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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ignoring Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Steyn has been warning about the threat of Islam for more than ten years, hoping his words and those of others would wake up the citizens of the West to the eating away of their civilization and their way of life that was already underway.

But, no, people prefer the illusions peddled by Obama (and before him Bush) that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" and there is nothing to worry about.

Obama as recently as yesterday is still marketing that illusion by issuing partial transcripts of the words of the Orlando murderer to the police erasing mentions of Allah and his pledge to the Islamic State.

There are consequences of facing up to the hard facts of reality, so instead, "Let's Keep Dancing."

Mark Steyn filled in for Rush Limbaugh (as he often does) a day or two after the Orlando massacre and in nine minutes captured the meaning of it all in a way that every adult man and woman in the United States (and Europe) should hear and heed:

Raymond Ibrahim is sounding a note of alarm.

Who is Pope Francis?

Why is he ignoring in his public statements the persecution of Christians by Islam?

Why is he equating the Christian mission of conversion by persuasion with the Islam mission of conversion by violence, by the sword, by the spear, by beheadings?

Why is he issuing encyclicals on climate warming instead of condemning the massacre of Christians by Muslims throughout the Muslim world?

Why is he not championing and defending those who are being martyred daily by the soldiers of Islam? Why is he not defending Europe from the Islamic invasion of conquest?


How to Defeat Jihad

David Horowitz's West Coast Retreat, Palos Verdes, CA, April 8-10 2016

Bruce Thornton

What I want to do is remind us that the war we're talking about has been going on for 14 centuries. It started in the 7th Century A.D. when Muslims conquered the Greco-Roman, Jewish-Christian Byzantine Empire. It conquered places like Egypt.

It's interesting that people say Egypt is the largest Arab nation in the Middle East. Why are there Arabs in Egypt? The guys who built the pyramids, the guys who were Pharaohs, they were not Arabs. They were Egyptians. They, the Arabs, were there as conquerors, as the descendants of conquerors, colonizers and imperialists. They conquered Spain. They held it for 7 centuries until they were driven out. They were defeated in 732 at the Battle of Tours by Charles Martel. Fell when they were attempting to move up into France. They continually raided the Rhone River Valley. They occupied Southern Italy and Sicily. They occupied the Balkans.

It wasn't until 1683 that at Vienna, September 11 and 12 -- make what you will of that date -- that they suffered a devastating defeat. And until the rise of modern jihadism they never again challenged Europe. In fact, they began a series of retreats. There's one date that's very interesting and that's 1699. That was the Treaty of Karlowitz. And you say, "Well, what's the big deal about that treaty?" That was the first time a Muslim power ever had to sign a treaty which was to a Muslim disadvantage. In 1798 Napoleon invades Egypt. And the only reason that came to a bad end is the British destroyed his fleet and he abandoned his army. [The Ottoman Empire remained undisturbed --though weakening -- until 1924.]

Ottoman Empire.jpg

1924. Well, what happened in 1924? The dissolution of the Caliphate. When after 9/11, Bin Laden referenced a catastrophe, he wasn't talking about 1948 was he? He said it was 80 years ago. What happened 80 years ago? The dissolution in 1924. The dissolution of the Caliphate.

So in other words, my point is that we are in a war that has been going on for 14 centuries. And the Taliban have a saying, "You have the watch as we have the time." They are in a spiritual -- I'm using that word neutrally -- a spiritual reality in which this century, that century -- Israel's not even 100 years. We can wait. Crusaders were there 200 years, we got rid of them. We are obsessed with the here and now and we think the past doesn't matter. But the past matters very much. And in their mentality this is an ongoing eternal war between the believers and the infidels. And this is where we are at now. We are in a war. A long war.

The second point is what's the nature of the enemy? Now, we all know and I know this group knows because you've had the opportunity to listen to people like Robert Spenser, we know that jihad is a central doctrine of Islamic theology. It is not an aberration. It is not some sort of self-improvement or anything like that. It is a communal obligation of the Muslim people. So we know that. But there's another dimension to the enemy that we have to keep in mind as we go forward in terms of how do we fight this enemy and that is, what's curious about Islam is that it is, as I may, theologized tribalism. It is very tribal. And you can talk about the American Indians. You can talk about the Gauls that Caesar fought, the Germans that Caesar fought, the Britons that the Romans fought.

Any tribal people, they have some similarities. And one of them is the tribe is everything and everybody else is nothing. The tribe is everything and everybody else is nothing.

A lot of tribes don't even have a word for humans. Humans are themselves. Islam follows this. [The tribal Arabs created Islam and made Islam a tribe.] There's the Dar al-Islam, the Dar al-Harb. There's the world of Islam, the believers, and there's the world of war, [everyone else]. That's it.

So they have built in a kind of supremacy as we see in Islam today. Their belief, as Quran 3:110 says, is that they are the best of peoples, that Allah intends to rule the whole world. They really believe that. That's why they're continually at war with the infidels, particularly the infidel West.

There are two other dimensions of tribalism that are, I think, key for understanding this enemy. One is the role of prestige. What I was just talking about, Islam the tribe, that notion that "we" are the important people. We are the ones that deserve to rule the world. It's very different from the ancient Hebrews being the chosen people. They were never told go kill all the gentiles the way the Quran says slay the idolater wherever you find them. That's a huge difference.

But they are universal in their aspirations. And their prestige, their esteem, is huge. For awhile after 9/11 we kept hearing, "Well, you know they feel bad because Europeans have been picking on them and everything." And I think that I wrote at the time that their problem isn't low self-esteem. Their problem is too damn much esteem. Right? They think too highly of themselves. And that needs to be knocked out of them. They need to be humiliated. They need to be convinced that, sorry, in the real world that we live in, you're not so special.

