Recently in Islamic Imperialism Category


Two articles from The National Interest website on the real meaning of Orlando. It was another attack by soldiers of Islam on the United States in Islam's 1400-year war to conquer the world.

The continuing question is why the President of the United States refuses to recognize the threat for what it is.

Orlando Was Not an Act of Hate. It Was an Act of War.

Stuart Gottlieb
June 15, 2016
President Barack Obama responded quickly and forcefully to the horrific mass-casualty attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning, condemning it later that day as "an act of terror and an act of hate." And his eloquent reminder that attacks on any American, "regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation," is an attack "on all of us" of course echoed the most basic truism about what defines Americans as a people.
But perhaps more important than what the president said, is what he still will not say. And it is these omissions that serve as a stark reminder that his administration remains unable or unwilling to speak openly and honestly about the nature of the threat posed by the militant Islamist movements that have grown in strength and number during his time in office. Worst of all, this lack of candor is clearly impacting our ability to effectively fight Islamic terrorism.

Language Matters
First and foremost, the Orlando attack was not an "act of hate"--it was an act of war. Yes, the attacker, a Muslim American named Omar Mateen, specifically targeted America's gay community. But to make that a prime focus of attention exposes a key blind spot for this administration (and for the West in general) regarding the militant Sunni (Salafist) ideology that underpins today's jihadi movements.

For nearly a century, these movements--from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to Jamaat-e-Islami in South Asia, to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS)--have been unabashedly at war against not only the West's undue influence in the Arab and Muslim world, but against Western liberal philosophy in general, specifically the West's open and tolerant way of life. Yet the manner in which Western leaders often choose to characterize the violence perpetrated on behalf of such movements says much about their own Western preferences and biases.

Consider the statement made by Secretary of State John Kerry following last November's ISIS-inspired attacks in Paris against street cafes and a music venue, which killed 130 and injured hundreds more. Kerry described the violence as "absolutely indiscriminate," because it "wasn't to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong." This, he surmised, made it different from the Al Qaeda-directed massacre earlier in the year against the Paris satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was famous for mocking Islam (among many other things); and which he said at least offered the attackers a "rationale" because it was something that made them "really angry."

In fact, to militant Islamists there is no difference between a magazine exercising the right of religious satire and women sitting with men in a Paris café drinking wine, or young people dancing at a rock concert. Just like there is no difference between a gay nightclub that exemplifies liberal tolerance and a World Trade Center that represents global capitalism. They are all equal targets in a war against American and Western global power and liberal ideology.

Secondly, in the aftermath of the Orlando attack, President Obama again doubled-down on his reluctance to simply describe the threat for what it is, out of fear it will spark a backlash against Muslim communities. While this is certainly understandable, particularly in the age of Trump, it is ultimately counterproductive. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide--and especially in the United States--are both moderate and also well aware there are longstanding militant strains within their religion that, unfortunately, have been growing in power and appeal.

But instead of calling it out by name--which would strengthen, rather than weaken America's partnership with the moderate Muslim world--Obama continues to fall back on vacuous descriptions of the threat, as he did on Monday following an FBI briefing. Despite the fact that Mateen had declared his allegiance to ISIS during the rampage, and that Obama himself called it an "act of terror," as to the attacker's motivation the president would say only that it "appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information." That would be like saying on December 7, 1941 that Pearl Harbor was attacked by "violent people."

Obama eventually acknowledged what everyone already knew--that Mateen dedicated the attack to ISIS--but he again tried to downplay its meaning, saying it was merely done "at the last minute," and that Mateen was part of no "larger plot." In fact, ISIS online recruiters specifically instruct would-be foot soldiers to not declare their allegiance until the moment of attack (as also seen in the San Bernardino case), to reduce the possibility of preattack detection. And the "larger plot" is the ideology of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all the other militant Islamist groups dedicated to a global war against apostates in Muslim lands and infidels in the West.

Finally, while some may take comfort that Mateen seemed to have multiple personal triggers pointing him toward radicalization and violence--that is actually the most dangerous part of the story: the more powerful (and seemingly "successful") the Islamist ideology being spun and promoted by ISIS and like-minded groups, the greater the numbers (and diversity) of the recruits it will be able to net across countries and communities, including inside the United States.

Confronting a "Perfect Storm"
The Obama administration continues to insist that any references to warfare, or to the link between Islamic radicalism and today's escalating terrorist threats, simply plays into the hands of the terrorists, by making it appear that "we are at war with an entire religion." But this is actually quite odd coming from a president who has used the most aggressive wartime powers imaginable--such as hundreds of covert drone strikes inside at least eight sovereign countries--killing many thousands of suspected Muslim radicals (along with hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians).

More important, however, is that the strategy of perennially downplaying the threat, or of saying one thing and doing another, is clearly not working. President Obama's own director of national intelligence, James Clapper, recently testified that Sunni militant movements now have "more groups, members, and safe havens than at any point in history," and that radical Islamist networks are currently operating in at least forty countries worldwide. The United States, he said, now faces "the highest threat level since the 9/11 attacks" (and that was prior to the Orlando attack).

What has developed over the past five years is a gathering perfect storm of vast swaths of ungoverned jihadi territory across the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia; tens of thousands of local and foreign fighters being physically trained in jihadi training camps; untold numbers more being inspired and potentially recruited as foot soldiers over social media; and a high-profile strategy by ISIS and other groups to specifically target the West in order to spark a direct military confrontation--with many of the groups openly competing to see which can carry out the biggest and boldest attack that serves as a "tipping point."

Simply admitting that these radical Islamist movements are "at war" against the United States and the West will not solve the problem. Nor will it mean that our responses must be mostly on the military side of the spectrum--indeed soft power, like bridge-building with the moderate Muslim world, and heavy reliance on civilian criminal-justice systems, remains integral.

But it may help us finally recognize that even the best proposals aimed at "preventing attacks" inside the United States--like beefing-up overseas and domestic intelligence, or granting the FBI greater tools to track and detain suspected lone wolves--are merely Band-Aid solutions unless we directly target and ultimately destroy the most capable jihadi groups and the militant Islamist ideology that serves as their inspiration.

President Obama likes to point out that groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS pose no "existential threat" to America. But, as shown in Orlando this week, if left to fester and grow, they do pose a direct threat to America's sense of freedom and way of life. The big question is: what is the "tipping point" for such attacks, and what would the next day look like? It is up to the American president to make sure we never find out.

Stuart Gottlieb teaches U.S. Foreign Policy, Counterterrorism, and International Security at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), where he is also a member of the Saltzman Institute of War & Peace Studies. He formerly served as a foreign policy adviser and speechwriter in the U.S. Senate (1999-2003).

------------------------------------------

Trump's Temporary Muslim Ban Shows He's Serious about Defeating Radical Islam
Ying Ma
June 22, 2016

In the aftermath of the horrific mass shooting in Orlando, President Barack Obama, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker Paul Ryan found themselves united in outrage. Unequivocally, they issued their condemnations: "Dangerous," "shameful," and "pathological."

Their target, however, was not the radical Islamic ideology that inspired the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. No, the politicians were referring to GOP presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States. It was yet another example of elevating self-righteousness over reality and delusions over solutions.

