Archive for the ‘Islamic terrorism’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Kent State Honored Prof After His Support for Terror Known

January 26, 2016

Kent State Honored Prof After His Support for Terror Known, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, January 26, 2016

(What if Prof. Pino, who works in the history department, had posted diatribes against the “Palestinian Resistance” and praised Israel? Would the university have reacted in comparable fashion? — DM)

Julio-Pino-Facebook-Cover-HPKent State Professor Julio Pino (right) changed his cover photo on Facebook to the picture on the left. Under he wrote “jokingly,” “Keep it a secret: that’s me on the left!”

[A]ll we hear from the university is that this is free speech and that he’s a “well-respected teacher in the classroom” so he will keep his job. He’s teaching two classes now and plans on returning in the fall—that is, unless the people of America compel KSU to change those plans.

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

The Kent State University student newspaper recently reported that a terrorism-supporting professor, Julio Pino, received two Faculty Excellence Awards in 2003 and 2010. His open support for terrorism, specifically suicide bombings in Israel, became known in 2002. In the years after, he was even linked to a website dedicated to assisting Al-Qaeda and other terrorists in killing people.

Kent Wired reports that he began teaching for the school in 1992 and earned tenure in 1998. He converted to Islam in 2002 and began openly supporting terrorism two years later. As our research reporton Pino documents, he wrote a letter praising a Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel as a “shining star” and asked Allah to “protect the soldiers of Islam fighting in Palestine.” He also objected to the terminology of “suicide bombers,” preferring to use “martyrdom bombers” because he doesn’t believe their acts constitute suicide, which is prohibited in Islam.

The next year, he was honored with a Faculty Excellence Award.

In 2007, it was learned that Pino was writing for a pro-Al-Qaeda website with the stated objective of assisting violent jihadists in acts of terrorism. As you can seen [sic] in our screenshots, the website’s homepage read at the time:

“We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals and jihad videos for our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write ‘jihad’ across our foreheads and the stars.”

A colleague at the university, Dr. Mike Adams, discovered Pino’s deep involvement in the website (Pino was most likely acting as the website’s main administrator). Adams writes: “[We] traced the emails. They were being sent directly from the Kent State office of Professor Julio Pino. Both veiled threats and general advocacy of violence were sent from his public university office.” [emphasis mine]

Pino was forced to admit to his involvement in the website. He kept his job despite walking right up to the edge of material support for terrorism. In 2009, Pino was interviewed by the Secret Service. Dr. Adams also published an email allegedly sent by Pino that praised the 9/11 hijackers.

The next year, he was honored with a Faculty Excellence Award.

His overt behavior escalated, including shouting “Death to Israel” at a visiting former Israeli diplomat. Now, it’s known that he’s been under FBI investigation for the past year and a half for possibly recruiting students for ISIS. The FBI has taken the extraordinary step of interviewing over 20 of his students.

And all we hear from the university is that this is free speech and that he’s a “well-respected teacher in the classroom” so he will keep his job. He’s teaching two classes now and plans on returning in the fall—that is, unless the people of America compel KSU to change those plans.

Categories: Academia, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Israel, Palestinian terrorists, Propaganda
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Report: Islamic State, Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood Discuss ‘Mega-Merger’ in Libya

January 25, 2016

Report: Islamic State, Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood Discuss ‘Mega-Merger’ in Libya, Breitbart,  Aaron Klein and Ali Waked, January 25, 2016

(Here’s a video of an interview with Islamic reformist Dr. Zuhdi Jasser about the current situation in Libya. H/t Counter Jihad Report.

— DM)

Peshmerga-sinjar-afp-640x480

TEL AVIV – The Libyan branches of the Islamic State, Al-Qaida, and the Muslim Brotherhood are in discussions to complete a “mega merger,” the London-based A Sharq al Awsat newspaper reported.

Leaked documents have revealed that Libya’s biggest Islamist organizations are considering an alliance and the establishment of a joint council of sages, the Arabic language daily reported.

The prospective move comes in the wake of reports of an imminent international effort to form a unity government that would bring Libya’s numerous parties and militias together.

The paper said the Muslim Brotherhood is considering a united Islamic front even though the movement is officially in favor of forming a unity government. However, sources within the movement told the paper that their support for the international endeavor is merely tactical, and they’re waiting for it to collapse.

