Archive for the ‘Islamist objectives’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
Newer Entries »

Trump Could Follow Clinton’s Hamas Order In Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood

January 27, 2017

Trump Could Follow Clinton’s Hamas Order In Outlawing Muslim Brotherhood, Counter Jihad, Paul Sperry, January 27, 2017

There is a quick and easy way to designate the Brotherhood as the terrorist organization that it is. Thank Bill Clinton.

Instead of waiting for a bill authorizing a Muslim Brotherhood designation to wend its way through Congress, the State Department could blacklist the Brotherhood directly. All it would take is President Trump signing an executive order.

That’s what happened in January 1995, when President Clinton issued an executive order making it illegal for US funds to support Hamas, following a bus bombing in Tel Aviv and other horrific acts of terrorism carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group. In turn, the State Department officially declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization, making it a felony to provide any material support to Hamas or its related charities and front organizations, and the Treasury Department ordered a freeze on all Hamas banking assets.

While the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in other countries, the US has not yet designated the group a terrorist entity or foreign threat, even though it has stated clearly that it supports violent jihad and is dedicated to replacing the US with an Islamic theocracy.

That is expected to change with this administration.

In testimony earlier this month, soon-to-be-confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson lumped the Muslim Brotherhood in with terrorist groups ISIS, al-Qaida and Hezbollah. He suggested America’s first priority in dealing with global terrorism must be to first defeat ISIS, then al-Qaida, followed by the Muslim Brotherhood, in that order.

Tillerson stated at his Senate confirmation hearing: “The demise of ISIS would also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.”

Founded more than 80 years ago in Cairo, Egypt, where the “mother group” is based, the Muslim Brotherhood is a secretive Islamist society that gave birth to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and al-Qaida. In fact, it is the ideological catalyst behind the entire global jihadist movement now threatening the West, and its tentacles have reached deep inside the United States.

Before joining al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Anwar al-Awlaki and the Blind Sheik Omar Abdul-Rahman were all members of the Brotherhood, known in Arabic as al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. Its credo is: “The Quran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.” Through both violent and political means, the Brotherhood seeks to impose Sharia — the rule of Islamic law — on the West. It also seeks the overthrow of Middle Eastern nations it views as too secular or close to the West.

As a result of recent violent unrest fomented by the Brotherhood, several Arab nations — including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — have designated the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, with UAE adding the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Brotherhood front organizations to the terrorist list. Russia has also outlawed the Brotherhood. US investigators have long sought to outlaw the group, complaining that Brotherhood-run mosques, charities and other elements show up in countless US terrorism cases, including the 9/11 attacks.

As former FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the House Intelligence Committee in 2011, “I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.”

“Its ultimate goal is the creation of a global Islamic State governed by Sharia law,” former federal prosecutor James T. Jacks asserted in a 2008 court filing linking US Brotherhood front groups to terrorism, including moderate-sounding groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust.

“Muslim Brotherhood members first migrated to the United States in the 1960s, where they began their grassroots work on campuses through an organization called the Muslim Students Association,” Jacks explained. “By the mid-1980s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood had grown exponentially, established numerous front organizations, developed a solid hierarchical structure, and received direction from the International Muslim Brotherhood’s General Guide.”

“Hamas was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Jacks continued, further outlining the conspiracy. “In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the US-Muslim Brotherhood was controlled by Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood members,” including CAIR’s founders.

Since 9/11, several known US-Muslim Brotherhood leaders — including Sami al-Arian and Abdurahman Alamoudi — have been convicted of terrorist activities, with Alamoudi accused by the government of actively raising money for al-Qaida. Others, including CAIR founder Omar Ahmad, have been formally implicated by the government in major terrorism cases.

Some Brotherhood operatives have infiltrated US law enforcement and the military. Ali Mohamed, who emigrated from Egypt to spy for the Brotherhood in America, used his US Special Forces training to assist al-Qaida. Last decade, he pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy for his role in helping plan the al-Qaida bombings of the US embassies in Africa.

White House National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says the Brotherhood has operated a terrorism-support network in America dating back to the first World Trade Center bombing. “We knew of close operational cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood” in that 1993 attack, he wrote in his 2016 book, “The Field of Fight.”

A Brotherhood manifesto seized by FBI agents during a 2004 raid of a Brotherhood leader’s home in the Washington DC area revealed that the US branch of the Brotherhood seeks the destruction of the US system — “from within.” Chillingly, the document directs Brotherhood members to engage in subversive action against the US:

“The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Investigators believe the Brotherhood conspiracy may involve a network of as many as 2,000 organizations working inside the US to support jihad and subvert the US government. Hard evidence links CAIR, ISNA and many other radical Islamist organizations masquerading as moderate groups — as well as some of the nation’s largest mosques — to this massive infrastructure financed and controlled by the Brotherhood.

Investigators call it an insurgency run by “terrorists in suits,” and the new White House, led by Flynn’s team, is said to want to shut the entire network down.

