Noruega quiere tapar la Verdad

Read on gatesofvienna >>

Political Correctness & Canadian Muslims: Being Had For Dinner In Ottawa

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

By David B. Harris
Special to IPT News

Canadians are on their guard against the growing Islamist threat. After all, the last month alone brought the Boston Marathon bombing, and arrests in Canada of suspected Iranian-linked al-Qaeda bomb-plotters targeting Canada-US passenger train routes. Add to that, repeated stories of Islamist radicalism in Canadian neighborhoods and young Canadian Muslim terrorists abroad.

Against this backdrop, the last thing to be expected at this fraught time would be a public event in Canada's capital showcasing a radical Islamist, boasting a master of ceremonies from the tax-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, involving a respected mental health foundation, and including the wife of the highest office-holder in the land. Nonetheless, this is what is being planned for Ottawa, this weekend.

The Ottawa Muslim Women's Organization (OMWO) holds its 12^th Annual Festival of Friendship Dinner Sunday evening. The master of ceremonies will be major local CBC personality Lucy van Oldenbarneveld, whose name – along with the official CBC logo – appears on event advertising. Proceeds are to benefit the Royal Ottawa Foundation for Mental Health, an arms-length fundraiser for the public Royal Ottawa Hospital. In an email pitching the dinner and attributed to former Liberal Member of Parliament Marlene Catterall, the presence of Her Excellency Sharon Johnston, wife of the Governor General of Canada, is a selling point.

The keynote speaker will be Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Chair in Islamic Studies at Huron University College in London, Ontario, an institutional affiliate of the University of Western Ontario. Mattson, a convert from Christianity to Islam, was president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The United States government designated ISNA an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful Holy Land Foundation terror-funding prosecution. ISNA is included in a key Muslim Brotherhood document as one of the "organizations of our friends." Other evidence abounds of ISNA's Brotherhood inspiration and connections.

From the captured Muslim Brotherhood plan for Canada and the United States that was accepted as evidence in a US criminal court:

"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process,' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in American [sic] is kind of a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house …"

The Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

A joint statement of representatives of the moderate American Muslim Congress, Center for Islamic Pluralism, American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the International Quranic Center condemned "groups like ISNA, in which radicals are camouflaged as moderates." The statement especially warned Jews against linking up with ISNA because of the risk of "legitimizing a radicalism that, regardless of ISNA's rhetorical claims, is fundamentally hostile to Jews and suppresses the intellectual and social development of Muslims."

Mattson has been criticized as an "apologist for Wahabbism," the Islamist strain that fuels the Islamic-supremacist theology of Saudi Arabia, the country that gave us Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists. Mattson once astonished scholars by telling CNN that Wahabbism was simply "analogous to the European protestant reformation."

According to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., Mattson responded to a question on behalf of "Muslim youth," with the assurance that "probably the best work of Tafseer [Quranic commentary] in English is by Maulana Abul A'la Maududi." The Center quotes Maududi's Jihad in Islam:

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of Islamic 'Jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Mattson's chair endowment benefits from substantial contributions from two notable groups: the Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) and the Virginia-based International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

As I pointed out in Canadian Senate committee testimony in 2011, MAC has "boldly declare[d] on its website its allegiance to the tradition of Hassan al Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood – the organization causing dread in Egypt and beyond."

MAC runs a number of Canadian Muslim schools, including Ottawa's Abraar Islamic School. The school itself has had a mixed history: A good academic record, but in 2005, then-principal Aisha Sherazi was dragged before the media to explain why teaching staff supervised an Abraar student's producing of anti-Jewish hate material. Two teachers were suspended. In 2000, the Ottawa Muslim press reported that Imam Siraj Wahhaj "headline[d]" an Ottawa Muslim community fundraising event. Imam Wahhaj was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

Then there was the Huron University College Islamic Chair's second funding source: the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Word that this organization was helping to fund the Huron chair triggered a joint April 2011 letter from an associate professor of economics of the University of Western Ontario – with which, as mentioned earlier, HUC is formally affiliated – and about two dozen former faculty, alumni and others. They appealed to college Interim Principal Trish Fulton to reject the sponsored chair and keep clear of IIIT money.

"… Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, a co-founder and former president of the IIIT, was cited as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sami al-Arian, an Islamist activist who served a 57-month prison sentence in the United States for conspiring to channel funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist group in the United States and Canada," wrote Professor John Palmer.

"Jamal Barzinji, founding member and current vice-President of the IIIT, has likewise been implicated in funding for terrorists. In a sworn affidavit filed in 2003, a senior special agent with the United States Customs Service testified: 'I believe that Barzinji is not only closely associated with PIJ as evidenced by ties to Al-Arian..., but also with HAMAS.'"

IIIT's troubling history extends beyond the FBI's raiding of the place in 2002. In a strange take on tolerance and social cohesion, the institution was said to have been the site of a meeting, years ago, to manufacture the neologism, "Islamophobia." According to various Muslim moderates, including one who said he attended the IIIT meeting, this terminology was developed by fundamentalists as a calculated means of smearing as bigots and silencing Muslims and non-Muslims who might dare discuss the building threat of radical Islam.

Referring to IIIT scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, a Mattson connection, Point de Bascule observes in terms that would arrest the attention of any self-respecting women's organization:

"The manual of sharia Umdat al-salik (Reliance of the traveller) is officially endorsed by Ayoub's IIIT. Section o1.1-2 of the manual specifies that certain types of honour killings must not be punished under Islamic law: "Not subject to retaliation (is) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring."

According to the 2011 Bascule analysis:

"Mahmoud Ayoub has been involved with the Libyan World Islamic Call Society (WICS) at least since 1983. WICS was set up by Muammar Gaddafi in 1972 to spread Islam in non-Muslim countries. WICS has also been known to hide its financing of terrorism behind charitable activities. In Canada, WICS is based in London, Ontario."