Negotiations between the three Islamic groups began because of reports of a rapprochement between the internationally recognized government based in Tobruk and the unrecognized government in the capital Tripoli, the paper said.

The groups wish to send a message to the forces coalescing around a unity government that they are not opposed by IS alone, but “all the Islamist opposition elements speak in one voice and should be treated as such,” a source said.

According to the documents, Muslim Brotherhood leaders said that Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s regime “isn’t supported by the Americans because of his close relations with Russia. They can’t wait to see him leave the scene.”

The parties agreed to form a joint Shura (advisory) council and territories that are currently under Islamic control will be divided between them, echoing a similar agreement that is already underway in Benghazi.

Al-Qaida’s representative was quoted as saying that the move would inspire Islamists in Algeria and Egypt to follow suit.

This follows Breitbart Jerusalem’s own exclusive reporting on mediation efforts between the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Hamas in Gaza and Salafists aligned with the Islamic State.

Breitbart Jerusalem previously reported that Shadi al-Menai, one of the leaders of Wilayat Sinai, the Islamic State branch in Sinai, visited Gaza in a bid to mediate between Hamas and local Salafi groups after clashes erupted, resulting in the arrests of dozens of jihadists by Hamas forces.

Earlier this month, a leading Salafi source revealed that Menai mediated a deal whereby Hamas would give the Gaza Salafi opposition groups more leeway in exchange for Wilayat Sinai’s help in bypassing the Egyptian army’s restrictions on smuggling rocket parts into Gaza

This is not the first report of Hamas-IS cooperation in arms smuggling.

A Middle East think tank charged last month that there is information Hamas has been paying off the Islamic State’s Sinai branch to smuggle weapons into Gaza. “Over the past two years, IS Sinai helped Hamas move weapons from Iran and Libya through the peninsula, taking a generous cut from each shipment,” stated a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Despite the rapprochement between Hamas and IS-Sinai, tensions between the ruling faction and Salafi opposition groups in Gaza are rampant.

The Army of Islam, a Salafi group that aspires to become IS’s sole representative in Palestine, recently released an acerbic video in which it blames Hamas for straying from Sharia law and cooperating with anti-Islamic players, including Shi’ite Iran.

Categories: al-Qaida, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UN Plan to Prevent “Violent Extremism” Ignores its Primary Cause

January 19, 2016

UN Plan to Prevent “Violent Extremism” Ignores its Primary Cause, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, January 19, 2016

cx

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is operating from the same playbook as President Obama when it comes to addressing the threat of global jihad. They both deny that such a religiously-based threat exists. Just like Obama, Ban Ki-moon uses the euphemism “violent extremism,” without linking it to its primary ideological source – Islam.

The global terrorist scourge is driven by Islamic supremacy and the jihadist war against the “infidels” that are embedded in sharia law. That is not to say that the jihadists are the only terrorists in the world. However, to diffuse responsibility by contending that violent extremism is found in all faiths ignores the fact that the only global terrorist network threatening our way of life today is bound together by the teachings of Islam.

In the Secretary General’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on January 15th introducing his “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,” he said that “the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.” Obama said essentially the same thing last February at his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, lamenting that it is “especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.”

Both Ban Ki-moon and President Obama omitted to say that the killers are also primarily Muslims. Moreover, they left out entirely any mention of the ongoing genocide being conducted by Muslims in the name of Allah against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East.

When I asked the spokesperson for the Secretary General why the Secretary General did not acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of global terrorists today are Islamists, the spokesperson responded that “the Secretary‑General’s focus is not on targeting or pointing finger at one ethnic group, one religious group, or people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion.”

This begs the question as to why the Secretary General took pains to assert that Muslims constitute the majority of terrorists’ victims but refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators are also Muslims.

The Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism describes what it calls the “drivers of violent extremism.”  These drivers include, according to the UN document, lack of socioeconomic opportunities, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance and violations of human rights, prolonged and unresolved conflicts, radicalization in prisons, collective grievances, and exploitation of social media.

Obama offered essentially the same explanation for the growth of violent extremism put forth by Ban Ki-moon. A key problem, he said, was lack of economic opportunity that trapped people –especially young people – “in impoverished communities.”

Obama added: “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism.”

Ban Ki-moon and President Obama both have argued that Islam itself is blameless. It is, in Ban Ki-moon’s words, the “distortion and misuse of beliefs” that are to blame. At his February 2015 Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama called out what he described as “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.”