“It is no accident that radical Islamists in America are pushing very hard and very systematically to gain legal standing for Sharia, and to forbid any and all criticism of Islam,” Flynn said. “These are all steps toward creating an Islamic state right here at home. We have to thwart these efforts.”

 

Categories: Executive order, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Muslim Brotherhood, President Trump, Sharia law, Terrorism, US Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Victory: Texas judge dismisses Clock Boy’s defamation lawsuit against critics of his “hate crime” hoax

January 10, 2017

Victory: Texas judge dismisses Clock Boy’s defamation lawsuit against critics of his “hate crime” hoax, Jihad Watch, , January 10, 2017

“During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.”

Islamic supremacists traffic in intimidation in attempting to silence their foes and all critics of jihad terror. Far from being “defamed,” Ahmed Mohamed was showered with adulation from “Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Google co-founder Sergey Brin,” while “Tweets, think pieces and daytime TV segments were dedicated to dissecting how Ahmed’s situation typified racism and Islamaphobia [sic] in America,” and he “visited the Google Science Fair, met with Sudan’s President Omar al Bashir, posed with the queen of Jordan at a United Nations Summit, appeared on the ‘Doctor Oz’ show and last night, made it to the White House.”

Ahmed Mohamed became the darling of the political and media elites and met Obama. He was celebrated everywhere as an innocent victim of “Islamophobia.” He became an international hero. This defamation lawsuit was a naked attempt to continue the intimidation efforts that his clock represented. His clock, which looked like a suitcase bomb, was a strike against the dictum “If you see something, say something”: after Ahmed’s clock, school officials and others will think twice before committing career suicide by questioning suspicious behavior by Muslims. After that, Ahmed and his family moved in for the kill, trying to intimidate people into not even daring to criticize Muslims who engage in these intimidation tactics, for fear of being slapped with a lawsuit.

clockboyandpop

“Victory!,” American Freedom Law Center, January 10, 2017:

Following a nearly three-hour hearing held yesterday in Dallas, Texas, newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irvine, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.

The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed the motion to dismiss, along with local counsel Pete Rowe, on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.  As such, Yerushalmi argued,

“This case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts.

After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore took the matter under advisement but informed the parties that she would rule by the end of the day.  Today, the Court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi explained:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, AFLC will petition the court for its legal fees and will seek sanctions against both the plaintiff and his attorney.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech.  We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn.  When appropriate, we have won sanctions.  This lawsuit will be no different.”

Categories: American Freedom Law Center, CAIR, Clock Boy, Hate crimes, Islamic hoaxes, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Media and Islam, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers

January 2, 2017

U.S. Islamist Group: Fake Friendship with Non-Believers, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, January 2, 2017

amja-waleed-basyouni-hp_1Sheikh Waleed Basyouni is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA)-Fatwa and Research Committee and the Director of Texas Dawah Convention. He is pictured here giving a speech titled “Reclaiming Islam from the Extremists.”

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, an influential group that issues fatwas (Islamic religious declarations), teaches Muslims that they “are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly but never inwardly.”

The 2009 fatwa , which was originally brought to our attention by John Rossomando of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, cites Islamic scripture in its directive that Muslims must not befriend a non-believer over a Muslim except as a form of deception in response to a possible danger.

See the fatwa below:

amja-fatwa-taqiya-inside

AMJA has a history of extremist fatwas and sermons, including teaching that Hamas is not a terrorist group and ruling out offensive jihad against the U.S. only as a matter of pragmatism. You can read more about their background here.

Because AMJA doesn’t get in front of the cameras or maintain a high profile, it is often overlooked as part of the Islamist network in the U.S., but its influence should be taken seriously. In 2014, it trained 200 imams at its conference in Texas. Last year’s imams’ conference was in Chicago, as will 2017’s.

Its leadership council also spearheads Islamic online universities in the U.S. Its fatwa committee includes clerics with positions in Washington, D.C., Michigan, Minnesota and Texas.

AMJA’s list of “our experts” and list of members includes Islamist clerics from across the country, including top leaders from the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, Al-Maghrib Institute, the North American Imams Federation, the Muslim Association of Virginia and various mosques. The lists also include many international clerics, even though AMJA presents itself as an American organization.

The group’s influence can be seen behind efforts undertaken by the more publicity-hungry Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group that the Justice Department identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front that deceptively casts itself as a “moderate” civil rights group.

When I was booked to give educational counter-terrorism training to law enforcement in California, the San Diego chapter of CAIR responded aggressively, going so far as to compare my training of law enforcement officials to having the leader of the KKK teach police about black people. The CAIR official leading the charge had only months earlier traveled all the way to Chicago to attend AMJA’s imams’ conference.

AMJA can serve as a window into the Islamist strategy. The extremism of AMJA is so clear that it cannot effectively operate in the limelight, so it stays away. Instead, the so-called “moderates” that serve as experts go in front of the cameras to wage their jihad against Islamism’s enemies.

When they speak, the official titles they have with their primary “moderate” organizations are used. But they are part of AMJA’s network even though few know it and the affiliation won’t show up in a byline in an article or interview. All it takes is using a different title and the AMJA member is never held accountable for the group’s radical fatwas.