IIIT's record has disturbed even prospective beneficiaries of its largesse. In 2008, an outcry resulted when IIIT wanted to fund a chair at Philadelphia's Temple University to the tune of $1.5 million. The attempt foundered on Temple's concerns about possible IIIT extremist links and suspicions that such a gift could be part of a long-term Islamist influence operation.

Struck by the haste with which Huron University College, on the other hand, seemed to want to get the $2 million dollar MAC-IIIT Islamic chair endowment – a significant addition to HUC's $12 million budget – columnist Barbara Kay asked Huron's Fulton whether MAC and IIIT values were compatible with the college.

"We don't probe deeply into values held by donors," Fulton said.

Too true. HUC took the money and ran, establishing an academic chair with Islamist lucre and influence.

But few of even the most overwrought of Muslim and non-Muslim counter jihadists could have imagined that influencers would have been so brazen as to have compounded the sins of the HUC chair's founding by appointing Mattson to it.

For now, Canadians must live with an HUC Islamic chair that seems to have been maneuvered into existence with inappropriate funding sources and the aid of some senior – and troubling – London-area Muslims. These include lawyer Faisal Joseph, who is said to have played a part in HUC's surprisingly restrained "due diligence" assessment of IIIT. Joseph had previously attended – with Imam Munir El-Kassem and the IIIT's Ayoub – a 2008 conference in Libya of the extremist-flavored Gaddafi World Islamic Call Society.

El-Kassem has been a fixture of the Libyan-funded Canadian branch of the WICS organization. The branch's charitable status was revoked by the federal government, owing to what Postmedia News summarized as WICS' "transferring [of] money from Gadhafi's 'Jihad fund' to bank accounts of known terrorists." El-Kassem, is imam of the Islamic Centre of Southwest Ontario (ICSWO), yet another group contributing to Mattson's Islamic chair. He has been quoted speaking glowingly about the "leadership" of Louis Farrakhan, the notoriously racist and anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader. This, when the imam is not sniping in the media at genuine Muslim moderates like the University of Western Ontario's Professor Salim Mansur. Or, as some might think, playing apologist for the Taliban.

Despite all this, El-Kassem is making a name for himself in the more gullible reaches of some interfaith and outreach fringes, and even policing. The apparently uninformed London police chief, Bradley S. Duncan, rewarded the imam with – astonishingly – an appointment as police chaplain.

People will see different things in the Ottawa Muslim Women's Organization invitation to Dr. Mattson. Was this the result of inattention? An attempt to spin Mattson as a moderate and insinuate her into elite national-capital media, government and other circles?

Whatever the details, the participation of various interests in the OMWO exercise invites questions.

Will pertinent CBC personnel be disciplined for the failure of professional due diligence and associated misuse of corporate resources involved in the Corporation's role in this enterprise? Will the CBC ombudsman enter the fray? Will master of ceremonies van Oldenbarneveld and CBC apologize to Christians, Jews, moderate Muslims and others who have struggled against the tendencies represented by Mattson's record of activity, associations and sponsors – especially at a time of preoccupation with the dangers of Islamic radicalism? Will the Ottawa Muslim Women's Organization join in the apology?

Will similar apologies come from the Royal Ottawa Foundation for Mental Health for managerial misjudgment involved in allowing the Foundation's good name to enhance the credibility of the ill-conceived OMWO event?

Will the Office of the Governor General explain itself, and how the Governor General's spouse could have been drawn into such a situation?

Will compromised institutions launch internal reviews to determine whether Islamist fellow-travelers within their organizations may have worked from inside to encourage involvement in this year's Mattson-tainted Festival of Friendship Dinner?

And there remains, of course, a question about double standards.

Would van Oldenbarneveld, the CBC, the Royal Ottawa Foundation for Mental Health or the Office of the Governor General of Canada ever agree to become involved in a dinner sponsored by, say, an "Ottawa Christian Women's Organization," if the proposed keynote speaker had formerly headed a foreign unindicted co-conspirator radical Christian fundamentalist organization, been an apologist for Christian extremists, and been seated in a chair in Christianity funded by domestic and foreign Christian supremacist groups with connections to intolerant, divisive ideology – and far worse?

----------------
David B. Harris is a Canadian lawyer with three decades' experience in intelligence affairs, and serves as Director of the International Intelligence Program, INSIGNIS Strategic Research Inc. He is on the advisory board of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow (MFT), although opinions expressed here are his alone.

Muslims are celebrating Obama rather than Boston Marathon Terrorist Attack

canadafreepress
Judi McLeod

Some Muslims are celebrating the Boston Marathon terrorist attack that claimed the lives of an 8-year-old child and a 21-year woman, while injuring 144, others, 17 of them critically. (The Other News)

Through their transparent bravado, the Muslim celebrations are false on at least two fronts.

In the 11-plus years since 9/11 there has been no successful terrorist attack on American soil.  Indeed,  even yesterday the person or persons behind the IEDs only succeeded in detonating two bombs out of a reported seven.

That’s because authorities have foiled terrorists on American soil some 29 times since September 11, 2011.

What the Muslims celebrating the Boston Marathon terrorist attack are really celebrating is that the American people have a president who enables terrorism by refusing to use the ‘T’ word. 

In other words, as if by refusing to name it, the act of terrorism and the lives it claims do not exist.

The Barack Obama regime is one that has ordered the name of the terrorist attack by an “allahu akbar”-shouting Nidal Malik Hasan before killing 13 and injuring 30 at Ford Hood, defined as “workplace violence”.

Hasan and his Gitmo brothers likely had their own private celebrations for the Boston Marathon terrorist attack.

Cowardly acts by terrorists—taking full advantage of all the freedoms America has to offer—always get a pass from President Barack Hussein Obama.

Yesterday, Obama lacked the honesty and courage to answer a simple reporter’s question shouted out after he concluded his usual, say-nothing prepared remarks, about whether the attacks that came near the finish line of the Boston Marathon were ‘an act of terrorism’.

“We still do not know who did this or why, and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts,” were the weak words Obama, freshly arrived from a photo-op with the BCS champion Alabama Crimson Tide football team,  used during his speech.