So one of the things that we have to think about is defeating them -- not just defeating them militarily, but humiliating them. Now that's going to sound really kind of archaic and old-fashioned and mean and everything, but you know what, that's exactly what the Allies did in World War II, wasn't it?

The point of unconditional surrender was that they had learned in World War I, when Germany did not surrender there was an armistice signed with its army still in France and Belgium, and they never knew they were defeated. So they spent the next 20 years scheming, long before Hitler came along, to get back to the position that they thought they deserved as the greatest power in continental Europe.

So next time around in World War II they had to be thoroughly defeated and made to know that no, sorry, you're not the super race. Germans do not have a right to rule everybody else. Similar thing happened in Japan and they've been very good global citizens since then.

Now think about it: The Arabs attacked Israel three times, in 1948, 1967, 1973. What price did they pay for those defeats? What Arab capital was bombed, occupied, the way Berlin was occupied? When have they ever paid a price for their aggression? They sided with the Axis powers in World War II. What price did they pay? In Egypt the green shirts, including people like Anwar Sadat, were colluding with the Nazis against the English in the north and then the Americans in the North African campaign. What price did they ever pay for that? They have never, ever in the modern period suffered a mind-concentrating lesson about the stupidity of their beliefs. And then we wonder why they keep coming back and they keep fighting.

So what this means is they have to be defeated militarily, whatever that takes. That means killing a bunch of people. And I know nobody wants to hear that today. Oh, you're just a warmonger; you're a chicken hawk; you're this; you're that. Sorry, that's just the way it's been since humankind were bashing each other's brains out with rocks.

They have to be defeated military. They have to suffer the wages of their aggression. They have to live it every day. Their people have to live it every day until they realize, at least for now, this is a bad idea. We'll still be Muslims, but this whole jihad thing, I think we'll tone it down a little bit. We won't press it too much.

Now what do we [in the West] do? We do the opposite, don't we? Gee, how did we offend you after 9/11? What did we do? And all this nonsense about Sykes-Picot. It's driving me crazy, Sykes-Picot. 1916, Sykes-Picot. Sykes-Picot had nothing to do with what happened in 1918, 1919. But ISIS puts up a billboard in its territory that says, "We will draw our borders, not Sykes-Picot." Sykes-Picot didn't draw the borders of Jordan and Iraq or any of that. That's historical falsity.

So how do we fight this enemy? For one thing, let's get the history straight. Let's get the history of 14 centuries of Islamic aggression and violence against the West straight. Don't let people talk to us about colonialism. There were no European colonies in the Middle East. And I couldn't believe Charles Krauthammer, one of the smartest guys around, was talking about Sykes-Picot and the colonial borders. I threw a shoe at the TV. What are you talking about? That belonged to the Ottoman Empire until 1919. And they're the ones that decided to throw in with the Germans because they thought they could get back their European empire that they had lost in the preceding decades. Has nothing to do with colonialism.

And by the way, don't ever let Islam, [one] of history's most brutal successful imperialist powers, whine to us about imperialism or colonialism. [270 million murdered during their various conquests is one estimate.] Egypt is an Arab colony. North Africa is an Arab colony. Anywhere there's an Arab Muslim outside of the Arabian Peninsula there is a colonist, a descendant of a colonist, of an imperialist or at best an immigrant.

So we shouldn't put up with this false history. First thing, get the history straight. We saw this mistake made by the British in the decades before World War II events -- oh, you know, really, World War I was our fault and we were kind of mean to the Germans. We provoked this huge mistake. Because the Germans were like Muslims back then, [the superior tribe].

Winston Churchill's first two books are great reading and they're a manual of how to fight this war. Not how to defeat jihad, but how do you defeat the enemy that believes in jihad? That's the second one. The first one is a history of the Malakand Field Force. You know, the Brits have India, and where Pakistan and the Afghan border is today, the same people that are the Taliban today, their ancestors were there. Every so often they would start preaching jihad and they'd go on a rampage, and the British had these mobile field forces. They'd send them out there. They'd track them down. They'd kill a bunch. They'd disarm the rest. They'd burn their villages and then they left. They didn't say we're going turn you into a liberal democracy. They didn't say we're going to build schools and have three cups of tea with you, right? They didn't say we're going to liberate your women or convert you to Christianity. No. They didn't say we will ever leave. They didn't put a date certain on it. Everybody knew if you do this again we will be back again. And if you do this forever we will be back forever. Because they understood the nature of the enemy.

And the second, the River War, which is a brilliant book by the way. And as you know, in 1885 a guy called the Mahdi -- now you know from Shia Islam the Mahdi is the messianic figure that's going to usher in, I don't know what he's going to usher in, but anyway. One of these rose up in Khartoum, built a huge army, started attacking the expatriates there, the Europeans. And the famous Charles Chinese Gordon, British general, was there overseeing their evacuation. They overran Khartoum and they killed him in 1885.

It took 13 years, 1898, and the British put together a huge expeditionary force. Churchill got himself to go -- Kitchener didn't want to have anything to do with him because he knew he was a publicity hound; he used his mother's influence. And the big battle at Omdurman near Khartoum took place, and it was a huge slaughter.

And Kitchener went to the tomb of the Mahdi -- he had died before then -- broke the tomb open, dragged the body out and he threw it into the Nile. See, he understood you humiliate and you damage their prestige and you say, if I may quote Bin Laden, "We're the strong horse and you're the weak horse." There was nothing that they wanted there in Sudan. They didn't want to colonize it. There was no oil. There was nothing there they wanted. They turned around and they went back home.

