Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ordered Liberty

Boko Haram is a violent Salafist group that emerged in predominantly Muslim northeast Nigeria in the early 2000s. (Salafism is a Sunni Muslim reform movement that seeks return to the mores of the first generations of Muslims — the Salafiyya or the companions of Mohammed.)

There are reports that it got seed money from Osama bin Laden, and it has long been known to have al Qaeda ties, but how closely it actually works with al Qaeda — as opposed to loud displays of ideological support — is the subject of some debate in the U.S. government. This debate is reflective of general confusion and incoherence in American counterterrorism policy.

The ideological glue that holds Islamist groups together is Islamic supremacism, which is directly derived from a strict, literal interpretation of Muslim scripture, coupled with a belief that the “golden age” of Islam was the time of the first generations — Mohammed and his immediate companions and descendants — to which Muslims must return if they are ever to overcome the corrupting influence of the West. (Boko Haram actually means “Western education is ‘haram’ or forbidden.”)

Nevertheless, our government adamantly refuses to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal underpinnings of Islamic supremacism.  Consequently, the disconnect: Boko Haram is quite clear that its goal is to impose sharia law and join al Qaeda’s global jihad. Its targets include churches and Western symbols, and its current leader, Abubakar Shekau, is quoted threatening the United States in 2010: “Do not think jihad is over. Rather jihad has just begun. America, die with your fury.” Yet, the Obama administration long refused to designate it as a terrorist organization — at the insistence of the State Department under Hillary Clinton, over the objections of other government agencies. (The State Department finally listed Boko Haram as a terrorist organization after John Kerry took over for Mrs. Clinton.)

Instead, ignoring what Boko Haram pronounces its goals to be, the Obama administration portrayed it as a diffuse organization with no clear agenda that was ascendant due to the policies of the Nigerian government (which is under Christian leadership). As the Boko Haram threat got progressively worse, the State Department and the White House theorized that it could be defused by better government engagement with the Muslim population in Northern Nigeria, and that designating Boko Haram as a terrorist organization—which would have triggered our law’s array of counterterrorism tools and squeezed the organization financially—would raise its prestige while encouraging more government repression against Muslims.

Note the absurdity: our government denies the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror, yet constantly fears that America’s condemnation of a group as “terrorist” will increase its appeal to factions of the Muslim population.
The wayward policy poses challenges in the current crisis over Boko Haram’s abduction of hundreds of girls and young women. The administration’s reluctance to crack down on Boko Haram owes to its sympathies for the Islamist case against the Nigerian government—not, it should be stressed, for Boko Haram’s terrorist methods and extremism, but for the claim that the Nigerian government’s vigorous, forcible response to terrorism is what provokes terrorism.

This obviously does not promote an effective working relationship between the American and Nigerian governments. The administration is offering various forms of assistance, including dispatching the FBI—much as the FBI mobilized in Kenya and Tanzania after the U.S. embassies were bombed by al Qaeda in 1998. But American law-enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction to act on foreign soil without the indulgence of the host government.

If the Nigerian government harbors suspicions that the Obama administration is sympathetic to the government’s Islamist opposition, it will be very difficult for American government agencies to be effective in responding to the crisis.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
They are brown, or black. Thus, not white.

They hate people Of The Book.

They hate the west and particularly hate two nations. Big Satan and Little Satan.

They are in near permanent rebellion.

Although they are not quite domesticated and remain a bit feral on issues related to gays, women and ecology...they make perfect Woodstock Weathermen pets.

Pajama Boys love to try to take them for a walk back on the intent of their attacks.

An act of terrier is how they wish to define it. It isn't Islam, it's instinct. After all, the "oppressors" have it coming.

Centuries of "provocation" cause "revolutionarie" to "act out".

The Satans CAUSE "backlash".

Therefore, radical jihadists are fellow revolutionaries and will not be named or blamed.

You don't "label" a fellow revolutionary and you don't condemn the revolution. You aid and abet it. You provide it cover.

You make secret deals with it. If it kills Navy Seals and ambassadors...it doesn't matter.

Understand the fellowship of the revolution. And that Jihadists are not considered the true enemy of the One World Revolution and Retribution. We are.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bush was ignorant of Islam as we all were on 9/11/2001. There's no excuse for ignorance today. Obama knows what he is doing and as you note his purpose is to further Islamic interests at the expense of our own.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Bush may have been naive, but Obama has real, abiding sympathies for Islam and believes that Islamic nations deserve to have their chance as a true global superpower that gets to tell the West how to live.

That means, yes, Shari'ah for America, Shari'ah for Britain, Shari'ah everywhere.

And idiots like Reid and Pelosi and Shrillary Killary think they can get it implemented in a way where it's "Shari'ah for Thee, but not for Me", where the government elites won't be subject to the punishments of Shari'ah, but you and I will.

And if you don't want to live as a Dhimmi under Shari'ah, well you're just a bigoted racist Islamophobe.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (30)
All Comments   (30)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
just as Frances answered I am taken by surprise that anybody able to make $8164 in a few weeks on the computer..

Click here And More Information== ==== ===>> www.Green37.com
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment


My friend's step-mother makes $89 hourly on the computer . She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her paycheck was $15243 just working on the computer for a few hours.
????????????????????­??
LET’S HAVE A PRODUCTIVE 2014
CLICK THE LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION
===>>http://www.Green37.com<<;===
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
My Uncle Lincoln just got Audi RS 5 Coupe by working online from home... site here,,,,,,,,
<<<("_") ("_") ("_")>>> x.co/4eboO
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
my classmate's aunt makes $73 /hr on the internet . She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $14488 just working on the internet for a few hours. pop over to this web-site►►►►►►►►►

►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►►

www.jobs60.com

►►►►►►►►►►►►►►======
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
my neighbor's aunt makes $69 /hour on the internet . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her check was $17769 just working on the internet for a few hours. hop over to here......www.jobsur.com
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am making <$60> /hr on the computer . I has been unemployed for 9 months but last month My pay was <$18148> just working on the computer for a few hours. visit this web-site.............

WWW.WORK76.COM
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Looks like Rick needs to wage another "war" on these spammers who are now FLOODING your site, PJM.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Democrats have steadfastly refused to recognize irreconcilable conflicts, but instead preach an unattainable "internationalism" derived from Wilson and his racism, now called multiculturalism. Hence modernity is not seen as the big threat, but rather "prejudice." And why? Because "prejudice" is manageable, while resistance to modernity is not, short of war. The same goes for analyses of anti-Semitism. What if we looked at anti-Semitism as not just "prejudice" but as resistance to modernity? See http://clarespark.com/2012/09/29/index-to-blogs-on-antisemitism/. This is a strangely neglected consideration by organizations supposedly defending "the Jews" from defamation.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
Obama, the Nigerian slave trader.
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
“God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes. God is great. God is great.”

-Muslim Brotherhood chant
15 weeks ago
15 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All