This past week Jewish media was abuzz with stories of how hard journalist Steven Sotloff’s family and friends worked to hide his Jewish identity after he was captured by ISIS. It seemed strange to me that Jew haters would have such terrible Jewdar. After all, the guy’s name was “Sotloff”, but apparently that’s not a “tell” in the Muslim world:
One thing journalists quickly learn is that the Jewish “tells” in the West don’t mean much in the Middle East. Jewish names obvious in the West are not at all so in the region, and stereotypical “Jewish looks” among westerners are indistinguishable from the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern features that are common throughout the Middle East.
“My name might have been Miriam Leah Goldbergstein, and I wouldn’t have worried,” said Lisa Goldman, who reported for various outlets in Lebanon and then in Cairo during the Arab Spring in 2011.
“A rose by any other name” would still be an infidel, so it would seem:
It’s not known whether ISIS was aware that Sotloff was Jewish. Colleagues believe his kidnapping by ISIS-affiliated terrorists in 2012 in Syria was one of opportunity and not a deliberate targeting. James Foley, another journalist kidnapped by ISIS and beheaded last month by the terror group, was Catholic.
Which is, perhaps, the overarching point of the latest rash of radical Islamist beheadings of Western journalists. We are all roses to be de-headed, whether we call ourselves Jews, Christians, or simply Westerners of a secular stripe. Iranian American scholar Haleh Esfandiari didn’t blink in her distinction of “The West” from the Muslim east when she commented on radical Islamist recruits:
These young men who grew up in Western cultures seem to have absorbed nothing regarding the value of human life and respect for women.
Monday was the first day that Congress has been back in session since ISIS released the gruesome videos showing the beheading of two Americans, and some lawmakers came prepared with legislation addressing the terror group.
Senators from the home states of murdered journalists James Foley and Steve Sotloff introduced a bill today to authorize up to $10 million in rewards to catch their killers.
The legislation from Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) would update the State Department’s Rewards for Justice Program to include the murders of the journalists. The program has paid out more than $125 million in return for actionable intelligence since 1984.
Sotloff was from Florida, while Foley was from New Hampshire.
“James Foley and Steven Sotloff nobly risked their lives in the pursuit of truth, and the United States will not stand idly by after two of its own were brutally murdered at the hands of fundamentally evil and freedom-hating extremists,” Rubio said in a statement. “This bill is a symbol of our commitment to their parents that America will not rest until justice is served, and let it serve as a clear message to ISIL that we will stop at nothing to ensure the deaths of these beloved journalists do not go unpunished.”
“The world lost two courageous and inspiring journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, as a result of the cowardly acts of a barbaric terrorist group and their deaths must not go unanswered,” Shaheen said. “James and Steven contributed greatly to the world through their reporting, and we must vigorously pursue those responsible for their murders.”
The only legislation directed at ISIS filed before the five-week summer recess were bills from Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) urging the administration to protect religious minorities from ISIS’ rampage. Democratic leadership in the Senate did not allow a vote on Portman’s bipartisan resolution before recess.
Nelson also filed a bill today to give President Obama authority to broaden the air campaign against ISIS to Syria.
“This is a barbaric group that’s committed heinous acts of torture and murder, and we have to go after them now – not only in Iraq, but in Syria as well,” said the Senate Armed Services Committee member.
Nelson’s bill states that “the President is authorized to use appropriate force against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the people and interests of the United States and our allies.”
It explicitly “does not include authorization for the use of rotational ground forces” and expires three years from the date that the bill is enacted.
In the House today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) introduced the Terrorist Denaturalization and Passport Revocation Act to strip members or associates of terrorist organizations of U.S. passports and citizenship.
“Those who have joined a foreign terrorist organization have taken up arms against the United States and our very way of life. By turning against their country, their passports should be revoked and if they’re naturalized citizens, they should lose their citizenship,” Bachmann said. “As elected officials, protecting our nation and keeping the American people safe is our highest duty.”
In the Senate, Cruz filed the Expatriate Terrorist Act to “amend the existing statute governing renunciation of United States citizenship to designate fighting for a hostile foreign government or foreign terrorist organization as an affirmative renunciation of citizenship.”
“On May 24, an ISIS member returned to Belgium, where he attacked innocent visitors at a Jewish museum, slaughtering four people. And it was reported today that he had been plotting an even larger attack on Paris on Bastille Day. In addition, on August 11 of this year, an accused ISIS sympathizer, Donald Ray Morgan, was arrested at JFK airport trying to reenter the United States. Mr. President, we know that this threat is real,” Cruz said in a floor speech.
“The desire to become a citizen of a terrorist organization that has expressed a desire to wage war on the American people, has demonstrated a brutal capacity to do so, murdering American civilians on the global stage and promising to bring that Jihad home to America,” Cruz added. “We should not be facilitating their efforts by allowing fighters fighting alongside ISIS to come back to America with American passports and walk freely in our cities to carry out unspeakable acts of terror.”
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) said Obama shouldn’t wait for Congress to revoke the passports of known ISIS members. Officials have estimated about 100 to 200 Americans are fighting for ISIS.
“As America faces a clear threat from ISIS fighters, I have called upon the president to act lawfully, under existing statutory and regulatory authority, to deprive U.S. citizens who have allied themselves with ISIS of the use of their passport. This is a common-sense, non-controversial solution already authorized by our laws,” Salmon said.
“This action would do nothing to change their status as American citizens or their protection under our laws,” he added. “What it would do is stop those who have proclaimed their intention to harm our nation by restricting them from traveling abroad or returning home under the protection of her flag. I encourage the president to take this simple action as soon as possible to help us prevent a possible attack on our shores.”
Colorado Sen. Mark Udall (D) has invoked the names of James Foley and Steve Sotloff to argue for a more cautious approach to dealing with the Islamic State — which he says is not an imminent threat to the United States.
Udall made the comments during a recent debate with his Republican challenger, Cory Gardner, reports Eliana Johnson at NRO. Udall says he stands by invoking the Islamic State’s victims to argue for a slower approach to them.
“I can tell you,” Udall said during the debate, “Steve Sotloff and James Foley would tell us, don’t be impulsive. Horrible and barbarous as those executions were, don’t be impulsive, come up with a plan to knock ISIL back.”
Udall’s use of the dead brings up memories of former Democrat Sen. John Edwards, who invoked a dead child in a courtroom during one of his cases as a trial lawyer. Edwards also told a rehearsed story about his dead son that his running mate, then Sen. John Kerry, found “chilling.”
Gardner, the Republican challenger, has issued a statement on Udall’s comments: “Americans have watched in horror in recent weeks as two of our fellow countrymen have been brutally executed by terrorists, and it’s outrageous that Senator Udall would put words into the mouths of dead Americans. Furthermore, it’s deeply troubling that he views a terrorist organization like ISIL as not an imminent threat to America.”
On Sunday, President Obama appeared on Meet the Press and denied calling ISIS “jayvee” terrorists.
On Monday, PolitiFact rates that claim a lie.
Todd then remarked that Obama’s response was a “long way from when you described them as a JV team.”
“Was that bad intelligence or your misjudgment?” Todd asked.
“Keep in mind I wasn’t specifically referring to (Islamic State),” Obama replied. “I’ve said that, regionally, there were a whole series of organizations that were focused primarily locally, weren’t focused on homeland, because I think a lot of us, when we think about terrorism, the model is Osama bin Laden and 9/11.”
Is Obama editing his remarks or did Todd misrepresent what Obama said? We decided to take a look.
Yada yada yada. Here’s the transcript of the interview in which Obama used the “jayvee” analogy.
Remnick: ”You know where this is going, though. Even in the period that you’ve been on vacation in the last couple of weeks, in Iraq, in Syria, of course, in Africa, al-Qaeda is resurgent.”
Obama: ”Yes, but, David, I think the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”
Remnick: “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.”
Obama: ”I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah –”
Remnick: ”And I don’t know for how long.”
Obama: ”But let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology is a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
It’s obvious that Remnick asks about ISIS, and Obama answers about ISIS. We now know that Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefings had kept up to date on the growing ISIS threat for at least a year — if he had been reading those briefings.
Rating, both from PolitiFact and Glenn Kessler at the WaPo: False. Lots of Pinocchios. Obama is lying to the nation about his own take on national security and terrorism.
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, President Obama admitted that he doesn’t really want to meet the press. In fact, he’d like for them to go away when he goes away for vacation.
On the show, Chuck Todd asks Obama if he’d like a do-over on making his statement about the beheading of James Foley and then heading directly to the golf course.