If we don't start getting that mentality, if we keep thinking that we can bribe or negotiate or sweet talk or understand or tell them how wonderful their religion is and how much we love it and do all the things that [we are currently doing], which are absolutely wrong things to do, then if you say, "How to defeat the jihad?" we're not going to defeat jihad. It will be incremental. It will be insidious and at one point in the near future we're going to wake up and we're not going to recognize the country we're in.

Bruce Thornton is a military historian and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

To view the entire panel on this subject, of which the above essay (edited for clarity) is a part, click here.

The answer is clear: Saudi Arabia.

Ever since the oil money started rolling in the Saudis have sent tens if not hundreds of billions on teachers, schools and mosques all over the world (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) insisting that the only Islam, the "true" Islam is that as preached and practiced by Mohammad in the 7th Century. The commands to kill non-believers in Mohammad as the Messenger of Allah are in Mohammad's Koran and in the reports documenting his actions in life.

Generations of Muslims have now grown up knowing no version of Islam except the Saudis' 7th Century violent version. Whatever toning down of Islam that occurred over the centuries (some, not much) has vanished in most of the Muslim world. Instead, every Muslim is taught that his mission in life is Jihad, helping Islam conquer the world and kill or subjugate all non-believers. Mohammad is proclaimed to be the "perfect man," the man to be emulated by all Muslims. This is a man who practiced mass murder, stole, raped and enslaved Jews and Christians and others who did not accept him as the Messenger of Allah.

Yet the Saudis show up at world terrorism conferences saying Islam has nothing to ISIS and has no relation to what the Saudis themselves preach and propagate worldwide. Nonsense, but they are not called on it.

The U.S. under Bush and Obama has shamefully let the Saudis get away with this hypocrisy and has not demanded that Saudi Arabia stop its worldwide incitement to violence in the name of Islam as the price of our being its protector (which the U.S. has been since the end of WWII.)

The Islam of Mohammad is the greatest threat to the U.S. and it cannot be effectively fought as long as our government continues to lie about it.

Read this report by Raymond Ibrahim of the recent security conference in Munich. And weep.

The West Lies Down Before Saudi Lies _ Raymond Ibrahim.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it that the leaders of Europe don't listen or don't care? Or are they consumed by self-induced, self-destructive guilt? How will they atone for the sins of their colonial past?

Why, let into Europe the savages that for some decades they were able to keep under reasonable civilizational control as they robbed them of their natural resources. Let them come in and enjoy the benefits of what we have created at home with the wealth we stole from them. They will come in, enjoy and become happy campers like the rest of us.

That illusion was being proved wrong many years ago by actual experiences, long before 9/11/2001, but none are so deaf as those who will not hear and so blind they will not see. Even after 9/11 eyes and ears were shut.

Left-wing European elites are leaders in punishing their citizens for their many colonial and other sins by allowing, nay, encouraging the current Muslim invasion without noting their thuggery, superior contemptuous attitudes, violent behavior and lack of, shall we say, civilizational niceties (Toilet paper? What for?).

Thumbnail image for Islam mess.jpg

Garbage thrown out the windows into the courtyard of free housing provided to Muslim immigrants.


In the multicultural society, all civilizations are equal and the diversity is to be honored. Require assimilation? How insulting.

The British have had Muslim problems since it began allowing the immigration of Pakistani Muslims after the break-up of British India. Pakistani Muslims as well as Indian Hindus and Muslims were granted preferred status to immigrate to Britain. Hindus have largely assimilated and succeeded, the Muslims, hardly at all.

Warnings have been issued for years, before and after 9/11/2001.

What is not acknowledged is that Islam is at war with the rest of the world. It has been since its founding by Mohammad in 622, who declared unending war until Islam ruled the world.

To accomplish his initial goal of conquering Arabia presumably to root out paganism and to install belief in one god, Mohammad built an army. To provide resources for and to incentivise his army, he turned morality on its head.

He adopted the principle that the end of conquest justified the means, any means. Mohammad decreed that raiding caravans, attacking and seizing the wealth of peaceful communities and individuals, lying, deceit, stealing and killing those who would not acknowledge him as a messenger of God were good, not evil.

Not only that, his troops could keep 80% of the seized wealth and newly acquired human beings as slaves for sex, work or trade, as long as he got his 20% and his pick of the females. All for Allah. And a fighter who died advancing Mohammad's goal would be rewarded with an instant trip to a paradise with endless sex.

Mohammad's organizational genius and persuasive powers (it's amazing the things he got Allah to approve) unleashed the worst basic instincts of the animal world in his pursuit of power and wealth.

For 1400 years Mohammad's plan has been followed. First, believe. Second, submit, don't ask questions, just follow the program, I assure you, Allah has approved everything. Oh, if you ask questions, express doubt or leave the organization (Islam), you're a dead man. Any good Muslim can kill you in the service of Allah. This week's news proves Mohammad's words live on. In Bangladesh a publisher of atheist blogs was hacked to death.

Part of Mohammad's plan was to spread Islam by emigration. Muslims could leave their lands for lands of the infidels if their secret intentions were to expand the reach of Islam - hijra. Muslims could pretend to fit in, to be friends with infidels, but they should remain separate and maintain their ways, Sharia, and build communal strength until they would become strong enough to begin assuming control and transforming the host society to Islam.

Islamic leaders devised a plan for Europe back in the 1970s and even published it in book form in 1980.

The following article is a history lesson. It is a report published in the London Telegraph, a leading British newspaper, in 2005, ten years ago. Muslims expressed their outrage to the newspaper, which dutifully removed the offending article from its website, as a dhimmi would.

