Archive for the ‘Islam and terrorism’ category

The Unserious West and the Serious Jihadists

April 15, 2016

The Unserious West and the Serious Jihadists, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, April 15, 2016

Obama 0000

The Obama administration and the “nuisance of terrorism.”

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it.

*********************************

In Terry Gilliam’s dystopian film-classic Brazil, London is under assault from a 13-year-long terrorist campaign that Londoners won’t stop and so just live with. A bomb goes off in a restaurant, and the waiters scurry to screen off the mangled and dying so survivors can continue eating. When reminded by a journalist that “The bombing campaign is now in it 13th year,” the Deputy Minister laughs, “Beginner’s luck!” The West today is rapidly approaching the surreal insouciance of Gilliam’s fantasy.

Think about Obama, hanging out with head of terror-state Raul Castro at a baseball game during the Brussels attacks that killed 34, including four Americans. Obama told Chris Wallace that the terrorists “win” if we don’t go about our daily business, like the diners in Brazil ordering dessert among the screams and moans of the dying and wounded. After all, ISIS is not an “existential threat,” as the president keeps saying, and more of us die in bathtub falls than are killed by terrorists. Obama apparently thinks he has achieved John Kerry’s goal during the 2004 presidential campaign to reduce terrorism to a “nuisance” like prostitution.

I suppose the absurd security measures we endure every time we board a plane is the sort of “nuisance” Kerry and Obama are talking about. I guess we “win” when we dutifully take off our shoes and coats, put our computers and three ounces of liquids in a tray, and submit to aggressive wanding by surly TSA functionaries. Are such silly measures now part of the daily life we should just get on with? Of course Obama’s attitude is preposterous, and he should know that it is the terrorists who “win” every time an 80-year-old has to endure being felt up by a federal worker. Meanwhile, in breach tests of TSA inspectors in 2015, 95% of fake explosives and contraband sailed through the screening process.

These inefficient and intrusive procedures have been put in place mainly to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. Such obeisance to politically correct proscriptions against “profiling” is just one of the myriad ways in which we tell the jihadist enemy we really aren’t serious about the latest battle in the 14-century-long war of Islam against the infidel West.

Take Obama’s Executive Order 1341, which banned waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” of captured jihadists. Now only those practices in the Army Field Manual can be used to question detainees, despite the fact that the document is public and so jihadists can use it to train terrorists how to resist. Forget that one technique, waterboarding, is legal under U.S. law, and generated actionable intelligence––according to former CIA chief George Tenet, waterboarding a few high-value suspects helped foil over 20 al Qaida plots against the U.S. Those facts cannot outweigh Obama’s need to preen morally and gratify international anti-Americanism.

More recently, his notoriously political CIA director John Brennan displayed once again this administration’s lack of seriousness about the war against Islamic jihad. In 2009 Brennan “corrected” 14 centuries of Islamic scripture, practice, and law by calling jihad a way “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral good.” Obviously, the most revered Shi’a Islamic theologian, the Ayatollah Khomeini, was wrong when he said, “Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers,” or “Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.” That’s also the “moral good” for which ISIS wages jihad.

Brennan apparently learned nothing since 2009 about the nature of this war. Responding last week to Donald Trump’s promise to bring back waterboarding of detainees, Brennan huffed that should any president revoke Obama’s executive order and allow waterboarding and other EIT’s, “I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard bandied about, because this institution needs to endure.” Only someone profoundly unserious about his duty to protect the lives and safety of his fellow citizens would promise to disobey the Commander-in-Chief just so the bureaucracy he oversees can “endure,” whatever that means. The CIA has one job, protecting America’s security and interests, and it will “endure” only by successfully doing so, not by moral exhibitionism.