Obama went out of his way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya which claimed the lives of three Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Questioned directly by CBS correspondent Steve Kroft who asked him why he ‘went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack’, Obama responded that it was ‘too early to know exactly how this came about (or) what group was involved’. (Daily Mail)

In the seven long months after the Benghazi attack, Obama and prominent members of his regime, including then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have left the baldfaced lie of an obscure YouTube as a cover for terrorism.

Worthy of note is that the message sent out blaming an anti-Muslim YouTube for Benghazi, a YouTube that in reality was a poorly-made trailer seen by few is one that, in essence defends the Muslim world.

There is plenty for the Muslim world to celebrate when it comes to President Barack Hussein Obama:

Obama’s unofficial protection of the Muslim Brotherhood; his stamping out of the word ‘terrorism’ is what is really celebrated in the Muslim terrorist world.

Boston Marathon Terrorist Attack-celebrating Muslims should know that many Americans are seeing clearly through the horror of terrorist attacks to the belief that their president is much more of you than he is of them.

Four more years of a second term under a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer might seem like forever,  but during that time all terrorist attacks will continue to be foiled.

That’s because the American way of life past, present and future is so much more noble than a politician who has chosen to fix nothing while he squats on the White House.

And in the fullness of time, over to your world will be all that is left for the likes of Barack Hussein Obama.

Gore’s Al Jazeera Deal Now a Major Scandal

Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

While the lawsuit over the sale of Al Gore’s Current TV to Al Jazeera is making headlines, a close reading of the legal complaint provides additional evidence that a congressional investigation into the curious transaction is urgently needed and necessary.

The media executive who claims to have arranged the sale says the idea was to make the Terror TV channel “palatable to U.S. lawmakers,” a formulation that suggests foreign lobbying on Capitol Hill in order to protect the $500 million payoff to Gore and other owners and investors in Current TV.

The suit says that media executive John Terenzio also proposed smoothing things over with “pro-Israel factions, cable operators and, most importantly, the American public.”

The other controversial aspect of the deal, as noted by Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari, is that “Al Jazeera America” has announced plans for bureaus in eight cities, including Detroit, Michigan, and that “Detroit, Michigan is a large ex-pat community of Muslim-Americans where [Jihadist] sleeper cells have been detected.”

Detroit has been called the Arab capital of North America.

Because of the danger of inciting Arabs and Muslims into anti-American violence, Accuracy in Media has called on the House Homeland Security Committee, under the chairmanship of Texas Republican Michael McCaul, to investigate the sale and look at the evidence that the channel is a foreign terrorist entity that can be outlawed on U.S. soil. He has refused to do so.

The Al Gore lawsuit constitutes another reason why Congress has to investigate. If Al Gore had paid Terenzio for his services, as the suit alleges, it is likely that the nature of the deal and the private discussions that went into it would never have been made public. Now, however, all of this is on the public record and more damaging details, if Gore doesn’t settle the lawsuit, will almost certainly come out.

The revelations demonstrate how sensitive the deal was in the first place. Terenzio says one of his objectives was to develop “strategies to overcome Al Jazeera’s negative image and make Al Jazeera acceptable to American viewers.” Many members of the public associate Al Jazeera with the videos of Osama bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Al Jazeera aired those videos, as well as interviews with bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders, and is today still regarded as the voice of the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.

In short, the plan was for a massive propaganda campaign to play down the channel’s ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and its financing by the pro-Jihadist Arab government of Qatar.

Terenzio says he came up with “Al Jazeera America,” a name obviously designed to mask the foreign and Arab nature of the propaganda channel.

The revelations in the suit follow reports that the new channel has been feverishly hiring expensive K Street lobbying firms to stop Congress from investigating the deal, and is hiring dozens of American journalists.

Terenzio says in his lawsuit that he “created a sophisticated PowerPoint presentation” describing the deal and that the structure was “based in large measure on the strategies developed by Terenzio in adapting CCTV [China Central television] for American distribution.”

CCTV is the Communist-government funded Chinese state TV channel that has also penetrated the U.S. media market, although in a more limited manner than Al Jazeera.

It appears that Terenzio is an acknowledged expert at getting media access for foreign propaganda channels. His background is quite impressive, as reflected in his official biography. A graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, he is described as “a visiting lecturer at the Syracuse University Newhouse School of Public Communications graduate program in Los Angeles, and at the Tsinghua University School of Journalism in Beijing.”

In the case of Current TV, his idea was to get Al Jazeera into 40-50 million homes through the acquisition of an existing cable channel, Current TV, an unprecedented development that Terenzio maintains he was not compensated for. It is because of this media coup and the failure of Al Gore and the other owners and investors to pay him for his services that Terenzio has launched his lawsuit demanding at least $5 million in damages.

While the suit proceeds in the courts, the legal questions about the deal provide another opportunity for Congress to exercise oversight and investigate the curious transaction. But the fact that prominent Democrats are involved makes it politically sensitive for Republicans who want to avoid confrontations.

The suit says Terenzio made his presentation to Richard Blum, husband of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, and an investor in Current TV. The suit says that Blum and others involved in Current TV were “concerned about the prospect of losing their shirts” and wanted to find a buyer for their little-watched channel.

The suit says that it was believed that Al Gore would find a sale to Al Jazeera “politically unappealing” but that Blum promised to present it to him.

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Gore was adamant in his rejection of the proposal to sell his liberal environmentally friendly network to the oil rich Qataris who owned Al Jazeera,” it says.

Al Gore apparently changed his mind. Perhaps the $500 million price tag, with $100 million going to him personally, was a factor.

When the sale was announced, Terenzio says he was caught off-guard and that he had not been informed in advance about it, even though he devised the sale and conceived the name “Al Jazeera America.” He says Current TV “insiders” concede his role in the transaction.

Jerry Kenney, a critic of Al Jazeera, says, “I have requested a copy of that PowerPoint presentation from his lawyer. I would love to see his game plan of how to make propaganda from a country that denies free speech to its own citizens and possibly provides material support to terrorists, ‘palatable’ to Congress and the American public.”