In the Muslim world a dhimmi is one who is not a follower of Mohammad, who acknowledges his inferiority and accepts his lower class position through deference and being humiliated -- and often paying a price to avoid being killed.

THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE
- Dr Patrick Sookhdeo Telegraph, London August 11, 2005

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is Director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity.

On Friday 20th May 2005 a crowd of some 300 Muslims burned a wooden cross outside the American embassy in London. This was part of a protest against the rumoured desecration of a Qur'an by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay, during which British and American flags were also burned. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this event was that it was not deemed to be newsworthy, receiving little attention in the national press.

The whole scenario is reminiscent of what happens in so many Muslim-majority countries: a rumour of an insult to Islam, a violent and blasphemous anti-Christian reaction, police watching idly, and a complete lack of public interest let alone outrage. It could have been Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia or Northern Nigeria. But it was the UK.

The 2015 Muslim invasion of Europe is in full swing. How many years will it take to make Europe like the hellholes they are leaving? The "no go zones" in various cities will gradually expand as the new arrivals bringing the culture (?) and ways of life dictated by Islam overwhelm the natives, who will flee in terror or resignation. Europe will die.


There are no Christian armies standing in the way to force the invaders back as there was at Tours and at the Gates of Vienna. All will be lost.

ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF ISLAM

This Financial Times report below on killings in northern Nigeria "neglects" to identify the attackers and explain their motives. Like all too many of such reports missing are the words "Islam" and its aim to drive all Christians out of the lands in which they live so Islamic control and Sharia can be imposed on those lands and the remaining people.

The plan: Burn the churches, destroy the economy, gun down the Christians they come across and the rest will flee to the south of Nigeria.

Since Boko Haram has begun its murderous campaign in 2009, this article's author estimates that more than 12,000 have been killed, mostly Christians and no doubt some Muslims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In a recent article the claim was made that Boko Haram has killed more people in the last five years than all the other al-Qaeda affiliated groups combined in the Middle East and Africa. While their kill total is impressive, that's probably not so. Muslims are busy killing Muslims in Syria (to say nothing of Iraq) and the estimated death toll there is 200,000, which include many Christians who apparently are being killed by both Sunni and Shiite combatants.

All Muslim "insurgents" or "militants" or "terrorists" are driven by Islam's mandate to conquer all the lands of the world for Allah and convert or kill all the non-believers in the process. When it's Muslims against Muslims, the quarrel is over who will lead the worldwide (or regional or local) drive of supremacy. Violence is always an acceptable "tool," but deceit and trickery and infiltration of societies by non-assimilating immigrants who will out-birth the natives are often more effective weapons of conquest.

And where is the money coming from? In Boko Haram's case, it is Sunni so the money most likely is filtering in from the Saudis. Is the U.S. protesting this flow of money into jihad from our ally Saudi Arabia?

The weapons are in large part coming from the broken nation of Libya which the Obama administration decided to destabilize, resulting in, among other things, the murders in Benghazi of our ambassador and three other Americans who, despite Obama's words about the rationale for rescuing the deserter Bergdahl, were indeed "left behind."

To be sure, not all Muslims are bent on world conquest for Allah, but it is difficult to say who is and who isn't. Since there are some 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the number who will perform violent acts in the cause of Allah is large. Estimates range up to 25%; that more than 325 million. Even a mere 10% is 130 million.

A poll of Muslims 30 and under in the U.S. found that about 28% thought suicide murders could be acceptable under the "right circumstances." How many are true believers who are quietly working now to establish Sharia in place of the Constitution in the United States? This is the declared goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, to conquer America from within.

Why was Major Hasan Nidal in the Army? How did Hillary Clinton happen to have a Muslim as a top aide at the State Department whose family has been deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood for decades? Where are the Muslims loudly protesting the carnage done in the name of Islam?

What you hear from is Saudi-funded public relations organizations explaining that these people "misunderstand Islam" or have "perverted" Islam. Trouble is, what these misunderstanders are doing is following the letter of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammad.

The article.
Boko Haram kills more than 200 in assault on three Nigerian Christian villages

Jos bombing Boko Haram.jpg

The aftermath of a bomb attack in the city of Jos in May


By William Wallis in London and agencies for the Financial Times
June 5, 2014

Dozens of civilians have been massacred in three villages in Nigeria's remote north east in the latest attacks carried out by suspected Boko Haram insurgents, who are carrying out almost daily atrocities in the region.

Gunmen in combat uniforms on Tuesday rode army trucks through Borno state's Gwoza area, the main stronghold of the terrorist group, firing on villagers and burning houses and churches to the ground, security sources told Reuters news agency.

Other news agencies and local online media outlets cited witnesses suggesting the death toll from the attacks could be as high as 200.

Andrew Tada, a Gwoza man living in Maiduguri, Borno's capital, said he lost two cousins in the attack. He said residents had told him they were preparing to bury 45 people from one village alone.

"It is very sad and the villages are deserted now," he told Reuters. "We are just asking government to give us security to go there tomorrow to evacuate the corpses for burial."

Boko Haram has killed as many as 12,000 people since launching an insurgency in 2009 and grabbed world headlines after it abducted more than 250 girls from a secondary school in the remote town of Chibok in April.

By some estimates more than 560 civilians have been killed by insurgents since April 14 - the day of the abduction and a bus park bomb in Nigeria's capital, Abuja, that killed at last 75 people. In one of the deadliest single attacks, a bomb in the central city of Jos last month killed 118 people, officials said.

The mass kidnapping and bombings have piled political pressure on President Goodluck Jonathan at a critical moment in the electoral calendar, with political tension already heightened ahead of polls scheduled next February.

