders come to grips with the fact that it is impossible for non-Muslims to ever live side-by-side with Muslims, it behooves us to separate ourselves from them.  Until we dispense with the “turn the other cheek” approach favored by liberal political leaders and journalists, and until we can all agree that Islam is not a “religion of peace,” Islam will continue its relentless jihad against the West.

Since there is no reasonable prospect for either an intellectual or a military victory over Islam, the next president should, as his first official act, implement 8 USC 1182(f), which reads, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Given the nature of the radical Islamic threat, it is clear that we don’t need more law-making; what we need is more law enforcement.

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are no joke

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.
This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

DeceptionEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill. The featured image is of Huma Abedin is by Greg Nash.

Mr. Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

We Warned You In 2007 About Tim Kaine: Hillary’s VP Pick and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Watch (GMBDW) reported in October 2007 that current Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Tim Kaine had a close relationship to the Muslim American Society (MAS), a part of the US Muslim Brotherhood closest to the Egyptian organization. According to a local media article cited in that post:

Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine is far too close to a Muslim group that allegedly has ties to Islamic terrorism and espouses radical views, according to two local delegates. But a group leader says the charges are founded in racism.

Kaine should move to put some distance between his administration and the Falls Church-based Muslim American Society, said Dels. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, and Clifford L. “Clay” Athey Jr., R-Front Royal.

It all started when Kaine appointed Dr. Esam Omeish, the president of the society, to the Virginia Commission on Immigration. Gilbert wrote to Kaine, asking him to reconsider the appointment after seeing online videos of Omeish accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians and exhorting Muslims to “the jihad way.”

Omeish resigned less than a day later under pressure from Kaine.

But after some investigation, the delegates say the connections between Kaine and MAS appear to be deeper than just one appointment.

Kaine was the keynote speaker at the society’s Freedom Foundation “Standing for Justice Dinner.” He was photographed with leaders of the group, including Imam Mahdi Bray, the executive director of the foundation.

In an online video of a 2000 rally in Washington, Abdurahman al-Amoudi — who would later plead guilty to charges of funneling money from Libya to Saudi militants — took to the podium and declared his support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hamas, now the ruling party in the Gaza Strip, started a wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians in 1993, according to the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. Hezbollah, which now holds a quasi-state in southern Lebanon, is thought to be behind the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen.

“I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support this Hamas here?” al-Amoudi says in the video, drawing cheers from the crowd and fist pumps from Bray.

“I wish the added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah. Anybody supports Hezbollah here?” he asks, drawing more cheers and fist pumps.

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

2016 Presidential Race, Hillary Clinton, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Tim Kaine

Clinton VP Pick Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties

The Wages of Kaine

VIDEO: GOP Congressman to House Democrats during sit-in: ‘Radical Islam killed these people’

The unnamed man who took hostages in a theater in Germany today had no problem getting a gun, despite Germany’s draconian gun laws. The House Democrats are perpetuating the prevailing willful ignorance about the real threat of jihad terror.

“GOP Congressman to House Democrats during sit-in: ‘Radical Islam killed these people,’” AOL News, June 23, 2016:

Tensions between Democrats and Republicans reached a boiling point , with one Republican lawmaker getting into a shouting match over a sit-in aimed at forcing votes on gun control measures.

Representative Louie Gohmert staging his own protest yelling at the Democrats saying, “We’re talking about radical Islam”. While also proclaiming, “Radical Islam killed these people.”

The Congressman waving his finger at posters featuring photos of the victims of the recent mass shooting in Orlando that left 49 people dead.

Gohmert’s own protests were then drowned out by the Democratics [sic] shouting, “Don’t let terrorists have a gun!”

The Democrats began their sit-in because of the Senate’s rejection of four purposed gun bills. Congressman John Lewis is leading the charge saying Congress has a moral obligation to speak up and speak out to address gun violence….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Saudis kept 2 jihad groups with ties to Huma Abedin off US terror list

UK Muslim stabs girlfriend: mother disapproved of his relationship with non-Muslim

VIDEO: Democratic Party TV Ad Objects to Use of Term ‘Radical Islam’

A new ad by the Democratic National Committee strikes out at Republican presidential candidates for using the term “radical Islam,” saying that using the term is “equating Islam, all Muslims, with terrorists.”

In the ad, the DNC also objects the use of the terms “radical Islamic terrorism,” “radical Muslims” and “radical Islamic jihadists” by Republican presidential candidates, saying, “It’s oversimplifications and it’s wrong.”

The reason why the term “radical Islam” is used is precisely to make the distinction between this type of Islam and Islam itself. (While most of us learned about the purpose of adjectives in grade school grammar classes, it seems that members of the DNC were absent for that class.)

Moreover, the claim that using the term “radical Islam” amounts to indicting “all Muslims” as terrorists is equally absurd.