Kenney says Congress should request a copy of this PowerPoint as well.

The new developments add impetus to the effort by Rep. Tim Murphy for answers as to what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did or did not do regarding the deal.

Shock claim: Obama picks Muslim for CIA chief

WND/ By Drew Zahn

One of the FBI’s former top experts on Islam has announced that President Obama’s pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, converted to Islam years ago in Saudi Arabia.

As WND has reported, former FBI Islam expert John Guandolo has long warned that the federal government is being infiltrated by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. But Guandolo now warns that by appointing Brennan to CIA director, Obama has not only chosen a man “naïve” to these infiltrations, but also picked a candidate who is himself a Muslim.

“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on the behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia,” Guandolo told interviewer and radio host Tom Trento.

“That fact alone is not what is most disturbing,” Guandolo continued. “His conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him. The fact that foreign intelligence service operatives recruited Mr. Brennan when he was in a very sensitive and senior U.S. government position in a foreign country means that he either a traitor … [or] he has the inability to discern and understand how to walk in those kinds of environments, which makes him completely unfit to the be the director of Central Intelligence.”

Brennan did indeed serve as CIA station chief in Riyadh in the 1990s and today holds the official title of Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. On Jan. 7, Obama nominated Brennan as the next director of the CIA, though he has yet to be confirmed.

“Are you kidding me?” Trento balked at Guandolo’s allegations. “The head of the CIA is a Muslim? For real? … Are you sure?”

“Yes I am,” Guandolo asserted. “The facts of the matter are confirmed by U.S. government officials who were also in Saudi Arabia at the time that John Brennan was serving there and have direct knowledge. These are men who work in very trusted positions, they were direct witnesses to his growing relationship with the individuals who worked for the Saudi government and others and they witnessed his conversion to Islam.”

A former Marine and combat veteran, Guandolo worked for eight years in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division as a “subject matter expert” in the Muslim Brotherhood and the global spread of Islamism. Guandolo boasts he created the Bureau’s first counterterrorism training/education program and twice received United States Attorney’s Awards for investigative intelligence.

Guandolo is also one of the authors of the Center for Security Policy’s Team B II report, “Shariah: The Threat to America.”

“My contention is that [Brennan] is wholly unfit for government service in any national security capacity, and that would specifically make him unfit to be the director of Central Intelligence,” Guandolo told Trento.

Guandolo then broke down a three-part argument against Brennan’s confirmation.

“The first is he has interwoven his life professionally and personally with individuals that we know are terrorists,” Guandolo asserted. “He has overseen and approved and encouraged others to bring known leaders of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood into the government in positions to advise the U.S. government on counterterrorism strategy as well as the overall ‘war on terror.’”

Second, Guandolo asserted, Brennan has “proven through his own comments publicly that he is clueless and grossly ignorant of Al-Qaida’s strategy.

“Third and finally, which some would say is most disturbing, is Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam,” Guandolo said, but stressed, “I think the [larger] news is that that conversion is the culmination of the work of people in Saudi Arabia who worked for the Saudi Government – and that makes John Brennan just naïve, foolish, dangerously ignorant and totally unfit for this position.

“That in and of itself, again, shouldn’t be shocking to people,” Guandolo continued. “Mr. Brennan, they have the clip where he specifically says during a public address … he said during that speech that he has learned and gets his understanding and his ‘worldview’ in large part from Islam. It shouldn’t be a large leap to imagine he’s converted to Islam.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/shock-claim-obama-picks-muslim-for-cia-chief/#hvletseRvkyftfvX.99

Muslim TV Preacher Tortures and Kills 5 Year Old Daughter

actforamerica
By Victoria Jackson

“Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a preacher who’s a popular talking head on Muslim TV programs, and …whose extremist preaching was often on Saudi television, was originally accused of abusing Lama (his five year old daughter), last April. That attack was so vicious that she suffered a fractured skull and brain damage. Tragically, he was still permitted access to her, leading to her death in December. He was then arrested in November after Lama died. He admits responsibility and says his assault began because he suspected her, a mere five-year old, of losing her virginity. A social worker said she was “raped” everywhere, but her mother says that part of the story isn’t true. Lama was beaten with electric shocks, whips and an iron. Her skull was crushed. Her back and arms were broken. Her ribs were fractured. The hospital said al-Ghamdi even tried to burn her rectum closed.”

Reportedly, Al-Ghamdi got a “slap on the wrist.”

Religion of peace?

Read story here >>

Al Jazeera and the Global Jihad in America

New Zeal

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

By refusing to investigate the Al Gore/Al Jazeera deal, it would appear that Capitol Hill “conservatives” like Republican Reps. Michael McCaul, Steve Scalise, and Paul Broun are adopting the view that we have nothing to fear from the global jihad and its instruments of propaganda being positioned on U.S. soil.

This view finds support from Scott McConnell, writing in Patrick J. Buchanan’s magazine, The American Conservative, who says there should be no “national loyalty oath” for a new cable channel in America and that the transaction is “welcome news.”

Al Jazeera is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood and the various terrorist groups it has spawned, including al Qaeda and Hamas.

In all seriousness, McConnell calls the sale of Al Gore’s Current TV to the Al Jazeera channel a “public service.”

In an endorsement of the deal, McConnell writes that the channel, which he admits is “Qatar government-funded,” can be “quite good.” However, he admits, “I don’t watch it often.”

He fails to point out the elementary fact that there is no freedom of the press or speech in Qatar.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of uninformed commentary that we have seen all too often in regard to the Al Jazeera deal. It is significant that a self-described “conservative” would adopt this view and that a magazine called “The American Conservative” would publish such nonsense.