However, the truth is that Islam itself contains the seeds for the violence that is such a prominent part of jihad. Jihadists using violence as a tactic to impose Islam as the world’s only “legitimate” belief system are following the path laid down by Prophet Muhammed himself and his early followers, according to their literal words and acts.

The proposed actions to address the problem of “violent extremism,” both Ban Ki-moon and Obama agree, include better education, more opportunities for women, better governance, and respect for human rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief.  The UN Secretary General and President Obama base their common strategy on their shared utopian belief that peoples from every country and culture embrace a common set of “universal” human rights, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration’s preamble states:  “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, despite its enlightened vision of the inherent dignity and fundamental rights of all human beings, is far from being a truly universally accepted creed. Muslims reject it to the extent that it conflicts with sharia law.

While Muslim member states of the United Nations, with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia, signed the Universal Declaration, they disavow its Western, secular-based principles. Islamists refuse to be ruled by any human rights document that deviates from what they regard as the divinely-inspired sharia law.

As the Islamic response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation foreign ministers adopted The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. After reciting a litany of human rights that it pledges to protect, the Cairo Declaration subjects all of its protections to the requirements of sharia law. “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

By making Islamic law the sole authority for defining the scope of human rights, the Muslims’ Cairo Declaration sanctions limits on freedom of expression, discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and a prohibition against a Muslim’s conversion from Islam. Such restrictions on freedoms directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, the leading Muslim majority countries today representing the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam respectively, may be at odds with one another regarding certain sectarian and geopolitical issues. However, they both purport to govern according to sharia law, which is used to justify their religious intolerance, brutal suppression of dissent, misogyny and capital punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and homosexuality. It is Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism which has helped fuel the jihadists inside and outside of Saudi Arabia seeking to forcibly purify Islam from the influence of “infidels.” And Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as it seeks to fulfill the vision of Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Iranian Islamic revolution, to kill the infidels and ensure “that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which he claims is reflective of a “culture of dominance.” Instead, he said “the answer is return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation.” He called for the use of “Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters.” Presumably, what the Supreme Leader described as the “Islamic mode of thinking in society” would explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s arbitrary imprisonment, torture and the killing of political dissidents and members of minority groups. The “Islamic sources in legal matters” evidently serve as the basis for the regime’s discriminatory laws against women, among other repressive laws.

In 2013, Iran was rewarded by the UN for its vows of global conquest with a seat on the General Assembly’s disarmament committee. Last year Iran was rewarded for its horrendous record of abuses against women with membership on the executive board of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. And as of January 16, 2016, Iran has been welcomed back into the international community with the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets worth approximately $150 billion.

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, expressed back in 2008 the religious intolerance that lies at the heart of the leading Sunni country’s practice of Islam: “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).” With the help of the Islamic State and al Qaeda that receive funding from Saudi Arabia, this ambition is on its way to being realized, and even expanded to reach throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The same Saudi sheikh and head of the Supreme Judiciary Council also said: “Women who are raped by men are themselves to blame. They provoke men by the way they dress or walk.”

Last year Saudi Arabia was rewarded for its horrendous human rights record with a seat and leadership position on the UN Human Rights Council.

Coddling the leading jihad exporting countries and pretending that sharia law can ever be reconciled with so-called “universal” human rights values will render all plans of action to prevent “violent extremism” an utter failure.

Categories: Iran - human rights, Islam and human rights, Islamic terrorism, Obama and Islam, Saudi Arabia - Human rights, United Nations, Violent extremism
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama blasts bullying, ignores beheading

January 16, 2016

Obama blasts bullying, ignores beheading, Washington Times, Newt Gingrich, January 14, 2016

ye_2015_top_10_stories_c24-0-1854-1067_s885x516EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT – This image made from video posted online April 19, 2015 by supporters of the Islamic State militant group on an anonymous photo sharing website, members of an IS affiliate walk captured Ethiopian Christians along a beach in Libya. The video purportedly shows two groups of captives: one held by an IS affiliate in eastern Libya and the other by an affiliate in the south. A masked militant delivers a long statement before the video switches between footage that purportedly shows the captives in the south being shot dead and the captives in the east being beheaded on a beach. (Militant video via AP, File)

The 2016 State of the Union address was very striking for the one-sidedness and disproportion of the president’s concern for religious suffering.

President Obama worried that “politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or fellow citizens.”