This lack of seriousness is endemic in this administration. Refusing to call ISIS “Islamic,” even going so far as to censor comments by French president François Hollande that used the word, bespeaks a dangerous frivolity. So too do symbolic tactics like droning an endless parade of ISIS “number twos” instead of committing enough forces and dropping enough bombs to make a strategic difference in the region. Instead, the American-led bombing campaign has averaged a mere seven strikes a day, with 75% of the planes returning with their bombs. Meanwhile Russia was averaging 60 strikes a day, freed from the squeamish rules of engagement that inhibit our forces from taking out an oil truck because it would kill the driver. Obama’s war against ISIS is a symbolic one typical of unserious politicians.

Our problem, however, goes beyond the politicians. Too many of us have failed to understand that this war did not begin on 9/11. It did not begin when al Qaeda declared war on us in the 90s and attacked our embassies and naval vessels. It did not begin in 1979, when our alleged neo-colonialist depredations supposedly sparked the Iranian revolution and created today’s Islamic (N.B., Mr. President) Republic of Iran, the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. It did not begin in 1948, when five Arab nations, all but one members of the U.N., violated Resolution 191 and attacked Israel. It did not begin when after World War I the victorious Entente powers exercised mandatory powers, granted by the League of Nations and codified in international treaties, over the territory of the Ottoman Empire that had sided with the Central Powers.

All these acts of aggression were merely the latest in a war begun in the 7th century when Islam attacked the eastern Roman Empire and began its serial dismemberment of the heart of Christendom, the old word for the West. For a thousand years the armies of Allah successfully invaded, conquered, occupied, enslaved, and raided the West, in accordance with its doctrine of jihad in the service of Muslim domination, and in homage to Mohammed’s injunction, “I was told to fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.” This record of success began to end in the 17th century with the rise of the modern West and its technological, economic, and political advantages.

But the war didn’t end with that Muslim retreat, even after what bin Laden called the “catastrophe” –– the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate, and the division of its territory into Western-style nation-states. The West won that battle, but it did not win the war. One reason is the Muslim nations of the Middle East never suffered the wages of their aggression. They sided with the Central Powers in World War I. They sat out World War II––apart from the many thousands who fought on the side of the Nazis––and received fugitive Nazis as guests after the war. Their serial aggression and terror against Israel has never been repaid with bombed-out capitals or punitive postwar reprisals. Their governments have never been punished for funding and proliferating mosques and madrassas teaching hatred of the infidel and terrorist violence in the service of jihad.

Instead of paying the price of aggression, partly because of the Cold War, more recently because of Western failure of nerve and civilizational exhaustion, Muslims have been the beneficiaries of billions in Western aid, Western arms, Western defense against enemies, Western lax immigration policies, Western appeasement, and Western suicidal ideas like cultural and moral relativism. In short, Muslims have never accepted their defeats, and have never experienced the humiliating cost of their aggression, because the modern West has never forced them to pay for it.

Thus they look at our unserious, godless culture of consumption and frivolity, of self-loathing and guilt, and these serious believers are confident that 350 years of defeat in battle have not led to defeat in the long war. And so the war goes on. The frivolous Western dogs bark, but Allah’s caravan moves on.

See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense

April 14, 2016

See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Line of Defense, Secure Freedom via You Tube, April 14, 2016

Islamophobia in one State (5)

April 14, 2016

Islamophobia in one State (5), Power LineScott Johnson, April 14, 2016

(Please see also, From Poet to Jihai: The Story of a Somali American in Minnesota. — DM)

On what seems like a daily basis, Minnesotans are lectured against the evils of “Islamophobia.” In October, Gov. Mark Dayton weirdly instructed “white, B-plus, Minnesota-born citizens” to suppress their qualms about immigrant resettlement in Minnesota, according to the St. Cloud Times. If they can’t, they should “find another state,” he added.

Andrew Luger, the United States Attorney for Minnesota is a paragon of political correctness who has inveighed against “the current wave of Islamophobia” and has stayed on the attack. Yesterday Luger and others gathered at the prestigious Minneapolis law firm Dorsey & Whitney to decry Islamophobia. Walter Mondale is of counsel at the firm and was a featured speaker at the event. The Star Tribune reports on the proceedings in “Minneapolis legal community, Somali-Americans latest to unite to confront Islamophobia.”