However, these people must be held accountable. No genuine Muslim reformer will join AMJA. If a cleric involved with AMJA is positioning himself as an unobjectionable moderate to unbelievers, he is following his group’s radical fatwa.

Categories: Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, Islamic reformation, Islamic scholars, Islamist "moderates", Islamist "outreach" to heathen, Islamist hoaxes, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Taqiyya
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Radical Islam and New Year’s Resolutions

January 1, 2017

Radical Islam and New Year’s Resolutions, Clarion Project, David Harris, January 1, 2017

(New Year’s resolutions tend to be trite and to have a short shelf-life. The resolution suggested here is not trite and should last longer than the current year. — DM)

NEW YORK - DECEMBER 31: People congregate in the lead-up to New Year's eve celebrations in Times Square in New York City on December 31, 2016. (Photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images)

NEW YORK – DECEMBER 31: People congregate in the lead-up to New Year’s eve celebrations in Times Square in New York City on December 31, 2016. (Photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images)

The West must act now against radical Islam – not only dealin with terrorists but also seemingly more innocuous forms of Islamist extremism.

So what’s your New Year’s resolution? A little less carb intake? Being nicer to your mother-in-law? Or if you are the leader of a Western democracy – making your citizens a little bit safer?

As if we needed another reminder, the Santa Claus terror attack in Istanbul on New Year’s Eve told us just how dangerous our enemy is.

Islamist extremism, radical Islam – call it what you will – has outstripped earthquakes, plagues and famines as the 21st Century’s number-one threat.

Whether it’s the drip-drip Islamism of organization like CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), the political power-grabbing of the Muslim Brotherhood or the outright terror of al-Qaeda, ISIS and the like, radical Islam is gaining in strength.

Don’t be fooled by the victories over Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. The organization’s tentacles reach far, wide and deep.

The idea of New Year’s resolutions is nothing new. Medieval knights, the Romans and Babylonians all made them. But have you ever stopped to think about the meaning of the word?

A resolution is defined as a firm decision to do or not do something or the action of solving a problem, dispute or contentious matter.

Think of other words from the same root: resolve – to decide firmly on a course of action; and resolute – admirably purposeful, determined and unwavering.

That is exactly what is required of Western leaders.

Clearly the migrant crisis is just that – a crisis — but that does not mean newcomers to your country mustn’t be vetted thoroughly.

Why are there more than 50 no-go zones in Sweden?

If we know Molenbeek in Belgium is a breeding ground for Islamists, why isn’t Brussels doing more about it?

If CAIR is designated as a terror organization by the United Arb Emirates, why does the outgoing U.S. administration insist on meeting with its members?

From the drip-drip to the outrageous acts of terror, governments must act. It must start in the White House but must take in all those who speak out against radicals. The time is not nigh, because we are truly late in tackling this scourge.

Leaders, please be resolute and show resolve when you make your New Year’s resolutions.

 

Categories: Civilization jihad, Islamism, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamist vetting, Islamists in America
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Muslim Activist to Trump: Brotherhood Should Be Banned

January 1, 2017

Muslim Activist to Trump: Brotherhood Should Be Banned, Clarion Project, Ryan Mauro, January 1, 2016

egypt-muslim-brotherhood-supporters-flags-ip_3Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt (Photo: © Reuters)

Dr. Qanta Ahmed, a Muslim activist who appeared in the Clarion Project’s Honor Diaries documentary about the oppression of women in the Muslim world, asked President-elect Trump to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in a new op-ed in Newsday.

She recommends designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, just like its Palestinian wing, Hamas, has been designated. This is a necessary step in waging a broader ideological war against Islamism rather than just against a few specific Islamist terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Dr. Ahmed writes:

Trump can start by outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood, as President Sisi did in Egypt. He must designate it a foreign terrorist organization and acknowledge that it is at the very least an indicator of extremism. Then, he must follow the money. If Islamism is to be exposed in America, forensic financial investigations must scrutinize all institutions where Islamism can flourish without scrutiny — mosques, charities, and advocacy groups. There can be no exceptions. 

The pushback against those advocating designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist group and making Islamism the target of U.S. strategy is that it will be perceived as—or even qualifies as—a war on the faith of Islam.

The West’s embrace of the Brotherhood and other Islamists is motivated by a false impression that they are “moderate” and a desire to avoid the appearance of a war on Islam where we fail to distinguish Muslim friends from Muslim foes.

Yet, Ahmed rightly points out that the current stance towards Islamism, is exactly that—a “profound inability by the United States to distinguish Islam from Islamism.”

Incoming Defense Secretary General Mattis makes a similar point: Framing the adversary as Islamism (Political Islam) allows a new constituency of partners and allies to be tapped.

On the contrary, the current administration’s set-up of terrorist vs. non-terrorist allows Islamists to fill the “non-terrorist” slot in the struggle, leaving genuine Muslim reformers out of the picture.