But he couldn’t bring himself to worry aloud about the Christians being driven from Middle Eastern countries, the churches being burned from Nigeria to Malaysia, or the 22 Coptic Christians who were beheaded on video on a beach in Libya by Islamic supremacists.

Insulting Muslims: bad. Killing Christians: irrelevant.

The president went on to say that when “a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer, it diminishes us in the eyes of the world.”

Why is our civilization — or Islamic civilization, for that matter — diminished by name-calling, when the real damage to both is being done by virulent, violent Islamic supremacism? (After all, the vast majority of Muslims being violently killed are killed by Islamic supremacists.)

The president saw fit to blast bullying in his State of the Union speech, but he said nothing of the beheadings that leave Americans justifiably afraid. Nor did he mention San Bernardino — the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 — where the attack occurred just over a month ago.

If calling a kid names is bad enough to diminish us all, how does the President feel about the incident in France this week, in which a Muslim student in Marseille pulled out a machete and tried to kill his Jewish teacher? Indeed, the situation in France is so hostile to Jews that the leader of the Jewish community in Marseille advised that they should stop wearing yarmulkes because it makes them targets. Not since the Nazis have Jews been told it is dangerous to be overtly Jewish in a European country.

Moreover, if calling a kid names diminishes us all, how would the president characterize the hundreds of assaults and rapes of German women by immigrants over New Years? How would he describe the German media’s and German government’s efforts to censor the news so that people would not know about it?

The president talks about “telling it like it is,” but neglects to mention the thousands of women and girls sold into sexual slavery by ISIS. He says that the United States has the most powerful military on the planet, but offers no strategy for ending the brutal rule of ISIS over millions of people.

Finally, the president highlighted his delusions about the dangers of the real world at the close of his speech, when he said that he was optimistic that “unarmed truth … will have the final word.”

This is a wonderful phrase for a preacher.

It is a terrible phrase for a commander-in-chief.

Unarmed truth would have its head cut off by ISIS.

Unarmed truth would be sold into slavery by Boko Haram.

Unarmed truth would be massacred by Al-Shabab.

It is a sad reality that while President Obama is very sympathetic to the plight of Muslims, he is stunningly silent about the plight of Jews and Christians.

It is a frightening reality that President Obama has no idea how dangerous the world would be if truth did not have the protection of the American military.

This was a very disturbing State of the Union speech — an address that explains much of our current danger.

Categories: Islam, Islam and cruelty, Islamic slaughter, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam, Obama's 2016 State of Union Address
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Hungarian Paper Slams Merkel: ‘No Bastards On Earth More Abominable Than Liberal Pigs Digging Europe’s Grave’

January 14, 2016

Hungarian Paper Slams Merkel: ‘No Bastards On Earth More Abominable Than Liberal Pigs Digging Europe’s Grave’ Breitbart, Sarkis Zeronian, January 14, 2016

MERKEL-640

East European political leaders and their media allies have attacked ‘politically correct’ Germans in the wake of the New Year’s Eve migrant sex assaults in Cologne and other cities, labelling the assailants “nothing but hyenas”.

In a huge “we told you so” gesture, politicians from across Eastern Europe have turned their fire on the German state’s welcoming and tolerant attitude to the migrant crisis. Having warned Chancellor Merkel that her actions and the politically correct tyranny of media opinion risked bringing Europe to ruin, they now feel vindicated by events in Cologne, reports Spiegel Online.

Robert Fico, the left-nationalist Prime Minister of Slovakia, told a televised debate that the media plays down the problem as migrants are a “protected species”. Using Cologne to support his argument, he has called for an urgent EU summit to deal with the cultural and security issues thrown up by the ongoing migrant crisis, including the creation of “parallel societies”.

Mr. Fico said Slovakia would not tolerate women being insulted in the streets, nor insular Muslim communities. In his support, Slovakian media outlets slammed the politically correct media in Germany and a naive “subculture of do-gooders”.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán feels equally vindicated. He used the occasion of his weekly radio broadcast to speak of the crisis in liberalism that meant reporting the sex assaults in Cologne had been suppressed in Germany. He said it showed that the media is more free to speak in Hungary than in the West, and that his government is right to be calling for a halt to immigration.

The strongest language was used by Zsolt Bayer, a friend of Mr. Orbán and co-founder of his Fidesz Party. Writing for Magyar Hirlap the journalist known for his trenchantly right-wing views described the Cologne assailants as “North African and Arabic animals – nothing but hyenas”. He added that Mrs. Merkel is letting her family and children get eaten by them.