The Twin Cities have received more than 100,000 Somali Muslims in the past 20 years or so. Their presence is notable, yet signs of bigotry against them are virtually nil.

The star victim on display at the Dorsey & Whitney conference yesterday was Asma Jama (middle name Mohamed, by the way). Jama was assaulted by a patron at a local Applebee’s who “flew into a rage because she spoke a foreign language.” Jama speaks Swahili.

The perpetrator of the assault on Jama was one Jodie Burchard-Risch. Burchard-Risch is a nut who has probably had to push 1 for English one too many times. The Star Tribune provides no evidence for deeming her an anti-Muslim bigot. (MPR has a good account of the assault here, with photos.) So far as I can tell, “Islamphobia” had nothing to do with the assault. Indeed, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess wildly that alcohol was a substantial contributing factor to the incident. And when it comes to “Islamophobia,” this was the best they could do, so to speak.

“Islamophobia” is a concept fervently promoted since 2000 by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It seeks to stigmatize expressions of disapproval of Islam as irrational manifestations of fear and prejudice. Implicitly, it raises the question of whether any fear of Islam is necessarily crazy. It also raises the question of whether some fear of Islam might be rational, but it instructs us to keep any unapproved answer to ourselves. It seeks to make us afraid to talk about perfectly reasonable fears. Andrew McCarthy has more on the provenance and uses of “Islamophobia” here.

Since the early 1990s, Minnesota has been flooded by waves of Somali Muslim refugees and immigrants. The number remains in doubt; official sources place it at something like 35,000. Unofficial estimates put it at well over 100,000. Whatever the number, it is large and growing.

Politicians like Dayton have proved highly effective in inhibiting public discussion of legitimate concerns about Minnesota’s Somali community. When I sat down to interview Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek in his office this past November, he bristled in response to my question about security issues related to the Somali community. Why was I focusing on that community? I referred to the congressional task force report recognizing Minnesota’s responsibility for 26 percent of the American fighters joining or seeking to join the ISIS. “I just came from an FBI briefing this morning,” Stanek told me at the time. “They told me we’re 20 percent.”

OK, but that still leaves Minnesota at No. 1 in a ranking where we would like to be No. 50.

Ten Minnesota Somalis have now been charged by Luger’s office with seeking to join or support ISIS. Four have pleaded guilty. The charges represent the culmination of a 10-month FBI investigation.

Reading the criminal complaints and underlying FBI affidavits supporting the charges in these cases is an alarming experience. The young men who have responded to the call of ISIL are full of hate for Americans and for the U.S. If they choose to act it out somewhere closer to home than Syria, we will have a major problem on our hands. After the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., you’d think it might be time to talk about it.

The 10 men present something of a case study that belies the clichés around the subject of “radicalization.” These men were “connected” to schools and jobs. Their cases demonstrate plenty of opportunity for advancement and financial support. One of the men even maxed out his federal student loan account with a $5,000 withdrawal before seeking to depart Minneapolis for Syria.

Unnamed local mosques figure prominently in the cases. Islam is, of course, a common denominator. The 10 men are all Muslims seeking to join the jihad waged by ISIL.

Hillary Clinton actually had a useful observation buried in her Minneapolis speech this past fall on the subject of terrorism. She quoted Deqa Hussen, the mother of one of the 10 Somali men charged with supporting ISIS. Addressing other parents, Hussen said: “We have to stop the denial. … We have to talk to our kids and work with the FBI.” Clinton herself added: “That’s a message we need to hear from leaders within Muslim-American communities across our country.”

Which raises a question or two: Why don’t we hear that message more often from leaders within the Somali community? For that matter, why don’t we hear more expressions of gratitude from within the Somali community for their rescue from Third World disorder by the U.S. or for opportunities afforded to them in Minnesota?