His government has flip flopped on whether or not it is prepared to negotiate with the militants to secure the release of the girls, amid daily protests at the government's handling of the hostage crisis.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who used to live in Nigeria, paid a visit to Mr Jonathan on Wednesday, to express condolences for the near daily atrocities carried out by the insurgents, who are attempting to carve out an Islamic state from Nigeria's multi-faith and ethnically divided population.

He expressed "sympathy for the struggles and suffering of the recent days" and said he was "deeply saddened by the bombings in Jos" because he knew the city well.

The security source told Reuters about three-quarters of the residents in the three villages near the Cameroon border - Attagara, Agapalawa and Aganjara - were Christians, but he did not know if Tuesday's attacks had targeted them specifically.

US troops are in neighbouring Chad on a mission to find the abducted girls. Britain and France have also offered help, but the Nigerian authorities fear any attempt to rescue them by force could endanger their lives.

Fifty-seven of the 276 kidnapped girls escaped in the early days of the abduction according to officials in the Borno state government.

Boko Haram’s five-year battle to impose caliphate kills thousands
By Monica Mark, The Guardian
Sunday, May 11, 2014

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/11/boko-harams-five-year-battle-to-impose-caliphate-kills-thousands/

Nigerians have suffered more than a year of attacks on western-style schools but the international community is only just waking up to it

The gunmen stormed in just as dawn broke over the school in a remote village in north-eastern Nigeria. There were around two dozen of them, and, survivors later recounted, they worked quickly, methodically and with unflinching brutality.

“Allahu Akbar,” they shouted, as they lined up students and murdered them with single bullets to the head. Some of the teenage pupils were burnt alive when their dormitories were locked, doused in petrol and set alight; those trying to escape were knifed to death.

They killed 46 boys all in all. Unlike the abduction of more than 200 girls from a school in Chibok last month, in this attack they spared the girls and killed all the boys. The atrocity barely registered in the international headlines. That was almost a year ago, in July 2013.

The schoolgirls have become symbols of an increasingly vicious conflict that had until now not registered on the western media’s radar. Yet for more than a year there has been a pattern of attacking western-style schools, seen as anathema to Boko Haram, whose five-year battle to impose an Islamic caliphate in the north of Africa’s most populous country has killed thousands. Officials and former abductees told the Observer the girls were now being used as sex slaves, a suspicion that has fuelled almost two weeks of social media campaigns and rare protests across Nigeria.

But for ordinary Nigerians, who have lived for half a decade under the shadow of the insurgency, there is frustration that a singular act is obscuring a more complex narrative. Social media campaigns and public anger – in different forms both at home and abroad – have helped trigger international action from the US and UK, among others.

The accounts of former abductees of the Islamist sect – Nigerian citizens ranging from civil servants to street hawkers – suggest the schoolgirls are now being used as sex slaves. A day after the Chibok abductions, a squad from the Nigerian army was dispatched into the Sambisa forest. A soldier in the rescue mission told the Observer they encountered a group of 20 women in the scrublands, but they failed to get close to them without alerting the attention of the militants.

“My unit found some 20 women abandoned by Boko Haram in the forest. They were traumatised, around 15 of them were pregnant,” the soldier said.

Worse was what some of the women said. One, whose identity the Observer is protecting, said: “We were lined up in a single file then asked our religion. The Muslims among us were allowed to move around the camp freely and interact, while the Christians were turned to sex slaves. Any girl who was Christian would have to sleep with four, five or six of the Boko Haram men every day

Continue reading


Boko Haram and the return of the Nigerian slave trade

GEOFFREY CLARFIELD May 11, 2014, The Times of Israel

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/boko-haram-and-the-return-of-the-nigerian-slave-trade/

Last week the Nigerian Islamic militants, Boko Haram, struck again in a small town in northern Nigeria near the Cameroonian border, killing 300 people. This is part of a series of escalating attacks such as the one they carried out last August, as the men of Konduga, a small northern Nigerian riverine Muslim community, were attending their Friday prayers. As they prayed, a group of armed Boko Haram terrorists attacked the mosque and killed 44 worshippers. The next day, as is their custom, Boko Haram released a video where they vilified and taunted the United States and Israel.

And then, just a few weeks ago, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls and boasted on the Internet that they were going to sell them into slavery, something that has suddenly shocked the world, for few have fully realized that this means that we are witnessing the return of the Nigerian slave trade.

Given the extreme violence and the high death toll of Islamic uprisings in places like Syria and Iraq, the Western public has become accustomed to hearing about an ebb and flow of religiously inspired massacres, but it is the proud slaving propensities of Boko Haram that are a shock to the news reading public and, the fact that they openly boast about it. There is more to this story than meets the eye.

Western readers have difficulty understanding who Boko Haram are, where they come from and what they mean in the context of Nigerian history, for Nigeria is really two distinct countries, a Muslim north and a non Muslim south. These two distinct cultural and religious entities were artificially fused by the British empire in the late 19th and early 20th century in what historians now call the “scramble for Africa,” a period of about forty years when England, France, Portugal, Belgium and Germany occupied almost all of North and Sub Saharan Africa. Most of the members of Boko Haram hail from the northern Islamic states of what later became the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

What we now call Nigeria is the result of English merchants, and later imperial civil servants contracting treaties with a host of African chiefs and then linking them into a colonial framework which set the stage for the large African independence movements that emerged after WWII, motivated by western educated African elites who had witnessed a world war where the supposedly racially superior Europeans fought to the death with the help of hundreds of thousands of African and Asian troops. Indeed, it was the French General De Gaulle who once said that without the assistance of the African soldiers of French West and Central Africa, they would not have prospered in their fight against the German Nazis.