The U.S’ narrow focus on the symptoms of terrorist groups overlooks how the Muslim world itself is starting to discuss the diseases of Islamism as well as Islamism’s rejection of modernized interpretations of the religion.

This narrow focus on the part of the U.S. is partially rooted in the assumption that the Muslim world will be alienated by a broader ideological delineation (Islam vs. Islamism). Ironically, the West has been so fixated on declaring what will alienate prospective Muslim friends that it has failed to listen and observe what will actually alienate them.

As I recently wrote, “Overlooked allies amongst Muslims and non-Muslim minorities will surface as U.S. policy forces the Muslim world to take stances on Islamism and its adhering organizations. New allies will be born as the discussion of Islamism leads to rejections of it. If messaged correctly, the U.S. will end up with more Muslim allies of better quality.”

Dr. Ahmed argues that supporting “pluralist Muslims” against Islamism will allow the U.S. to build ties with this constituency:

Like Eisenhower, Trump will be at the right place, at the right time, in the right history. Trump will do battle with Islamism at a time when a disparate Muslim world is finally unifying with enormous political will to join that effort.

A petition has been launched urging President-elect Trump to meet with the Muslim Reform Movement, a pro-Western alliance of Muslims who want to challenge Islamism. You can sign the petition here.

The Trump administration’s strategy towards defeating Islamism will be the biggest factor deciding the success of U.S. foreign policy in the next four years.

Categories: Hamas, Islamic reformation, Islamist objectives, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Islamists, Trump and Islamists
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Germany Begins Closing Down New Year’s Celebrations

December 31, 2016

Germany Begins Closing Down New Year’s Celebrations, Gates of Vienna, , December 29, 2016

passau-silvester

This is the way the implementation of Shariah law begins.

Don’t expect a conquering Islamic army to sweep into town, stage mass executions in front of city hall, and then post a proclamation declaring that Islamic Law will henceforward be the law of the land. That’s not how it works.

Shariah is instituted as a gradual, piecemeal process. First there is a hijra — a migration of Muslims into non-Muslim lands. Then, when Muslims are present in large enough numbers, they begin assaulting, raping, terrorizing, and killing anyone in their environs who does not follow the tenets of Shariah law — that is, all the kuffar. By these means the infidels are terrorized and “feel themselves subdued”. In order to be safe, they give up their blasphemous kafir celebrations of their own initiative, thereby bringing their behavior into line with Islamic Law. Eventually they conclude a dhimma or “pact” with Islam, and pay the jizya poll tax in order to be allowed to continue living. This makes them dhimmi, people who are inferior and subordinate to Muslims. If they want to live normally, they may decide to say the shahada (La illaha ila Allah, wa Muhammadun rasul Allah) and become Muslims themselves.

On New Year’s Eve last year in Cologne and other German cities, gangs of feral young immigrant men — mostly Muslims — went wild on the streets, groping, molesting, and raping native German women. In recent weeks authorities have been watching with apprehension the approach of December 31, especially since the truck jihad in Berlin on December 19.

And now some of the New Year’s Eve events are being cancelled. What you’ll notice about the following two reports is that the police would prefer that localities and organizations not give reasons for cancelling any events. They feel it’s better for “security” if traditions that go back decades, or even centuries, just disappear without any public explanation.

In the first report, Nash Montana summarizes an article from Der Bürgerblick Passau about the cancellation of the annual New Year’s Eve party on the bridge in Passau:

The city of Passau has cancelled its traditional Silvester (New Year’s Eve) “bridge party”. Up to 1,000 people annually celebrate on the bridge, which was named after King Ludwig I, then was renamed to “Marienbrücke” in WW2, and now is known as the Innbrücke.

A reporter accidentally overheard the mayor talking about the Silvester cancellation, and immediately published it on the Internet, prompting the mayor to make an official statement in a press conference on Wednesday afternoon. The mayor cited a “broad public discussion about the security of large events” as the reason, a so-called abstract terror threat.

For his presser the Mayor Jürgen Dupper included this: “The cancellation of the Silvester celebration for 2016 is an uncomfortable but responsible decision. Of course nobody made the decision lightly — we all know how popular this party is, and how especially many citizens of Passau, especially young people, have waited all year for it. But circumstances being what they are, we see it as our duty not to provoke situations in which control could be lost. I appeal to all who are out on Silvester night to not make it harder for security personnel to do their job.”

Look back one week before the attack in Berlin:

“The concept has generally done well in past years, and therefore we don’t expect any changes for this year,” said the town council spokesperson Herbert Zillinger concerning the Silvester celebration on the bridge. The spokesperson for the police, Alexandra Lachhammer, added that “Passau is safe,” and explained that in any case, the number of security personnel could be increased.

Therefore it is clear that if Berlin hadn’t happened, the Passau Silvester party would not have been cancelled.

It’s also interesting to note that thousands of refugees who today live in Germany or in neighboring European countries passed over this bridge after Passau became “Germany’s Lampedusa” in the fall of 2015.