Insulting the audience further, the ad shows a clip of former Republican President George W. Bush saying, “We do not fight against Islam. We fight against evil” and “The war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims.”

No Republican presidential candidate who has used the term “radical Islam” — much less the majority of the Americans who agree with this use of the term “radical Islam” – intends to indict an entire faith group for the behavior of some of its members.

To wit, in America, the number of hate crimes against Muslims actually decreased during the past year. And in France, a Pew poll suggested the approval ratings of Muslims in France increased in the months after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Significantly, the increased approval rating was manifest in all political strata, from those identifying as left to moderate and right. (French people saying they held “favorable” or “mostly favorable” attitudes towards Muslims numbered 85, 82 and 65 percent, respectively.)

We have all heard the argument that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. As recently as November 19, less than a week after Islamist terrorists perpetrated the horrific attacks on Paris, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Facile platitudes such as these, as well as the blatant distortion that using the term “radical Islam” is equivalent to calling all Muslims terrorists does an extreme disservice to humanity, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, both of whom are in the crosshairs of a fanatical ideology that seeks their destruction.

Just days before the DNC’s ad appeared, King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “We are facing a Third World War against humanity” if the civilized world does not “act fast to tackle” the Islamic State and similar terrorist groups.

What the DNC refuses to admit, King Abdullah stated clearly, “This is a war, as I said repeatedly, within Islam,” noting that over 100,000 Muslims have been murdered by the Islamic State over the past two years (including in “atrocities like-minded groups” have pertetrated in Africa and Asia.)

In a recent landmark speech, UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron called out U.S. President Barack Obama for failing to name Islamist extremism and calling it instead “violent extremism.”

“Barack, you said it and you’re right — every religion has its extremists,” Cameron countered. “But we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL [ISIS], to al-Shabab, to al-Nusra, al Qaeda and so many other groups.”

In response to Obama’s failure to name the ideology behind current terrorism, Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamist who now is on the forefront of those advocating against this ideology, asks, “What happens if you don’t name the Islamist ideology and distinguish it from Islam?”

Nawaz says what will come back to Muslims is exactly the attitude the DNC is advocating against. “You’re sending out the message to the vast majority of Americans: There’s an ideology you must challenge, but you don’t tell them what it’s called. What are they going to assume? The average American is going to think, ‘Yeah, I’ve got to challenge an ideology — it’s called Islam.’”

Nawaz added, “You’re only going to increase anti-Muslim hatred, increase the hysteria, like ‘he who must not be named’ — the Voldemort effect, I call it — by not naming the ideology. Because the average guy out there is going to assume the president is talking about the religion itself.

“But if you distingiush Islamist extremism and say, ‘Look, Islam’s a religion. We’re not going to tell you whether Islam is good or bad, peaceful or not. We’re not going to define that for you. What we can say is you mustn’t try to impose that on anyone else. If you do, that’s called Islamism, and that’s what we have a problem with.’”

In the long run, failing to name this treacherous enemy will almost certainly mean the battle against it will be lost. In truth, bombs can only destroy people, but they are ineffective against ideology, which can always fourish in newer and younger groups of people.

In his speech, Cameron stated, “Our new approach is about isolating the extremists from everyone else, so that all our Muslim communities can be free from the poison of Islamist extremism.”

Naming “radical Islam” for the ideology it is, is the first step towards fighting this scourge on all civilization as we know it.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reps Endorse Bill to Name Brotherhood as Terror Entity

Hate Crimes in US Against Muslims Decrease – FBI Report

Governors of 27 States Say They Oppose Syrian Refugees in US

How the Paris Attacks Increase the Threat to America

PORTLAND, MAINE: Somali Immigrants Kill Christian Man In Most Gruesome Way

Hamas-linked CAIR demands apology from Scott Walker for “enabling ISIS”

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, is in full outrage mode at Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker, trying to intimidate him into speaking less accurately about the nature of the jihad threat. It’s their usual tactic: charging anyone who dares to note the Islamic character of Islamic terrorism with “hatred” and “bigotry.” Usually this works, in our cowed and confused culture, and Hamas-linked CAIR seems to have won at least a partial victory over Walker — we’ll know for sure who won when we see if he ever uses the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” again.

Aside from Hamas-linked CAIR, that is a stupid phrase anyway. Is there “moderate Islamic terrorism”? If not, then why use the word “radical” at all? Because even Walker, for all his courage in standing up to the forces of politically correct authoritarianism in other contexts, can’t bring himself to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” straight, without a modifier — he knows the firestorm that would ensue, and so draws back. Now he will probably draw back even farther. And yes, I am well aware that however watery and weaselly the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” may be, Walker has already distinguished himself as more forthright, honest and courageous than most of his rivals just by using it. Most of them won’t even go that far toward the truth about the jihad threat.