When the British established their administrative and military control over Nigeria in the early 20th century, they froze a historical dynamic that had been ongoing for over a thousand years, that is the slow conversion to Islam of the sahelian dwelling northern tribes of Nigeria, such as the Hausa and Kanuri peoples who lived under a range of feuding emirs or local sultans and who then, as sincere believers in Islam, adopted a Jihad which included systematic enslavement and sale of captives from the more southern non-Muslim tribes, such as the Yoruba, Ibo and many others who lived nearer to the Atlantic ocean.

This indigenous African slave trade which supplied northerners with an abundance of concubines, cheap domestic help and farm based slave labor, was then incorporated into the more widely known transatlantic slave trade where “up country” West Africans raided and sold slaves to “down country” West Africans, who in turn sold them in growing numbers to Europeans who took them across the Atlantic to the United States and to countries like Brazil, where legalized forms of slavery survived into the 1880s.

The northern Nigerian slave trade never stopped, even when the British made it illegal and long before historians brought to our attention the full horror of the transatlantic slave trade that has so dramatically changed the demography of the new world, both north and south and, our perceptions of American and South American history.

During the 20th century under colonialism and a newly independent Nigeria, slavery in the south practically disappeared and slavery in the north was reduced to an illegal minimum as the country's legal system actively forbid it. However, during the last few years some of the northern states of the Federal State of Nigeria, and who were once independent Muslim emirates states in pre-colonial times, have brought back Sharia law, which does not rule against slavery. It should then come as no surprise that young radicalized northerners, such as the members of Boko Haram, would like to take that one step further and bring back the old slave trade.

African historian John Alembillah Azumah has persuasively argued in his ground breaking book about the legacy of Islamic slavery in Africa that slave raids were quite extensive in all the emirates of northern Nigeria and in Adamawa in particular the practice continued until the 1920s. Organized raids sometimes involved the coordinated efforts of several political units referred to in some sources as polyglot raiding confederacies.’ Adult men were usually killed and the women, children and younger ones carried away. The Sokoto caliphate, therefore became the largest slave society in Africa with Adamawa as the major slave reservoir of the caliphate.

The European explorer Heinrich Barth who joined one of these slave-raiding expeditions in 1852, best describes the cultural style of the slave raid carried out by members of the emirates of northern Nigeria against a non-Muslim traditional group such as the Mugu. Barth joined a group of 20,000-armed warriors from the sultanate of Bornu. He wrote:

A large number of slaves had been caught this day. Altogether they were said to have taken a thousand and there were certainly not less than five hundred. To our utmost horror not less than one hundred and seventy full-grown men were mercilessly slaughtered in cold blood, the greater part of them being allowed to bleed to death, a leg having been severed from the body.

The colonial occupation of West Africa by the English and the French put an end to such outright raiding practices and then the slaves did everything possible to use the new legal and administrative systems put in place by the incoming English and the French, to gain a modicum of freedom under the new regimes. Towards the end of the 19th century, surveys carried out by the French and the British found that much of the population of West Africa were slaves. For those who still believe that the Atlantic slave trade was somehow ethnically and geographically sealed off from the indigenous and trans Saharan/Sahelian slave trade, Azumah has this to say:

Muslim emirates were by far the major suppliers of slaves. Indeed, the trans-Saharan and transatlantic slave trades reached their peak between the seventeenth and the early nineteenth centuries when the Muslim tradition of military Jihad was in the ascendancy in the Western Sudan. Most of the jihad movements became the main source of slaves.

Not surprisingly Boko Haram is led by a man from northern Nigeria or perhaps from just over the border in Niger, named Abubakar Shekau. Shekau is in his late thirties or early forties. He is known to have an almost photographic memory when it comes to the sacred texts of Islam. He has a 7 million dollar price on his head and he seems to enjoy posting his Youtube rants on the Internet where he regularly threatens the Nigerian government, the US, Israel and other Western countries.

1 -Boko Hamam Shekau.jpg

We can assume that Shekau models himself on one of a series of 19th century Jihadist reformers of Islam’ which were at that time common to northern Nigeria and the neighboring states of the Sahel such as the Jihad of the Fulani warrior, Uthman Dan Fodio. Fodio's grandson Umaru Nagamatse (1859-76) as Emir of Kontagora, was a notorious slaver and his son Ibrahim, who became Emir in 1879, when he heard that the British were coming after him to close down his slave trade was quoted saying:


Can you stop a cat from mousing? When I die it will be with a slave in my mouth.

Anthropologists and embedded journalists occasionally get access to the oral traditions handed down from father to son about the good old days in non-Western cultures. In the case of Northern Nigeria it is clear that the good old days were the precolonial days of Jihad and slavery. Terrorists such as Shekau did not emerge out of nowhere.” He and his growing number of accomplices are a throwback to a time when he and his group and its ethnic allies were the dominant power in the region; the tough ones, the slave traders, the ones who lived off other people's labour in the name of Jihad and Islam.

Clearly the modern, forward looking, commercial and secular urban forms of contemporary Nigeria do not attract these young radicals. They want to turn back the clock to the time of their grandfathers and great grandfathers. It is also not suprising that Shekau and his colleagues seem to arise out of nowhere, strike hard and then disappear into the bush. This can only happen when a significant number of people in the countryside either support these brutal young men or, are too frightened to oppose them. The dynamics of this kind of guerrilla warfare was first written about by T.E.Lawrence for an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica just after WWI. It explains much about Boko Haram and its northern Nigerian environment.