The second report is a direct translation by Nash Montana of an article in the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung about the cancellation of a Silvester event in Walsum:

For Security Reasons — Walsum Silvester Ball cancelled

Duisburg-Walsum. The Aldenrade-Fahrn 1837 Gun Club has cancelled this year’s Silvester Ball on Saturday, December 31st in the city hall in Walsum. Reason: It’s “impossible to provide security”. The traditional party has always been seen as a social highlight of the year in the city; it was sold out (550 seats).

North Africans asked for exits and security personnel

The Gun Club learned last Friday that two days before, during the sale of the tickets, “seven unknowns” had appeared who were interested in the Ball event. The nationality of the men is not known, but an informant from the police confirmed to the newspaper that the unknowns were North Africans.

However, the discussion only concerns four men. Apparently only one of the men spoke German, according to Gudrun Henne, the chief executive of the BSV Aldenrade-Fahrn [the Gun Club]. The one who spoke German tried to find out information about exits, and he asked if there would be security personnel on location. This, says Gudrun Henne, set off the alarm in her head, especially after the Berlin Christmas market attack. She has traditionally sold the tickets herself for decades.

Henne immediately reported it to the police, and they gave her a chart with “350 pictures of suspects” to look through. One man she could identify clearly. He lives in Düsseldorf and is a known criminal. The police did not make any statements, but have confirmed that State Security has been activated. Conclusive results are not available, however. [I guess by “conclusive results” they mean raped women and massacred people everywhere? — translator] The police spokesman Ramon von der Maat said: “From our point of view there is no reason to cancel this event.”

Gun Club didn’t want to take the chance, and cancelled the Ball

By Friday the members of the Gun Club “unanimously decided” to cancel the festivities, says And Heddenhausen, the depute chairman of the BSV. Even though it would have been an anniversary ball — forty years ago the first Ball took place. “We just couldn’t take the risk,” said Gudrun Henne on Tuesday, looking visibly concerned and distraught.

“We discussed this for a long time, and have given a lot of thought to security provisions,” she explains. But in the end the conclusion was reached: “We would have lost control.” The beginning of the festivities might have gone fine, but after the fireworks when hundreds of people would be coming back into the hall, things might have happened. The caterer and the artists reacted with great understanding. Rumors were spread, and that’s why the Gun Club decided to publish the reasoning for the cancellation, against the advice of the police, says Henne.

Categories: Civilization jihad, Clash of civilizations, Germany, Islamisation, Islamist objectives, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Free-Speech Muslims

December 24, 2016

The Free-Speech Muslims, City Journal, Karen Lugo, December 23, 2016

Muslim-American reformers have risked much and are targets of both leftists and Islamists. Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Jasser, a Phoenix-based cardiologist, “anti-Muslim.” It has called Ali an “extremist.” In fact, both are brave and eloquent defenders of liberty, freedom of conscience, unfettered speech, and individual rights. Trump would be wise to invite them into his administration, and consider their counsel.

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

Who speaks for Muslim Americans? The media have long offered a megaphone to grievance groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Contrarian, Western-oriented Muslims are rarely heard from. With the election of Donald Trump, however, their voices are growing louder. Some are political conservatives in the American sense. Others simply embrace the separation of secular and religious life. Both are fed up with the monolithic, condescending presentation of Muslims as victims.

Trump’s election has opened a new space for such Muslim Americans to express themselves politically. Oppressive sharia codes are as much a threat to these reformers as they are to unprotected American traditions. The new crop of Muslim reformers seek express delineation between Islam as a religious belief system and Islamism as a socio-political regime. They understand the vital need for open and uncensored public debate. They realize that this discussion may determine whether America avoids the fate of Europe, which chose multiculturalism over assimilation and is paying a heavy price.

Former Wall Street Journal reporter Asra Nomani penned a recent op-ed in theWashington Post announcing herself as a Muslim, an immigrant, and a Trump voter. She has also warned Americans that campaigns like “wear a hijab day”—ostensibly meant as demonstrations of solidarity with Muslim women—are misguided. “‘Hijab’ literally means ‘curtain’ in Arabic. It also means ‘hiding,’ ‘obstructing’ and ‘isolating’ someone or something,” she wrote. “It is never used in the Koran to mean headscarf.” Nomani says she “doesn’t buy” the Islamic fundamentalist meme that men are weak, and can’t withstand the temptation of seeing a woman’s hair. Nomani explains that such ideologies “absolve men of sexually harassing women and put the onus on the victim to protect herself by covering up.”

In 2015, more than a dozen Muslim dissidents—including Nomani, Zuhdi Jasser, Raheel Raza, and Tawfik Hamid—announced the formation of the Muslim Reform Movement. “We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate,” the group said in a manifesto demanding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women, and separation of mosque and state. This declaration provides a philosophical basis for Muslim believers to interpret Islam in a societally constructive fashion. Physician Qanta Ahmed has suggested that President-elect Trump build an advisory team of insightful Muslim leaders to shape a national effort to “unveil Islamism.” Ahmed, author of In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor’s Journey in the Saudi Kingdom, wants to assist in creating the framework to “disable Islamism through frank speech.” In appearances on PBS and CNN, she has called Islamism a destructive force that aims to subjugate all Muslims. She was critical of President Obama’s reluctance to name the Islamists threat and she welcomes the “serious, fresh opportunity to defeat Islamism” that Trump may represent.

