The American Kafir

2012/07/17

Legal Project News

I am posting the below information for those who read or find my The American Kafir will add The Legal Project as their reading material. W

Legal Project News Clips: 07/07/12 – 07/13/12

The LP works to protect the right in the West to freely discuss Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding. Our website is http://www.legal-project.org/

This past week, a former member of the LP staff produced the following blog that you might enjoy:

Free Speech Victory makes Germany’s Lawfare Score 1:1

The following four articles from the past week should be of great interest to you. These clips focus on attempts by Islamists (i.e., radical Muslims) and their allies to shut down the debate about Islam-related topics (e.g., Islam, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and Islamist terrorist funding).

 

Islamist Violence or Threats of Physical Violence Against Speech

Glazov, Jamie. ” Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, Michigan ,” The Glazov Gang: Frontpage Magazine, July 9, 2012.
Whitehead, Tom. “Terror suspects allegedly planned to attack EDL,” The Telegraph (UK), July 10, 2012.

Hate Speech Laws & Willful Blindness & PC Problems

Coyne, Andrew. “Hurt feelings aren’t reason enough to tread on freedom of speech,” The Montreal Gazette, July 10, 2012.

Willful Blindness & PC Problems

Ibrahim, Raymond. “Play Station and IKEA: Latest to Offend Muslims,” Jihad Watch Blog, July 11, 2012.

 

The following six articles from the past week should also be of interest to you. These clips focus on attempts by Islamists (i.e., radical Muslims) and their allies to shut down the debate about Islam-related topics (i.e., Islam, radical Islam, Islamist terrorism, and Islamist terrorist funding).

Blasphemy in the Muslim World

Kelly, Kim. “When Black Metal’s Anti-Religious Message Gets Turned on Islam,” The Atlantic, July 11, 2012.

Ostrovsky, Arsen. “Who Will Speak for the Ahmadi Muslims?,” Gatestone Institute, July 12, 2012.

Pressure Tactics Against Free Speech

Baron Bodissey. “Free Speech After Breivik,” Gates of Vienna Blog, July 11, 2012.

ICLA. “The Brussels Declaration,” Europe News, July 12, 2012. (at the end of the list is a PDF copy of The Brussels Declaration)

Sarah AB. “Silencing dissent: Hasan and Freedland,” Harry’s Place Blog, July 11, 2012.

Willful Blindness & PC Problems

Lilly, Brian. Why not confront Muslim extremism?,” SUN News Network, July 13, 2012.

 

More articles may be found at http://www.legal-project.org/news-external/

2012/06/27

The Evils of the Muslim Brotherhood: Evidence Keeps Mounting

Egypt’s longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood—the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda—has just won the nation’s presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of subversive Muslim apologists in the West who portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists”—forgetting that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be “Islamist,” to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate. Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as “largely secular” and “pluralistic.”

Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to “infidels” (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:

Anti-Infidel:

At a major conference supporting Muhammad Morsi—standing on a platform with a big picture of Morsi smiling behind him and with any number of leading Brotherhood figures, including Khairat el-Shater, sitting alongside—a sheikh went on a harangue, quoting Koran 9:12, a favorite of all jihadis, and calling all those Egyptians who do not vote for Morsi—the other half of Egypt, the secularists and Copts who voted for Shafiq—”resisters of the Sharia of Allah,” and “infidel leaders” whom true Muslims must “fight” and subjugate.

The video of this sheikh was shown on the talk show of Egyptian commentator Hala Sarhan, who proceeded to exclaim “This is unbelievable! How is this talk related to the campaign of Morsi?!” A guest on her show correctly elaborated: “Note his [the sheikh’s] use of the word ‘fight’—’fight the infidel leaders’ [Koran 9:12]; this is open incitement to commit violence against anyone who disagrees with them…. how can such a radical sheikh speak such words, even as [Brotherhood leaders like] Khairat el-Shater just sits there?” Nor did the Brotherhood denounce or distance itself from this sheikh’s calls to jihad.