Obama, Clinton, Ryan and numerous Trump haters behave as if religion is irrelevant or at best tangential to the bloodbath perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. While leftists like Obama and Clinton would much rather bash Republicans than identify radical Islam by name, Republicans like Ryan act as if blaming radical Islam is enough, and refuse to acknowledge the insidiousness of this evil in the Islamic faith or in Muslim communities in general.

By contrast, the bombastic and undisciplined Trump looks like a profile in courage. After Orlando, he reminded fellow Americans, "Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions." From Paris to Sydney, Fort Hood to Chattanooga, San Bernardino to Orlando, lone-wolf Islamic terrorists have repeatedly proven him right.

Instead of reiterating by rote that Islam is a religion of peace, as Washington politicians do, Trump is raising tough questions about why numerous Islamic governments and Muslim believers are decidedly not peaceful. Thus far, Trump haters have made no honest attempt to offer viable answers.

Perhaps that is because reality can be quite inconvenient. Across the Middle East and wide swaths of Africa and Asia, sharia, Islam's moral code and religious law, reigns. The regimes that subscribe to it do not uphold the freedom of religion, subjugate women as second-class citizens and outlaw homosexuality as an offense punishable by death.

While not every Muslim-majority country governs by these beliefs, the separation of church and state, a key concept enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, is one that numerous experts have declared in conflict with Islam. Furthermore, even moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia recognize Islam as the official state religion, and have enacted domestic laws and policies that restrict religious freedom even though the concept is enshrined in their respective constitutions.

Worse yet, sharia law rears its ugly head right here in America too. By one count, about twenty-six women die each year in this country as a result of Islamic "honor killings" perpetrated by their relatives.

What career politicians refuse to recognize and what Trump intuitively grasps is that the lines between radical Islam and regular Islam are blurrier than they appear. Of course, peaceful and patriotic Muslims have helped built America just like every other immigrant group, but outspoken, moderate Muslims in the West who openly stand up against the dark side of their faith are few and far between. Indeed, polling shows that a majority of Muslims living in the United States wish to have the choice of being governed by sharia law and judged by sharia courts. More disturbing, nearly a quarter of Muslims in America believe it is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam.

Meanwhile, just because some Muslims are portrayed as moderate and patriotic does not make them so. For example, President George W. Bush stood with supposedly peace-loving Muslim Americans after 9/11, but one of those individuals was actually the executive director of the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim group that federal prosecutors in subsequent years would name as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to funnel financing to foreign terrorists.

Before the complicated and unsettling reality about Islamic terrorism and its ideology, leaders like Obama and Clinton have routinely opted for political correctness and cowardice. Soon after the president assumed office, his administration ceased referring to this country's war against the jihadists as the "Global War on Terror" and gave it the bland, politically correct moniker of "Overseas Contingency Operation." When a deranged Major Nidal Malik Hasan fatally shot thirteen Americans on an Army base in Fort Hood, the administration designated the attack--carried out in the name of Islam--as an incident of "workplace violence." When ISIS showed the world it was not the "JV team" Obama had described, his administration convened a "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism" and went out of its way to avoid mentioning Islam, a word ISIS has never hesitated to use. Unable to refute Trump for pointing out the administration's political correctness, Obama recently just chose to mock him.

For his part, Speaker Ryan has argued that the smarter way to go than a temporary Muslim ban is to impose "a security test, not a religious test." Given the bloodshed and horror that have been perpetrated in the name of Islam in the modern era and given the infiltration by terrorists of the massive Syrian refugee influx to Europe, Americans can be forgiven for remaining worried and fearful despite Ryan's reassurances.

By contrast, Trump talks bluntly about radical Islam, its insidious influence and its grave threats to the homeland. His temporary Muslim ban may be overly inclusive, but he is not pretending that America's war with radical Islam is merely a security problem.
It is no surprise that Clinton and Obama have eagerly expressed their anti-Trump indignations. The left long ago abandoned any pretense of honesty when talking about race, ethnicity, gender or foreign religions. It is no surprise either to see Ryan engage in regular Trump condemnations. After all, the right has more often than not succumbed to the left's paradigm of identity politics while meekly mouthing objections to the specifics.

Were Trump to cease discussing a Muslim ban but focus on what he began proposing more recently (i.e., temporarily banning immigrants from countries that produce and harbor Islamic terrorists), would the political class talk more honestly about the threats posed by radical Islam in this country?

Of course not. That alone tells us far more about the Trump haters--and the preference for burying their heads in the sand regarding radical Islam--than about Trump himself.

Ying Ma is the author of Chinese Girl in the Ghetto and her website is http://yingma.org.

------------------------------------

In the July 4, 2016 issue of The Weekly Standard, Steve Hayes addresses the same question: Why does the President refuse to recognize the reality of Islam's war on America?


Ignoring Reality

The Weekly Standard
JUL 04, 2016 | By STEPHEN F. HAYES

At 2:35 a.m. on June 12, Omar Mateen called 911 from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. For 30 minutes he'd been on a killing rampage and he wanted the world to know why. He spoke for less than a minute.

"In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent," he began. "Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God." And then he announced: "I wanna let you know, I'm in Orlando and I did the shootings." The dispatcher asked for his name. "My name is--I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State." The dispatcher asked again for his name. Mateen said: "I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, may God protect him, on behalf of the Islamic State."

In two other calls, both of them much longer, Mateen declared himself an "Islamic soldier" and reported that he was carrying out the shootings in order to avenge the deaths of Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Patience Carter heard one side of those 911 calls from her position near the killer in the bathroom of the Pulse nightclub. "The motive was very clear to us," she told reporters. "Through the conversation with 911, he said that the reason why he was doing this was because he wanted America to stop bombing his country," she said. "So, the motive was very clear to us, who were laying in our own blood and other people's blood, who were injured, who were shot, that we knew what his motive was, and he wasn't going to stop killing people until he was killed, until he felt like his message got out there."

To make sure that message was unmistakable, Mateen posted on Facebook during the massacre. "I pledge my alliance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi .  .  . may Allah accept me," Mateen wrote in one post. "The real Muslims will never accept the filthy ways of the west. .  .  . You kill innocent women and children by doing us airstrikes .  .  . now taste the Islamic state vengeance."

This information was available to law enforcement--and to the White House--almost immediately after the attack on the nightclub. And yet, some 36 hours later, when President Barack Obama spoke to reporters, he said that the shooter had pledged loyalty to ISIS only "at the last minute." Obama insisted that the reason behind the slaughter was a mystery: "I think we don't yet know the motivations."

In the days that followed, we learned more about Mateen and his history of radicalism. Mateen's father was a longtime Taliban sympathizer. A decade before Mateen's attack in Orlando, he threatened to shoot a classmate at a cookout when his hamburger apparently touched some pork by accident. Mateen attended a mosque with a Florida man who would later become a suicide bomber in Syria. In part because of that connection, the FBI investigated Mateen twice as a possible jihadist threat. Perhaps the most chilling piece of information to emerge is that Mateen had told coworkers that he hoped to be "martyred" in an FBI raid on his home.

All of which means the president is wrong, and willfully so. We know Omar Mateen's motivation. He was a committed jihadist. He killed in the name of Islam. None of this suggests that there weren't other factors. Perhaps there were. But it's not necessary to understand them all in order to recognize the most obvious.

The Obama administration efforts to ignore inconvenient realities reached the point of self-parody last week, when the Department of Justice released bowdlerized transcripts of the 911 calls the killer made from the Pulse nightclub.