Kyle Loven is the Minneapolis FBI’s chief division counsel and media coordinator. Speaking about Somali-related law enforcement issues to the National Security Society in Richfield in October, he conceded that the community gave rise to special challenges for law enforcement. “We walk a tightrope” with this community, Loven observed. “Every time we have to indict somebody, you should see the remarks we get. … Every time we have to make an arrest, it is a setback [in our relations with the Somali community].”

Luger is nominally responsible for a pilot program to prevent “radicalization” of Somali-Minnesotans. The program goes under the name “Building Community Resilience,” a classic euphemism of the Obama era. The program is to funnel as much as $1 million to support Minnesota’s Somali community. The memorandum of understanding between Luger and Minnesota Somali leaders reflects the wariness of Somali-Minnesotans. It stipulates that the program will not be used for surveillance purposes by any law enforcement agency or by any person working for or on behalf of any law enforcement agency.

You can see why the authorities might want to shut down discussion of reasonable concerns raised by Minnesota’s Somali community. They really would prefer not to talk about them. They would prefer to sweep them under a well-worn rug.

NOTE: This post is adapted from my December Star Tribune column “Islam and Minnesota: Can we hear some straight talk for a change?” I hope that was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously no.

The GITMO Exodus

April 13, 2016

The GITMO Exodus, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, April 13, 2016

gitmo_libyans_0

Despite warnings that Muslim terrorists remain a grave threat to the United States, President Obama gave two dangerous veteran jihadists at Guantanamo Bay get-out-of-jail-free cards earlier this month.

Emptying out Guantanamo is a longtime goal of Obama. Shuttering the terrorist detention facility located on U.S.-held territory in Cuba has been a goal of President Obama, going back at least to the campaign trail in 2008. He wants to close the prison camp and unleash the worst of the worst among Islamic terrorists, allowing them to wreak havoc and kill more Americans. Violent Muslim militants are merely misunderstood people from a foreign culture, in Obama’s view, and setting them free is just the right thing to do as he sees it.

Obama doesn’t give a farthing’s cuss about the prospect of these hardened terrorists returning to the glories of jihad-fighting after leaving Gitmo. Terrorists, freedom fighters — why quibble? They’re all more or less the same to the president.

The first newly freed detainee, Salem Abdul Salem Ghereby (also known as Rafdat Muhammad Faqi Aljj Saqqaf, Falen Gherebi, and Salim Gherebi), a 55-year-old Libyan national, was transferred to Senegal on April 3.

Senegal, a French-speaking country on Africa’s western coast, also accepted Ghereby’s comrade-in-jihad, Omar Khalifa Mohammed Abu Bakr (also known as Omar Khalif Mohammed Abu Baker Mahjoub, Omar Mohammed Khalifh, and Omar Mohamad Khalifah), another Libyan national who is thought to be 43 or 44 years old.

Why Senegal? Perhaps because about 95 percent of Senegal’s up to 14 million inhabitants are Muslims.

Although Senegal “has shown no signs of jihadist terrorism” and its government has cracked down on terrorist financing and money laundering in the region, it is bordered by Islamist violence-plagued Mali and Mauritania. According to the American Foreign Policy Council, there are concerns that Senegal “presents a potential ‘backdoor’ for radical, jihadist Islam, which already exhibits a major presence in rapidly-changing North Africa.”

According to a 2008 Department of Defense report, Ghereby was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) also known as Al-Jama’a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya, which is reportedly tied to al-Qaeda.

Ghereby had been an “explosives trainer and a veteran jihad fighter” who participated in hostilities against U.S. and coalition forces in Osama bin Laden’s Tora Bora Mountain complex in eastern Afghanistan. He was deemed to be only a “medium threat from a detention perspective” and of “medium intelligence value,” but was considered to be “high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies[.]”

Like Ghereby, Bakr was deemed to present a “high risk” to U.S. interests but unlike Ghereby he was deemed “a high threat from a detention perspective” and is “of high intelligence value.”