Shireen Qudosi’s blog bills itself “The Voice of Muslim Reformers.” A longtime California Republican, Qudosi is an eloquent defender of American constitutional standards and a vivacious feminist. Tawfik Hamid is a reformed Islamist radical who now declares that he is a “Muslim by birth . . . Christian by the spirit . . . and a Jew by heart.” Obama has called Islamic radicalism a “perversion” of Islam, but Hamid warns that Islamic violence is indeed rooted in religious ideology. He stresses the need for clear distinctions that isolate radical influences. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali is no longer a Muslim. Born in Somalia, she rejected Islam in favor of Enlightenment ideals when she fled to the Netherlands in 1992. Recognizing that Islam is at a crossroads, Ali has called for “leadership from the dissidents” and emphasized that the reformers “stand no chance without support from the West.”

Muslim-American reformers have risked much and are targets of both leftists and Islamists. Recently, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled Jasser, a Phoenix-based cardiologist, “anti-Muslim.” It has called Ali an “extremist.” In fact, both are brave and eloquent defenders of liberty, freedom of conscience, unfettered speech, and individual rights. Trump would be wise to invite them into his administration, and consider their counsel.

Categories: Islamic reform objectives, Islamic reformation, Islamist objectives, Islamists in America, Media and Islam, Obama and Islamists, Trump and Islamists
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Dr. Jasser reacts to news of a Muslim teen’s hate crime hoax and calls for a caliphate in the UK

December 17, 2016

Dr. Jasser reacts to news of a Muslim teen’s hate crime hoax and calls for a caliphate in the UK, American Islamic Forum for Democracy via YouTube, December 16, 2016

Categories: Islam and females, Islamic caliphate, Islamic hoaxes, Islamist objectives, Islamist radicalization, Islamist terror - justifications, Islamists in America, Islamists in Britain, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Berlin’s New Secretary of State is Pro-Sharia Law Conservative Muslim

December 11, 2016

Berlin’s New Secretary of State is Pro-Sharia Law Conservative Muslim, Breitbart, Oliver JJ Lane, December 11, 2016

shariagirlGetty

The daughter of Palestinian immigrants is to be the Berlin senate’s secretary of state for coordinating federal and state affairs, but attention has focused on her recent remarks in support of Sharia law.

Berlin state senate member, former deputy speaker for foreign affairs and Muslim rising star of German politics Sawsan Chebli is to get a new cabinet post. The appointment by the Red-Red-Green coalition government has caused concern after a recent interview in which she expressed her view that Sharia law was perfectly compatable with secular German society.

Speaking back in August alongside Berlin Social Democrat party Mayor Michael Muller, she not only defended Sharia law against suspicion by many Germans who she accused of not understanding what it meant, but she also went on the attack too. Criticising members of anti-mass migration party Alternative for German (AfD), she said their views towards foreigners made them fundementally un-German.

Speaking to the Franzfurter Allgeimeine Zeitung, she said: “My father is a pious Muslim, hardly speaks German, can neither read nor write, but he is more integrated than many functionaries of the AfD who question our constitution”.

Germany’s newspaper of record and the nation’s most widely-read broadsheet Welt reported Sunday that while the politician attempted to portray the image of the perfect “successful migrant” who despite being born to illiterate, stateless parents was able to succeed in education and enter politics, there are “cracks” displayed by her support of Sharia.

In August she complained that in political discourse, German national law and Sharia law are always presented as contradictory to each other, and said “Everyone talks about Shariah, but hardly anyone knows what Sharia means”. Remarking that Sharia exists “largely to govern the relationship between God and man”, Chebli said Sharia law was “absolutely compatible” with Germany.

In a letter to Mayor Muller seen by Welt, a senior member of Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrat party moved to criticise the appointment of Chebli, remarking: “It is detrimental to the peaceful coexistence in our city, when a Sharia-trivialising minister such as Ms. Chebli exercises government responsibility”.

“There can be no evasion [around this matter]. I expect a clear distinction from a member of government [over Sharia law]”.

As reported by Breitbart London, Berlin’s SPD faction and Mayor Muller have proven extremely friendly towards migrants, with the city conspiring to prevent deportations of predominantly Muslim illegals ordered by the federal government. As Berlin’s new secretary of state for federal and state affairs, it will be up to Sharia-friendly Chebli to manage that relationship between central government and sanctuary-city Berlin.