"I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of the Islamic State" became, after FBI censoring, "I pledge of allegiance to [omitted]."

"I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him, on behalf of the Islamic State" became "I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted]."

The FBI said its redactions were meant to deny ISIS a propaganda victory. But seven years of the Obama administration's non-war on terror point to a different explanation. Truths that complicate Obama's ideological objectives are simply cast aside in favor of his preferred reality.

"Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab confessed to working with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Three days later President Obama described him as an "isolated extremist." When Faisal Shahzad tried to bomb Times Square, then-secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was quick to dismiss it as an amateurish "one-off" attack, never mind the involvement of the Pakistani Taliban.

The president doesn't want to answer for a deadly al Qaeda attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi six weeks before the election? Claim it wasn't al Qaeda and claim it wasn't a planned attack. The Obama campaign doesn't want anything to complicate its 2012 campaign narrative that "al Qaeda is on the run"? Refuse to release the "small college library" full of documents captured at Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad. Is the DNI assessment of Iran's involvement in terrorism complicating efforts to win support for a nuclear deal? Simply have them rewrite it and leave out the damning evidence.

State Department leaders don't like video evidence of Fox News correspondent James Rosen catching the spokesman in a lie? Edit it out of the recording. Disagree with the assessments from the intelligence community that some Guantánamo detainees are too dangerous to release? Ignore them and transfer those detainees anyway.

The Obama administration's efforts to shape our perception of the threats we face doesn't make the actual threats go away. And yet the president did it again last week, saying that jihadists pledged to fight and die for ISIS "are not religious warriors." It would be bad enough if he were just trying to fool us. Worse is the possibility that he's fooling himself.

Freshman U.S. Senator Ben Sasse is a remarkable man. No doubt out of frustration with the equivocations constantly issuing from President Obama about Islam, he decided to go to the site of the Islamic massacre in San Bernardino to speak clearly to the American people about the war in which we are involved.

The war was started by a man named Mohammad in the 7th Century. He declared that he and his followers would conquer the world in the name of Islam and would use all means available to accomplish that goal. Those include terror and all kinds of violence such as murder, rape, beheading, stealing and lying, deceit and trickery. Many of his followers are taking him at his word -- jihadists -- and today ISIS, Boko Haram and other units of Mohammad's army are utilizing violence to seize territory and eliminate those who do not believe that Allah is god and that Mohammad is the messenger of God.

Those who are jihadists or support what those jihadists do are growing in number in the Muslim world, thanks to decades of indoctrination by Saudi money that true Islam is only that as preached and practiced by Mohammad in the 7th Century.

However, there are Mohammad's followers who believe that violence in the long run is counterproductive and instead adopt non-violent means to advance the cause of world conquest. These "stealth jihadists" are strategic, utilizing propaganda, lies, deceit, deception and infiltration of countries by immigration of non-assimilating Muslims and infiltration of governments and positions of influence by believers in Islamic world conquest. It is troubling that those who seem to be "stealth jihadists" nonetheless teach that Mohammad is the perfect man. For example, an imam by the name of Suhaib Webb (who was for a period of time an imam at the Islamic Society of Boston, a known terrorist hotspot for many years) who now works with young people in the Washington, D.C. area, described Mohammad recently in a teaching session as "the best one ever to have lived." (Source: <"http://www.imakespace.com/halaqa-healing-visiting-faith-part-ii/">Link since taken down.)

Finally, there are those Muslims, hopefully the vast majority, who simply worship one god they call Allah and seek to lead good lives and abide by the laws of the lands in which they live, ignoring the commands of the Koran and of Mohammad to conquer and kill and lie in the name of Islam.

The nagging problem many people have is distinguishing one from the others since lying to nonbelievers is acceptable, according to Mohammad.

We know what happened in Paris. What's going on in Brussels, Belgium, the headquarters of the European Union, is even more ominous.

Belgium as a small European country has been targeted by Muslims for a takeover through immigration and population growth.

It's often said that Islamic law, Sharia, is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and our democratic way of life. Some protest that, saying it just isn't true. Muslims quoted in this video agree: Sharia is incompatible with democracy and Islam and Sharia are the same thing.

Boko Haram is an organization of Islamic true believers whose name freely translated means western education is bad. In northern Nigeria it has killed at least 5,000 over the past four years, burned down schools, churches and homes, mostly targeting Christians, seeking to drive them out of their part of the country. Their goal is to impose Islamic rule, Sharia, which controls every aspect of one's life, over everyone under its power. A leader of Boko Haram was quoted recently saying that they were allied with various al-Qaeda groups because they all had the same aim of advancing the "cause of Islam."

Nigeria is Africa's most populous country with the continent's largest Gross National Product. It is rich in resources and badly governed. It is mostly Muslim in the north and Christian in the south.

To fulfill a need for cooks, cleaners and sex slaves Boko Haram attacked a school and kidnapped more than 200 teen aged girls. The government has been unable to find the girls who disappeared with their abductors into the forest. The search is widening, but Boko Haram has threatened to kill all the girls if the effort to rescue them is not stopped.

This report from the All Africa news service gives one a sense of the barbarity of Boko Haram, the ineffectiveness of the government and the somewhat childlike naivety of those brave women who are mobilizing to join the search. Sad. Pathetic. Evil. Also denial: Nothing to do with Islam.

Nigeria: Boko Haram Threatens to Kill Abducted Schoolgirls If Search Is Not Stopped BY JIMITOTA ONOYUME, JOHNBOSCO AGBAKWURU AND NDAHI MARAMA, 24 APRIL 2014 http://allafrica.com/stories/201404240355.html

Hundreds of girls kidnapped from school

NOBEL Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, yesterday, called on the Federal Government to ensure the release of 230 students of Government Girls Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State, who were abducted by members of the Islamic sect, Boko Haram.

Professor Soyinka made the call on a day a coalition of women's rights in Borno expressed their readiness to mobilise thousands of women to embark on a voluntary search and rescue mission into the notorious Sambisa forest, to ensure the release of the abducted students.

Senate President, David Mark, on his part described the abduction of the girls as sacrilegious.

Meanwhile, members of the Islamist sect, Boko Haram, have threatened to kill the abducted students, should the search to recover them continue.

Soyinka tasks FG
Professor Soyinka, who gave the keynote address in Port Harcourt at the opening ceremony of declaration of Port Harcourt as UNESCO World Book Capital 2014, said the focus of the event was for the Federal Government to ensure the safe release of the students.

He said he had expected President Goodluck Jonathan to convene an emergency security meeting over the ugly development in the school after the abduction of the students.

He noted that the ongoing book fair in Port Harcourt was a national rejection of Boko Haram, adding that the Islamic sect does not reflect the teachings and values of Islam.

Minutes after his address, former Minister of Education, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili and the Project Director, Rainbow Book Club, Mrs Koko Kalango led the gathering to make a collective demand for the girls' release.

Storming Sambisa forest
The Borno women, under the auspices of BAOBAB Women's Right, have said they were ready to storm the major hide out of the insurgents in Sambisa forest, where the abducted girls were believed to be held.

Spokesperson for the group, Professor Hauwa Biu, told newsmen that they resolved to embark on the rescue mission when it was evident that no reasonable progress was being achieved in the rescue efforts.

Biu said: "We are ready to go into the forest and search for the girls. In fact, we are prepared to risk our lives and get up to Boko Haram camp and appeal to them to release the children to us so that they can re unite with their parents.