More below. “Muslim advocate: Scott Walker is ‘enabling ISIS’ with ‘radical Islam’ rhetoric,” by Jesse Opoien, The Capital Times, August 29, 2015:

A representative for America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization said Gov. Scott Walker is “enabling ISIS” by allowing the terrorist group to co-opt the Islamic religion.

“With this, Scott Walker is actually enabling ISIS by characterizing their acts as being Islamic terrorism,” said Robert McCaw, government affairs manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “He is taking a peaceful religion of 1.6 billion people and misappropriating it to ISIS, allowing them to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it.”

Here again we see the familiar sleight-of-hand. Hamas-linked CAIR would have us believe that Scott Walker is responsible for allowing the Islamic State “to wrap themselves in the religion’s name and stake a claim to it,” as if no one ever associated ISIS with Islam until Walker started talking about “radical Islamic terrorism.” In reality, people associate the Islamic State with Islam because the Islamic State associates itself with Islam, and nothing Scott Walker says or doesn’t say is going to change that. No young Muslim is going to decide to join the Islamic State because a non-Muslim politician referred to jihadis as “Islamic extremists,” thereby validating them as Islamic. No Muslim looks to non-Muslim authorities to validate what is or isn’t Islamic and who is or isn’t a Muslim. Hamas-linked CAIR’s real objective here is obvious: to intimidate Walker (and everyone else) into never speaking of Islamic terrorists as Muslims. Why? So that American Muslim advocacy groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR will not be called to account for not doing anything to stop jihadist recruitment in mosques in the U.S., and instead opposing counter-terror programs all over the country — after all, those terrorists aren’t Muslims, so the true, peaceful Muslims can’t be expected to do anything about them.

McCaw was referring to Walker’s first foreign policy address as a presidential candidate, delivered on Friday at The Citadel military college in South Carolina, during which he referenced Islamic extremists or radical Islamic terrorism 11 times.

As a presidential candidate, there are plenty of things Walker has pledged to do differently than President Barack Obama. Chief among them is to use the words, “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The Wisconsin governor isn’t the only Republican presidential contender to highlight this difference. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have also made frequent calls for a commander-in-chief who will declare the problem with forces like ISIS to be radical Islamic terrorism.

Obama has generally refrained from attaching a religious affiliation to terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, referring to them as “violent extremists” and “terrorists.”

Addressing a group of foreign ministers in February at the State Department, the president made clear that it’s an intentional choice. He said those groups are “desperate for legitimacy” and should not be granted it.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam, because that is a falsehood that embraces the terrorist narrative,” he said.

“All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam” — great. Where are the Muslim refutations of the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam? (There are some, but they’re mostly just exercises in detour and deception). Where are the programs in mosques and Islamic schools in the U.S. to teach young Muslims why they should reject the Islamic State’s view of Islam? There aren’t any. Now, why is that?

The president added that the U.S. is “not at war with Islam, we are at war with those who have perverted Islam.”

Walker’s tone was significantly different in his hawkish foreign policy address, which called for the U.S. to stop being “passive spectators while the world descends into chaos.”

The governor pledged to secure U.S. borders “at any cost,” fight terrorists abroad leaving “all options” on the table, restore the U.S. alliance with Israel and strengthen the defense budget.

He called for increased investment in counterterrorism and surveillance programs, implementing a no-fly zone over Syria, imposing harsh sanctions against Iran and restoring a strong alliance with Israel. He promised once again to terminate the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal on “day one” in the White House.

All of this was tied to an overarching theme of the need to “defeat radical Islamic terrorism.”

“The policy of a Walker administration will be to confront radical Islamic terrorism using the full range of statecraft options. We must give our intelligence professionals the legal and constitutional tools they need to keep us safe,” Walker said.

Jenni Dye, research director for the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, suggested Walker’s message was driven by the conservative Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, whose president and CEO Michael Grebe is Walker’s presidential campaign chairman. Grebe also served as chairman for Walker’s two gubernatorial bids and his recall campaign.

The Bradley Foundation was deemed one of the “top eight funders of Islamophobia” based on IRS filings from 2001-2012 in a report by the liberal Center for American Progress. Recipients of Bradley funds noted in the report include the Middle East Forum, David Horowitz Freedom Center and Center for Security Policy.

“The virulent Islamophobia promoted and funded by the Bradley Foundation, run by Scott Walker’s campaign chair, is filling the void that is his foreign policy experience,” Dye said. “Even their millions can’t paper over the fact this guy is dangerously unprepared. His simplistic saber rattling reveals an ignorance of history and a shockingly cavalier attitude about sending the brave men and women of our armed forces into harm’s way.”…

While retailing all this far-Left propaganda, “journalist” Jesse Opoien doesn’t bother to inform his readers that Hamas-linked CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. Its California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI; a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets advising the same thing. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Detroit: Iraqi Christian refugees from Muslim persecution protest proposed mosque

UNC’s “Literature of 9/11” course indoctrinates students to love jihad terror, hate America