“If released without rehabilitation, close supervision, and means to successfully reintegrate into his society as a law abiding citizen, it is assessed detainee would immediately seek out prior associates and reengage in hostilities and extremist support activities,” according to the DoD. Bakr mostly behaved himself in custody but he “has threatened to kill US personnel on several occasions.”

Bakr, who has “extensive explosives knowledge” according to the Pentagon, admits to being a member of LIFG and was identified as “commander of a militant training camp and acknowledged serving as trainer.” He was also identified as an “arms dealer who provided support to [Osama bin Laden] in Sudan” and was determined to have been active in a cell that planned improvised explosive device (IED) attacks against U.S. and coalition forces.

Three months ago Obama released admitted al-Qaeda member and IED maker Tariq Mahmoud Ahmed Al Sawah, a Bosnian, who was shipped off to Bosnia. “These IEDs included the limpet mine to sink US naval vessels and the prototype for the shoe bomb used in a failed attack on a civilian transatlantic flight,” the DoD reported.

Another bomb maker, Abd al-Aziz Abduh Abdallah Ali al-Suwaydi, a Yemeni, was transferred to Montenegro.

Obama, who will return to private life in nine months blithely told Yahoo! News in December that “only a handful” of Gitmo detainees had returned to the battlefield. Actually, the number was 196 as of July 2015, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). The 196 figure represents 30 percent of the 653 detainees removed from Gitmo who were confirmed or suspected of returning to the battlefield.

President Obama continues to delude himself, claiming that Gitmo’s continuing existence is the jihadist equivalent of waving a red cape at a bull.

“I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS, and if we want to fight ’em, then we can’t give ’em these kinds of excuses.”

But whose excuses is Obama talking about?

He is the one serially lying and making up excuses to justify releasing his jihadi soulmates. As the Weekly Standard notes, “Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.”

None of this should shock Obama-watchers. He doesn’t like letting facts get in the way of the radical left-wing narrative.

ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism?

April 12, 2016

ISIS or Islam: Which Breeds Terrorism? Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, April 12, 2016

isis (1)

Originally published by PJ Media.

A lie conceals the truth.  And ugly but hidden truths never have a chance of being acknowledged, addressed, and ultimately ameliorated.

Because of this simple truism, one of the greatest lies of our age—that violence committed in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam—has made an intrinsically weak Islam the scourge of the modern world, with no signs of relief on the horizon.

One of the latest manifestations of this lie took place in Pakistan.  On Easter Sunday, March 27, a suicide bombing took place near the children rides of a public park, where Christians were congregated and celebrating the resurrection of their Lord.  At least 74 people—mostly Christian women and children—were killed and nearly 400 injured.  “There was human flesh on the walls of our house,” recalled a witness.

Who—or what—was responsible for this assault?  “We claim responsibility for the attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter,” said Jamaatul Ahraar, a splinter group of the Taliban.  In a media statement, the group said it had “deliberately targeted the Christian community,” adding that “we had been waiting for this occasion.”

The Taliban and its affiliates are not alone.  Click herehereherehere, and here, for numerous examples of similarly lethal attacks on Christians celebrating Christmas or Easter by other Islamic groups and individuals around the world who also “had been waiting for this occasion.”  Even “the terror cell that struck in Brussels [last month, killing 34] was planning to massacre worshippers at Easter church services across Europe, including Britain, intelligence chiefs believe.”

Still, connecting the dots and understanding what binds all Islamic terrorist groups is a big no-no for the so-called mainstream media.  The problem, we will be told, is the “Taliban,” which “has nothing to do with Islam.”  Rather, it’s a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

Meanwhile, about 5,000 miles west of Taliban territory, in Nigeria, Christians are also under attack.  Indeed, according to a new report, since 2000, some 12,000 Christians have been slaughtered for their faith and 13,000 churches destroyed.  Just last month, over 500 Christians were butchered.