"There is nothing extraordinary in our quest to enter the dangerous forest. We learnt that some men in Chibok had earlier embarked on such mission, which later turned out to be fruitless.

"We felt that as mothers, we are in a better position to have the sympathy and concern over the fate of the missing girls.

"Our target is not to fight the abductors, but we want to beg them to release the girls in the name of the God that we all worship."

The group urged security forces to expedite action in their search and rescue mission of the students so that their parents can have rest of mind.

Biu appealed to security agents to make use of sophisticated weapons in detecting the location of the abductors for easy rescue operation.

She described the abduction of the school girls as inhuman, abuse of human rights, capable of scuttling efforts for enhanced girl child education in the state and the country at large.

She said: "The abduction of the innocent girls violates their human rights, and it is a crime against humanity and prohibited under international humanitarian law.

"Women in Borno strongly condemn this act in its totality as it deprives children their right to learn in a safe environment, thereby jeopardising their future."

Appeal
Biu also appealed to the insurgents to lay down their arms and hold dialogue with the government.

She said: "We wish to appeal to the insurgents to lay down their arms and embrace dialogue. We assure them of our motherly support toward rehabilitating them when the need arises.

"We condemn all other attacks in form of bomb blasts and serial killings all over the country and commiserate with the families of those who lost their relations during the unfortunate incidents.

"We commend the efforts of Borno and Federal governments as well as youths and vigilantes in addressing the current insurgency in the country.

"However, bearing in mind the continuous attacks on schools, we appeal for the provision of adequate security to all schools so as to have a safe learning environment for our children."

It's sacrilegious--Mark
Meanwhile, Senate President, Senator David Mark has described as sacrilegious the abduction of the female students and called for their release.

The Senate President, in a statement by his Press Secretary, Paul Mumeh, in Abuja, yesterday, said the abduction was embarrassing and that no nation that had the desire to develop would indulge in such dastardly act.

He pleaded with the captors to listen to the voices of reason and release the teenagers.
According to the statement, "Senator Mark imagined the harrowing experience the students had been subjected to by their captors and the mental and psychological torture parents and guardians of the students had faced."

He said no nation could justify the abduction of the children whose only offence was that they chose to go to school to better their lots and contribute to the socio economic and political development of their fatherland.

Mark said: "It is a sad commentary and a terrible assault on our psyche as a people. In the good old days of Nigeria this was a taboo and unarguably unheard of."

The Senate President canvassed for synergy between and among security agencies, especially in the area of information gathering and sharing to facilitate their rescue, stressing that the deteriorating situation was making a mockery of the nation.

There are too few leading statesmen in the world urging action against the spread of Islamic imperialism. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered such an urgent warning in London this week.

Islam is a political ideology wrapped in a religious cloak that has as its goal nothing less than the conquest of the world and the elimination of all who do not accept true Islam. In the Koran and in the words and actions of Mohammad there is no doubt but that it is the duty of every Muslim to advance Islam however he or she can, by war, by violent means, by terrorism, by deception and stealth, the methods to depend on what is possible at a given place and time.

In the Middle East warring factions, all with the same goal, but differing as to who should be in charge -- Sunnis or Shiites -- are seeking to advance Islam. In Africa where there are weak governments Islamic terror groups are murdering, burning and pillaging to take over territory and drive Christians and other non-Muslims out. The Islamic invasion of the mostly Christian Central African Republic by heavily armed Islamic fighters has resulted in he deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Christians and other people.

In northern Nigeria alone, Boko Haram has killed over 5,000 in the past four years despite efforts of the Nigerian government to stop them. Last week Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 girls from a school to serve as cooks, cleaners and sex slaves. What is Boko Haram's goal?

Boko Haram is proud to be one of Al Qaeda's African franchises, along with AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and al Shabaab in Somalia. "We are together with al Qaeda," Boko Haram spokesman Abu Qaqa told reporters in Nigeria by phone last November. "They are promoting the cause of Islam, just as we are doing. Therefore they help us in our struggle and we help them, too."

And, in Yemen, a top Al Qaeda leader calmly states that its number one target is America as the most important defender of the principal enemy, Christianity.

We must eliminate the cross," he says, referencing what he sees as Christian power. He adds: "The bearer of the cross is America!"

In the United States itself the FBI has thwarted hundreds of attempted terrorist acts, but, sadly, not the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013 or the murders of fellow soldiers by Major Nadel Hasan at Ft. Hood. There is strong evidence that the U.S. government is being infiltrated by Islamic true believers whose goal is to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law, the Sharia.

Saudi-backed Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Student Association are on many colleges campuses and Washington is home to the notorious Saudi-funded political propaganda operation the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Islamic organization (the Holy Land Foundation) found guilty of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas.

Fortunately, not all Muslims follow the mandates of the Koran, but just want to live a decent life and worship God. But those who are the most knowledgeable of Islam are potentially the most dangerous if they remain Muslims. They are obliged to treat all non-Muslims as the enemy and to strike against them (us) when conditions are right. When will a quiet Muslim true believer becomes a jihadist? No one can say.

As yet, the U.S. has not been affected to the extent Britain has, with neighborhoods, villages and towns taken over by Muslims and run as if they were in a Muslim country, observing Sharia and keeping non-Muslims out. Similar "no go" zones exist in France. But in Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim muezzin (call to the mosque) is broadcast throughout the city five times a day. In nearby Dearborn, Michigan the terrorist Shiite organization Hezbollah has many fervent supporters and neighborhoods where non-Muslims are not welcomed.

With heavy immigration and a soaring birth rate, the Muslim population of Europe is approaching 40 million and is a serious problem not only in France and Great Britain, but in virtually all countries of western Europe.

Tony Blair speaks of "denial" about the dangers posed by Islam. Denial is a problem throughout Europe and the United States, starting with Washington, D.C. and the national media.

There is an effort by Muslims and some Islamic apologists to draw a distinction between Islam and what is called "Islamism" and "Islamists." Islamists are the extremists who are said to distort Islam's message. The trouble is that Islamists are taking what is in the Koran and the hadiths (words and actions of Mohammad) as the marching orders they are meant to be. As many others put it, including the prime minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan, "Islam is Islam." In other words, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam," but there are "moderate Muslims."


Tony Blair: Fighting Islamism - The Defining Challenge of Our Time

Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister, delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

He argued "there are four reasons why the Middle East remains of central importance and cannot be relegated to the second order."

The first three: oil, proximity to Europe and Israel, whilst important, were not the focus of the speech. Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most important reason: Islamic extremism also known as Islamism.

He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever you look - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan - this is the essential battle."

Addressing those who regard these conflicts as distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain: that they have in common a struggle around the issue of the rightful place of religion, and in particular Islam, in politics."

It is this central point that he hammered home again and again over the course of his 40 minute speech.

He argued that this struggle does not end at the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this matters so much is that this ideology is exported around the world."

He asked listeners to "Take a step back and analyze the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing."

He notes that "The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies."

The main thrust of the speech focused on "two fascinating things."

"The first is the absolutely rooted desire on the part of Western commentators to analyze these issues as disparate rather than united by common elements. They go to extraordinary lengths to say why, in every individual case, there are multiple reasons for understanding that this is not really about Islam, it is not really about religion; there are local or historic reasons which explain what is happening. There is a wish to eliminate the obvious common factor in a way that is almost wilful."