Another Hungarian media outlet, the quasi-official government newspaper Magyar Idök, wrote:

“There are no bastards on this earth more abominable and more destructive than these liberal pigs who are digging Europe’s grave.”

In Romania, former President Traian Basescu said his country, like other Eastern European nations, would oppose a European Union quota system for refugees. He said Muslim migrants were brought up in the spirit of the Koran and could not adapt to European culture.

The leading Conservative-Liberal Romanian MEP Traian Ungureanu has described Mrs. Merkel and her open-door invitation to Germany as the “disaster of the century”. He also criticised “official censorship” of the events of Cologne he says prevails in Germany, adding:

“Every protest, every hint against gang rape is immediately classified as racism or extremism. It is the duty of public bodies to hide the facts and to deny.”

Categories: Europe, Germany, Hungary, Islam and women, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic perversions, Islamic slaughter, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Merkel, Multiculturalism, Muslim assimilation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Are Western Leaders Sellouts To Islam?

January 11, 2016

Are Western Leaders Sellouts To Islam? PamelaGeller.com, Nonie Darwish, January 10, 2016

obama-muslim

Is someone holding a gun to the heads of Western politicians, forcing them to state immediately after every Muslim terror attack that “Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with terror”? Who cares about whether Islam has or has not something to do with terror? The only people who care about Islam’s reputation are the so-called “moderate” Muslims who have been making excuses for jihad terror, and covering up for Islamic atrocities for centuries, while blaming Western foreign policy for their jihad.

As for all the jihadist groups themselves, they couldn’t care less about associating terrorism with Islam. In fact, jihadists have no problem with expressing pride in their terrorism, and love to see us disappointed and confused in our Western dilemma over what is or what is not Islam.

But now Western leaders are joining the ranks of “moderate” Muslims to cover up the real agenda of Islam. While their statements defending Islam are getting more and more outrageous and even sickening in the eyes of the informed Western citizen, they continue to mislead people as they blame Western thinking for not being tolerant enough.

It is not the job of Western leaders to defend Islam’s reputation from being connected with terror, especially if major Muslim institutions have consistently refused any condemnation of ISIS as un-Islamic. In fact, not one major Islamic university or leader in the Muslim world has condemned ISIS as un-Islamic. Usama bin Laden continues to be called Sheikh and held in high regard by many Muslims, even by the Arab media itself. The leaders of Al-Azhar University in Cairo keep telling the world over and over again that if Al-Azhar condemned ISIS, it would mean they are condemning themselves and their own teaching as un-Islamic.

So why do President Obama and the embarrassed moderate Muslims keep hammering us with defending Islam? The only explanation for this defense of Islam as having nothing to do with terror is that it is really not intended to please Muslims, as many might think. But in fact, it is intended to shame the uninformed American citizen into respecting Islam and capitulating to its agenda.

The head of the cheerleading team for Islam, President Obama, has inspired many other American politicians and world leaders to do the same thing, disciplining their own citizens to put up with Islamic tyranny to the point of insanity. In that process, Western leaders have no problem with using twisted logic, such as the idea that whatever negativity is done in the name of Allah must be tolerated because it has nothing to do with Islam.

The virus of this defective logic has penetrated the minds of almost all Western political leaders and the media, including the very people who are supposed to inform and protect us, such as the mayor of Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. They are all echoing the same thing in order to silence their citizens into accepting the dawn of a new multicultural era in which lawlessness, rape, and terror are to be tolerated and excused, lest we speak ill of Islam.

Western leaders are acting like hostages of the Islamic State, and are seriously expecting the obedient Western citizens to believe them. Nothing seems to work to remind those leaders as to who they are actually working for. They are not only defending Islam, but are also covering up for it and minimizing its danger to Western freedom, stability and law and order.

Even the mainstream media seems unshaken by all that is going on, and is cooperating with the political leaders into the shaming the side that supports freedom and the truth.

Discontent and fear are now brewing among the average Western citizen, who feels defenseless and scared to death of the Islamic agenda, and of loosing life in an orderly society. But instead of getting the message, Western leaders are doubling down on their assault on their own citizens, in order to force them into respecting anything and everything Islamic and never ever criticizing it.