During the Cold War, Patrick Buchanan, who served as President Reagan’s White House communications director, was an anti-communist who combatted and helped expose Soviet disinformation and propaganda activities. But in the face of the global jihad, such defenses are apparently being dropped. Indeed, Buchanan has himself been featured in a sympathetic light on Al Jazeera, discussing why he opposes U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

This is, of course, a legitimate conservative point of view, even if going on Al Jazeera is not the proper place to make such an argument. But McConnell’s idea that Al Jazeera somehow has a right to enter the U.S. media market without scrutiny is not supported by the evidence.

There is no “national loyalty oath” for a cable channel. But there are various laws that are supposed to apply to this transaction which are being ignored. These include the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Federal Communications Commission rules, and the review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.

But the basic hurdle that the channel cannot overcome, based on the evidence of its collaboration with al Qaeda, is that it provides material support to terrorism and, therefore, cannot legally operate on American soil. The Hezbollah TV station Al Manar was outlawed in the U.S. on this basis.

If there is some doubt as to Al Jazeera’s relationship with al Qaeda, then Congressional hearings can set the record straight.

Even if the deal was legitimate and had received the necessary approval, there is every reason in the world for true conservatives to oppose the channel’s entry into the U.S. on the grounds that it spews propaganda which can misinform, mislead, and inspire violence.

There is nothing much we can do about foreign propaganda that is based overseas. But allowing our enemies to operate on the U.S. mainland is a prescription for The Suicide of the West, which is the name of a book by James Burnham I read growing up and which I know is familiar to Pat Buchanan.

For some reason, however, there are some conservatives today who don’t regard the global jihad to be as menacing as Soviet communism.

For those in denial, take some time to look at the case of Lars Hedegaard, the Danish journalist, who was almost killed on Tuesday by a jihadist. I met him at Pamela Geller’s 9/11 conference in New York City last year. He had been prosecuted in Denmark for thought crimes against Islam, in a court battle that went on for two years and eventually saw an acquittal on charges of racism and “hate speech.”

As I pointed out in an article about the event, what is happening in Europe is coming to the United States, as the Obama Administration openly sides with global Islam against our God-given First Amendment right of free speech.

That First Amendment does not give Al Jazeera the “right” to operate on U.S. soil, especially when the evidence implicates the channel in violence and terrorism against Americans.

We cannot lose our rights on the pretext that our sworn enemies deserve them more than we do.

McConnell writes enthusiastically about how, “two years ago, when much of the world was riveted by Al Jazeera’s coverage of the Egyptian revolution,” without noting the purpose of the coverage and what has transpired since then.

In her article, “Al Jazeera: Non-Arabs Should Not Be Fooled,” Najat Fawzy AlSaied writes that, “The Emir of Qatar, an absolute ruler, and Al Jazeera, have not covered the ‘Arab Spring’ to advance democracy, but to support the Muslim Brotherhood, which is aligned with the Qatari regime. Al Jazeera has as its chief goal Muslim Brotherhood domination.”

She adds, “Early in the ‘Arab Spring,’ in Egypt and other countries, Al Jazeera promoted the Muslim fundamentalists. Regarding Syria, Al Jazeera publicizes the demands for power by jihadists.”

However, McConnell seems blind to what is happening right before his eyes in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East and the role that Al Jazeera is playing in it.

Those being fooled today include people like Scott McConnell. During the Cold War they were called dupes.

Obama CIA Pick John Brennan: Jihadist Apologist

breitbart

By Steven Emerson

America’s top spy needs to be a steely-eyed realist, sensitive to emerging threats and keen about our foes’ intent to deceive us.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, has shown a tendency to fall for the bait from radical Islamists. Globally, he repeatedly expressed a hope that “moderates” within Iran and its terror proxy Hizballah would steer their respective constituencies away from terrorism.

Domestically, he claims that radical Islam does not pose its own, unique threat to American security. He has helped strip language about “radical Islam,” “jihad,” and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to “violent extremism” in an attempt to deny terrorists religious credibility. When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what terrorists themselves say.

Likewise, he also yielded to demands from American Islamists to purge  law enforcement and intelligence training material of the terms “jihad” and “radical Islam.”

Despite these positions, some American Islamists still oppose Brennan’s nomination because he is considered the architect of the drone program which has killed scores of al-Qaida terrorists. 

That should tell him something. But there is little in Brennan’s record to indicate he’ll learn from the experience.

Brennan Promotes Iran-Hizballah Outreach

Brennan’s complacency regarding the jihad threat was made clear in May 2010, when he expressed a desire to encourage “moderate elements” of Hizballah, which is a State Department-designated terrorist organization.  

“There is certainly the elements of Hizballah that are truly a concern to us what they're doing. And what we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements,” a Reuters report quoted Brennan saying.

He did not explain where such elements could be found, how they could be identified, or what separated them from the Hizballah “extremists.” 

That was just the latest in a series of similar statements Brennan has made about Hizballah, the group which ranks second only to al-Qaida in killing Americans in terrorist attacks. The Iranian-founded and funded group “started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.

“However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large -- they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.”

In a paper published a year earlier, Brennan called on U.S. officials to “cease public Iran-bashing,” and recommended that the U.S. “tolerate, and even… encourage, greater assimilation of Hizballah into Lebanon’s political system, a process that is subject to Iranian influence.” 

In “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in July 2008, Brennan claimed that Hizballah’s participation in Lebanese politics was evidence that it was leaving behind its terrorist roots: 

This political involvement is a far cry from Hizballah’s genesis as solely a terrorist organization dedicated to murder, kidnapping, and violence. Not coincidentally, the evolution of Hizballah into a fully vested player in the Lebanese political system has been accompanied by a marked reduction in terrorist attacks carried out by the organization.
The best hope for maintaining this trend and for reducing the influence of violent extremists within the organization – as well as the influence of extremist Iranian officials who view Hizballah primarily as a pawn of Tehran – is to increase Hizballah's stake in Lebanon’s struggling democratic processes.

The record since then could not be further from Brennan’s idealistic hopes. Four Hizballah members have been indicted by an international tribunal in connection with the 2005 car-bomb assassination of Lebanon’s President Rafiq Hariri. Hizballah has helped Iran send fighters and advisers into Syria to try to aid dictator Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless assault on his own people. A new report finds Hizballah, working with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is responsible for a wave of terrorist plots throughout the world. Any move away from violence may have been a strategic lull aimed at avoiding being “caught in the crosshairs of Washington’s ‘war on terror.’”