Predictably, opponents took the opportunity to argue exactly that. For example, the Guardian's summary quoted a Saudi Daily paper which blamed Israel. Commentator Mehdi Hassan blamed Tony Blair himself for the problem, because of the Iraq war.

Blair went on to argue "The second thing is that there is a deep desire to separate the political ideology represented by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from the actions of extremists including acts of terrorism."

He acknowledged the motivation behind these fears, saying "We feel almost that if we identify it in these terms, we're being anti-Muslim, a sentiment on which the Islamists cleverly play."

Blair swept these distinctions aside, acknowledging the laudable motives behind such interpretations, but ultimately pinpointing the profound danger posed by the Islamist ideology, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

He urged the West and indeed the entire world, to unite against the ideology Islamic extremism.

Former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane compared the speech to Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain address. Douglas Murray argued in the Spectator that Blair went too far in his efforts to brand Islamism as disconnected from Islam and called on moderate Muslims to help combat radicalism by driving extremists from their communities.

Blair outlined potential foreign policy options for the West vis-a-vis various Middle Eastern countries in order to combat Islamists and to support religiously open and tolerant elements.

In particular he focused on Egypt saying "on the fate of Egypt hangs the future of the region. Here we have to understand plainly what happened. The Muslim Brotherhood government was not simply a bad government. It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June 2013 was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation."

All of these different policies are facets of the same policy: that "across the region we should be standing steadfast by our friends and allies as they try to change their own countries in the direction of reform. Whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they're promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be supporting and assisting them."

Perhaps this statement by Blair sums up the message of his keynote speech best: "When we consider the defining challenges of our time, surely this one should be up there along with the challenge of the environment or economic instability."

The full text of the speech can be found here.

Can you believe this?

"One in five applicants for jobs at the Central Intelligence Agency have ties to Muslim terrorist organizations, according to the latest round of Snowden leaks. And Israel is a major target of American counterintelligence. Washington is insane."

The Islamic war to conquer the world is ongoing and tailored to local circumstances. In northern Nigeria where law is weak, Muslim murders, rapes, church burnings and persecution of Christians forces Christians out and Islam controls more territory.

In the U.S., that won't work. Undercover infiltration into critical places by Muslims intent on weakening our country is extensive. For example, by planting agents inside the CIA Islamic war leaders will learn our plans and be able to circulate false and misleading information to the highest levels of government. In the State Department, HIllary Clinton's most trusted advisor Huma has deep ties to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Robert Spencer correctly calls this "stealth jihad."

Obama fosters stealth jihad by banning phrases such as "Islamic terrorism" and classifying Major Nidal Hasan's murders at Fort Hood as "workplace violence."

Wake up, America!

Grievances are all that Muslims need to justify attacking infidels. Osama bin Laden made that very easy for eager jihiadists, not only compiling a long list of infidel transgressions but advising that the default position of every Muslim should be "oppressed" and free to attack whenever feasible:

It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, was apparently exasperated that western leaders hadn't really awakened to the fact that Islam was at war with them so he sent a recorded message to Obama in 2008 after he was elected:

[You are] "facing a Jihadi [holy war] awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognise and pretend not to see."

Obama, like President Bush, nonetheless kept up the fiction of Islam being a "religion of peace," perhaps afraid to face the truth that the basic principles of the ideology of 1.3 billion people requires all Muslims to be at war with all non-Muslims.

The same foolishness was recently echoed by Britain's Prime Minister Cameron right after the murder of the off-duty British soldier on a busy London street in daylight:

"This was not just an attack on Britain, and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to this country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

And in late May Obama gave a defense speech claiming the the Global War on Terror was over and it was time to move on. Wishing doesn't make it so.

The reality, as American writer Clare Lopez put it, is this:

The United States is not at war with Islam--but Islam sure is at war with us. And that jihad, by the Dar al-Islam [Abode of Islam] against all of the Dar al-Harb [Abode of War] -- the two worlds into which official Islam divides the world -- is not going to stop unless we capitulate in unconditional surrender to the dictates of Shariah Law.

Nothing has changed in 1400 years except that oil money pouring into Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states has enabled the teaching to generations of young Muslims of what the Koran really says and what Mohammad really demands, namely, jihad, violent if necessary, until the world is subject to Islam. How many true believers are there? No one knows, but most estimates range in the hundreds of millions. When will any one of them now in the West choose to strike after years of seemingly civilized living?

Ms. Lopez agrees with Obama in one respect:

America really is "at a crossroads." In some ways, President Obama's throwing in the towel and calling off the GWOT are going to allow events to speak for themselves, thereby forcing a public reassessment of our failed national security strategy about Islam and the jihad wars.

One wonders how leaders like Obama and Cameron (and George Bush along with virtually every other high government official in the West) can be so blind to the threat to civilized life that can be tracked every day in the news of the world.

The Lopez analysis is worth your time.

Raymond Ibraham principally tracks the persecution of Christians taking place in Muslim majority countries, but also takes note of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims in other countries.

Recently, in commenting on the murder and near-beheading of an off-duty British soldier on the streets of London in broad daylight by two Muslims shouting Alahu Akbar, he laid out what he calls "Islam's Rule of Numbers."


But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity--done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call "Islam's Rule of Numbers," a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world--in this case, brazen violence against "infidels"--appear.(emphasis added)

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon. Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a "religion of peace," and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of "grievances," a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London's butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.... The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters destroyed 100 cars and property. The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding "immigrant" in self-defense.

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians--bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists. Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that's because there are fewer infidels to persecute. And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences--as dhimmis--always careful to "know their place."

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm. Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad. Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new "blasphemy" laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia--where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Such is Islam's Rule of Numbers.

Bernard Lewis, the premier Western authority on Islam for many decades, see the era of tyrannies in the Middle East coming to an end. Western-style freedon, tolerance and free speech as a result? Islam westernized? Not likely.

More likely is a return to the consultative process of the Ottoman Empire in which the sultan had to work things out with the various power brokers to get things done.

islam will remain dominant.

He notes the distressing regression taking place in Turkey. In a way, it's a non-violent repeat of the transition in Iran from the secular. The mullah tyranny will be replaced by an Ottoman-style system of governance. Turkey and Iran will be running parallel courses. It's anyone's guess how Islamic fundamentalist fervor will act out. The odds are continuing trouble for the West from an expansionist, fundamentalist Islam.

He has no answer for a nuclear-armed Iran. He thinks a military move would incite patriotism among the opponents, so should not be tried. At the same time, he fears the "fanatic mullahs" who have an apocalypitc end-time vision.

Lewis sees things this way, nuclear holocaust skipped over:

{E}ven as... young Middle Eastern activists rise up against the tyrannies that have oppressed them, he keeps a wary eye on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. It is particularly challenging because it has "no political center, no ethnic identity. . . . It's both Arab and Persian and Turkish and everything else. It is religiously defined. And it can command support among people of every nationality once they are convinced. That marks the important difference," he says.


"I think the struggle will continue until they either obtain their objective or renounce it," Mr. Lewis says. "At the moment, both seem equally improbable."

That's pretty depressing. Lewis does not see Islam succceding in achieving world domination as decreed in the Koran, but he does not see any wholesale defection of the billion plus Muslims from the creed of Mohammad and the effort to impose Islam on the world.