It is now obvious that the 9/11 terror attack has achieved its Islamic goal, and has worked wonders on the psyche of the West. Terrorism is an old Arabian trick and tool for submission, and has always achieved wonders for Muslims. Even Mohammed was quoted saying, “I have been made victorious through terror.” Now that most Western leaders have capitulated, and instead of fighting back against Islam’s declaration of war, they have chosen to fight their own citizens.

Who could have ever imagined that this would have happened a little over a decade after 9/11? That Islamic rape, terror and violence would be running wild daily all over Europe and America, and Sharia blasphemy laws which go against all Western constitutions are being illegally enforced on Western citizens.

The defense of Islam by Western leaders has become pathological and extremely offensive to the majority of Americans, especially families and friends of victims of terrorism. And thus the only logical explanation for it is that Western leaders are selling out to Islam.

The abuse of the Western citizen, not only by Islam, but also by Western political leaders and its mainstream media, must end, because this is a recipe for disaster and a guarantee of future violent confrontations between the forces of freedom and forces of dhimmitude to Islam.

AFDI Geller Fellow Nonie Darwish is the author “The Devil We Don’t Know” and president of “Former Muslims United,” a program of the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

 

Categories: Islam, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Unindicted Terror Co-Conspirator Holds Islamophobia Conf After Terror Bust

January 10, 2016

Unindicted Terror Co-Conspirator Holds Islamophobia Conf After Terror Bust, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, January 10, 2016

download_1

This is getting a little silly even by Islamoganda standards. Muslim terror attack? Time to play the victim. At this rate, there will have to be Islamophobia conferences every week.

A coalition of Islamic groups held a conference today on what the groups say has been an increase of fear and suspicion about their faith. The gathering is called “Challenging Islamophobia.” About three dozen people attended the event at the Islamic Center of Minnesota in Fridley.

If your coalition can only turn out three dozen people, it doesn’t seem like anything except a desperate publicity stunt. Nobody else would be getting a news story for bringing out three dozen people.

One of the group’s sponsoring the conference is the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The group’s Minnesota director, Jaylani Hussein, said many Muslims are worried about this week’s arrest of two Middle Eastern refugees on terror charges, as well as the shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a self-described Islamic State adherent.

Shouldn’t it be the non-Muslims being attacked by Muslims who should be worried?

“There is a great deal of hysteria which is being fueled, not only by these incidents, but a lot of information online, a lot of information being spread through social media that is building a very negative view about Muslims,” Hussein said.

Like the fact that CAIR is an Unindicted Terror Co-Conspirator.

Categories: CAIR, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The volcano of Islamic terrorism

January 10, 2016

The volcano of Islamic terrorism, Israel Hayom, Yoram Ettinger, January 10, 2016

Terrorism has dominated the history of Islam, as demonstrated by the murder of three of the first four caliphs who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad: Umar ibn Abd al-Khattab (644 C.E.), Uthman Ibn Affan (656 C.E.) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (661 C.E.). Islamic terrorism has been one of the most active and dangerous volcanoes — domestically, regionally and globally — since the inception of Islam in the seventh century. Historically, all Arab regimes have achieved, sustained and eventually lost power through domestic violence, subversion or terrorism.

Currently, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya have become battlegrounds of rival Islamic terror organizations. Pro-U.S. Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE face clear and present terror threats. Iran and Saudi Arabia — the two leading sources of funding for Islamic terrorism — are confronting each other militarily, economically, ideologically and religiously. Intra-Muslim fragmentation, unpredictability, instability, intolerance, subversion, terrorism and the provisional nature of Islamic regimes have been recently intensified in an unprecedented manner.

So far, the lava of Islamic terrorism has affected mostly Muslims, but it is aiming to spill over into the abode of the “infidel” and is currently spreading into the streets of the U.S., Europe, Russia, China, India, Africa, Asia and Australia.

While most terrorists are Muslims, the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. However, the will of the majority has been systematically suppressed or oppressed in most Muslim societies (including Muslim communities in Western countries). These Muslim societies have never experienced democracy, exposing the majority to tectonic eruptions of violence by rogue regimes and organizations.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the 1,400-year-old volcanic Islamic terrorism has traditionally not been triggered by social and economic deprivation or by the absence of civil liberties. It has been triggered by the 14-century-old megalomaniacal, supremacist, intolerant, anti-democratic, repressive, non-negotiable and eternal aspiration — led by educated Islamic elites — to force the world of the infidel and the apostate to submit to Islam. The latter is, supposedly, the only legitimate religion, divinely ordained to rule the world.