Categories: Berlin, Germany, Islamisation, Islamist objectives, Sharia law and German law
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Architect of CIA Enhanced Interrogation: ‘We Interrogate Terrorists Like That to Stop Attacks’

December 9, 2016

Architect of CIA Enhanced Interrogation: ‘We Interrogate Terrorists Like That to Stop Attacks’, Washington Free Beacon, , December 9, 2016

This idea that the jihadis are going to quit trying to destroy America or kill Americans because Gitmo closes: in my mind, that’s insane. That’s just a narcissistic thing that somebody wants to do for their own legacy. Not because it’s going to make Americans any safer. I can’t imagine a situation in which some guy who has been crucifying children, or setting people on fire in cages, or decapitating people, and cutting the throats of Yezidi sex slaves so they can bleed out in a great big bowl, and believes that’s an act of worship, I can’t believe they are suddenly going to look and say, “Oh, they’re going to close Gitmo. I’m done with this.” That’s not going to happen.

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

Interview: Dr. James Mitchell debunks myths on the CIA’s interrogation program

black-site-1National Registry Office for Classified Information near Bucharest, Romania. Between 2003 and 2006, CIA operated secret prison from building’s basement / AP

Following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, psychologist and U.S. Air Force veteran Dr. James Mitchell was called back to national service. Along with a partner, Bruce Jessen, he was tasked with developing the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Designed to elicit time-sensitive intelligence from hardened al Qaeda leaders, the EITs later became immersed in controversy. In 2014, Senate Democrats released a report accusing Mitchell of torturing suspects with EITs and producing no results.

In his new book, Enhanced Interrogation, Mitchell offers his own testimony on the EITs. He argues that the techniques were critical in saving the lives of Americans and others. The Washington Free Beacon interviewed Mitchell on Thursday to discuss his new book.

Washington Free Beacon: What motivated you to write Enhanced Interrogation?

James Mitchell: Senator Dianne Feinstein put out that one-sided [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] SSCI report on the CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and the press ignored the SSCI report from the Republican minority, which pushed back against it. And the CIA pushed back. In addition, reporters, when they contacted me, said that Feinstein’s staffers had told them on deep background who Bruce and I were. We had these pseudonyms in the book. So Feinstein just outed us. And then after that, there has been all kinds of misinformation about the program. So I wrote the book because I really believed Americans needed to know what was done in their name to keep them safe after 9/11.

WFB: Why do you think there was such a profound bias against you and your CIA colleagues?

Mitchell: Feinstein’s report read like a prosecutorial brief to me. I’ve got extensive experience doing all kinds of investigations. And I’ve read a prosecutorial briefing. Feinstein interviewed no one who was involved in the program. Not one director, not one high-level intelligence officer. Not one guard, not one analyst.

I think what [SSCI Democrats] wanted to do was poison the American mind with this, because in part Feinstein had the wrong idea about what was done. One of the reasons I wrote the book was to try and dispel the idea that the detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogations the whole time they were [at CIA black sites]. You know, Abu Zubaydah was enhanced-interrogated for about two weeks in the entire time he was with CIA. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) was only enhanced-interrogated for three weeks. And he was never enhanced-interrogated again, even though some in the CIA were pushing to go back to enhanced-interrogations to try and find Osama bin Laden. The interrogators weren’t willing to do it, because we don’t interrogate people like that to find people; we do it to stop attacks.

WFB: What is your personal response to the treatment you received in the Senate report?

Mitchell: Feinstein maims us in every place she thinks she can smear us. And in those places where we could potentially be seen as doing the right thing, [she doesn’t give us recognition]. For example, [SSCI Democrats] say that Bruce wrote a cable in which he recommended EITs [on a prisoner at a black site]. But what Bruce actually said–and this is a verbatim quote–is that “EITs are not the first, nor best option for getting information” from [that suspect] because he’s too tough. What [Bruce] did recommend is heaters, food, blankets, get rid of the indigenous guards–get an American down there at night–and if you’re going to get interrogators down there, get people who are trained.

WFB: To what degree do you believe Islamist extremist thinkers such as Sayyid Qutb and Ibn Taymiyyah influence terrorist leaders like KSM more than the unique personality of each terrorist leader?

Mitchell: They absolutely believe, the way I can’t believe I can breathe underwater, that there is a paradise. They absolutely believe that Allah has given them a mandate to purify the Earth, to get rid of all the infidels. To bring peace by subjugating, converting, slaughtering, or enslaving everyone. It took me a year to get my head around it. I’ve dealt with some people who have strong beliefs, but I’ve never dealt with people whose beliefs almost bordered on magic to me. What I think happened in the case of people like KSM is that their personalities and who they are influence how those beliefs are expressed. But beliefs drive behavior and it gets colored by the personality, but ultimately, they are Islamists. They are trying to impose sharia law on the world. And their beliefs about their mandate and need to purify, rather than being a relatively new phenomenon, they’re trying to breathe new life into these traditions from 1,400 years ago.

khalid-1Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is seen shortly after his capture / AP

WFB: If you were president of the United States, what would your high-value detention program look like?

Mitchell: What the president has to ask himself is: What’s he going to do when he has reliable intelligence that there’s going to be another catastrophic attack–possibly involving nuclear weapons, like we had right after 9/11–to get the person who has the information to tell us that information? And that person is good at withholding information and they don’t want to give it up. I know, because we tried it with all of them, to get them to speak before they were ever given enhanced-interrogation. KSM is an excellent example of it. Before he was transferred to a black site, he had several days in which he was given tea and polite conversation. During that time he prayed and chanted. One of the interrogators during that period wore Pakistani dress [to try and earn KSM’s respect]. KSM later told me he thought those guys were clowns.