In other words, Islam will continue sreading through violent and non-violent means as at present with intermittent successes and setbacks. It will keep progressing in its war of expansion as long as the non-Muslims of the world do not resist and mount an effective counterattack to preserve their values. Europe is being swallowed thus far with no resistance by Muslim immigration, procreation and separatism, with not much need of terror. Stealth Jihad in the U.S. is well underway with the government in total denial.

The 1400-year war continues.

'The Tyrannies Are Doomed'

The West's leading scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, sees cause for optimism in the limited-government traditions of Arab and Muslim culture. But he says the U.S. should not push for quick, Western-style elections.
By BARI WEISS in the Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011
THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
Princeton, N.J.

'What Went Wrong?" That was the explosive title of a December 2001 book by historian Bernard Lewis about the decline of the Muslim world. Already at the printer when 9/11 struck, the book rocketed the professor to widespread public attention, and its central question gripped Americans for a decade.

Now, all of a sudden, there's a new question on American minds: What Might Go Right?
To find out, I made a pilgrimage to the professor's bungalow in Princeton, N.J., where he's lived since 1974 when he joined Princeton's faculty from London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party and the foremost European fighting against the Islamization of Europe. Wilders gave an important speech in Rome this past week on what must be done in the Western world to defeat the spread of Islam, which is incompatible with Western civilization and democracy.

Islam's goal is the destruction of Western civilization to be replaced with Islam and Islamic law. Wilders speaks most urgently about Europe, which is already imperiled, but his words of warning and recommendations for actdion apply equally to the United States. The agents of Islam are already at work undermining our culture.

The Muslim Brotherhood's "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 God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. This goal was approved by the Muslim Brotherhood's top council in 1987.

Multiculuturalism must be defeated. Western civilization is far superior to that of Islam. Islam's evil must be widely made known. Free speech must be free and political correctness must end. As John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Winston Churchill have warned, Islam is a retrograde expansionist force that must be opposed and defeated. Geert Wilders is echoing a centuries-old message that is still falling on too many deaf ears. The late Harvard historian Samuel Huntington wrote of a coming clash of civilizations. One ex-Mulsim Wafa Sultain more correctly says it is a clash between barbarity and civilization.

Wilders' speech in full follows.

"The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide"
Geert Wilders, March 25, 2011
Rome

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe's Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization - the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

Muslim persecution has driven most Jews and Christians out of Muslim lands. The latest outrages in Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan reflect the pressure of Islam to convert, kill or drive out "the other." Now the number of ever-expanding Muslim clusters in the big cities of Europe are driving Jews out of not-yet Islamic countries.

Is this reversible?

ISLAM'S TAKEOVER OF BRITAIN IS PROCEEDING

The French are finally getting concerned about how the Islamic demographic invasion of their country is transforming it into something else. A French video team went to London to see if things were any better there. They weren't.


THE CALLOUSNESS OF BARACK OBAMA

What do Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Obama have in common?

An indifference to the life and death of American Jew Daniel Pearl.

Mark Steyn explains.

Now here is a straight-talking American on the war being waged against America by Islam.

You've heard the Attorney General of the United States, who can't seem to comprehend what motivated the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood killer and the would-be Christmas Day suicide murderer.

It's well worth the three minutes to listen to someone who knows who our enemy is and is not afraid to speak clearly about the threat we face.

Colonel Allen West is a candidate for Congress this November in Florida's 22nd Congressional District which is mostly coastal Palm Beach County and some of Broward County, running along the coast from Jupiter to Fort Lauderdale. He will be an outstanding addition to the House of Representatives. Check out his website and make a contribution.

Two articles this weekend make the same point: It is essential that we understand Muslims and the Islam that is the driving force behind their actions. With a western mindset and political correctness we constantly delude ourselves and fail to recognize the real challenge of Islam and how huge a problem it is.

A new book "Son of Hamas" is by the son of a founder of Hamas who defected and now lives in the United States. He strikes to the heart of the matter in this interview posted by the Wall Streeet Journal:

As the son of a Muslim cleric, he says he had reached the conclusion that terrorism can't be defeated without a new understanding of Islam. Here he echoes other defectors from Islam such as the former Dutch parliamentarian and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war.

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."

Former Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters writing in the New York Post makes somewhat the same point less dramatically:

Our reluctance to understand the Taliban on its own terms is strikingly evident in our insistence that Islam isn't a factor. A confederation of franchises, the Taliban has multiple interests, from a regional power-struggle to local issues that vary between valleys. But the common identity of Taliban fighters is that they're 100% Muslim and overwhelmingly Pashtun, members of a stateless ethnic group of 40 million straddling the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

WHAT WAR?

Why is Obama so reluctant to acknowledge what he must know? Islam is at war with America and will continue to be so until it has conquered America.

Was Obama, like many, if not most or all, Muslim-born babies, inculcated with the poison of Islam at birth? Does the poison still run through his veins?

Not the Manchurian candidate, but the Meccan candidate?

Hollow Words on Terrorism

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

CAN THE HOLD OF ISLAM BE BROKEN?

Even the New York Times editorial page may be waking up to the internal threat posed by immigrants from barbarian Muslim societies with values far removed from those of the West.

What's happening in Europe is an advanced stage of what can happen and is happening already in America.

Politicians ignore the danger that citIzens increasingly face from unassimilated -- and unassimilable -- Muslims.

Islam is an all-encompassing ideology demanding submission to its command to wage war until Islam rules the world. Its hold on its adherents inculcated from the moment of birth is difficult to break for most and impossible for many.

European politicians turned a blind eye for decades to this fact as they waved Muslim immigrants in. The result is chaos sweeping through Europe with fear, resentment and anger building among the natives. Many are pessimistic about the chances of European civilization surviving the belligerent Islamic onslaught. Political correctness and multiculturalism stand in the way of an aggressive defense.

Oddmakers are betting on Islam.

Op-Ed Columnist

Europe's Minaret Moment

By ROSS DOUTHAT

They toasted to progress in Europe's capitals last week. On Tuesday, the Treaty of Lisbon went into effect, bringing the nations of the European Union one step closer to the unity the Continent's elite has been working toward for over 50 years.

But the treaty's implementation fell just days after a milestone of a different sort: a referendum in Switzerland, long famous for religious tolerance, in which 57.5 percent of voters chose to ban the nation's Muslims from building minarets.

Switzerland isn't an E.U. member state, but the minaret moment could have happened almost anywhere in Europe nowadays -- in France, where officials have floated the possibility of banning the burka; in Britain, which elected two representatives of the fascistic, anti-Islamic British National Party to the European Parliament last spring; in Italy, where a bill introduced this year would ban mosque construction and restrict the Islamic call to prayer.

If the more perfect union promised by the Lisbon Treaty is the European elite's greatest triumph, the failure to successfully integrate millions of Muslim immigrants represents its greatest failure. And the two are intertwined: they're both the fruits of the high-handed, often undemocratic approach to politics that Europe's leaders have cultivated in their quest for unity.

The European Union probably wouldn't exist in its current form if the Continent's elites hadn't been willing to ignore popular sentiment. (The Lisbon Treaty, for instance, was deliberately designed to bypass most European voters, after a proposed E.U. Constitution was torpedoed by referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.) But this political style -- forge a consensus among the establishment, and assume you can contain any backlash that develops -- is also how the Continent came to accept millions of Muslim immigrants, despite the absence of a popular consensus on the issue, or a plan for how to integrate them.