“You know, it is always a challenge when you are supposed to be on vacation,” Obama replied, “because you’re followed everywhere and what I’d love is a vacation from the press.”
He continued: “Because the possibility of a jarring contrast, given the world’s news…there’s always gonna be some tough news somewhere.”
This wasn’t “tough news somewhere,” an earthquake in a far-flung country most Americans can’t find on a map or an obscure trade agreement falling apart.
An American had just been beheaded by terrorists, and the video uploaded to the Internet, to portray American impotence and to mock and blame Obama.
He gave a little statement and then gallivanted off to the golf course, and only weeks later is even coming up with a half-baked strategy to stop IS — after a second American was beheaded.
But the media are the problem.
Apparently they don’t fawn over Obama enough. Sometimes they even give him a hard time. There is always so much “tough news somewhere” that the man who campaigned to be president twice has to answer for.
The poor guy.
What he really wants is for all opposition and all negative reporting to go away, along with all the world that doesn’t fulfill his wishful thinking and narcissism.
The Islamic State’s military force currently numbers a few thousand — maybe 15,000 tops. It is armed with American and other military hardware. It lacks an air force, despite having captured a Syrian airbase in August. The aircraft that IS captured are mostly out of date, and some do not function. There is no evidence that IS has the pilots to fly those aircraft. At any rate, American pilots are far better trained. Any IS pilots that might take to the skies would not stay there for long.
The Obama administration is not planning a decisive move to crush IS quickly, according to the Washington Post.
The Obama administration is reportedly preparing a campaign to destroy the Islamic State militant group that could outlast the president’s remaining time in office, according to a published report.
The New York Times, citing U.S. officials, reported late Sunday that the White House plan involves three phases that some Pentagon officials believe will require at least three years of sustained effort.
The first phase, airstrikes against Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is already under way in Iraq, where U.S. aircraft have launched 143 attacks since August 8. The second phase involves an intensified effort to train, advise, and equip the Iraqi Army, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and any Sunni tribesmen willing to fight their ISIS co-religionists. The Times reports that this second phase will begin sometime after Iraq forms a new government, which could happen this week.
The third, and most politically fraught phase of the campaign, according to The Times, would require airstrikes against ISIS inside Syria. Last month, the government of Bashar Assad in Damascus warned the Obama administration not to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria without its permission.
This might work over time — airstrikes did work, over the course of years, in Bosnia.
But do we have the time? IS is gathering western recruits through its social media campaign daily. It is subjugating Iraqis and Syrians to brutality, sex slavery, mass murder and crucifixions daily. IS is threatening the west and its western recruits could travel to the US, UK and Europe at any time to begin conducting terror strikes.
Putin is likely to see this campaign as half-hearted, less than adequate, and ultimately subject to mission creep that resists putting troops on the ground in Iraq now, only to be forced to do so later, once IS simply morphs and finds ways to either avoid airstrikes or turn them into propaganda wins for itself and defeats for the west.
The Obama administration is in the process of cutting US military forces down to a level not seen in roughly 100 years. The United States once had a strategy in which it could fight two wars in separate parts of the globe simultaneously. We can no longer do that, not with our current force size. The whole world knows this.
Putin will see this air campaign as indecisive, and one that is likely to bog US and allied forces down in the Middle East, again, while he moves with a freer hand against Ukraine and then other former Soviet states. The United States military is the heart of the NATO deterrent. Without it, NATO is hollow.
If the plan is to defeat IS, it would be better to build a strong coalition including US, European and regional forces and go in and crush them swiftly, destroy their brand, kill or capture their leadership, and let IS’ destruction serve as a warning to other challengers.
Haleh Esfandiari is an Iranian American who escaped the revolution in ’79. Currently directing the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Esfandiari was held captive by the Iranian regime for 105 days in 2007. One of the few voices willing to speak up for the women being oppressed under the ISIS regime, she recently turned a critical eye toward Arab and Muslim governments in the region in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:
Arab and Muslim governments, vocal on the threat ISIS poses to regional stability, have been virtually silent on ISIS’s systemic degradation, abuse, and humiliation of women. To the men of ISIS, women are an inferior race, to be enjoyed for sex and be discarded, or to be sold off as slaves.
…Zakia Hakki, an Iraqi judge and a woman herself, says that the fighters leave behind pregnant women who, as “soiled goods,” are ostracized by their own societies, while their children are treated as illegitimate. These raped women become targets for honor killings in their own families and communities. The governments of Iraq and Syria have also failed to protect these women and give them any assistance; nor have Western NGOs been effective in looking after these abandoned women and children. ISIS’s men not only leave behind dead bodies in their wake but also women and children who are scarred for life.
In its propaganda, ISIS emphasizes women’s modesty and piety. It created the al-Khansaa female brigade to protect the morality of women and to ensure they appear totally veiled in public. The irony will not be lost on anyone.
Esfandiari’s damning evidence adds fuel to the fire most feminists are unwilling to take on. But, it is her cultural analysis that demands the West’s wholehearted attention (emphasis mine):
Volunteer fighters from around the world, including from Western countries, who have joined ISIS are complicit in these crimes against women. These young men who grew up in Western cultures seem to have absorbed nothing regarding the value of human life and respect for women. Why are there are no demonstrations in Western and Muslim societies against this barbaric onslaught on women and girls? How much longer will the Muslim and Arab world watch these horrors against women and children before speaking out and acting forcefully to protect them and rid the region of the ISIS calamity?
Arabic media reports indicate that Saudi authorities raided a house church in Khafji province, arresting 27 men, women and children. The raid was conducted by the Saudi Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, according to reports.
Khafji was the site of the first major ground engagement of the 1991 Gulf War.
The raid is another part of an ongoing harassment campaign directed at Christians at the exact same time that the Saudi Kingdom is making a major “interfaith outreach” push internationally.
Here is an Arabic report that appeared late yesterday on Twitter:
Another report appears to show pictures of the Saudi raid:
A 2010 Reuters report observes the plight of Christians in the Gulf states and the Arabian Peninsula:
At least 3.5 million Christians of all denominations live in the Gulf Arab region, the birthplace of Islam and home to some of the most conservative Arab Muslim societies in the world. The freedom to practice Christianity — or any religion other than Islam — is not always a given in the Gulf and varies from country to country. Saudi Arabia, which applies an austere form of Sunni Islam, has by far the tightest restrictions.
As the Islamic State engages in widespread religious cleansing in Iraq and Syria of ancient Christian communities, it might be fair to ask whether the difference between Wahhabis and the Islamic State is merely of degree and not kind.
Also read: The Islamic State vs. the Islamic Republic
This week the Drudge Report had this link from the UK Telegraph with the headline and subhead:
How Isil doctored the image of Obama, making him appear haggard in videos
The terrorist group carefully manipulate their videos to make the US president look as tired and weary as possible, demonstrating its technical prowess
Welcome to war in the modern age where our enemies use media manipulation to taunt President Obama. (Remember when Putin and the Russians made light of Obama’s wimpy image using the kitty cats? Click here if you missed that unusual caption contest.)
Below, the Telegraph describes the techniques ISIL (or ISIS) used in the screen-grab image that is the subject of our contest.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s blue jacket is made to appear a funereal black. His strands of grey hair are picked up and exaggerated. The editor has also caused an interlacing effect of black lines to run across the president’s white shirt. For good measure, he has carefully stretched the screen length ways in order to make Mr. Obama appear thin and gaunt.
Now, here is your “special ops” mission for these dangerous times. You must translate the message written in whatever language these barbarians used, into a language that PJ Media readers can better understand.
In addition to the “official translation,” you can also write a non-official translation from the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee or from any committee or organization you wish, even the NRA or the Navy Seals.
Finally, is it just me, or does the ISIS video manipulation make Obama resemble, even more than before, “this guy” from the History Channel’s Bible mini-series? (Official name of “this guy” withheld for many political, religious and IRS reasons.)
Good luck, and you don’t have to be nice with your translations because the “folks” who did this video manipulation really are the personification of “this guy” in the photo above.
Reuters reports that France’s president is ready to go to take down the Islamic State.
That puts France ahead of President Obama, who called for an international coalition to take on IS but has shown little interest in actually forming such a coalition.
The American people are also ahead of Obama, according to a pair of Rasmussen polls.
One shows that 73% of Americans are worried that Obama has not been strong enough on IS so far.
Voters regard the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS as a major threat to the United States and are very worried that President Obama doesn’t have a strategy for dealing with the problem. They remain reluctant to send U.S. troops back to Iraq to take on ISIS, but support is growing.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters consider the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a serious threat to this country. Just 13% disagree, while another 20% are not sure. (To see survey questions wording, click here.)
Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters are concerned that the United States does not have a strategy for dealing with this military group, with 47% who are Very Concerned.
Another Rasmussen poll says that voters are becoming more likely to support US military action in Iraq to combat IS, if there is an international coalition engaged in the fight.
Voters show even more support for continued airstrikes in Iraq against the radical Islamic group ISIS despite a second public beheading of a U.S. journalist in retaliation for those strikes. Nearly half now support sending U.S. combat troops to fight ISIS as part of an international coalition but are less enthused about U.S. troops fighting alone.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters believe the United States should continue its airstrikes against the radical Islamic group ISIS.
Sticking with Rasmussen, overall, fewer Americans now believe that we’re winning the war on terrorism than at any time in the last 10 years.
They (I didn’t vote for him) elected a man who refused to declare that America would win wars on his watch. They elected a man with a 9-10 mentality, and who does not think the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat, and who has never demonstrated any actual leadership in his life.
What result did they expect from electing him?
More: Another American has joined the fight — for the IS.
Last night, Megyn Kelly aired this warning from President George W. Bush. He made the statement a few months after the surge in 2007, in response to critics such as then Sen. Barack Obama, who were demanding that US troops begin leaving Iraq immediately.
Bush warned what would happen. Specifically:
- Leaving too soon would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States.
- It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda.
- We would risk mass killings on a horrific scale.
- It would allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq, to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan.
- Leaving too soon would make it more likely that American troops would have to return to Iraq, to face an even more dangerous enemy.
Did President Bush get any of that wrong? The Islamic State isn’t al Qaeda, so point two isn’t entirely accurate. But IS is arguably even worse than al Qaeda.
On Friday before the Labor Day holiday, the third edition of the Islamic State’s glossy English-language magazine hit the Internet.
It’s called Dabiq, named after a small town in Syria where the Islamic State believes that the final battle for the world will begin. The third edition is titled A Call to Hijrah — “hijrah” means “the path to jihad.”
As we reported Friday, the magazine includes a lengthy statement said to be from James Foley, whom IS had beheaded in the days before A Call to Hijrah was released. It also calls President Barack Obama an “apostate,” which according to Islamic law marks him for death. IS may believe that Obama is a Muslim apostate because his father and grandfather were Muslims, or because he was educated in an Islamic school as a child in Indonesia, or both, and now states that he is a Christian.
In its opening chapters, Dabiq stakes the Islamic State’s claim that it is unique in all of history.
That is from page four, which includes an undated photo of IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He is probably the “unknown man” that the text above refers to, because until the rise of the Islamic State he has not been the worldwide known figure that Osama bin Laden was for al Qaeda until his death.
Dabiq states if one were to travel to the Islamic State’s units on the front-lines in Syria and Iraq, they would see that the “soldiers and commanders [are] of different colors, languages and lands: the Najdi, the Jordanian, the Tunisian, the Egyptian, the Somali, the Turk, the Albanian, the Chechen, the Indonesian, the Russian, the European, the American, and so on. They left their families and their lands to renew the state of the muwahhidin in Sham, and they had never known each other until they arrived in Sham!”
The author goes on to state: “I have no doubt that this state…has become the largest collection of muhajirin in the world, is a marvel of history that has only come about to pave the way for al-Malhamah al-Kubra (the grand battle prior to the Hour).”
Part 2 of Dabiq, which begins on page 6, continues in this vein, extolling its jihadists. It connects Ibn Masud, who lived in the time of Mohammed, to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who also praised foreign fighters who joined the al Qaeda cause in Iraq. Part 2 endeavors to put the Islamic State squarely into Islamic history, in the mainstream, as inheritors of the mantle left by Mohammed himself and carried out by Zarqawi and now al-Baghdadi.
As a propaganda and recruitment tool, Dabiq is impressive. It is well-produced and takes the time to explain many Islamic concepts that even Muslims who grew up in the West might not be familiar with. The magazine’s characterization of the Islamic State as a multi-national and multi-ethnic melting pot, coupled with photos of smiling IS warriors, is an overt pitch to westerners who have been steeped in multiculturalism in schools and media for decades. IS is pitching itself as the joyous fulfillment of the West’s ideal to bring all races, nationalities and cultures together to live side-by-side in harmony.
The Islamic State’s harmony depends not on voluntary assimilation and tolerance, but on exterminating everyone and everything that it deems haram — sinful.
Dabiq: A Call to Hijrah is embedded on the next page.
Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken promised that President Obama’s strategy to destroy ISIS “is going to come together in the coming weeks.”
“As we speak, the president is deeply engaged with our partners in Wales at the NATO summit. In the days ahead, Secretary Kerry will be going out to the region. Secretary Hagel will be following suit. Lisa Monaco, our counterterrorism adviser, will also be heading out, all of this in an effort to put together a coalition of countries, each of whom have a lot at stake if ISIL is allowed to consolidate its place and to grow from where it ISIS,” Blinken told CNN last night.
He also maintained that Obama has been “entirely consistent” in messaging that has alternately advocated defeating ISIS and turning it into a “manageable problem.”
“What he said and what he said very clearly is this. This is going to be a long-term effort. In the near term, what we can begin to do is to disrupt ISIL. And, indeed, we have actually started to do that in Iraq with the strikes that we have taken,” Blinken said. “Second, we get to the point of disrupting them, really getting them off their toes, onto their heels. That’s the same thing as making the problem manageable. And then, over time with this coalition, we get them to the point of defeat.”
“But the president was clear and wanted to be clear with the American people and folks around the world that that’s something that’s going to take time. So, what he said was entirely consistent. There’s a continuum that goes from disrupting them to degrading them or managing them and ultimately to defeating them.”
Blinken acknowledged that ISIS can’t be destroyed by airstrikes alone, “which is exactly what the president is building and exactly why we’re being so deliberate about it.”
He said consultations with Congress should “intensify” when lawmakers return from summer recess next week.
“ISIS is focused on the region. It poses a clear and present danger to people in Iraq, to people in Syria, to people in the region, and indeed as we have seen tragically, to Americans in the region,” Blinken said. “It has aspirations to threaten the homeland. We don’t think it’s there yet, but, if it’s left unchecked, it could get there. And that’s what we’re determined to prevent.”
“…Weeks ago, the president gathered all of his national security advisers, homeland security advisers, in anticipation of the anniversary of 9/11, as we do every year, because that can be a time of heightened concern, to make sure that we were doing everything possible against all lines of effort to be vigilant and to prevent any threats. And I’m very confident we have done just that.”
As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread. In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.
Some years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country, four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13. Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.
The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities?
The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation. Boko Haram’s recent abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg.
The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.” Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them.
Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place. But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.
In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary. After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”
It’s the same in Pakistan—the nation where many of the United Kingdom’s Muslims, including the majority involved in the Rotherham sex ring, come from. See this article for a long list of Christian children—as young as 2-years-old—who were targeted by Muslim men for abduction, enslavement, and rape. In every single case, police do nothing except sometimes side with the Muslim rapists against their “infidel” victims.
For example, last Easter Sunday, four Muslim men gang-raped a 7-year-old Christian girl named Sara, leaving her in “critical condition.” According to Asia News, “the police, instead of arresting the culprits, helped the local clan to kidnap the girl’s father… to ‘force the family not to report the story, to reach an agreement with the criminals and to avoid a dispute of a religious background.’”
As for systematic child grooming, in 2010, Kiran George, a Christian girl who was “enslaved by a woman, Sama, a dealer of youth to be sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families,” was doused with gasoline by a police officer involved in the sex ring, set on fire, and burned to death… Keep reading
The United States under Barack Obama cannot manage its own southern border. But President Obama will host a meeting in New York later this month (feel the urgency!) that will center on a proposal to make it more difficult for radicalized Muslims to travel to Syria and Iraq from the West to join up with the Islamic State.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Obama is not exactly convening a new meeting. Obama will use the United Nations’ General Assembly Meeting later in September to pitch the plan. Ahead of that, the administration is sending Secretary of State John Kerry to the Middle East to drum up support.
The UN meeting is September 25, three weeks from now. The Islamic State is known to be holding a number of hostages, including a Briton that IS says will be the next beheading victim. IS has beheaded two American journalists in the past two weeks.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has already elevated the threat level in his country to “severe” because of the Islamic State’s rise. The Obama administration continues to dribble out happy talk that there is no credible evidence of a threat from IS on the American homeland, despite a report that they are operating in Mexico across the border from El Paso, Texas and are planning a strike.
The goal of the September 25 meeting for the Obama administration: a United Nations resolution on the subject of foreign fighters joining IS.
The travel of Americans and Europeans to join IS is undoubtedly a serious problem. An estimated 140 Americans are fighting for IS, and a few thousand Europeans are believed to have joined IS as well. But at this point, a resolution on foreign travel to join IS is a rearguard action. It is also unlikely to address the flow of fighters to IS from across the Middle East, Chechnya, and Africa — even if it is effective in stopping Americans and Europeans. Given the porous borders and the numerous dual citizens holding multiple passports in the United States and Europe, it’s difficult even to predict how effective any UN resolution can be.
Trying to shake off the “isolationist” label he’s received on foreign policy matters, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued on Fox last night that ISIS has “absolutely” declared war on the United States.
“And I think what we should do is then come to the American people — a good leader — you know, if I had been president, I would have called a joint session of Congress this August, brought everybody back from recess and said, this is why ISIS is a threat to the country,” Paul said. “This is why I want to act, but I want to do it in a constitutional manner, and I want the entire American public to come together to galvanize support and say, you know what? This is something we can’t take. We’re not going to let our enemies behead our journalists We’re not going to let them become strong enough to attack our embassy.”
The senator said “you’d think people would kind of get” the fact that he doesn’t like being called an isolationist.
“I’ve been trying to say that for the last four years in public life, that I’m neither an isolationist nor an interventionist. I’m someone who believes in the Constitution and believes that America should have a strong national defense and believes that we should defend ourselves,” he said. “But when we do it, we should do it the way the Constitution intended. And that’s that the president should come before Congress and make the case for war.”
Paul showed shades of Campaign 2016, stressing that ”in the past, you know, Hillary Clinton has said ISIS is not a threat to the United States.”
Still, he said ”intervention isn’t always the answer.”
“I think in Libya, it’s made the world less safe. It’s made the jihadist groups more emboldened in Libya. I would say the same thing in Syria. I think that President Obama’s support for the Islamic rebels has allowed ISIS to grow stronger in Syria, and they never would have grown this strong without weapons from — or their allies getting weapons from both us, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar. So really, we have done a disservice and created chaos that’s allowed the jihadists to grow stronger,” the senator continued.
“…President Obama’s policy of dethroning Gadhafi, of going after Assad, has made the jihadists stronger. I don’t say we’re responsible. I don’t say America’s responsible. I say President Obama’s responsible.”
White, conservative male Rich Lowry provides further evidence for my argument that the East proves the West needs feminism. In his latest syndicated column, Lowry details the horror that has occurred in Rotherham, England, a small northern England town in which “more than 1,400 young girls have been raped and brutally exploited” for over 15 years.
England is the West, you may argue. And you’d be right. A Western nation that turned a blind eye to these vicious crimes against women because the perpetrators of said heinous offenses were Pakistani Muslims.
… the local government tolerated sexual violence on a vast scale. Why? In part, because the criminals who committed these sickening acts were Muslims from the local Pakistani community, and noticing their depravity was considered insensitive at best, racist at worst.
The British home secretary says “institutionalized political correctness” contributed to the abandonment of hundreds of girls to their tormentors. Imagine something out of the nightmarish world of Stieg Larsson, brought to life and abetted by the muddle-headed cowardice of people who fear the disapproval of the diversity police.
In Rotherham, multiculturalism triumphed over not just feminism, but over the law, over basic human decency and over civilization itself.
According to an “independent investigation released last week”:
”It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.”
Law enforcement, government-funded social workers, and elected officials were all well aware of the crimes being committed and, by and large, did nothing fearing Orwellian punishment for attempting to defend these women against a perceived protected minority.
You can’t say it much more clearly than this.
A former Muslim, the son of a Moroccan imam, posted a video this week called “A Message to President Obama From a Former Muslim,” in which he outlines both the dangers and motivations behind radical Islam.
“Brother Rachid,” as he calls himself, says sarcastically that he does not disclose his full name because Islam is “the religion of peace.” He begins, “Dear Mr. President, with all due respect, sir, I must tell you that you are wrong about ISIL.” Rachid explains that his father is an Imam and he spent more than twenty years studying Islam. He said the president was wrong when he said that ISIL speaks for no religion. “I can tell you with confidence that ISIL speaks for Islam,” he said. “Allow me to correct you, Mr. President. ISIL is a Muslim organization.” He noted that even the name suggests ISIL is an Islamic movement.
Brother Rachid, who has said that he converted to Christianity after listening to Trans World Radio broadcasts into Morocco, now preaches Christianity via an Arabic satellite TV program, which is broadcast throughout the Middle East. He explained to President Obama in his video that ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, holds a PhD in Islamic studies.”I doubt you know Islam better than he does. He was a preacher and an Islamic leader in one of the local mosques in Baghdad. ISIL’s 10,000 members are all Muslims. None of them are from any other religion. They come from different countries and have one common denominator — Islam.”
He said ISIL members are following the prophet Muhammad’s teaching in every detail, imitating him by growing their beards, shaving their moustaches, and in the way they dress. “They implement Sharia in every piece of land they conquer. They pray five times a day. They have called for a Caliphate, which is a central doctrine in Sunni Islam and they are willing to die for their religion,” said Brother Rachid.
In his message to President Obama, Brother Rachid said, “You think ISIL does not speak for Islam because they beheaded an American and they kill those whom they consider infidels.” But he said, “In the same way, Islam’s prophet Muhammad beheaded — in one day — between 600 and 900 adult males in a Jewish tribe called Bani Quraiza. In fact, beheading is commanded in the Koran, in Sura 47, 4th verse it says, ‘When you meet the unbelievers and fight, smite their necks.’” Killing prisoners is also an order from Allah to Muhammad and all Muslims, Brother Rachid said.
“Mr. President,” Brother Rachid continued, “I grew up in Morocco, supposedly a moderate country. Yet I still learned at a young age to hate the enemies of Allah, especially Jews and Christians. These are represented today by Israel and the West, especially the Great Satan, America.” He said, “We have been brainwashed to hate all of you in our sacred texts, in our prayers, in our Friday sermons, in our educational systems. We were ready to join any group that one day would fight you and destroy you and make Islam the religion of the whole world, as the Koran says.”
If Islam is not the problem, Brother Rachid asks, why aren’t Christians in the Middle East — many of whom live in terrible political and economic circumstances — blowing themselves up? Why are Muslims in the West and new converts to Islam joining ISIL, he asks.
Brother Rachid said, “I ask you, Mr. President, to stop being politically correct — to call things by their names. ISIL, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Taliban and their sister brand names are all made in Islam.” He said that unless the Muslim world separates religion from state, the cycle will continue. He told Obama, “Until you deal with the root of the problem, you will be just dealing with the symptoms. ISIL is just one symptom. If it disappears, other ISILs will be born under different names.”
In a video talking about his faith earlier this year, Brother Rachid said that he loves Muslims, including his parents, who don’t share his faith. But, “Islam is an ideology. It’s a set of doctrines. So criticizing those doctrines doesn’t mean I hate them. So we are preaching, actually, the love of Christ for human beings, including Muslims because they need Jesus Christ and they are victims of an evil ideology — Islam.”
Brother Rachid told the president that terrorism must be cut off at the root. “How many Saudi sheiks are preaching hatred? How many Islamic channels are indoctrinating people and teaching them violence from the Koran and the Hadith? How many Friday sermons are made against the West and freedom and Democracy? How many Islamic schools are producing generations of teachers and students who believe in jihad and martyrdom and fighting the infidels? And finally, how many websites are funded by governments — your allies — that have sheiks that issue fatwas against basic human rights? If you want to fight terrorism, start from there,” he said.
Watch Brother Rachid tell President Obama the truth about Islam on the next page.
Earlier today, President Barack Obama said that America’s goal should be to “shrink” the Islamic State until it is a “manageable problem.”
His own vice president, Joe Biden, later contradicted him, saying that we will “follow ISIS to the gates of Hell, because Hell is where they will reside.”
This afternoon, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki did a “what he really meant to say” routine.
Fox’s James Rosen noted the president’s own contradictory comments, which went from wanting to destroy ISIS, to wanting to roll it back, to wanting to leave it as a “manageable problem.” All of those iterations came in the president’s statement in Estonia today.
Psaki took a little dig at Fox before answering that “It’s important to look at the context of the remarks that the president made.”
The administration’s juvenile digs at a single network have no place in a serious foreign policy discussion about a threat to the whole nation, by the way. They’re petty.
“Certainly our objective here is to degrade and destroy ISIL,” Psaki said.
Rosen countered that “How can reducing something so that it is a manageable problem be consistent with ‘destroying it?’”
Psaki replied “Well I would have to look at the full context, James, but I think it’s understandable that the White House press corps and others are asking questions asked in many different ways. There are many questions to be answered and discussed on this particular issue.”
Then she touted the “effort to build an international coalition” against IS, which the president only mentioned as a possibility, not an actual effort.
From the looks of things today, Barack Obama cannot even manage to keep a consistent message coming from his own mouth over the course of one day. How can he turn IS into a “manageable problem?”
The Islamic State today released a series of photos they say detail the orphanages that they now run in Nineveh, the heart of ancient Assyria and modern-day Mosul.
The series of photos titled “Orphanages in the state of Nineveh,” showing boys and girls holding an Islamic State flag, boarding a bus with an Islamic State flag, and riding bumper cars at a small fun fair, were released online by the “Information Office of the Mandate of Nineveh.”
It’s not known who the children are or how they came to be in ISIS’ custody. In one image, a jihadist’s face is blurred as he leads kids ranging from pre-schoolers to grade-schoolers in a chant or song in front of Islamic State flags.
ISIS forced Christians to flee the Nineveh plain starting in mid-July. An Aug. 17 report from the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena in Iraq notes how the nuns were forced from facilities they ran in the area. “We left nineteen places of ours, which include convents, schools and orphanages. Moreover, we have learned that our convent and the orphanage we own in Bartila have been taken by the ISIS,” states the report. “Also, our convents in Mosul and in Tal Kaif were taken (including a school and kindergarten).”
As the Obama administration struggles to address the threat from ISIS and plans to go to Congress in the coming weeks to up its commitment against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, multiple media reports indicate that the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) is operating openly with ISIS and other designated terrorist groups. And yet financial and military support for the FSA is the keystone to the administration’s policy in Syria.
Some background is essential.
It was just over a year ago that the Institute for the Study of War’s Liz O’Bagy was opining in the Wall Street Journal about her travels to Syria and purported discovery that the Syrian “rebels” really weren’t bloodthirsty jihadists, but moderates worthy of U.S. financial and military support — in particular, heavy weapons. Her claims about the Syrian rebels, particularly the FSA, were cited and praised by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain.
That view, of course, quickly came crashing down as O’Bagy came under fire for failing to disclose that she was also a paid agent of a Syrian rebel front. (She had also lied about her academic credentials.) Within two weeks of her op-ed appearing, she was fired from the Institute for the Study of War, though she was hired two weeks later by Senator McCain as a Senate staffer.
At the same time that O’Bagy’s career was taking a hit, the narrative that the Syrian “rebels” were all secular moderates was quickly collapsing. A Rand Corporation study appeared two weeks after O’Bagy’s op-ed saying that nearly half of the Syrian “rebels” were jihadists or hardline Islamists (as if there were a discernible difference). Meanwhile, the FSA was under serious pressure from the very jihadist groups that Ms. O’Bagy had assured were not a problem.
Another practical problem developed with providing weapons to the FSA. As soon as weapons shipments from the CIA were arriving in Syria, the FSA weapons caches were being raided by jihadist groups, including ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, the official al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, under very suspicious circumstances. The problem got so bad that by last December, both the U.S. and the UK had stopped weapons shipments to the FSA.
But by April of this year, the Obama adminstration’s CIA weapons spigot was turned back on, with the FSA now receiving heavy weapons, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. And in late June, President Obama asked Congress for $500 million to arm and train the FSA.
This move was not without controversy as the Syrian Military Council chief-of-staff warned that the U.S. was circumventing the SMC and providing weapons directly to FSA units that could end up creating Afghan/Somali-style warlords in Syria. The State Department responded to that criticism by assuring that the weapons were going to “moderate, vetted groups” (because, of course, the State Department has such a long, illustrious history of vetting Islamic “moderates”).
Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the beheading of Miami native Steven Sotloff this morning, calling the news “a punch to the gut.”
“Yesterday, the world bore witness again to the unfathomable brutality of ISIL terrorist murderers when we saw Steven Sotloff, an American journalist who left home in Florida to tell the story of brave people in the Middle East, taken from us in an act of medieval savagery by a coward hiding behind a mask,” Kerry said in a statement, his first remarks since the video emerged Tuesday afternoon.
President Obama said in Estonia today that the authenticity of the video had been confirmed “overnight” by U.S. officials.
“There are no words strong enough to express the sorrow we feel for his family, particularly his mother, whose heartbreaking video plea spoke to every single parent who has ever worried about a son or daughter who goes to dangerous places to do the work they love,” Kerry continued.
“This young man was a driven and courageous journalist, reporting from places like Syria, Libya, and Egypt. Steven Sotloff’s reporting was as empathetic as his killers are evil. He focused on the stories of average people trapped in war, and documented their day-in and day-out struggle for dignity. Like Martha Gellhorn, he chronicled humanity in the face of inhumanity, and he told the story of enormous generational events as if they were happening to someone you knew from your own life.”
Kerry added that “for so many who worked so long to bring Steven and the other Americans home safely, this was not how the story should’ve ended.”
“It’s a punch to the gut,” he said. “The U.S. Government has used every military, diplomatic, and intelligence tool we have, and we always will. Our special operations forces bravely risked a military operation to save these lives, and we’ve reached out diplomatically to everyone and anyone who might be able to help. That effort continues, and our prayers remain – as they always are – with the families of all hostages who remain trapped in Syria today.”
“Barbarity, sadly, isn’t new to our world. Neither is evil. We’ve taken the fight to it before, and we’re taking the fight to it today. When terrorists anywhere around the world have murdered our citizens, the United States held them accountable, no matter how long it took. And those who have murdered James Foley and Steven Sotloff in Syria should know that the United States will hold them accountable too, no matter how long it takes.”
President Obama confirmed at a press conference in Estonia today that journalist Steven Sotloff had been beheaded by ISIS, noting “overnight, our government determined that, tragically, Steven was taken from us in a horrific act of violence.”
The video showing the beheading — and the executioner taunting Obama — surfaced early Tuesday afternoon. Obama flew to Estonia in the evening without commenting on the killing.
“I want to say that today the prayers of the American people are with the family of a devoted and courageous journalist, Steven Sotloff,” Obama said at the end of remarks about Ukraine and Russia. “…We cannot even begin to imagine the agony that everyone who loved Steven is feeling right now, especially his mother, his father and his younger sister. So today, our country grieves with them.”
“Like Jim Foley before him, Steve’s life stood in sharp contrast to those who have murdered him so brutally,” the president continued. “They make the absurd claim that they kill in the name of religion, but it was Steven, his friends say, who deeply loved the Islamic world. His killers try to claim that they defend the oppressed, but it was Steven who traveled across the Middle East, risking his life to tell the story of Muslim men and women demanding justice and dignity.”
Sotloff covered Arab Spring countries, from Bahrain to Egypt to Syria. He also covered the aftermath of the Benghazi consulate attacks, including interviewing guards on duty that night who confirmed there was no protest and detailed the militant attack.
Obama added that “whatever these murderers think they’ll achieve by killing innocent Americans like Steven, they have already failed.”
“They have failed because, like people around the world, Americans are repulsed by their barbarism,” he said. “We will not be intimidated. Their horrific acts only unite us as a country and stiffen our resolve to take the fight against these terrorists. And those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget, and that our reach is long and that justice will be served.”
Obama was asked what his response will be now that a second American has been beheaded by ISIS.
“Well, keep in mind that from the outset, the moment that ISIS went into Mosul, we were very clear that this was a very serious threat not just to Iraq but to the region and to U.S. interests. And so we’ve been putting forward a strategy since that time that was designed to do a number of things. Number one, to make sure that Americans were protected in Iraq, in our embassies, in our consulates. Number two, that we worked with Iraqis to create a functioning government that was inclusive and that could serve as the basis for Iraq to begin to go on the offensive,” he replied.
“And the airstrikes that we’ve conducted in support of protecting Americans conducting humanitarian missions and providing space for the Iraqi government to form have borne fruit. We’ve seen that in Sinjar Mountain. We’ve seen it most recently in the town of Amerli, which heroically held out against a siege by ISIL. We’re seeing progress in the formation of an inclusive Sunni-Shia-Kurd central government. And so what we’ve seen is the strategy that we’ve laid out moving effectively.”
He was put on the spot about whether the administration will now have a comprehensive strategy.
“Last week when this question was asked, I was specifically referring to the possibility of the military strategy inside of Syria that might require congressional approval,” Obama said, referring to his response at a previous press conference that ”we don’t have a strategy yet” for airstrikes on ISIS.
“Our objective is to make sure that ISIL is not an ongoing threat to the region. And we can accomplish that. It’s going to take some time and it’s going to take some effort. As we’ve seen with al-Qaeda, there are always going to be remnants that can cause havoc of any of these networks, in part because of the nature of terrorist activities. You get a few individuals, and they may be able to carry out a terrorist act,” he continued.
“But what we can do is to make sure that the kind of systemic and broad-based aggression that we’ve seen out of ISIL that terrorizes primarily Muslims, Shia, Sunni — terrorizes Kurds, terrorizes not just Iraqis, but people throughout the region, that that is degraded to the point where it is no longer the kind of factor that we’ve seen it being over the last several months.”
On Tuesday, the Islamic State released a slickly produced video of their beheading of American journalist Steve Sotloff. IS terrorists ended the 31-year-old’s life by beheading him. In the video, IS taunts President Obama and blames him for the killing.
President Obama’s reaction to the second IS beheading of an American in the span of about a week is curious, to say the least.
“We will not be intimidated,” he said, indicated some level of intimidation.
He continued: “”We know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISILl’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem.”
A “manageable problem.”
In other words, the Islamic State gets to go on existing as long as it’s “manageable.”
Where is the declaration that the Islamic State must be destroyed? Where is the declaration that anyone who harms Americans will pay with their lives? Where is the strength and decisiveness? Where is Obama’s responsibility to be commander-in-chief and protect the American people?
It’s not in Obama’s prepared remarks. After expressing his desire that the Islamic State become a “manageable problem,” he continued:
“And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy but also making sure we’ve got the international will to do it. This is something that is a continuation of a problem we’ve seen certainly since 9/11, but before and it continues to metastasize in different ways. And what we’ve got to do is make sure that we are organizing the Arab world, the Middle East, the Muslim world, along with the internationl community to isolate this cancer.”
As the leader of the free world, President Obama’s responsibility is not to hope that there is international will to destroy IS. His responsibility is to marshal that will and build the coalition that it will take to win.
But this president expresses a strange desire not to win wars. He promised in 2008 not to win the war in Iraq, but to end it. He ended it by pulling American troops out prematurely. The Islamic State’s rise is a direct result of that.
Obama seemed satisfied declaring that “al Qaeda is on the run” during the 2012 election. Not that they were beaten or had been destroyed; merely that killing Osama bin Laden had put “core al Qaeda” “on the run.”
Now Obama declares that he intends to make the Islamic State, which occupies territory the size of Great Britain and is a growing global threat, a “manageable problem.”
That won’t do. This president cannot manage the Texas-Mexico border. We need a president who understands that Islamic State will never be a “manageable problem.” It has to be destroyed. In the words of Ronald Reagan, the strategy against the Islamic State must be “We win, and they lose.”
The Times of Israel carried the startling report of one radical Islamist mother-in-law who was willing to send not one, not two, but all of her daughters to slaughter for the Palestinian cause:
The bereaved mother-in-law of Hamas terror chief Muhammad Deif said she would be “honored” were he to marry her two other daughters, even if they were “martyred” as a consequence.Deif’s wife Widad and his son and daughter were killed last week in an Israeli airstrike aimed at Deif, the Hamas military commander said by Israel to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis in a career of terrorism dating back to the early 1990s.Apparently believing that Deif survived the Israeli strike, Widad’s mother Zeian Asfura, 61, told London’s Sunday Times in an interview published Sunday: “Should Deif request the hand of any of my other daughters, I will happily consent and even if she, too, is martyred I will consent to the third.
“It is an honor to have Deif a husband to any of my daughters and be a father to their children,” Asfura added.…Asfura said that when she consented to the marriage in 2011, she realized the possible consequence. “When I agreed the marriage, I in effect consented to a fate of martyrdom for my daughter,” she said.
Mainstream feminists news sources didn’t bother carrying this story, but give them time. Nearly a month after the rest of the world learned that Yazidi women were jumping off cliffs to avoid becoming Islamic State sex slaves, Jezebel finally granted a few words to the issue. Referring to the women as “brides” instead of “sex slaves”, the author demurely referred to to the situation as “just awful.” The Yazidi choice to commit suicide didn’t even make the story.
Friedan feminists lapped up the liberties their mothers and grandmothers had fought hard to earn and shrugged. As a result, their daughters live comfortably, insulated in their so-called feminism that remains ignorant of the real persecution of women the world over. The more politically inclined among them fell for the Marxist narrative of postcolonial struggle, rendering them powerless against a perceived racial minority’s religious ideology that subjects a woman to a life of objectification and abuse. Hence contemporary American feminism isn’t equipped to confront radical Islam’s threat against women.
The struggle of the Yazidi women and the perverted ideology of Zeian Asfura demand that feminism not be defined by upper class white women supplementing their career of bored housewife with fundraising galas for the latest cause celeb. It is time feminism got back to its roots of Bible believing, slave-freeing, vote-wielding powerful women who worked as forces of nature fighting against female persecution. Ignorance is evil, and the kind of ignorance embraced by modern feminism is the kind that empowers evil to thrive to the point that no ocean border can wash it away. The West needs feminism, true feminism, Biblical feminism, lest the story of the Yazidi become a global narrative and evil mother-in-law jokes take on a sick, sad new meaning in our neck of the woods.
The White House just announced that President Obama authorized hundreds of extra troops on the ground to protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement that that the Defense Department authorization stemmed from a State Department request for “approximately 350 additional U.S. military personnel to protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel.”
“This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). These additional forces will not serve in a combat role,” Earnest said.
“The President has made clear his commitment to doing whatever is required to provide the necessary security for U.S. personnel and facilities around the world. The request he approved today will allow some previously deployed military personnel to depart Iraq, while at the same time providing a more robust, sustainable security force for our personnel and facilities in Baghdad.”
The notice came just hours after the video of American journalist Steve Sotloff’s beheading surfaced.
It also comes after Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned Sunday that Baghdad could be the next to fall.
“I believe their goal is Baghdad. I think it’s very, very serious and we have to have a strategy to deal with it in Syria and in Iraq in this new caliphate and to prevent that caliphate from expanding,” she said, stressing that ISIS “is on its way to Baghdad and I believe that they will try to attack our embassy from the West, which is a Sunni area where I believe they are infiltrating now.”
Earnest said tonight that “in addition to our efforts to protect our personnel, we will continue to support the Government of Iraq’s efforts to counter ISIL, which poses a threat not only to Iraq, but to the broader Middle East and U.S. personnel and interests in the region.”
“The President will be consulting this week with NATO allies regarding additional actions to take against ISIL and to develop a broad-based international coalition to implement a comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners in the fight against ISIL,” he said. “As part of this effort, Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and President Obama’s counterterrorism advisor, Lisa Monaco, will be traveling separately to the region in the near-term to build a stronger regional partnership.”
Obama had not issued a statement yet on the murder of Sotloff.
UPDATE 9 p.m.: Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said the announcement “builds upon previous embassy security deployments announced on June 15 and June 30 and will bring the total forces responsible for augmenting diplomatic security in Iraq up to approximately 820.”
“The additional joint forces will come from within the U.S. Central Command area of operations and will include a headquarters element, medical personnel, associated helicopters, and an air liaison team,” Kirby said. “In all, 405 U.S. military personnel will be sent to Baghdad to provide a more robust and sustainable security presence to help the Department of State continue their critical mission. With this order, 55 personnel who have been in Baghdad since June will redeploy outside of Iraq. Those 55 personnel will remain postured to deal with other security contingencies in the region, if necessary.”
“The Department of Defense will continue to plan and prepare further military options should they become necessary, and we will remain ready to protect our diplomats, our citizens, and our interests in Iraq, while we continue to work with the Iraqi government to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”
Donna Brazile is a major Democrat strategist. She made her name during the Clinton administration, and has remained a fixture in Washington ever since. ABC and CNN regularly have her on to give the Democratic Party’s point of view.
After the Islamic State published video of the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff, Brazile was very quick to make sure that no Americans get all hate-y about it.
— Boss Tweet (@texasbryanp) September 2, 2014
Brazile then went on a more eloquent line of questioning, but watch where it leads at the end.
It's time we have a full debate on how to handle #ISIS in both short & long term. No more name calling & drum beat to wars in Middle East.
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 1, 2014
Everybody has an opinion on the threat #ISIS might pose to our homeland. But, Congress should return & engage in a full debate on topic.
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 1, 2014
Pay attention to Brazile’s rejection of name-calling. It doesn’t last long.
Finally, the US is already engaged with air strikes. And it's not cheap. How much & who will pay? Remember, the hawks will not raise taxes.
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 1, 2014
Cable airtime is not a strategy. We need a complete, comprehensive strategy. What's the mission? When will it end? How much will it costs?
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 1, 2014
It should end with victory over ISIS. And why is it that Democrats only care about costs when national security is involved?
Brazile calls out a few senators from both parties, then…
Lastly, we deserve answers. We need answers on #ISIS. The President, as well as Congress, answers to us — the taxpayers and voters. Agree?
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 1, 2014
She re-tweets this from noted military strategy expert Marc Lamont Hill.
We cannot fix Iraq or defeat ISIS by reoccupying Iraq. I'm not saying don't destroy ISIS. I'm saying US military intervention isn't the way.
— Marc Lamont Hill (@marclamonthill) September 2, 2014
What is? Uploading their embarrassing photos to iCloud?
By this time, her “hate is not a strategy” tweet had blown up in her face.
So she tweets this.
For all of you so called "hillbillies" sending the usual frothing of the mouth comments: your words simply don't impress anyone. #seriously
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 2, 2014
And now it’s come to this.
Hate is not a family value.
— Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) September 2, 2014
But stupidity is in Democrat DNA.
The news of the beheading video of Steve Sotloff broke as White House press secretary Josh Earnest was delivering the daily briefing.
“I’ve not seen those reports today. I think that may have just happened in the last few minutes while I’ve been standing up here,” Earnest told reporters. “This is something that the — that the administration has obviously been watching very carefully, since this threat against Mr. Sotloff’s life was originally made a few weeks ago.”
Miami native Sotloff, 31, had written for TIME magazine, Foreign Policy, the Christian Science Monitor, The Diplomat and more when he disappeared Aug. 4, 2013, near the Turkish border.
After photojournalist James Foley was beheaded on camera in a video released by ISIS on Aug. 19, his executioner reappeared on camera holding Sotloff by the back of his orange shirt.
A few days ago, ISIS backers tweeted that a video showing Sotloff’s death would be coming soon.
“Our thoughts and prayers, first and foremost, are with Mr. Sotloff and Mr. Sotloff’s family and those who worked with him,” Earnest said.
“The United States, as you know, has dedicated significant time and resources to trying and rescue Mr. Sotloff. We’ve — I’m not in a position to confirm the authenticity of that video or the reports at this point, obviously, since I just walked out here,” he added.
“But this is — if there is a video that has been released, it is something that will be analyzed very carefully by the U.S. government and our intelligence officials to determine its authenticity.”
The video features what appears to be the same executioner who killed Foley, with a London accent.
“I’m back, Obama,” the killer taunts. “And I’m back because of your arrogant foreign policy toward the Islamic State, because of your insistence on continuing your bombings.”
“So just as your missiles continue to strike our people, our knife will continue to strike the necks of your people. We take this opportunity to warn those governments that enter this evil alliance of America against the Islamic State to back off and leave our people alone.”
At the State Department briefing, press secretary Jen Psaki said, “We’ve seen reports of a video that purports to be the murder of U.S. citizen Steven Sotloff by ISIL. The intelligence community will work as quickly as possible to determine its authenticity.”
“If the video is genuine, we are sickened by this brutal act taking the life of another innocent American citizen,” Psaki added. “Our hearts go out to the Sotloff family and we will provide more information as it becomes available.”
When asked what the government’s last information was on Sotloff, she replied, “I just don’t have any other additional information to provide. Certainly understand the interest.”
Last week, Sotloff’s mom appealed directly to self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a video carried by Al-Arabiya.
“My son Steven is in your hands,” Shirley Sotloff said. ”Steven is a journalist who traveled to the Middle East to cover the suffering of Muslims at the hand of tyrants. Steven is a loyal and generous son, brother, and grandson. He’s an honorable man and has always tried to help the weak. We have not seen Steven for over a year and we miss him very much. We want to see him home safe and sound and to hug him.”
“Steven has no control over the actions of the U.S. government. He’s an innocent journalist,” she said.
“I’ve always learned that you, the Caliph, can grant amnesty. I ask you to please release my child.”
President Obama used to hold Libya up as one of the examples of how the Arab Spring had ushered in freedom.
He had no idea…
Islamist militias are now free to take over the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and host an end-of-summer pool party bash there.
Islamist pool parties tend to be a little different from ours. No alcohol will be consumed, though Islamists are perfectly free to distribute heroin, cocaine, marijuana and any other hard drug to infidel addicts if they donate the money to the jihad.
No women are allowed unless they’re covered head to toe. Even the men stay fully covered while they jump from the roof to the pool.
Jackknifes are not entertaining ways to make a splash. They’re what the partygoers will use for the ceremonial beheading of a westerner at the end of the party.
The U.S. embassy in Tripoli, like all U.S. embassies, is under the purview of Secretary of State John Kerry.
While Kerry was not technically invited to the Islamist pool party, he showed solidarity with it.
What do you think Putin is thinking about all this?
h/t Daily Caller
Back in January, President Obama told the New Yorker’s David Remnick that the group then known as the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or the Islamic State in the Levant, was not that big of a threat.
At the core of Obama’s thinking is that American military involvement cannot be the primary instrument to achieve the new equilibrium that the region so desperately needs. And yet thoughts of a pacific equilibrium are far from anyone’s mind in the real, existing Middle East. In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been “decimated.” I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too.
The al Qaeda flag flying in Fallujah was flown by ISIS.
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.
“Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into.”
But who is the “we” Obama refers to there?
The intelligence community is pushing back, saying that the growing ISIS threat has been included in the Presidential Daily Brief over the past year.
A former Pentagon official confirms to Fox News that detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of ISIS was included in the PDB, or the President’s Daily Brief, for at least a year before the group took large swaths of territory beginning in June.
The official, who asked not to be identified because the PDB is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product providing the President with analysis of sensitive international events, said the data was strong, and “granular” in detail, adding a policy maker “…could not come away with any other impression: This is getting bad.”
“Granular” is an interesting word in this context. It means that the intelligence on ISIS has been quite specific, down to who the leaders are, how its field forces are armed and deployed, its capabilities, how it is raising money, and more.
But that was all included in the Presidential Daily Brief. Obama may not have attended many of those. He was routinely skipping them in the months leading up to 9-11-12, the terrorist attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya.
He now says that he reads them instead of having intelligence officers brief him, as previous presidents have. Briefings allow for a back-and-forth that Obama is not getting even if he is reading his PDBs.
The situation now is that ISIS is growing as it establishes its own capital in Syria — where Obama admits that he has no strategy to deal with them. ISIS has an unknown number of western passport holders among its troops. They can travel freely.
The Texas-Mexico border is wildly insecure. And ISIS is very aware of that.
An ally of President Obama on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cautioned against having an “itchy trigger finger” in going after ISIS.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was asked on MSNBC this morning about Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) assessment over the weekend that Obama was being “too cautious” in confronting the terror megastorm in Iraq and Syria.
“I have a lot of respect for Senator Feinstein, but I think he’s right to take his time. Listen, these are bad guys. They obviously present a threat to our friends in the region and the security of the United States,” Murphy said.
“But this is complicated, and the fact is that the American people do not have an itchy trigger finger right now. They want our president to take the time to build a coalition, both with our allies in Europe, and, more importantly, with our allies and partners in the region to make sure that we’re not getting dragged into a sectarian regional civil war.”
The senator added that he knows ”a lot of my colleagues want to show strength through immediate force, but that’s where the American public is.”
“I think ISIS absolutely needs to be stopped. The question is not whether there’s a will. The question is whether there is a way right now. And with American support unilaterally being expressed in the region, you’re not gonna stop ISIS. The only way you’re gonna stop ISIS is by rallying Sunni and Shiite regions and countries to the cause as well. So they need to be stopped, but it can’t be done by the United States alone,” Murphy continued.
“So I don’t think you are going to defeat ISIS in the short term. You essentially have to dramatically weaken them and stop this perceived inevitable momentum. And so, the president is right for the time being to conduct these strikes inside Iraq that are going to substantially stop their momentum.”
He called it an “incredibly tricky dance.”
“And I think that is why the president needs to take his time here. The American public do not want us rushing into a conflict. If he wants to go into Syria with military power, he’s gotta come to Congress,” Murphy said. “And frankly, that’s my bottom line, is that right now this debate needs to be happening in Congress. Because the American people have to have some say in this as well. And I hope when we get back next week we’re gonna get a request from the president for military authorization from Congress because this debate can’t happen just inside the White House.”
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said she’s siding with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the need to confront the “vicious, vicious” ISIS movement head-on.
“They have announced that they don’t intend to stop. They have announced that they will come after us if they can; that they will, quote, ‘spill our blood.’ They have indeed done that by beheading Mr. Foley and who knows how many others that are unknown,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told NBC on Sunday.
Feinstein said the U.S. should act in earnest when it takes over the presidency of the UN Security Council this month to put together “the beginning of a strategy to put together a coalition of the willing, if you will.”
“I mean it’s a savage movement. In this case they have money. They have direction. They have moved rapidly to cross the Syrian border, take over Mosul and then give a sermon from the mosque in Mosul. They took over the Mosul dam — all that is changing now. But I believe their goal is Baghdad. I think it’s very, very serious and we have to have a strategy to deal with it in Syria and in Iraq in this new caliphate and to prevent that caliphate from expanding,” she said.
Feinstein said if she’s learned one thing about President Obama it’s that he’s “very cautious – maybe in this instance, too cautious.”
“I do know that the military, I know that the State Department, I know that others have been putting plans together. And so hopefully those plans will coalesce into a strategy that can encourage that coalition. From Arab nations, you know, Jordan is at jeopardy, Lebanon is at jeopardy. The UAE and other countries are in jeopardy. So there is good reason for people to come together now and begin to approach this as the very real threat that it in fact, is,” she said.
She also agreed that Obama’s comparison of ISIS to a junior varsity team in January was “wrong.”
“I think it’s a major varsity team if you want to use those kinds of monikers, but I see nothing that compares with its viciousness. I’ve been on the Intelligence Committee now since before 9/11 and I’ve watched this evolution of non-state actors into world terror very carefully and closely,” Feinstein continued. “This is really the first group that has the wherewithal in terms of financing; the fighting machine in terms of a structure; heavy equipment, heavy explosives; the ability to move quickly. I mean they cross the border into Iraq before we even knew it happened. So this is a group of people who are extraordinarily dangerous. And they’ll kill with abandon.”
The chairwoman said U.S. intelligence in Syria “has not been good for a number of reasons.”
“But I do know that the breaking through of the borders was not known ahead of time. I think a lot of that hopefully has been repaired now. And I think the intelligence community is well aware of the need to get up and running in a major way both in Iraq and in Syria,” she said.
Feinstein stressed that ISIS “is on its way to Baghdad and I believe that they will try to attack our embassy from the West, which is a Sunni area where I believe they are infiltrating now.”
Last week, al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels from the Nusra Front attacked and surrounded a group of 40 Filipino troops operating in the Golan Heights under the auspices of the UN peacekeeping mission there.
The UN was negotiation with the Islamists over the fate of 45 troops from Fiji, who the rebels had captured. The Fijians were captured when the Islamists attacked them, and they surrendered their weapons.
The UN seems to have had a plan that wasn’t really much of a plan — let the Islamists capture the Filipinos in exchange for the Fijians.
The Filipino commander, Gen. Gregorio Pio Catapang, wasn’t interested in that plan.
When the besieged Filipino troops sought his advice after they were ordered to lay down their arms as part of an arrangement with the rebels to secure the Fijians’ release, Catapang said he asked them to defy the order.
“I told them not to follow the order because that is a violation of our regulation, that we do not surrender our firearms, and, at the same time, there is no assurance that you will be safe after you give your firearms,” Catapang said.
“Our stand is, we will not allow our soldiers to become sacrificial pawns in order to save the Fijians,” Catapang told The Associated Press. “They should look for other ways and means to save the Fijians.”
UNDOF did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Catapang said an investigation would allow the UNDOF commander to explain his side and the Philippine military to explain why it advised the Filipino peacekeepers to defy his order.
The Filipino troops fought the rebels on Saturday, and were eventually helped out of the siege.
Now the Philippines say they won’t send any new troops to support the UN mission when the current troops’ term expires. Why would any country join up in that mission, after the UN ordered the Filipino troops to hand themselves over to al Qaeda-linked rebels?
The Islamic State, like al Qaeda, publishes a slick English-language magazine to justify its actions and exhort jihadists to support it financially, through attacks, and other ways. It also serves as a recruitment tool.
At the same time, it serves as a glimpse into the minds of the terrorist group/growing military threat in Iraq and Syria.
Here is the third edition of Dabiq: A Call to Hijrah, in full. “Hijrah” means “the path to jihad.”
It includes a longer statement from James Foley than was included in the IS execution video. That begins on page 39. The magazine blames that beheading on the US airstrikes that began on August 7. Dabiq calls President Barack Obama an “apostate” and a “crusader.” It depicts its jihadists as happy warriors, and its enemies as dead or shortly to be killed.
While President Obama dithers over a strategy and considers cobbling a coalition together to implement it, the Islamist State in Syria is entrenching and enforcing its barbaric law on the local inhabitants, reports Bloomberg.
In the Syrian city of Raqqah on the banks of the Euphrates River, Islamic State militants are busy building a capital fit for their followers.
Human rights observers say they have stoned women to death for adultery, while residents report that religious textbooks have been imported for schools and the market flooded with black cloaks for girls as young as 6 years old. Even as it wages war on multiple fronts, the group has had time to focus on the details, recruit thousands into its forces and celebrate victories by parading the heads of its enemies.
This is not a passage in a history book about some band of savages who pillaged their way across territory a thousand years ago. It’s happening right now.
The local victims mostly dislike the Islamic State’s hyperviolence and radicalism. The Islamic State and its leaders and street thugs don’t care. There is no force nearby that’s capable of overthrowing them.
Mohammad, a Raqqah resident who declined to give his full name because of fear of reprisals, said people are unhappy with the strict social codes imposed by the Islamic State.
Women cannot leave home without a male guardian, shops have to close five times for prayer and people accused of theft have their hands cut off in public, he said. “People yearn for the pre-war days,” he said after arriving in Beirut. “But they’re too intimidated to speak out.”
President Obama and his national security advisers keep insisting that the Islamic State doesn’t have any ideology beyond violence. That’s not correct. The Islamic State has an ideology, based on the Muslim Brotherhood’s desire to return Islam to its roots and the Koran. They are an expression of the Islamic revival that has been underway for about 30 to 40 years now, across the Islamic world. They’re the most radical expression of that revival so far, but they are an expression of it.
By “revival,” I’m using Christian terminology but this is nothing like a Christian revival, except in one sense. Christian revivals are efforts to bring believers back to what the New Testament actually says, about sin, about grace, about living the Christian life, about the Revelation. The New Testament never teaches war against anyone (the Old Testament does in some passages, but Christians revivals are almost always about the New Testament). It teaches peace, submission to even ungodly authorities, and many other things, but not violence.
The Koran teaches violence against non-Muslims, mainly Jews and Christians, in the portions thought to have been written after Mohammed had won secular power in warfare. Therefore an Islamic revival will not bear many similarities with a Christian revival. If both faiths have revivals aimed at getting them back to what their written teachings say, it matters a great deal what those teachings actually say. Contrary to soft beliefs that all religions basically teach the same things, they don’t.
If the Obama administration’s rhetoric that ISIS has no ideology is aimed at creating a split between IS and other Muslims, then it might be worthwhile as public relations. But this administration has had a cozy relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood for years. The Muslim Brotherhood started the Islamic revival. Even if the administration views the IS as too radical to have an ideology, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology seems to be seeping into the administration’s strategic thinking — to the extent that there is any.
The strongest public relations with the most impact would be to destroy IS root and branch and therefore discredit them. But that doesn’t appear to be the goal, at least not in any meaningful way.
I’ll end this post with this shoutfest between Sean Hannity and terrorist imam Anjem Choudary from Fox Wednesday night. Choudary is an Islamic supremacist who supports terrorism and any other means to further what he sees as Islam’s war against the rest of the world.
Most of the discussion is useless shouting, but near the end, Hannity gets Choudary to admit that the end game for him and al Qaeda and ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood is the same — to impose Islamic sharia law on the whole world.
That’s an ideology, as extreme an ideology as the world has ever seen. Sharia is the Islamic law behind everything from forcing women to cover themselves head to toe, to forcing all non-Muslims to pay a tax and live under repression, to beheading journalists and selling non-Muslim women into sex slavery. ISIS believes that its actions are in accord with sharia.
Most Muslims do not support the likes of ISIS or Choudary. But millions do support the global imposition of sharia, as part of the overall Islamic revival.
Anjem Choudary doesn’t live in Syria and isn’t taking up a gun to fight for the cause. He lives in London on welfare. He encourages other Muslims to live on welfare in the West and turn it into a “jihadi allowance.” His weapon is his mouth. He may have radicalized the British Muslim rapper who joined ISIS and is believed to have beheaded James Foley.
Does Anjem Choudary have an ideology?