That lull appears to be over, the report finds.

Brennan’s analysis also was refuted by a senior Hizballah leader. Engaging in Lebanese parliamentary politics does not make Hizballah moderate and Hizballah politicians are still part of the mother ship. 

“The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions,” Naim Qassem, a deputy to Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah, told the Los Angeles Times.

The retired Israeli Brigadier General Shimon Shapira observed: “Hizbullah’s own analysis of itself contradicts what Brennan has been writing and stating in recent years. 

“Today, saying that  Hizbullah has moderate elements that have moved away from terrorism  can lead the political echelons in the West to ignore how Hizbullah  is serving its Iranian sponsors by directly threatening Israel’s civilian  population. On May 20, 2010, Hizbullah military sources boasted to the Kuwaiti daily al-Rai that Israel will be bombarded with 15 tons of explosives a day if a future war breaks out. Hizbullah clearly does not care about the implications of its military build-up for the people of Lebanon, because it only seeks to serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

In his 2008 paper, Brennan also advocated direct engagement with Iran despite its well-earned reputation as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. He minimized the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons program and blamed American rhetoric as “brash labeling” for hardening Tehran’s position toward the United States. Brennan’s recommendations assumed Iranian interest in backing away from terrorism and a nuclear bomb.

A presidential envoy – Brennan suggested Colin Powell – would allow the United States to persuade Iran to behave more responsibly and peacefully and rein in its terrorist proxies, Brennan wrote.

“Initially, Washington should press Iranian officials to cease their vitriolic anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric and to condemn publicly acts of violence that clearly are terrorism. Iran can also take some more tangible steps. For example, Iranian financial and military support to Hezbollah gives Tehran significant leverage over its Lebanese ally, and Iran has the ability to direct Hezbollah to refrain from carrying out any attacks against civilian targets, such as settlements in northern Israel,” he wrote.

History again proved Brennan’s assumption wrong. While there is still talk of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, four years of tempered rhetoric and invitations for negotiation have done nothing to slow Iran’s march toward the bomb.

Brennan Lets Radical Islamists Dictate Policy

During his time as a White House adviser, Brennan displayed a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.

A Feb. 13, 2010 speech Brennan gave at the New York University School of Law serves as an example.

Organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet for Brennan’s argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by religious terms, including “jihadist.” In doing so, Brennan waded into theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.

“As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said. “We're trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance.  It's the reason why I don't use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists.  It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain't gonna give it to them.”

Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan’s views about using religious references like “jihad” have been uttered repeatedly and consistently. “President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term ‘jihad,’ which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

He returned to the narrative in a May 26, 2010 speech, also at CSIS.

“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.

Brennan’s interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how the term has been consistently understood, especially by the intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose ideas have influenced all subsequent Islamic extremists including Hamas and Al-Qaida, rejected the definition of jihad that Brennan suggests is correct.

In a pamphlet titled “Jihad,” al-Banna wrote: “Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one's ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one's ego. This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah's way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition…”

Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna’s successor in defining Islamist thought, clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should not be fought merely in a defensive manner.

“Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam is not a 'defensive movement' in the narrow sense which today is technically called a 'defensive war.' This narrow meaning is ascribed to it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the concept of Islamic Jihaad,” Qutb wrote in his book Milestones. “It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods.”

Even Brennan’s NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA’s official magazine Islamic Horizons notes that “jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against the evil situation with the intention of changing it,” that “anyone killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise,” and that “a believer who participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not.” 

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad. In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends is the case with Israel. 

These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan’s host, ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” In addition, the federal judge in the case found “ample evidence” connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.

ISNA has sought to publicly moderate its image, yet it has kept radicals such as Jamal Badawi on its board of directors and granted a 2008 community-service award to Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, as well as a former ISNA board member.

Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy.  Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Barzinji’s name appears in a global phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members recovered by Italian and Swiss authorities in November 2001 from the home of Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano founder Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood and an al-Qaida financier.

At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb’s writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated against using terms like “Islamic terrorism” since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”

Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists. Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.  

During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots. "Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country,” he said. “So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another."

The White House invited al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the FBI’s use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in “legitimate resistance.”

After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration’s policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. “Mr. Brennan made two important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC’s government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington,” an MPAC statement said. Among them, “He rejected the label of ‘jihadist’ to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism.”

Terrorists Disagree

While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam. Asserting that religious motivation doesn’t exist does nothing to lessen the threat.

When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo’s mother asked her son what would drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct. 

"The reason is religion, Mom," he said.

Similarly, would-be bombers Faisal Shahzad and Farooque Ahmed justified their attempts to blow people up in New York and Washington as part of a war, a jihad, they felt compelled to join. 

"This time it's the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah," Shahzad said at his October 2010 sentencing for trying to detonate a car-bomb in Times Square. "So let's see how you can defeat your Creator, which you can never do. Therefore, the defeat of U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future, inshallah [God willing], which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order."

Ahmed, who scouted subway stations along the Washington, D.C. Metro line in hopes of aiding a bombing plot, acted in response to "an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam," his lawyer said at Ahmed’s April 2011 sentencing, "that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action… that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don't do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith."

Brennan grew prickly when challenged on this view of jihad. The Washington Times editorial board pressed him about the role of armed jihad in history during an Aug. 23, 2010 interview. After acknowledging that history – “Absolutely it has” happened – Brennan tried to deflect the question, saying “I’m not going to go into this sort of history discussion here.”

He cut the interview short and walked out after the editorial board pressed the point, asking Brennan to distinguish between those historical armed jihads and al-Qaida’s current jihad.

Brennan further displayed his eagerness to kowtow to Islamist demands in the fall of 2011. After a small number of materials in FBI training manuals and libraries were found to be excessively negative in describing Islam as a religion and Muslims as a people, Islamist groups demanded a purge of anything they considered offensive.