The only thing new about Boko Haram is their technology. Their values and behavior are firmly rooted in a history that they do not want to reject, that of the well documented, but little known slave trade that has plagued Nigeria for centuries. Boko Haram is doing everything possible to bring it back.

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists murdered four Americans in Benghazi a few weeks before Obama's re-election day. Obama had been constantly bragging that the death of bin Laden (which of course he carried out singlehandedly,

But, wait a minute! The White House can't let anything spoil the narrative! This was no terrorist attack. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, it was some average Libyans upset with a nasty video about Mohammad posted on YouTube (and seen by less than 3,000 people over two months) who must have just let things get out of hand. Too bad about the ambassador, so we'll throw that filmmaker in jail and bring him to justice.

The Truth? The truth is what we can get the public to believe, so the White House spin machine rumbles on and on right through the election up to today.

But the time for truth telling may have come at last with the appointment by House Speaker Boehner of a Select Committee to get all the facts out.

Trey Gowdy will provide electifyingly capable leadership of that committee. Rep. Trey Gowdy's Select Committee on Benghazi will get the facts.

What do the folks back home in Greenville, SC think of their former federal prosecutor and now second term Congressman? Read this.

And take a look at this Gowdy meeting with the press corps not too long ago.

He is the right man to head the Select Committee on Benghazi. Watch the mainstream left wing media, the White House and Democrats in Congress try to destroy him.

Islam's war against Nigeria's Christians is now expanding to include the Nigerian government. For the second time in a few weeks, a bomb blast in the nation's capital Abuja, located in southern Nigeria, which is mostly Christian, has resulted in death, injuries and destruction.

1 Bomb Blast Nigerian capital May 1, 2014.jpg

The Islamic army Boko Haram, which took credit for the earlier blast, is considered responsible for this attack.

At the same time protests are spreading across the nation about Boko Haram's kidnapping of more than 200 teenaged girls from a school in northern Nigeria.

Nigeria's population is approximately 50% Muslim and 50% Christian and native religions. Nigeria is not only Africa's most populous country, its GDP is now greater even than that of South Africa.

Blast Hits Nigerian Capital as Protests Spread Over 220 Missing Students

Islamist Militants Seized Girls Nearly Three Weeks Ago; Continued Uncertain Fate Raises Public Outcry

by Drew Hinshaw and Gbenga Seun Ijagba
WALL STREET JOURNAL, May 2, 2014

Nigerians held protests in several cities across the country on Thursday to call for action to rescue over two hundred schoolgirls kidnapped by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram.

A bomb ripped through a neighborhood just minutes from the presidential palace in Abuja, less than a week before Nigeria hosts its biggest business gathering in generations--a World Economic Forum meant to fete its rising favor among investors.

At least 15 people died in the 8:25 p.m. blast, said eyewitness Hassan Abdullahi, who counted bodies strewed about the road. A police spokesman put the death toll at 12, with 16 wounded, several of the victims cabdrivers or everyday Nigerians commuting home from work.

They nearly included Patrick Godiya, who came to the area to buy herbs, and crossed the streets seconds before the blast: "I would have been dead," said the dumbstruck individual on Thursday night.

The blast occurred near the same Nyanya bus station where an April 14 bomb killed 72 people. And it capped an extraordinary few weeks in Nigeria. Just as the country is attempting to position itself on the global stage as a rising, muscular new frontier economy, a fusillade of bomb blasts from an Islamic insurgency called Boko Haram, drawn from this country's deeply poor, is interceding.

On Thursday, protests spread over the government's failure to secure the release of more than 200 teenage girls still held by Islamist militants nearly three weeks after they were seized flared up Thursday across Nigeria.

Demonstrations over the government's alleged ineptitude took place in Lagos, the capital Abuja and the northern city of Kaduna, where a hundred women carried placards, many reading, "Free Our Daughters!"

Nearly three weeks ago, Islamist fighters seized 273 teenage girls from their boarding school in northern Nigeria. The girls' uncertain fate threatens to swell into a public scandal in a country otherwise numb to constant terror attacks.

Some 220 of the girls are still unaccounted for, according to the school's principal, Asabe Kwambura, and the stories of those lucky enough to have escaped, of being forced by Boko Haram members into menial labor or of some of their schoolmates being sold as sex slaves, have captivated and horrified the Nigerian public.

Amnesty International says that Boko Haram was responsible for the deaths of more than 1,500 people during the first three months of this year. The dead included college students burned alive in their dormitories, villagers shot in their mud-brick homes, children ripped apart by car bombs and truckers dragged from their cabs and torn to death by chain saws, according to eyewitness accounts. These atrocities underscored a point Boko Haram never seems to tire of making: Nigeria can't protect its citizens.

Yet this violence, for all its brutality, rarely elicited much more than a patchy recitation of events in daily newspapers. Presidential statements expressing condolences were rare. Even as the death toll mounted early this year, nightly news programs continued to revolve around the activities of ministers and business figures. Life continued mostly as normal for this bustling economy growing at a brisk 7.9%, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The girls' kidnapping and protracted captivity, however, has profoundly shaken the country. For weeks, politicians have broken ranks with President Goodluck Jonathan to declare their dismay about the authorities' inability to locate the girls. Several Nigerian websites feature clocks showing how many days, hours, minutes and seconds have passed since the girls were seized.

Many Nigerians say they are following every word from the girls' distraught parents. Several of the girls' fathers have ventured into the woods with bows and arrows to confront the sect themselves. They have come back empty-handed.

The view of Uche Agbai, a radio presenter who attended the protest in Lagos on Thursday, is shared by an expanding number of Nigerians.

"The way the Nigerian government is responding to it is just really sad," Mr. Agbai said. "We don't see any investigation being carried out. We don't see the president or his aides saying this is the progress we have so far."