According to the official narrative, something called “Boko Haram” is responsible.  This is another group that defines itself exclusively according to Islam; another group that habitually bombs churches during Christmas and Easter; and another group that, we are told, “has nothing to do with Islam,” but rather is a finite, temporal, localized problem: defeat it, and the problem vanishes.

About 5,000 miles west of Nigeria, in the U.S., Americans were told that something called “al-Qaeda” attacked and killed 3,000 of their countrymen on 9/11; defeating that finite group would cease the terror.  Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was killed, and victory loudly proclaimed—except that an even more savage manifestation, this time called the “Islamic State” (it too “has nothing to do with Islam”) came on the scene and has gone further than al-Qaeda could’ve ever dreamed, in great part thanks to the Obama administration.

It gets worse.  The problem is not only that the media and decision-makers refuse to connect the dots and insist on treating each of the aforementioned groups as disparate, finite groups with different motivations—none of which has to do with Islam.  The problem is that regular Muslims who are not called “Taliban,” “Boko Haram,” “al-Qaeda,” “ISIS,” ad infinitum commit similar acts, and much more frequently, though this is rarely ever mentioned by the MSM.

Thus, although the “Taliban” was behind the recent Easter Day massacre, it is everyday Muslims who discriminate against, persecute, enslave, rape and sometimes murder Christians every day in Pakistan (click here for a typical month); it was everyday Muslims who burned a young Christian couple alive due to unsubstantiated rumors that they had insulted Muhammad.

Those who slaughtered 500 Christians last month in Nigeria were not “Boko Haram” but rather un-affiliated (but Muslim) herdsmen.  Likewise, “Northern Muslim political and religious elite are also major actors of targeted violence towards the Christian minority.”

Although ISIS claimed the Brussels attack, it is everyday Muslims who ban, burn, bomb, and urinate on Christian churches, and who, as in Pakistan and other Muslim majority nations, target non-Muslim European women for rape on the basis that they are subhuman “infidels.”

This is the real issue.  While the media may name the terrorist groups responsible for especially spectacular attacks—followed by the customary admonitions that they “have nothing to do with Islam”—few dare acknowledge that Muslims in general engage in similar acts of violence and intolerance against non-Muslims.  According to a recent study, Muslims —of all races, nationalities, languages, and socio-political and economic circumstances, hardly just “terror groups”—are responsible for persecuting Christians in 41 of the 50 worst nations to be Christian in.

These statistics are consistent with a recent Pew poll finding that, in 11 countries alone, at least 63 million and as many as 287 million Muslims support ISIS.  Similarly, 81% of respondents to a recent Al Jazeera poll supported the Islamic State.

In sum, what “extremist” “terrorist” and “militant” groups (that “have nothing to do with Islam”) are doing is but the tip of the iceberg of what Muslims are doing all around the world.  (See “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” reports which I’ve been compiling every month since July 2011 and witness the nonstop discrimination, persecution, and carnage committed by “everyday” Muslims against Christians.  Each monthly report contains dozens of atrocities, any of which if committed by Christians against Muslims would receive 24/7 blanket coverage.)

Media aren’t just covering up for Islam by pretending that the spectacular attacks committed by Islamic groups on non-Muslims “have nothing to do with Islam.” They are covering up for Islam by failing to report the everyday persecution non-Muslims experience at the hands of everyday Muslims—Muslim individuals, Muslim mobs, Muslim police, and Muslim governments (including America’s closest “friends and allies”)—not just Muslim “terrorists.”

Because of these entrenched lies, the world must continue to suffer from Islamic terror.  Not only have these lies allowed countless innocents to be persecuted into oblivion in the Muslim world, but they have allowed the same persecution to enter America and Europe, most recently via mass immigration.

The fact remains: an ugly truth must first be acknowledged before it can be remedied.   It may be hard to acknowledge an ugly truth—that Islam, not “radical Islam,” promotes hate for and violence against non-Muslims—but anything less will just continue to feed the lie, that is, continue to feed the jihad and terror.