According to the Quran, Islam is the only worthy and legitimate successor to the Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism. Thus, the subordination of humanity to the legacy of Muhammad should be achieved, preferably, via nonviolent means (dawah), deceit/double-talk (taqiyya) and immigration (hegira). But, in face of defiant infidels and apostates, the believers should resort to non-compromising, non-merciful violence (jihad), subversion, breach of international accords and terrorism.

Unlike the Western definition of terrorism (the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians), the Quran’s definition of terrorist (irhab) is the derivative of the verb arhaba (to terrify, scare), which is a tactic employed against the infidel to advance the goals of Islam (Quran 8:60). The Muslim bottom line is that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.”

Contrary to political correctness — and as demonstrated by the 1,400-year-old track record of Islamic violence and terrorism and the lack of intra-Muslim peaceful coexistence — Islam has never considered itself to be “a religion of peace” as defined by Western dictionaries.

According to Muhammad’s legacy, the term salam (peace) — which is derived from the same root as Islam — is employed when addressing fellow Muslims, but not when addressing non-Muslims, unless constrained by temporary military, economic or political inferiority.

Furthermore, Arab/Muslim societies invoke verses from the Quran and precedents from Islamic history as guidelines for contemporary, daily, personal, tribal, regional and national conduct. For example, Sura 20, verses 47-48 state that “peace be on whoever follows the guidance [of Allah] … and punishment shall afflict those who deny and turn their back [on Allah].” Thus, salam is reserved only for those who submit to Islam, while those who renege on their commitment to Islam are doomed. Moreover, any agreement with the infidel is defined as sulh, hudna, a tenuous truce of limited duration, until the balance of power facilitates total submission of the infidel to Islam.

Sacrificing reality and long-term national security on the altar of political correctness and short-term convenience, key Western policymakers and public opinion molders have refused to recognize the central role (or any role) played by Islam in the intensifying threat of terrorism. These movers and shakers have also insisted that providing employment and educational opportunities is the most effective way to combat terrorism.

Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of leading Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, wrote on February 22, 2015: “ISIS is not looking for jobs, neither are al-Qaida or Hezbollah. … According to [U.S. President Barack] Obama, oppressing the opposition leads to extremism and terrorism. However, the oppression of the Green Revolution by the Iranian regime has not led to extremism or terrorism in Iran. … Why is the entire Middle East, except Iran, targeted by terrorism? Why are some of al-Qaida’s leaders in Iran?”

Winston Churchill’s famous words on relations with communists apply even more so to terrorists: “Trying to maintain good relations with a communist is like wooing a crocodile. You do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or beat it over the head. When it opens its mouth, you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you up. … An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.”

Categories: Islam, Islam - submission, Islamic culture, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Islamic nations, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What is Sharia?

January 7, 2016

What is Sharia? What is the Threat, January 7, 2016

sharia-300x225

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

tafsir-300x203

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Categories: Abrogation, Hadith, Islam, Islam and Christianity, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic myths, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Koran, Mohammad, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Home-drone terrorism

January 7, 2016

Home-drone terrorism, The Hill, Ben Lerner, January 6, 2016

Non-state actors are already either deploying drones in the field or are drawing concern from security experts about their potential to do so.  Both Hezbollah and Hamas have sent (for now) non-weaponized, rudimentary drones of limited capability into Middle Eastern skies, including one Hezbollah drone that made it 140 miles into Israel. 

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

In the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attack that took the lives of fourteen victims in San Bernardino, California last month, a raft of information has been coming out regarding the identities and histories of the perpetrators, and also the arsenal they had amassed to carry out their plans.

Amidst all the reporting, it would be easy to miss a significant item that authorities found among the weaponry, as reported by Fox News:

“…Another source said investigators discovered a dozen pipe bombs in the house, as well as small explosives strapped to remote-controlled cars – a signature of terrorist groups including Al Qaeda, according to counter-terrorism experts.” [Emphasis added — DM]

Why remote-controlled cars?  Well, it turns out that as much as jihadist terrorists may value their own deaths in the course of their attacks, they also favor using any weapon that maximizes the number of casualties, and the fear that entails, whether they themselves are killed in the process or not.  Hence the high utility of and interest in improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which can be built cheaply and detonated from afar, allowing operators to evade detection and therefore minimize interdiction.  Add an ability to move the explosive to a specific location by remote, and you have a low-tech but lethal precision-guided weapon.