Nigeria's government says it is making every effort to find the girls. The day after they were kidnapped, Mr. Jonathan convened his security team for an emergency meeting, his spokesman said. Now the government says it believes that the girls have been taken to neighboring Cameroon.

Cameroon ridicules the suggestion. "That is a hoax," said Augustin Fonka Awah, governor of Cameroon's Far North Region. "Instead, kidnappers take people hostages from Cameroon into Nigeria."

The timing of the girls' kidnapping and the crisis of public confidence that has ensued couldn't be worse for the government. Last month, Nigeria became the biggest economy in Africa and the 24th largest in the world. Abuja's hosting of next week's World Economic Forum amounts to the country's biggest coming-out party in generations.

--Emmanuel Tumanjong in Yaounde, Cameroon, contributed to this article

Despite Obama's claim that Bin Laden's death by Navy Seals meant that al-Qaeda was on the run and no longer a force to be reckoned with, the attacks on and murders of Americans in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda affiliate proved that boast to be presumptuous and wrong.

Al-Qaeda is actually stronger and more of a danger than it was when Ben Laden was alive. The entire Middle East is in flames (except for Israel) and Islamic militancy has never been more active as it has spread across northern Africa and down into western and central Africa. Christians are being terrorized and murdered in northern Nigeria (more than 5,000 in the past four years alone), Islamic soldiers invaded the mostly Christian country of the Central African Republic two years ago, threw out the government, took control and began uprooting and killing Christians and burning their homes. Uncounted tens of thousands were killed, many horribly. The Christians finally mobilized and drove the Islamic army out, regained control of the government and, in retaliation, have driven most all of the Muslims who had been living there out of the country.

Those are just examples. Read this State Department report just released and this report authored by a retired CIA official. His closing observation is telling: "Bin Laden may be history, but history may only be beginning for those he inspired."

The reports are frightening. They underscore that there is a growing, direct danger to the United States from Islam's followers.

The paralysis of the Obama administration has without question contributed to this upsurge in Islamic militancy and success. Yet not a word of condemnation or caution comes out of the White House about these Islamic threats. Obama can condemn a cartoon video making fun of Mohammad, but he doesn't condemn the kidnapping of Nigerian teenagers by Islamic militants for sex.

We reported earlier on the attacks on Christians by Islamic fanatics in northern Nigeria, including a recent outrage, the kidnapping of some 200 teen age girls from school, presumably to be used as cooks, cleaning help and sex slaves.

Now we learn from an AP report in the Boston Globe that the girls are being sold as wives to Muslim fighters for $12 and forced to marry them.

Girls being forced to wed abductors
Anger in Nigeria at lack of action in kidnappings
By Michelle Faul in the Boston Globe for the Associated Press

LAGOS, Nigeria -- Scores of girls and young women kidnapped from a school in Nigeria are being forced to marry their Islamist extremist abductors, a civic organization reported Wednesday.

At the same time, the Boko Haram terrorist network is negotiating over the students' fate and is demanding an unspecified ransom for their release, a Borno state community leader said.

He said the Wednesday night message from the abductors also claimed that two of the girls have died from snake bites.

The message was sent to a member of a presidential committee mandated last year to mediate a ceasefire with the Islamist extremists, said the civic leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about the talks.

The news of negotiations comes as parents say the girls are being sold into marriage to Boko Haram militants. The students are being paid $12 to marry the fighters, Halite Aliyu of the Borno-Yobe People's Forum said. She said the parents' information about mass weddings is coming from villagers in the Sambisa Forest, on Nigeria's border with Cameroon, where Boko Haram is known to have hideouts.

''The latest reports are that they have been taken across the borders, some to Cameroon and Chad,'' Aliyu said.

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

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

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

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

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

Hundreds of girls kidnapped from school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the speech can be found here.

About 70 men, women and children were slaughtered in Nairobi, Kenya's upscale Westgate Mall because they were not Muslims.

The British and American governments and their echo chambers in the media jumped through hoops to claim that Islam had nothing to do with all that.

People aren't that stupid, but the propaganda campaign to absolve Islam-inspired murders and other atrocities from any connection to Islam proceeds unabated.

British prime minister Cameron and American president Obama are in the vanguard in lying about the inherent, endemic hatefulness and violence of Islam as found in the Koran and the words of Mohammad.

It is said there is nothing new under the sun. In the case of Islam, that's true. Its war against all non-Muslims which justifies whatever works to advance the cause of Islamic world domination -- murder, assassination, rape, robbery, deceit, lies, torture, bodily desecrations -- is the same today as it has been for 14 centuries.

This fact is obscured for many of the public by the left wing media and other supporters of Islam in and out of government who continually seek to assure them that such behavior by Muslims results from a misunderstanding of the Prophet and his Koran. This utter nonsense is peddled by the New York Times and Washington Post and other left wing media, governments and other organizations.

So what's the truth? This video about the Nairobi massacre provides the factual basis for the Islamic terrorists' belief that what they were doing would gain the favor of Allah.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

Recent Comments

  • Witness: Omar and Aslam, I have read all I need to read more
  • film streaming: Yep really A++ it was crazy to read it. So read more
  • mutuelle: hello, nice article,it really pleased me.A++ read more
  • seo: Thanks read more
  • atezaz: thanks read more
  • seo: thanks read more
  • atezaz: Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel read more
  • Mark @ Israel: It is undeniable that we are experiencing a down trend read more
  • Somaie: The article was worth reading. Thank you. www.onlineuniversalwork.com read more
  • Rick: Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that read more

Recent Assets

  • Ramirez Carter Obama.jpg

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