An Oct. 19, 2011 letter to Brennan written by Muslim Advocates Executive Director Farhana Khera and signed by 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations demanded that Brennan create “an interagency task force, led by the White House,” that would, among other things, review all counterterror trainers, so as to purge those that the Muslim organizations, which included many with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood ties, found unacceptable. The task force would also “purge all federal government training materials of biased materials”; “implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training”; and more to ensure that only the message about Islam and jihad preferred by the signatories would get through to intelligence and law enforcement agents.

Brennan readily agreed, promising in a November 3, 2011 response to Khera written on White House stationery obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, that such an interagency task force was indeed “necessary,” and agreeing to purge training programs of all materials that the Muslim groups found objectionable.

To this day, officials have declined to identify those with whom they consulted in identifying the material to be removed. During an April 2012 talk at the New York Police Department, Brennan refused to answer when asked specifically whether Muslim Advocates was among those consulted.

“Now I’m not going to, you know, take on any individuals or claim or charge on this. But I just want to underscore that at least from the national government perspective and all my discussions with Commissioner Kelly and others, there is a real interest in trying to make sure that all of the different communities of different religious backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliations, have an opportunity to express themselves, so that we are able to do this,” he said. “When we talk about, you mentioned about, you know, Muslim Advocates… obviously al-Qaeda, which is, purports to be an Islamic organization, is anything but; it’s a murderous organization. They certainly misrepresent what they stand for. But we need to make sure that we’re able to talk with the Muslim community here in the United States. The Muslim community is as much a part of the United States as any other community of any religious background. The Muslim community is part of the solution on terrorism, not part of the problem. We need to make sure that we have all the expertise, the representation and the perspective, so that we can bring it to bear.”

But in his letter to Khera, Brennan acquiesced to virtually every demand.

“We share your sense of concern over these recent unfortunate incidents, and are moving forward to ensure problems are addressed with a keen sense of urgency,” he wrote. “They do not reflect the vision that the President has put forward, nor do they represent the kind of approach that builds the partnerships that are necessary to counter violent extremism, and to protect our young people and our homeland. American’s greatest strength is its values, and we are committed to pursuing policies and approaches that draw strength from our values and our people irrespective of their race, religion or ethnic background.

"While much work remains, I am confident that concrete actions are being taken to address the valid concerns you raised. Thank you again for your letter and for your leadership in addressing an isue that is crticial to ensuring the security of the United States.”

Denies Religious Dogma Entices Terrorists

In addition to purging training material at the behest of Islamist groups, Brennan’s theories about what drives people to plot terrorist acts betrays a further desire to conceal religious dogma. Economic conditions, more than religious beliefs, account for the draw of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, he has said.

“This includes those upstream factors – the political and economic causes and conditions that help to fuel hatred and violence, including loss of faith in political systems to improve daily life and the vulnerability of young minds to predators like gangs and terrorist recruiters,” Brennan said during his NYU speech. “And while poverty and lack of opportunity do not cause terrorism, it is obvious that the lack of education, of basic human services and hope for the future make vulnerable populations more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death.”

That may be true in some cases. But numerous examples expose this as a misguided stereotype. And terrorist leaders – those who recruit terrorist operatives – hail from professional classes. Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician. So was Palestinian Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shikaki. Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook has a master’s degree and pursued a PhD. Would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad had a steady job and a decent wage. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were middle class or affluent. The Times of London observed in an April 3, 2005 article that a large percentage of 500 al-Qaida members had discovered that an overwhelming percentage came from middle class or affluent backgrounds.

Scholar Daniel Pipes reached a similar conclusion in a Winter 2002 article examining militants held in Egyptian jails. 

“What is true of Egypt holds equally true elsewhere: Like fascism and Marxism-Leninism in their heydays, militant Islam attracts highly competent, motivated and ambitious individuals. Far from being the laggards of society, they are its leaders,” Pipes wrote.

INTERPOL similarly warned in a Sept. 21, 2010 press release that the proliferation of extremist websites showed that al-Qaida recruiters were deliberately targeting middle-class youth.

“Speaking at the two-day International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) summit (21-22 September) in Paris… INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said that terrorist recruiters exploited the web to their full advantage as they targeted young, middle class vulnerable individuals who were usually not ‘on the radar of law enforcement,’” the INTERPOL press release said.

Al-Qaida publications such as Inspire magazine, along with its other media, make it clear that its followers are driven by religious zeal rather than by economics. Its slick, glossy production and the content of its articles appealed to educated people with access to at least some money. "How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom" is a notorious example.

Fawwaz bin Muhammad Al-Nashami, leader of the jihadists who killed 22 people in a 1994 attack on Americans in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, invoked Islam’s prophet: “We are Mujahideen, and we want the Americans. We have not come to aim a weapon at the Muslims, but to purge the Arabian Peninsula, according to the will of our Prophet Muhammad, of the infidels and the polytheists who are killing our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq. “

John Brennan’s recipe for fighting terror seems to cast these motivations aside. That’s the mindset poised to direct American intelligence gathering for the next four years.

‘Muslim Patrols’: Sharia Enforcers Hit Britain’s Streets

PJMedia/  Mike McNally

zionstrumpet.com

No longer content with preaching Sharia in the mosque, some British Muslims are now attempting to impose Islamic law on the streets. In videos posted on YouTube, self-described “Muslim patrols” have filmed themselves berating young women for being inappropriately dressed, seizing cans of beer from men, and burning posters advertising women’s underwear.

In another video, a mob pursues a man they suspect of being gay down a street, calling him a “fag” and telling him to get out of their “Muslim area.”

The videos are the latest example of how many Muslims — particularly young men — are not just failing to integrate into British society, but are becoming increasingly open in their hostility to it. It’s more evidence, if any more were needed, of the disastrous legacy of the policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism inflicted on Britain by Tony Blair’s “New Labour” government.