Those advantages of the remote IED – precision, evasion, cost-effectiveness – have prompted authorities increasingly to worry that terrorists will turn next to another device to help them carry out attacks: drones.

Drones have the potential to function essentially as the aerial version of the remote-controlled car bombs found in that San Bernardino apartment.  They could be rigged to carry small explosives and sent to a target as a precision-guided weapon, or could be deployed without an explosive and just flown, deliberately, into a jet engine.   And even if the user in question opts not to use the drone itself as a weapon, it can still operate overhead with a camera and provide what the military calls intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) to support an attack on the ground, for example by providing intelligence on additional targets or possible escape routes for the attackers.

Non-state actors are already either deploying drones in the field or are drawing concern from security experts about their potential to do so.  Both Hezbollah and Hamas have sent (for now) non-weaponized, rudimentary drones of limited capability into Middle Eastern skies, including one Hezbollah drone that made it 140 miles into Israel.  Drug cartels are already attempting to use drones for smuggling narcotics, and some in law enforcement have speculated that cartels will find value in drones for surveillance purposes.  The New York Police Department has been worried for some time about the potential for terrorist attacks on New York City using drones.

Given the threat posed by drones in the hands of terrorists or criminals, there is an urgent need to grapple with how to secure American skies in effective, sensible ways.  Broadly speaking, policymakers should proceed on this front bearing two things in mind:

Deploy counter-drone technologies to protect U.S. airspace.  Addressing the terrorist/criminal drone threat will require the deployment of counter-drone technology, sooner rather than later, that can be used to safely disable and bring down drones in non-military environments.  The military has been working on fielding counter-drone technologies for some time – the Navy has already made significant advances with deployment of directed energy technology to counter threats from Iranian drones and other weapons in the Persian Gulf, and recent reporting indicates that the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) and Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) have been collaborating extensively to identify workable counter-drone options as well.  While the homeland security side of the federal government appears to be catching upon this front, the question remains as to whether effective technology will be ready in time for use against this kind of bad-actor drone in the skies over American cities and infrastructure – particularly when, unlike their military counterparts, those responsible for homeland security are more constrained to avoid counter-drone measures that involve blowing one up in mid-air over lower Manhattan or knocking out electronic communications in downtown Washington, D.C.

Recognize the limitations of traceability and “geo-fencing.”  In recent months, there have been numerous unauthorized drone flights in U.S. airspace – near airports, near commercial aircraft, over sporting events, and in some cases, in the path of wildfire relief efforts – the preponderance of which appear to have been the result of reckless or careless drone use, rather than a malicious intent to cause harm.  These kinds of incursions have prompted the Department of Transportation to announce that it will require those who use drones to register them with the department by February of 2016.  It is thought that having operators register their drones will give law enforcement an opportunity to trace drones back to their operators in certain circumstances for deterrence and accountability purposes, though there is room to debate whether this is unnecessarily burdensome for your average law-abiding user, and whether a more effective way to create deterrence and accountability would be through tracing manufacturer serial numbers, via the retailer, back to the point of sale.

Of course, having the ability to trace a drone back to its owner only matters after a drone has already flown into restricted airspace – it won’t prevent incursions from taking place.  That reality has prompted drone companies to explore the option of manufacturer-installed “geo-fencing” technology that pre-programs a drone to render it incapable of flying into restricted airspace.

Policymakers should recognize that while traceability mechanisms and geo-fencing could be important public safety tools to better manage increasingly crowded airspace and mitigate irresponsible or reckless drone use, they will not solve the problem of malevolent drone use.  Terrorists and criminals won’t register themselves under any system, or make themselves otherwise vulnerable to having ownership traced back to them, and a determined terrorist or criminal will be all the more inclined to disable geo-fencing features, and perhaps all the more capable of doing so.

The best drones are already doing much good in American skies for law enforcement, homeland security, and a variety of industries putting them to innovative use.  As is the case with all beneficial technologies, however, bad actors will find ways to use a drone’s otherwise positive qualities to cause harm.  Dealing with that threat will entail understanding which counter-drone technologies can be usefully applied to preventing terrorist/criminal acts, and which ones are less likely to get that particular job done, other potential benefits notwithstanding.

Categories: Drones, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic terrorism, Israel, San Bernardino CA Islamic attack
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »