The “I” word — Islam — shall not be used other than respectfully, as in “the religion of peace.”
Do the Islamic State (IS) and its terrorist cohorts practice an “extremist” version of Islam? Does Obama know enough about Islam to decide?
Secretary Kerry (consistently with Obama’s position), said “The real face of Islam is a peaceful religion based on the dignity of all human beings:”
“America’s faith communities, including American Muslims, are sources of strength for all of us. They’re an essential part of our national fabric, and we are committed to deepening our partnerships with them. We’re making these efforts to unite religious communities a core mission here at the State Department.” [Emphasis added.]
Neither Kerry nor Obama understands “the real face of Islam,” only their fantasies concerning it. What could go wrong? Might a Cabinet level Department of Religious Truth and Enlightenment someday be established to further what has become “a core mission of the State Department?” Odd things sometimes happen.
Islam, as a political force and as a religion, seeks world domination through Koranic interpretations which, its proponents hope, potential converts will find appealing. Many do. If that is inadequate, the next steps include threats and violence. The Islamic State (IS) and its cohorts seek world domination to spread their religion worldwide. Of course they want power, to use for that purpose.
They also want it, perhaps at least incidentally, to garner increasing numbers of “infidel” sex slaves for their own enjoyment as encouraged by Islam as well as to motivate others to join their groups. Perhaps this is a variant on sexual jihad, which encourages women and girls to become sex companions for jihadists. Sex might seem an insignificant motivation, but consider for a moment the power of sex as a motivational tool in another context: in the West automobiles, appliances and other goods one would not rationally associate with sexual conquest are advertised by attractive models. It has apparently worked rather well, otherwise substantial advertising funds would not have been devoted to it.
Sex slavery is Islamic
Western civilization has often abetted Islamists in acquiring and keeping sex slaves.
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? [Emphasis added.]
The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation. Boko Haram’s abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg. [Emphasis added.]
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. [Emphasis added.]
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.” [Emphasis added.]
Islam is not “peaceful”
Many apologists for Islam try to portray the IS and other terror groups as something other than Islamic. According to Andrew McCarthy in an article titled The Islamic State is Nothing New, they are wrong. Islamists who favor the IS, as well as those which claim to oppose it,
regard the West as the enemy to be conquered. Their differences are germane only to the extent that sharia fidelity, in addition to sheer brute force, will determine who comes out on top in their intramural warfare. As we have been observing here for years with respect to al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood, their disputes are mostly tactical; their splits on the finer points of Islamic-supremacist ideology bear only on how they regard each other. When it comes to the West, both see us as the enemy — and they put aside their differences to attack us. [Emphasis added.]
The same has also always been true of the ideological/doctrinal divide between Sunni and Shiite jihadists. For example, al-Qaeda has had cooperative and operational relations with Iran since the early 1990s. Iran collaborated with al-Qaeda in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 U.S. airmen; probably in the 9/11 attacks; certainly in the aftermath of 9/11; and in the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies. Al-Qaeda would not be what it is today without state sponsorship, particularly from Iran. The Islamic State might not exist at all. [Emphasis added.]
The point is that al-Qaeda has never been anything close to the totality of the jihadist threat. Nor, now, is the Islamic State. The challenge has always been Islamic supremacism: the ideology, the jihadists that are the point of the spear, and the state sponsors that enable jihadists to project power. The challenge cannot be met effectively by focusing on one element to the exclusion of others. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
I opined at the start of this piece that the threat to the United States is more dire now than it was before 9/11. How could it be otherwise? What jihadists need to attack the United States is safe haven and state sponsorship, which enable them to plan and train; financial and weapons resources; and lax immigration enforcement. On every one of those scores, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and other violent Islamic supremacists are in a better position than they were circa 1998–2001. The Islamic State, to take the most prominent example, controls a country-size swath of territory; has seized riches and advanced weaponry during its rampage; has enjoyed support from several countries; and targets an America in which border security is a joke, no effort is made to police visa overstays, and the federal government has actually discouraged and prevented state and federal agents from enforcing immigration laws. [Emphasis added.]
The threat is worse, and worsening. But it is not confined to the Islamic State, and we cannot protect ourselves from it — cannot even grasp that it is a threat to us rather than simply to a faraway region — unless we understand the totality of it. [Emphasis added.]
Here is a one lour and six minute video of a recent Oxford University debate on whether Islam is peaceful. The keynote speaker supporting the proposition that Islam is peaceful appears to emulate Obama, although presenting his arguments more cogently. It is useful to watch the entire debate, because the “Islam is Peaceful” proponents use the types of arguments with which “Islamophobes” need to deal. One is that Islam is peaceful because it seeks peace through “justice.” In Islam, “justice” is to be achieved through Sharia law, brutally antithetical to Western concepts of justice. Judaism and Christianity have evolved over the centuries. Islam has not. Islam is as Islam does.
Based on which side made the most effective debating points, the “Islam is Peaceful” side won by subtle and not-so-subtle distortions. An interesting point — that Islamists are superior to Non-Islamists — was not made during the debate by debater Mehdi Hasan, who argued in favor of the proposition that Islam is peaceful. He presumably omitted it because it would have lent force to the arguments of the opposing side. He articulates it in this short video.
Religious tolerance in Islam
Saudi Arabia, one of the allies of Obama’s America, conducts “interfaith outreach programs,” of sorts.
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.
. . . .
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. [Emphasis added.]
Sources of Islamist terror funding and other support
GENEVA — The State Department reiterated Iran’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism and as a destabilizing force in the region and also stood by a May report stating that Iran had increased its terrorist activity in a list of responses sent to Capitol Hill last month after the first round of Iran nuclear negotiations.
Turkey has become a principal financial hub for terrorists under the leadership of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose government has helped Iran skirt sanctions, supported jihadi groups in Syria, and provided financial backing to Hamas, according to a new report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
Turkey, a key U.S. ally, “has turned a blind eye” to terror financing and is potentially on the verge of crossing the line to becoming an official state sponsor of terrorism, according to the Friday report, which cites the Erdogan government’s close ties to some of the world’s top terror organizations and operatives.
The report comes just a day after 84 U.S. lawmakers and former government officials urged President Barack Obama to confront Erdogan over his harsh repression of political opponents.
As Turkey’s support for terrorism expands, the Obama administration has remained silent out of fear of offending Erdogan, whom the White House considers a strategic asset, according to the report authored by FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury Department. [Emphasis added.]
Some international leaders have implicated Qatari officials—accusing them of financing the Islamic State (IS) terror group that is rampaging through Syria and Iraq and continuing to expand its self-proclaimed Sunni caliphate.
In late August, German aid development minister Gerd Mueller openly commented on IS’s funding: “Who is financing these troops? Hint: Qatar,” he said, after being forced to walk back the comments due to their lack of political correctness.
Even former Israeli President Shimon Peres—a 91-year-old left-wing dove—took notice of the Qataris, recently warning that they were becoming “the world’s largest funder of terror.”
In June, The Long War Journal’s Thomas Joscelyn said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News:
Look no further than a series of official documents from the Obama administration about Qatar, and you will see that it is a major financial hub, fundraising for jihadist groups including the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and others. In April, in the State Department’s country reports on terrorism, they specifically worried about Qatar’s relationship with Islamist groups. They worried Qatar had enabled a very permissive environment for fundraising for jihadist groups. It’s obvious why the Taliban set up its political office in Doha and why the Taliban wanted these five to send off to Qatar. They know it’s a very permissive environment with Islamist sympathies. [Emphasis added.]
Qatar is also unapologetically supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, a global organization founded by a stout Hitler admirer that seeks the same endgame as Al Qaeda and the Islamic State: a worldwide Sunni caliphate. [Emphasis added.]
Last week, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that Qatar has been unloading millions to create chaos in the Middle East. Sisi said: “Qatar, Turkey and the international organization of the Brotherhood are currently establishing many companies, newspapers, and websites. They allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to spread chaos among the Arab nation, destabilizing Egypt and destroying the Egyptians.”
. . . .
Meanwhile, the United States continues its confusingly close relationship with the ruthless Emirs. [Emphasis added.]
The United States signed in July a massive $11 billion dollar arms deal with Qatar that included Apache Helicopters, Patriot missile defense systems, and Javelin MANPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems), capable of bringing down a commercial airliner.
In June, the United States negotiated an agreement with Qatar as an intermediary that freed five top Taliban commanders in exchange for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. When the Taliban officials touched down in Qatar, they were met with open arms and given heroes’ welcomes.
The Islamic State and it cohorts have a broad global reach.
a partial list of reported or suspected ISIS/Islamic State activity outside Iraq and Syria since Jan. 1, 2013. It does not include many reports that referred only to “an Islamist group”; authorities in a number of countries have been reluctant to specify the nature and extent of extremist activity within their borders. The list below, organized by continent and then alphabetically by country, is not exhaustive. Nonetheless, its extensiveness indicates the global reach of the IS, even if the reported activity does not consist of spectacular attacks.
The list is voluminous, but here’s one directly pertinent to the United States:
On Sept. 3, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that over 100 US citizens are fighting in the ranks of the Islamic State; intelligence officials have estimated that the number is as high as 300. Hagel warned that the IS controls half of Iraq and half of Syria, and that “we better take them seriously.”
Survivors are likely to return to the United States to pursue their interests there.
The Obama strategy
Obama still views Islam as the benign religion of peace. Here are some reasons why He shouldn’t.
Islamists have a strategy, and it appears to have been successful thus far. What is Obama’s strategy? As to the IS and similar Islamic jihadists, Obama has not yet told the Congress what His plans (if any) are so that congressional approval can be given or withheld.
There’s widespread frustration in both chambers and both parties about President Obama’s admission that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But now the lack of strategy is actually protecting Obama from oversight because Congress can’t authorize or reject what it can’t understand.
In fact, the White House has been totally mum on how it plans to legally justify the air war in Iraq after the temporary authority granted to it in the War Powers Resolution expires. According to the 1973 law, the president must report to Congress when he uses U.S. military force in a hostile environment; Congress must then specifically authorize such action within 60 days or the president has to stop. The president can invoke a one-time, 30-day extension.
But, so far, there have been no substantial consultations with Congress about such an authorization. The White House declined to say whether it even cared if Congress acts or not.
When Obama meets with members of Congress on September 9th and makes a speech on September 10th — the eve of the 2001 and 2012 terrorist attacks — will He provide substantive information as to what He wants and intends? Or will He simply continue to utter His customary platitudes? What He says He intends to do, and what He claims to want, are unlikely to coincide.
Is Obama merely cowardly, or is He also charmingly devious?
Even absent attacks inside the United States, the jihadists threaten us significantly. The attacks on the U.S. Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, killed the ambassador and three other Americans. This was the first murder of an American ambassador in decades. Nearly one year later, in August 2013, the Obama administration was forced to shutter more than 20 diplomatic facilities after learning that al Qaeda was planning to attack one or more of them.
In the end, President Obama thinks that these types of attacks on American interests abroad are a fact of life. During a speech at National Defense University on May 23, 2013, Obama outlined his vision of the fight ahead. The president described “the current threat” as coming from “lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates; threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad; homegrown extremists.” Obama added, “This is the future of terrorism. We have to take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”
Notably absent from Obama’s threat matrix was a jihadist group capturing a significant amount of territory in the heart of the Middle East. In fact, the president downplayed the threat posed by groups he described as “simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory.” [Emphasis added.]
His own officials are now telling a different story. In a speech on September 3, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center explained that “the terrorist threat emanates from a broad geographic area, spanning South Asia across the Middle East, and much of North Africa.” Matthew Olsen warned that the terrorists “are now active in at least 11 insurgencies in the Islamic world.” He added that the threat from the Islamic State “extends beyond the region to the West,” and the group “has the potential to use its safe haven to plan and coordinate attacks in Europe and the U.S.” The Islamic State’s rivals in al Qaeda’s Jabhat al Nusrah have the same deadly potential: “In Syria, veteran al Qaeda fighters have traveled from Pakistan to take advantage of the permissive operating environment and access to foreign fighters. They are focused on plotting against the West.” [Emphasis added.]
The president hasn’t been thinking strategically about the jihadists’ territorial ambitions. Unfortunately, our enemies have been. The threat they pose to the United States has only grown. [Emphasis added.]
On August 28th, Obama apparently decided that it “is impossible to be the leader of the world’s top superpower and always just hope for the best.” Now, He wants a coalition including Arab and Muslim states to deal with the Islamic State, et al, by putting boots on the ground.
Obama is right in seeking to include Arab and Muslim states in his coalition. ISIS is undoubtedly a cancerous tumor, which threatens, first and foremost, the Arab world from which it grew. Arab states, however, are so factious, so suspicious, so afraid of the reaction in the streets — but primarily so untrusting of Obama (the Gulf States, namely Saudi Arabia) — that they will not rush to join his campaign. [Emphasis added.]
The president believes in the “strong forces” of the states in the region to do the job in the field: The Iraqi army is supposed to cooperate with the Iranian army and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. Syrian President Bashar Assad quickly realized the opportunity and jumped all over it, offering his assistance, which Washington and Paris promptly rejected. In actuality though, the regimes in Syria and Iran are the first in line to feel the Sunni threat posed by ISIS. The Islamic State is providing the Shiites with a certificate of integrity. [Emphasis added.]
According to an article at PJ Media by Jonathan Spyer titled The Islamic State vs. the Islamic Republic,
Is the president just talking, and will the Islamic State be permitted to continue in existence, at least west of the Syria-Iraq border? Or is it possible that when the president refers to creating the right “regional” situation to allow for the defeat of “ISIL” he is referring to the one power that potentially could organize a ground attack on the Islamic State? That country is the sponsor and ally of the two governments that exist to the west and to the east of the boundaries of the Islamic State — that is, the Assad regime to its west and the Baghdad government to its east. [Emphasis added.]
The country in question is Iran, which has a clear interest in the destruction of the Islamic State. The IS domain, if it continues to exist, stands between Iran and its desire for a contiguous line of pro-Iranian entities between the Iraq-Iran border and the Mediterranean Sea. The problem is that an Iranian victory over IS would mean a general Iranian triumph in the Levant. That’s a bad outcome too. [Emphasis added.]
Iran has her own reasons for opposing the IS, and they do not coincide with those of Western civilization. Is Obama prepared let Iran get (or keep) “the bomb” in return for its “help” with the IS? His efforts during the P5 +1 Iran Scam suggest that as a real possibility. Please see also, Iran has not abandoned nuclear weapons ambitions.
Obama’s “strategy” appears to be that only in conjunction with the “international community,” particularly Islamic nations, can the IS and its cohorts be defeated or even contained. Apparently, the conclusion He asks us to draw is that He intends in that fashion to deal with the IS, et al. However, the “international community” has in its ranks few friends of Western freedom and many enemies, some of which actively support Islamic terror.
The “international community” is, at best, similar to a homeowners’ association, the members of which love to debate trivial matters while doing little or nothing of substance to advance the interests of the homeowners as a whole. In their defense, some of them do support pleasant golf courses.
The “international community” is larger and in most respects far worse than homeowners’ associations. It has powerful anti-freedom, anti-democracy and anti-civilization members demanding (and not infrequently forcing) others to acquiesce in their demands. As a group, they are by no means suitable partners for peace other than in the Islamist sense.
UPDATE, September 8th
An article at PJ Media by Victor Davis Hanson is titled Are the Orcs Winning? Orcs were fictitious creatures created by J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings. They were horrid creatures with no redeeming virtues. Our multicultural society argues that there are no Orcs and that if there were even they would have redeeming virtues; if not, some would need to be invented.
Now we are glued on ISIS, the Mesopotamian killers who are beheading on video streams American journalists, as they murder, rape, and mutilate their way from Syria to central Iraq. One of the beheaders, Jihadi John, has a British accent, and seems to enjoy shocking Westerners with the fact that he is more familiarly savage than his fellow Arab-speaking masochists. Apparently his family immigrated from the Muslim world to the affluence and freedom of the United Kingdom for a more civilized life so that their pampered son could one day leave it to seek to destroy all that had enabled him— and thereby find “meaning.”
If a British politician demanded to strip Jihadi John and those like him of their passports or an American senator demanded that we not let in any more Tsarnaev-like jihadists, the outcry would be such that the crimes of beheading and blowing up people at a marathon might pale in comparison. Cutting off somebody’s head or blowing off a leg is one thing, but casting aspersions on the Other is quite another. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
Evil is ancient, unchanging, and with us always. The more postmodern the West becomes — affluent, leisured, nursed on moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multicultural relativism — the more premodern the evil among us seems to arise in nihilistic response, whether it is from the primordial Tsarnaev brothers or Jihadi John. We have invented dozens of new ways to explain away our indifference, our enemies hundreds of new ways of reminding us of our impotence. I suppose we who enjoy the good life don’t want to lose any of it for anything — and will understandably do any amount of appeasing, explaining, and contextualizing to avoid an existential war against the beheaders and mutilators, a fact well-known to our enemies. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
So we wait behind our suburban Maginot Lines, arguing over our quarter- and half-measure responses, refighting Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the Somme and Verdun, assured that we can distract ourselves from the horrors abroad with psychodramas about Ferguson, the president’s golfing, his lectures on fairness, and which naked celebrity photo was hacked on the Internet.
Meanwhile the orcs are busy and growing and nearing the ramparts… [Emphasis added.]
Perhaps when Obama deigns on the eve of September eleventh to enlighten us on His strategy for dealing with the Islamic State He will patiently explain that there is no such thing as a bad boy. Perhaps He will then announce and that He has invited the supreme leader of the IS to the White House, where He will persuade him to stop being naughty. Success will come as it always does due to Obama’s charisma and multicultural understanding of all humanity. They will then enjoy a pleasant round of golf.
Obama will not, of course, do those things. That would be a step too far toward an independent strategy of the Obama Nation and therefore inconsistent with His plans to lead the International Community from behind to victory, whatever that is.