The immigrants came first as guest workers, recruited after World War II to relieve labor shortages, and then as beneficiaries of generous asylum and family reunification laws, designed to salve Europe's post-colonial conscience. The European elites assumed that the divide between Islam and the West was as antiquated as scimitars and broadswords, and that a liberal, multicultural, post-Christian federation would have no difficulty absorbing new arrivals from more traditional societies. And they decided, too -- as Christopher Caldwell writes in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe," his wonderfully mordant chronicle of Europe's Islamic dilemma -- that liberal immigration policies "involve the sort of nonnegotiable moral duties that you don't vote on."

Better if they had let their voters choose. The rate of immigration might have been slower, and the efforts to integrate the new arrivals more strenuous. Instead, Europe's leaders ended up creating a clash of civilizations inside their own frontiers.

Millions of Muslims have accepted European norms. But millions have not. This means polygamy in Sweden; radical mosques in Britain's fading industrial cities; riots over affronts to the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark; and religiously inspired murder in the Netherlands. It means terrorism, and the threat of terrorism, from London to Madrid.

And it means a rising backlash, in which European voters support extreme measures and extremist parties because their politicians don't seem to have anything to say about the problem.

In fairness, it isn't clear exactly what those leaders could offer at this point. They can't undo decades of migration. A large Muslim minority is in Europe to stay. Persisting with the establishment's approach makes a certain sense: keep a lid on prejudice, tamp down extremism, and hope that time will transform the zealous Islam of recent immigrants into a more liberal form of faith, and make the conflict go away.

Or least keep it manageable. Caldwell's book, the best on the subject to date, has a deeply pessimistic tone, but it shies away from specific predictions about the European future. Other writers are less circumspect, envisioning a Muslim-majority "Eurabia" in which Shariah has as much clout as liberalism.

But even a decadent West is probably stronger than this. The most likely scenario for Europe isn't dhimmitude; it's a long period of tension, punctuated by spasms of violence, that makes the Continent a more unpleasant place without fundamentally transforming it.

This is cold comfort, though, if you have to live under the shadow of violence. Just ask the Swiss, who spent last week worrying about the possibility that the minaret vote might make them a target for Islamist terrorism.

They're right to worry. And all of Europe has to worry as well, thanks to the folly of its leaders -- now, and for many years to come.

Just another reminder of reality.


Muslim threats to Christians rise in Pakistan

October 4, 2009

Anjum Herald Gill THE WASHINGTON TIMES

LAHORE, Pakistan | Christians in Pakistan are feeling increasingly insecure after several violent attacks by Muslim extremists in the past two months.

In one case, eight Christians were burned to death by a Muslim mob after reports that the Muslim holy book, the Koran, had been desecrated.

Growing Talibanization of the country and a blasphemy law in place for two decades make non-Muslims, especially Christians, easy targets for discrimination and attacks, Christian and human rights activists say.

"The attacks on Christians seem to be symptomatic of a well-organized campaign launched by extremist elements against the Christian community all over central Punjab since early this year," Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Chairwoman Asma Jehangir said at a press conference last month.

The situation has become so serious that Pope Benedict XVI and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari discussed it during a meeting Thursday at the papal summer retreat in Castel Gandolfo, near Rome, the Associated Press reported.

The Vatican said the two stressed "the need to overcome all forms of discrimination based on religious affiliation, with the aim of promoting respect for the rights of all."

Most of the attacks on Christians' houses and churches followed claims of desecration of the Koran. Subsequent investigations generally proved the claims to be false.

Pakistani Minority Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian himself, said that no Christian would even think of desecrating the Koran. Some elements wanted to create an atmosphere of disharmony, but the government would not allow anybody to play with the lives and properties of the Christians, he said.

On June 30, a mob attacked Christians' houses in the village of Bahmani Wala in Kasur district of Punjab province, destroying more than 50 houses after looting.

On July 30, eight people were burned alive in the village of Gojra, also in Punjab, after a purported incident of desecration of the Koran in the nearby village of Korian Wala. Churches were attacked and copies of the Bible and hymn books were burned in both villages. In Korian Wala alone, more than 50 houses of Christians were ransacked.

On Sept. 11, a church in a village in Punjab's Sialkot district was burned after claims that a 20-year-old Christian youth had desecrated the Koran. On Sept. 15, a day after his arrest, Robert Masih was found dead in his jail cell. Police reported it as a suicide, but Mr. Masih's family claims he was killed. Joseph Francis, who runs an organization providing legal assistance to Christians, said he saw marks of torture on Mr. Masih's body.

Christians account for about 4 percent of the 170 million population of Pakistan, which was carved out of India as a state for Muslims at the time of independence from Britain in 1947.

Since then, successive civilian and military rulers have progressively strengthened the Islamic character of the country by introducing Shariah law. A controversial blasphemy law introduced in 1986 also has widened the gap between the minority Christians and majority Muslims.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom listed Pakistan as a "country of particular concern" in 2006, citing forced conversions of Christians to Islam and a rise in hate crimes against religious minorities.

All the recent attacks targeting Christians, activist groups claimed, were provoked by hate speeches made by Muslim clerics on loudspeakers from mosques.

"The rising intolerance and violence against Christians is a result of the Talibanization and promulgation of Shariah law in the country," said Kanwal Feroze, a well-known journalist. "It is not a matter of blasphemy law, but shows a mind-set of the common man."

When the blasphemy law was introduced during the rule of Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, the punishment was life imprisonment. It was changed to the death penalty by the Federal Shariah Court in 1992 when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister.

Since the inception of the blasphemy law, as many as 976 cases have been registered under it, of which 180 were against Christians. When a Christian is accused of blasphemy, he or she can be granted bail only by the top court in the province.

The step-by-step Islamization of Pakistan began in 1956, when the country's name was changed from the Democratic Republic of Pakistan to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In 1973, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto changed the country's constitution to declare Islam the religion of the state. Non-Muslims were barred from becoming president or the prime minister, and denied seats in the Senate.

Mr. Bhutto - father-in law of current President Asif Ali Zardari - also nationalized church-run schools and institutions. Some of them were denationalized later by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who led Pakistan from 1999 until 2008.

In 1979, Gen. Zia introduced several Islamic laws that discriminated against non-Muslims - strengthening fundamentalist organizations and sowing the early seeds for Talibanization.

Under the Evidence Act of the Islamic law, a Christian man's witness is worth half that of a Muslim. Christian women would not be deemed as witnesses at all.

Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women but a Christian man cannot marry a Muslim woman. The constitutional provisions also welcome a Christian to embrace Islam, but when a Muslim converts to Christianity, the penalty is death.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has promised to review laws that could fuel hate for non-Muslim citizens after the recent attacks. A committee has been formed to look into the laws and make recommendations.

However, hard-line parties such as Jamaat-e-Islami and the banned militant organization Dawat-ul-Irshad already have warned of protests if the blasphemy law is rescinded. Even the mainstream Pakistan Muslim League-Q party of Mr. Musharraf has threatened to resist any change in the law.

One commentator on this report said this:

Wake up world. Muslims have been raping, terrorising and pillaging for 1500 years. The Koran teaches to kill all infidels, unless they convert to Islam. It won't stop on its own. Islam is like a cancer, unless you kill it, it will kill you.