Only the worst excesses — such as the vigilante videos and the case last year of a Muslim gang that raped and abused vulnerable white girls — get widespread media attention. But national and local media regularly carry stories of less sensational yet alarming incidents. Even these are only the tip of the iceberg; the failure of multiculturalism is manifested in countless minor incidents in cities across Britain every day.

Typical of such incidents is what my partner experienced recently when walking through an ethnically mixed area of a city that is home to large numbers of Somali refugees. She had to run a gauntlet of hissing, spitting, and hostile comments from Somali men. The Somali women, meanwhile, turned their backs on her. Such insidious, low-level incidents go largely unremarked upon, but are the source of growing tensions.

The encounters captured in those videos show a new development. In the past, the worst excesses of Muslim extremism have been perpetrated in the shadows. The victims were mostly either young girls from poor white communities — as in the “grooming” incident — or other Muslims who are the victims of abuses ranging from being denied an education to female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and “honor” attacks which in some cases result in murder. 
But the people being harassed and threatened in the videos are random passers-by. Many of them will be young, liberal-minded urban dwellers who fancy themselves as sophisticated and tolerant types and who desire living in culturally mixed communities.

Increasingly, Islamists are coming into conflict with the very people who have been most eager to embrace liberal thinking on immigration, political correctness, and “diversity.” Multiculturalism has been a warmly satisfying and largely consequence-free indulgence for white liberals. It allowed them to flaunt their moral superiority over “racist” conservatives (an advisor to the Blair government has admitted that Labour’s immigration policy was a political project intended to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”). It also served to alleviate their guilt over past actual sins, such as the slave trade, and to present imagined ones, such as “globalization.”

Labour’s lax attitude to immigration had distinct material benefits for the liberal elites. It ensured plentiful supply of cheap nannies, exotic food stores, and hip ethnic restaurants, while those who could afford to were able to keep a safe distance from the squalor and criminal activity of the slum areas that mass immigration helped create.

Next >> 

Muslim Roulette

frontpagemag
By Bosch Fawstin
Can anyone tell which Muslim will go jihad before he or she does?

Non-Muslim Muslims, or as some call them “Moderate Muslims,” give the Jihadist enemy cover. They’re pointed to as “proof” that violence has nothing to do with Islam when, in fact, non-violent Muslims are reluctant Muslims. And they’re the reason we’re playing a game of Muslim Roulette in the middle of the Muslim world’s jihad on us. While we’d like to discriminate between “moderate Muslims,” “extremist Muslims,” etc., Muslims see us as Infidels, period. Not moderate Infidels, extremist infidels, etc., but simply Infidels.

Since 9/11 – a day that FAR too many Muslims celebrated – we’ve been expected to treat Muslims as if they’re not only above reproach, but as if it’s racist or “Islamophobic” to consider for an instant that any Muslim might be up to no good; that they’re All innocent no matter how many of them have been proven guilty of engaging in or supporting jihad.

When our government bureaucrats tell us “If you see something, say something,” they rely on us to be the ones to decide what that means, in order to protect themselves from accusations of “Islamophobia.” Islam is an ideology, not a race, so what we’re supposed to be looking for gets very complicated, since, in addition to Arab Muslims, there are white, black, Hispanic, female, blond-haired, red-haired, and blue-eyed Muslims as well. This is not a call to condemn all those who call themselves Muslims, it’s just a reminder that we need to be better able to detect killer Muslims before they kill. And that’s the job our government should be engaged in — not protecting Muslim feelings, but protecting American lives.

For more on this, see the most popular piece I’ve written on Islam, Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against The West.

The Silent Conquest of a Continent

Town Hall. com/ Michael Youssef 

mychristianblood.blogspirit.com

There’s been a lot of discussion within some in the media regarding the demographic changes taking place in Europe. But those of us who’ve travelled there have observed it firsthand: namely, the decreased birthrate among Europeans compared to the enormous birthrate increase among Muslim immigrants.

Overall, the birthrate across the continent is far below the replacement level of 2.1 children per couple. Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany have a fertility rate of only 1.4, while Poland and Russia languish at 1.3 and 1.2, respectively.

However, as a subgroup, Muslims in Europe are producing from 4 to 6 children per couple. Encouraged by some sheiks in Muslim countries who have forbidden the use of birth control, Muslim immigrants are producing children at two to three times the rate of Europeans.

Even Muslims in Europe who came from more westernized Islamic countries, like Turkey and Tunisia, have twice the birthrate of other Europeans. And the rate among their second generations is holding to that factor.

There are many projections as to when the Muslim population will gain a majority in Europe. Some say it could be as soon as 2025. Others as late as 2050.

Regardless of when Muslims become the majority in Europe, that turning point will present one of the greatest ironies in 1,400 years of European history.

Ever since Islamic expansion under Caliphates Umar and Usman, Muslims have tried again and again to invade and defeat Europe. But they failed.

The Ottomans got the closest; in fact, as close as Austria. But ultimately, that attempt and all others were unsuccessful. Until now. As Sheik Yousef Quardawi has been quoted to have said: “What our forbears failed to do by the sword, this generation is accomplishing through legitimate birthright, immigration, and petro-dollars.”

It’s impossible to predict whether radicals or more westernized elements will dominate the coming generation of majority Muslims. Certainly the current push for Sharia implementation in many European countries, including England, presents a foreboding omen.

That news doesn’t bode well for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists. At least Christians and Jews will be treated as demis, or second-class citizens. But the Sharia will have no such leniency for out and out non-believers.

What will happen to the gospel of “tolerance” that secular forces preach today? Although purveyors of that gospel are, in reality, the most intolerant of all, that won’t matter. “Tolerance” is used to give Islamists a foothold in the West, and then the proselytizers of that gospel will be swept into the dustbin of Islamic intolerance.

As a believer whose permanent home is in Heaven with Christ, I grieve over those who are being led away from His incredible love. Jesus is reaching out to them through Christian believers; He longs for them to turn to Him before it is too late.

I grieve for them, but I will not give up praying for them.