Fatah Spokesman Osama Qawasmeh: The West Sponsors Islamic Extremism; 9/11 Was No Coincidence

April 12, 2016

Fatah Spokesman Osama Qawasmeh: The West Sponsors Islamic Extremism; 9/11 Was No Coincidence, MEMRI-TV via You Tube, April 11, 2016

The blurb following the video states,

In an interview, broadcast by the Palestinian Authority’s official TV channel, Fatah spokesman Osama Qawasmeh talked about the situation in Syria, and said that “it was the [Americans] who worked to create Islamic extremism,” adding that “they are indoctrinated with certain notions, and leaders created in the West and in Israel are planted in their midst.” Qawasmeh further said that the timing of 9/11 was “no coincidence”: it pushed the Palestinian cause to the sidelines in the international media. The interview aired on April 5, 2016.

 

Op-Ed: Where did all the “Islamic terrorists” go?

April 10, 2016

Op-Ed: Where did all the “Islamic terrorists” go? Israel National News, Jeffrey Ludwig, April 10, 2016

(Please see also, Signs of an Incipient Islamic Reformation? — DM)

[O]ur enemies abound as never before in the Middle East. They all attend mosques. They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see their concerted hatred for the West, and for Judaism and Christianity.  But, according to our government, the perception of this reality is actually a massive misperception. 

Duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.

************************

ISIS is often portrayed by the mainstream media (MSM) as the demonic face of what is euphemistically called “extremism.”  To our President, this organization is not Islamic.

For our President (and for other Muslims with whom this writer has spoken) ISIS is composed of pathological individuals who are masquerading as Islamics, hence it is inappropriate to call them “Islamic extremists” or “Islamic radicals.”  Not only ISIS is to be exempted from the “Islamic” appellation, but so are other groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the growing number of “lone wolf” assassins.

Even Hamas,  on our State Department terror list, is allowed to receive money as they “partner” with the Palestinian Authority (in complete contravention of U.S. law).  Even Iran, a country with which we do not have formal diplomatic relations because of its atrocities, is purposely not portrayed as governed by “radical Islamists” or “Islamic terrorists.”

Despite appearances, therefore, you can rest assured that Islam is not at war with the West or with the kafirs (unbelievers).

Graeme Wood sees the appeal of ISIS to Islamics as lying in its ability to control land, thus its growing power lies in the idea that it is reinstating the Caliphate, with all the apocalyptic implications of that reinstatement for Islamic eschatology.  The re-establishment of the Caliphate will precipitate incredible supernatural events that will lead to the final authority of Allah and of Islam over the entire world.

According to Wood, it’s their control over land that gives ISIS credibility. For the U.S. to continue to present ISIS as non-Islamic, we have to prevent their territorial expansion, thereby diluting their claim to being the long-awaited Caliphate.  If they don’t have as much land, then they lose credibility, and relapse to the Obama definition stating that they are just a ragtag bunch of demonic thugs.

Al-Qaeda, the organization founded by Osama Bin Laden, has not been making headlines since ISIS began to be newsworthy.  Are Al-Qaeda’s members terrorists?  Do they deserve to be called “Islamic jihadists”? Well, yes and no.  According to MSM’s sycophantic commentators and to our left wing President, Al-Qaeda’s dependence on committing atrocities partially disqualifies them from being Islamic.  Remember, we are dealing with the oft-misunderstood “religion of peace.”  They are also disqualified because they do not govern any territory, but are comprised of a confederation of activist cells, killing but not governing. True Islamists will govern as well as kill.

In sum, Al-Qaeda is defined by a criminal pathology and lack control over any land area, two characteristically non-Islamic traits according to our President.

In recent days, following the above line of reasoning, the Taliban, whom we have been fighting for 13 years, are now to be referred to as “armed insurgents” and not as terrorists.  They are no longer armed men who gave safe haven to Osama Bin Laden so he could attack us on 9/11, but dedicated Afghanis fighting against a corrupt government of “folks” installed by the diabolical George W. Bush.