Another:

FINALLY, THE TRUE TARGET OF ISLAMISTS IS BEING REVEALED. IT IS NOT ISRAEL AS MANY LIKE TO BELIEVE. NOR IS IT UNITED STATES, AS SUCH. THE TARGET OF THE WAR ISLAM IS WAGING SINCE MUHAMMAD WENT TO MEET ALLAH, AND EVEN BEFORE THAT, WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE CHRISTIANITY.

While top Obama officials are erasing from their vocabularies such terms as Islamic terrorism, jihad, jihadism, radical Islam, war on terror and Islamic war of world conquest, the Islamic war of world conquest goes on.

It's going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, the United Kingdom, Somalia, Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, the United States, Canada, Australia and India, to name just a few places. It's also fanning out from the Islamic terrorist strongholds in Algeria down into the almost ungovernable states of Niger, Mali and Mauritania.

What's unusual about this report in the Wall Street Journal is that, unlike reports carried in the New York Times, other mainstream media and Associated Press and Reuters newswires the reporter actually uses correct descriptives in telling what's happening.

The Koran commands all Muslims to engage in worldwide jihad until Islam is universal and all infidels are killed or enslaved. Almost all Muslims learn this from birth and many decide the way to glory and Paradise is to take up arms, kidnap, rape, kill and seize the property of others (booty, as Mohammad called it). You can get rich and have fun in the process once you get used to the blood.


Islamic Rebels Gain Strength in the Sahara

Moving South From Algeria, al Qaeda-Affiliated Insurgents Find Support Among Locals in Mauritania, Mali and Niger

By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV

NOUAKCHOTT, Mauritania -- Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels are spreading far beyond their original battleground in Algeria and increasingly threatening Africa's Sahara belt, scaring away investors and tourists as they undercut the region's fragile economies.

SaharaIslam.gif

Click to enlarge.

Dozens of security personnel, as well as an American aid worker and a British tourist, were killed by militants in several attacks in the region this summer alone. The attacks -- which prompted this year's lucrative Paris-Dakar car race to relocate to South America -- have become more frequent and brazen. Recent hits occurred not just in the remote desert but also in Mali's tourist magnet Timbuktu and in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott, where a suicide bomber attacked the French Embassy last weekend.


Though still dominated by the veterans of Algeria's civil war, this Saharan insurgency has grown deep local roots. Armed bands roaming the desert include hundreds of recruits from Mauritania, Mali and Niger -- vast and impoverished countries that straddle the Arab world and black West Africa, and that relied on the now-collapsed tourism industry as the key source of foreign exchange.

"What had started out as an Algerian problem is now engulfing Mali and Mauritania. They are the weak link," says Zakaria Ould Ahmed Salem, a specialist on political Islam at the University of Nouakchott.

An Islamist insurgency that cost 200,000 lives erupted in Algeria 18 years ago, after that country's secular regime annulled the second round of elections that the Islamists were poised to win. But it is only in the past few years, as Algerian security forces contained the violence at home, that the rebels -- who seek to create an Islamic state encompassing North Africa -- began mounting operations in neighboring Saharan countries that had been unscathed by international terrorism.

Underlining its wider ambitions, the main Algerian insurgent movement, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, re-branded itself in 2007 as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM. Actual operational links between AQIM militants in the Sahara and traditional al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan or Afghanistan are tenuous, if they exist at all, Western officials say.

But the group's new name has made it easier to find money and recruits for the cause outside Algeria. "Someone like Bin Laden is considered a hero here," explains Mohamed Fall Ould Oumere, publisher of La Tribune newsweekly in Nouakchott.

Mauritania, where most people speak Arabic and watch satellite TV chains like Al-Jazeera, is a particularly fertile ground for AQIM's growth, and accounts for a growing share of the movement's cadres, Western diplomats say. In Mali, Niger and Chad, the bulk of AQIM recruits also come from Arab-speaking communities, which in these countries are outnumbered by black African majorities.

AQIM is trying to spread south, "aiming to attract the young Muslims of the region -- white ones and black ones," says Isselmou Ould Moustafa, a specialist on AQIM who interviewed many of the group's members for his Mauritanian publication, Tahalil Hebdo.

Security officials in Nigeria recently claimed that AQIM trained in Algeria some members of Boko Haram, the Islamist sect whose armed uprising cost several hundred lives in northern Nigeria last month. According to some experts on AQIM, there is also evidence of contacts between the Saharan insurgents and the Shabaab, the radical Islamist militia controlling a chunk of Somalia. "It's an arc of fire," says Mr. Oumere.

All the governments in the region say they are fighting back. But the area's political instability and frequent bickering between neighboring countries have long made it easy for Islamist rebels to roam the Sahara, obtaining sanctuary and help from local tribes. Mali and Mauritania both have strained relations with Algeria. Planned regional summits to tackle the cross-border terrorism problem have been repeatedly postponed.

A military coup in Mauritania last year complicated the situation: The U.S. reacted to the overthrowing of Mauritania's democratically elected president by reducing military cooperation with the country and pulling out a reconnaissance plane that flew regular sorties over the Sahara to search for insurgents. Cooperation is likely to be restored now that Mauritania has held a democratic election last month.

Government officials here say that, without outside help, Saharan countries have little chance of defeating AQIM. "This is a zone that can't be controlled. We don't know who's out there in the vast desert and what are they doing," says Mohamed Ould Rzeizim, who served until this week as Mauritania's minister of interior.

To finance its campaign, AQIM is smuggling Europe-bound cigarettes, drugs and illegal immigrants through the desert, Mauritanian and Western officials say. Depots of untaxed cigarettes, often brought in by ship from South America, dot the desert along Mauritania's porous northern borders.

An equally important source of revenue for AQIM is ransom money -- estimated at tens of millions of dollars -- paid by European governments for the freedom of European tourists kidnapped in separate attacks in Algeria, Tunisia, Mali and Niger. The hostages were usually transported across the Sahara to AQIM's bases in lawless northern Mali, where local officials helped negotiate the ransom collection and the tourists' release.

Mali's role as a sanctuary for AQIM has long infuriated Algeria and the U.S. The country appears to be taking a harder line after the Islamist rebels -- who refrained from killing their hostages in the past -- announced in June that they executed their British captive, Edwin Dyer.

A few days after the killing of Mr. Dyer, suspected militants also gunned down in Timbuktu the regional chief of Malian intelligence, Lt. Col. Lamina Ould Bou. The colonel, an ethnic Arab and former Islamist rebel, had played a crucial role in Mali's efforts against AQIM. According to Malian government accounts and al Qaeda Internet postings, armed clashes in the region in following weeks killed dozens of Malian troops and Islamist guerrillas.

"We are now engaged in a total struggle against al Qaeda," Mali's President Amadou Toumani Touré declared last month.

The Saharan rebels have so far targeted only foreigners and security forces, sparing civilian targets like restaurants and hotels. In Algeria, Pakistan and Iraq, by contrast, al Qaeda-affiliated militants showed no concern about killing large numbers of Muslim civilians.

"These youngsters are not yet ready to carry out blind attacks and to explode car bombs, Algerian-style. They have not yet completely broken with the Mauritanian society," says Mr. Moustafa, the AQIM expert. But, he cautions, bloodier attacks are likely to happen soon: "They have bad teachers. Their future targets will be Mauritanian."

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Islamic Imperialism category.

Islam's Threat is the previous category.

Islamic supremacism is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.