WFB: Some of your critics say that al Qaeda’s London plots against Canary Wharf/Heathrow were exaggerated. What’s your response?

Mitchell: Here’s why they say that. They say that if [the terrorists] are not inside the door with their backpacks on, it’s not an operational threat. But you know, the thing that saved most of the world from another catastrophic attack is that President Bush didn’t treat [9/11] like a law-enforcement issue. But when we did respond with military force, it threw them off balance. And on the London plots, Ramzi bin al-Shibh was behind that and he was working on it right when we picked him up. [Underplaying that threat] is a little bit like someone saying the guy down the street wants to kill you but he hasn’t loaded his weapon just yet, he’s not driving to your house yet. So when you stop him getting into his car, he wasn’t really coming to kill you. It’s a silly idea.

WFB: To what degree do you believe the Obama administration has taken too far of a step back from detaining and interrogating those who might be able to help us prevent Islamic State attacks?

Mitchell: I believe that we need a detention and interrogation program that focuses on actionable intelligence. That we don’t have that, I think, puts us at grave risk. I think that President Obama has stepped all the way back. But what I would do is quote KSM. When KSM was telling me that he expected George W. Bush to do exactly what Ronald Reagan had done and exactly what Clinton had done, to me that conveys that these guys look at how people have handled these situations in the past. And I think all you have to do is look at how the Obama administration has handled this problem.

We’re seeing more of these kinds of attacks because, quite frankly, the Obama administration is trying to manage it like a problem [as if the terrorists] can exist in our midst. The president treats it like a law enforcement problem, as opposed to how Bush did it–it’s a declaration of war. KSM expected that the [post-9/11 response] would be a law enforcement investigation and that the [Department of Justice] would try and extradite them from the Taliban. He expected that this would give them time to get other large-scale attacks off.

If U.S. policy continues to be what it is–if we don’t even call the problem, the problem–I think the [terrorists] would be emboldened by it. Here’s the problem that people in America don’t understand. [Terrorists] really do believe that our civil liberties, our willingness to be open to people, our tolerance, our multicultural diversity, they believe those are all weapons that Allah has provided them. [They believe] these things are flaws in us.

WFB: How do you feel about President Obama’s intention to close down the terrorist detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay?

Mitchell: I have mixed feelings about it. I have seen a Federal supermax prison. The [terrorists’] lives will be much, much worse in a Federal supermax prison. But I don’t want them on U.S. soil. So until there’s a federal prison that can isolate them from outside contact, I don’t think they should be on U.S. soil. KSM said that our desire to have the world be like us is a great flaw. He said that we lack the stomach to do what must be done to defeat them. Or even to protect ourselves.

This idea that the jihadis are going to quit trying to destroy America or kill Americans because Gitmo closes: in my mind, that’s insane. That’s just a narcissistic thing that somebody wants to do for their own legacy. Not because it’s going to make Americans any safer. I can’t imagine a situation in which some guy who has been crucifying children, or setting people on fire in cages, or decapitating people, and cutting the throats of Yezidi sex slaves so they can bleed out in a great big bowl, and believes that’s an act of worship, I can’t believe they are suddenly going to look and say, “Oh, they’re going to close Gitmo. I’m done with this.” That’s not going to happen.

I asked KSM about this. What he told me was that if it wasn’t Gitmo it would be something else: “We need something to stir things up.” The [terrorists] are going to find something because they need a place holder. Gitmo is what we’re fixated on; it’s not what they’re fixated on. The way you fight these hardcore guys is to make their mission look less sexy. They fear strength. They regard our efforts to look conciliatory as a weakness, as a gift to them from God.

gitmo-delta-1Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba / AP

WFB: Knowing all you know now, and having experienced all you have experienced, would you do it again?

Mitchell: [The CIA] presented all this information to me [when they asked for my help]. But really I thought I shouldn’t do this, this is going to ruin my life. And then I thought to myself, nothing in my ethics or my moral code said to me, I should put the temporary discomfort of a terrorist before saving hundreds of lives. I mean, I couldn’t live with myself. For some people that’s a hypothetical question that they can answer by taking the moral high ground. But for me it was a real question, I mean [CIA] really was asking me this. So I would make sure that what I did was legal. But if there was another situation where there was a catastrophic attack and there was credible intelligence that it was imminent, I would get out of the chair today and go do it.

WFB: Is there anything else that you want to add?

Mitchell: I would ask people to get familiar with what [ISIS/al Qaeda] ideology involves. We do not understand the depth of their commitment. The only way they can avoid the torment of the grave is to get up every day and try to figure out how they can convert, kill, enslave, or humiliate everyone else on the planet.

They want to purify the planet.

Categories: CIA, Enhanced interrogation, GITMO, Islamic terrorism, Islamist objectives
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Newer Entries »