Five of their leaders were recently released to Qatar for one year in exchange for one American soldier held in captivity.  After the year, they may go wherever they please.  Tired of violence, after their year-long sequestration in sunny-but-barren Qatar, they will undoubtedly move to Costa Rica and get peaceful jobs setting up beach chairs and umbrellas.

Then there is Iran.  Iran is Muslim, but of the Shia faction of Islam that is repudiated by mainstream Sunni Muslims as well as by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Mainstream Sunnis, even though they have hatred or contempt for Shi’ites, are not as apt to kill them as are Al-Qaeda and ISIS.  [It might be interesting for the reader to know that when Ramzi Youssef, a Sunni muslim who planned and carried out the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, was on the run from the FBI and Interpol, he found time to kill a number of female Shi’ite pilgrims in Iran.]

Iran held 144 Americans hostage during Carter’s presidency, has arranged assassinations all over the world, regularly refers to the U.S. as “the Great Satan,” regularly threatens the total annihilation of Israel, frequently calls for the destruction of the USA, and is providing arms, missiles, and money to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations.

These behaviors hardly can be classified as “moderate,” but if one is Sunni, then Iran could be disqualified as Muslim. For Sunnis, the Shi’ites are not truly obedient to Mohammed, hence are non-Islamic.  By this sort of inversion, accommodation with Iran, then, might not be seen as accommodating Islamic violence since, for Sunni Islam (such as is practiced in Indonesia where Obama was schooled), Iran’s Islamacism is a renegade Islam at best, or, at worst, flat-out non-Islamic in light of Qu’ranic requirements.

Thus, if Iran does not represent true Islam, and Iran is promoting violence and terrorism through surrogates such as Hamas and Hezbollah, that violence is not Islamic.  If Iraq for which thousands of our men fought and died is controlled by a Shi’ite government accountable to Iran, then the problem this causes the U.S. is not, by definition, caused by Islamics.  Likewise the instability and danger of Yemen’s Houthis.

If Iran has been disqualified as an Islamic extremist entity, then their surrogates Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Yemen’s Houthis, and Iraq’s government are also disqualified. The Taliban has been disqualified as being Islamic terrorists and are now to be seen as people who just want to regain control of their country, and sometimes commit excesses in pursuit of that goal.  And if Al-Qaeda and ISIS are also disqualified as legitimate Islamic organizations, then how can any lone wolves or splinter teams of hit men claiming to be “jihadis” really be “Islamic terrorists”?

Are there no Islamic terrorists extant?

Obama’s deconstruction of the facts on the ground is completely ahistorical.  Not only does he deny that all these killers draw their inspiration from the teachings of Islam, but he denies that Islam has been marked by its warlike and anti-Western, anti-Christianity, and anti-Jewish fervor throughout most of its history.

Any student of history knows that this fantasy of world domination has been the dominant mindset of Islam for the better part of 1400 years.  A full-scale Islamic attack on the West was repulsed as recently as 1683 when Austria was attacked.  In the 19th century, U.S. Marines had to attack and defeat the Barbary pirates in No. Africa who were disrupting Western shipping and enslaving Americans.  We dare not forget that as recently as 1914-1918, the Ottoman Empire (Islamic religiously but ethnically Seljuk, not Arab) allied itself with the Central Powers in WWI, which alliance was intended to dramatically enhance Islamic power over the West.

Instead of perceiving the historical truth, the Obama administration has determined to deconstruct the definitions related to every violent group within Islam. They are each being portrayed as non-Islamic for different reasons.

But – our enemies abound as never before in the Middle East. They all attend mosques. They all pray five times a day to their God; they all read the same books.  We see their concerted hatred for the West, and for Judaism and Christianity.  But, according to our government, the perception of this reality is actually a massive misperception.

Duplicity has replaced forthright policy and governance.