Anti-Christian:

It is precisely because of these sporadic outbursts of anti-infidel rhetoric that it is not farfetched to believe that Morsi himself, as some maintain, earlier boasted that he would “achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya.”

Speaking of Christians, specifically the minority Copts of Egypt, in an article titled “The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!” secularist writer Khaled Montasser, examining the Brotherhood’s own official documents and fatwas, shows exactly why. According to Montasser, in the Brotherhood publication “The Call [da’wa],” issue #56 published in December 1980, prominent Brotherhood figure Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah al-Khatib decreed several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying unclean Christian “infidels” anywhere near Muslim graves. Once again, this view was never retracted by the Brotherhood. As Montasser concludes, “After such fatwas, Dr. Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues ask and wonder—”Why are the Copts afraid?!”

Lying, Stealing, and Cheating to Victory:

Read it all at Investigative Project On Terrorism

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

American Muslims Stone Christians In America

Source Article Link: FrontPageMagazine

In the video below, we see a small number of Christians who gathered holding Christian signs at the 2012 Dearbor, Michigan Arab festival being assaulted by Muslims with bottles, stones, and other objects. The police do not protect the Christians or take action against the perpetrators; in the end, they reprimand the Christians and instruct them to leave. Ever since, there has been no coverage of this outrageous event in our media. Nor has CAIR or any other Muslim organization denounced the Muslims who abused the Christians.

One can’t help but wonder: If a small group of Muslims gathered in the U.S. somewhere with a few signs depicting Koranic verses, and a mass crowd of Christians or Jews began to assault them, verbally and physically, threatening violence and mayhem, would police tell the Muslims to leave, instead of acting against the perpetrators? And would the media be completely quiet about it? Would Muslim groups be silent about it after?

What if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson gathered in a civil rights rally and they were surrounded and stoned by a mob of KKK supporters? Would the police show up and reprimand Sharpton and Jackson and instruct them to leave, all the while leaving the racist perpetrators untouched? And if this happened, would our media be completely silent about it? Would Anderson Cooper be completely silent every evening on CNN as he is at the moment about the stoning of the Christians in Dearborn?

We encourage our readers to watch the video and to ponder what is happening not only in the Middle East, but on the soil of the United States of America:

2012/04/24

Action Alert – Best Buy: TV’s, Computers and Hamas

Source Link: Islamist Watch

Action Alert – Best Buy: TV’s, Computers and Hamas

by Marc J. Fink

Ailing Retail Giant Sponsors Hamas-Linked Islamist Group, Refuses to Rule Out Future Funding to Islamic Radicals

Think again before buying your next flat-screen television or computing device from Best Buy.

The struggling retail giant recently used profits from American consumers to fund the annual banquet of a group closely linked to Hamas. The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently listed Best Buy as a “Platinum Sponsor.” Best Buy has refused to rule out future support for CAIR through numerous messages to its public relations department. The big box retailer is already in chaos amid the recent resignation of its CEO for personal misconduct, dwindling sales and bond downgrades.

The United States government named CAIR an “unindicted co-conspirator” to fund the terrorist group Hamas in America’s most significant terror financing trial. The U.S. also identified CAIR as an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, sharing the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Sharia-compliant, Islamic state through incremental, stealth jihad.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper (left) and CAIR co-founder and long-time board member Omar Ahmad (right) have both said they would like to see an America ruled by Sharia. The U.S. government has linked CAIR to the terror group Hamas in Gaza (center).

And that’s only the beginning. For all the details and links, see the bullet points below — after the jump at the bottom of the post.

Utterly outrageous, yes. But outrage is not enough. Action is required. The Goal is a commitment from Best Buy to never again use profits from American consumers to finance Islamic radicals.

Here is how you can make a difference:

  • If you don’t like the idea of your consumer electronics, software and appliance dollars going to fund groups aligned with Hamas and pledged to turning America into a Sharia-compliant, Islamic state, write and/or call Best Buy and let them know. Best Buy Public Relations Department: 612-292-NEWS (6397) or NewsCenter@bestbuy.com. Susan Busch, Director of Public Relations: susan.busch@bestbuy.com. Lisa Hawks, Deputy Director of Public Relations: lisa.hawks@bestbuy.com
  • Feel free to use/copy/paste the bullet points below. But try to put it in your own words and make it personal. Share any responses from Best Buy with us at islamist-watch@meforum.org.
  • Tell your friends and family about Best Buy and about Islamist Watch. If they join our mailing list (link at top of Islamist-Watch.org), they’ll receive future action alerts and can help make a difference.

Here are the details on CAIR:

  • Current CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper was quoted as saying: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. … But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”
  • Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) described CAIR in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism.” FDCH Political Transcripts, Sept. 10, 2003.

CAIR’s Announcement of Best Buy as a Platinum Sponsor:

Related Topics:  Entertainment / Media, Lawful Islamism, Lobby Groups, Workplace  |  Marc J. Fink receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free islamist watch mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

2012/04/07

Islamic Indoctrination in Textbooks

Source TownHall

Islamic Indoctrination in Textbooks

By Phyllis Schlafly

Political correctness has a double standard when it comes to teaching about religion in public schools. Drop Christianity down the memory hole but give extensive and mostly favorable coverage to Islam.

Even the mainstream media have provided extensive coverage of the steady stream of court cases and threatening letters from the American Civil Liberties Union aimed at removing all signs of Judeo-Christianity from public schools. Not only must prayer be prohibited, a cross and the Ten Commandments removed or covered up, a valedictorian banned from thanking God for his help, a football coach prohibited from bowing his head during a student-led pre-game prayer, singing of Christmas carols banned, and school calendars required to recognize winter holiday instead of Christmas, but there is also the complete omission of the history of the Founding Fathers’ public recognition of Christianity.

An organization called ACT for America conducted an analysis of 38 textbooks used in the sixth- through 12th-grades in public schools, and found that since the 1990s, discussions of Islam are taking up more and more pages, while the space devoted to Judaism and Christianity has simultaneously decreased. In 2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that American 12th graders scored lower in history than in any other subject, even lower than in science, math and economics.

Most of these students are too young to remember 9/11, so current textbook descriptions about 9/11 is all they will learn. In one textbook example of pro-Islamic revisionism, 9/11 is portrayed as “a horrible act of terrorism, or violence to further a cause,” without any mention that the attackers were Muslims or that the “cause” was Islamic jihad.

The textbooks generally give a false description of women’s rights under Islam. The books don’t reveal that women are subject to polygamy, a husband’s legal right to beat her, genital mutilation, and the scandalous practice misnamed “honor killings,” which allows a man to murder a daughter who dares to date a Christian.

Slavery is usually a favorite topic for the liberals, but historical revisionism is particularly evident in the failure to mention the Islamic slave trade. It began nearly eight centuries before the European-operated Atlantic slave trade and continues in some Muslim areas even today.

Other examples of historical revisionism in currently used textbooks include the omission of the doctrine of jihad or failure to accurately define it. Discussions of Muhammad’s life and character are often contrary to accepted historical facts.

Muslim conquests and imperialism are usually omitted or downplayed, and a completely false narrative about the Crusades is given. The books often falsely claim that Islam is tolerant of Jews and Christians.

Another technique is to describe Christian and Jewish religious traditions as mere stories attributable to some human source, whereas Islamic traditions are presented as indisputable historic facts. In one textbook, you can read that Moses “claimed” to receive the Ten Commandments from God but that Muhammad simply “received” the Koran from God.

ACT for America is sending its report to all U.S. school board members nationwide. We hope they read it and tell the publishers the schools won’t buy books that contain such errors and biases because that may be parents’ only remedy for this indoctrination.

In the year of 9/11, a big controversy erupted at Excelsior public school in Byron, Calif., where seventh graders were being taught a three-week course about the Islamic religion. This course required the kids to learn 25 Islamic terms, 20 proverbs, Islam’s Five Pillars of Faith, 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples, recite from the Koran, wear a robe during class, adopt a Muslim name, and stage their own “holy war” in a dice game.

Excelsior was using one of the textbooks that omit information about Islam’s wars, massacres, and cruelties against Christians and Jews. Christianity was mentioned only briefly and negatively, linked to the Inquisition and to Salem witch hunts.

The students were given Muslim names and told to recite Muslim prayers in class. They were required to give up things for a day to recognize the Islamic practice of Ramadan, and the teacher gave extra credit for fasting at lunch.

For the final exam, the students had to write an essay about Islamic culture. The essay assignment warned students in these words: “Be careful here; if you do not have something positive to say, don’t say anything!!!”

Parents naively thought they could appeal to the courts to uphold their right to reject this class for their children, which was really not education but behavior modification. They didn’t realize that federal court decisions have ruled consistently against parents’ rights and in favor of the authority of public schools to teach whatever they want.

The parents lost in court. And on Oct. 2, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the parents’ appeal from the lower court decision against them.

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. Phyllis Schlafly has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when Phyllis Schlafly started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Phyllis Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, Phyllis Schlafly appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. Phyllis Schlafly was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies’ Home Journal.


Screenshots from a YouTube Video Titled “Kill The Jews!” Muslim Children Memorize and Recite Antisemitic Messages on Egyptian TV Channel







A social network site for jihadists?

Source CNN

A social network site for jihadists?

By Adam Levine

The advantage and attraction of social networking isn’t lost on the jihadist community, apparently. New postings on the Ansar al-Mujahideen Arabic forum have been discussing a proposal by one contributor to create a Facebook-like site for jihadists, according to SITE Intel Group, which monitors jihadists activities online.

The idea has surfaced as various jihadi sites have mysteriously gone dark, leaving some to speculate whether there was a covert takedown by a spy agency.

In a posting, the user identified as Rakan al-Ashja’i notes that the terror adherents depend on different online forums and social networking sites for posting propaganda and discussions.

“What I am hoping is to program an application that would spare them using all of that and also attract hundreds and thousands of new brothers to work in this field,” the jihadist posted, according to a translation provided by SITE. “It will register their memberships, then they need only enter and publish what they want in all the sites and forums underneath with the click of a button.”

“We will benefit from the ideas in Facebook a lot, Allah the almighty willing,” al-Ashja’i said.

The posting says the one-click would save time and allow for instant republishing on multiple jihadist sites.

“Most of their time is spent in searching for new sites and creating memberships and adding them to their list, instead of wasting time in publishing on the same site always,” the jihadist said. “Also, it will be fun and it will attract more brothers to work in publishing.”

The idea was met with mostly tepid interest, although it got some enthusiasm, according to responses translated by SITE.

“If I could make a social networking website with the same capabilities and everything like Facebook when it first appeared – it is a very good idea,” wrote a user identified as Muhannad al-Balqani. “It would be a social networking website independent from spies and agent media.”

One jihadist, who goes by Abu Hakim, said there could be a technical issue, because “the publishing sites will deal with this site as spam.”

Another jihadist warned of the difficulty of turning the idea into reality because “programming is a wonderful science, but it needs a lot of work and to engage your brain 200%.”

Al-Ashja’i does not seem put off by the concerns. “It will never be a big obstacle and we can pass it,” he wrote in response to one criticism.

Over US mother, Islamist likely out of Egypt race

Source Seattle Times

Over US mother, Islamist likely out of Egypt race

Egypt’s election commission confirmed Thursday that the mother of a popular Islamist presidential hopeful was an American citizen, effectively disqualifying him from the race and likely boosting the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate.

By MAGGIE MICHAEL

Associated Press

Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, a likely candidate for the presidency, outside the Syrian embassy in Cairo

CAIRO —Egypt’s election commission confirmed Thursday that the mother of a popular Islamist presidential hopeful was an American citizen, effectively disqualifying him from the race and likely boosting the chances of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate.The ruling is likely to draw an uproar from supporters of Hazem Abu Ismail, a 50-year-old lawyer-turned-preacher who in recent months vaulted to become one of the strongest contenders for president, with widespread backing from ultra-conservative Muslims known as Salafis.

The announcement is particularly embarrassing for Abu Ismail, who used anti-U.S. rhetoric in his campaign speeches and rejected “dependency” on America. In recent weeks, he repeatedly denied reports that began circulating that his late mother held U.S. citizenship.

A law put in place after last year’s fall of President Hosni Mubarak stipulates that a candidate may not have any other citizenship than Egyptian – and that the candidate’s spouse and parents cannot have other citizenships as well.

The commission, however, did not outright disqualify Abu Ismail because it has not yet begun the process of vetting would-be candidates’ applications.

Abu Ismail is likely to fight for a way to stay in the race. Late Thursday, he urged his supporters to be patient because he was still fighting to prove that his mother’s documents didn’t amount to a full citizenship. He said the controversy was a mere plot to “slander” him.

“It has become clear to us that there is a big and elaborate plot, tightly prepared for a long time from many directions, internally and externally,” he said, without naming anyone.

Before the commission’s announcement, Abu Ismail’s campaign was vowing to hold a huge rally in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on Friday against what they see as a conspiracy to keep him out of the race.

“The massive army of his supporters will rally because we will not be silent over forgery and games,” said his campaign chief Gamal Saber.

As Sunday is the cut-off date for hopefuls to apply to run, the field for the May 23-24 election is beginning to become clearer after weeks of uncertainty. Barring last minute surprises, it appears to be headed to a contest focused between the Brotherhood candidate Khairat el-Shater and largely former regime figures, the popular ex-foreign minister and Arab League chief Amr Moussa and a former prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq.

Abu Ismail’s disqualification would remove el-Shater’s main competitor for the powerful Islamist vote. The Brotherhood, which is the country’s strongest political movement, announced last weekend that el-Shater – its deputy leader – would run. Since then, el-Shater has been heavily courting Salafis, a movement that is more hard-line than the fundamentalist Brotherhood.

Another significant Islamist candidate remains, Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, a reformer who was thrown out of the Brotherhood last year and is trying to appeal both to religious and more secular-minded Egyptians.

Moussa’s chances were boosted Wednesday when former Mubarak-era strongman and intelligence chief Omar Suleiman announced he would not run. Though widely distrusted as a symbol of the old regime, he might have found support among the liberals and moderates that Moussa is courting and who fear the Islamists’ rising power.

On Thursday, the 61-year-old el-Shater waved at some 3,000 supporters chanting, “Islam is back,” as he entered the election commission headquarters to formally submit his papers to run. He handed in more than 250 endorsements from lawmakers from the Brotherhood party and the Salafi Al-Nour Party, needed to qualify to join the race.

To run for president, a candidate needs endorsements from lawmakers or a party. Otherwise, the candidate must gather some 30,000 endorsements from the public across different parts of Egypt.

Just a week ago, Abu Ismail flexed his muscles by submitting his documents amid a giant rally by his supporters, who stretched from his home to the commission headquarters. He handed in some 150,000 public endorsements, five times the required number.

His face – smiling, with a long, conservative beard – had become ubiquitous in Cairo and other cities because of a startlingly aggressive postering campaign that plastered walls and lampposts with his picture and the slogan, “We will live in dignity.”

Abu Ismail rose to fame through his religious sermons and TV programs promising to guide Muslims to the “right path to Islam.” He joined early on in the protests against Mubarak last year and after his fall struck a defiant tone against the military generals who took power.

When reports concerning his mother began circulating, Abu Ismail insisted she only had a Green Card to visit her daughter, who is married to an American, lives in the United States and has citizenship there.

But in a statement Thursday on the state news agency MENA, the election commission said it received documents from the Interior Ministry proving that Abu Ismail’s mother had a U.S. passport she used to travel a number of time to the U.S.. The mother also traveled to Germany and Egypt using the U.S. passport in 2008 and 2009, it said.

The commission starts reviewing would-be candidates’ papers after Sunday’s deadline.

Egypt: ‘Islamocracy’ under Military Rule

Source JCPA

Egypt: ‘Islamocracy’ under Military Rule

By Jacques Neriah

A year after the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Egypt seems to be drifting into an unparalleled and unprecedented form of government and a unique political experiment in the Arab world: power and authority are being divided between Muslim fundamentalists led by the Muslim Brotherhood and their rivals in ideology, the Salafists. Both are partisans of an Islamocracy (meaning a combination of theocracy and democracy), with Field Marshall Mohammad Hussein Tantawi orchestrating the twenty or so members of the Army General Staff, acting as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), as the supreme rulers of Egypt. The only remaining question is: to what extent will each of the contenders avoid stepping onto his neighbor’s turf? In other words, will the Islamists, as the main hijackers of the democracy movement in Egypt, accept that the military will remain the source of power and authority in their Islamocracy?

Indeed, the transition process of handing power from the military to the “democratically” elected civilian bodies seems to be stuck and has become the focus of friction between the SCAF and the Islamists, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, the great winners of the parliamentary elections organized in 2011-2012. The military is not in a hurry to subordinate itself to the civilian authorities, while the Islamists, although eager to capture power as the legitimate winners of the democratic process, behave as if they are afraid to provoke the military. They fear a confrontation that could lead to widespread bloodshed, similar to Algeria in 1990 when Islamists won the first free elections in the young nation’s history, triggering a civil war with 20,000 casualties before Abdelaziz Bouteflika returned to power with army support.

As a result, the two sides in Egypt periodically check the extent of their authority and assess the limits to which they can act independently without provoking a reaction by the other side. From this perspective, it seems obvious that the episodes of violent confrontation that have occurred in Egypt in the process of political transition are not due to a lack of experience but rather are the result of a strategy on the part of the SCAF. According to Stephan Roll from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, this strategy has three additional components: gauging public opinion, obscuring decision-making processes, and playing the various political parties and movements off against one another. This strategy became evident in the debate over the design of the new Egyptian Constitution. In March 2011 the SCAF announced that a new constitution would be drafted by a constituent assembly. However, in late 2011 when it became clear that the Islamists would dominate the process after winning the elections, secular-oriented politicians pressed for the adoption of “supra-constitutional principles” that would guarantee the establishment of a democratic state with civilian rule. The SCAF tried to use those demands to its own benefit by introducing a document outlining principles of a revised constitution that granted the military even greater authority than it had possessed under the previous constitution: complete control over the defense budget and veto power over all decisions affecting the military. Massive protests convinced the SCAF to withdraw the motion.

On the other hand, since the beginning of the January 25 revolution against Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood has avoided any direct confrontation with the SCAF. Members of the Brotherhood appear to repeatedly seek dialog with the SCAF. The Muslim Brotherhood strategy remains the same as it was under the previous regime: to change the system from within. The Muslim Brotherhood received 41 percent of the Egyptian vote, with 26 percent going to Muslim extremists known as Salafists, a jihadist movement that believes in “holy war” against the “crusaders,” i.e., Christians and Jews. In Arnaud de Borchgrave’s words, “what these two branches of Islam have in common is their idea of “free” elections – one-man, one-vote, one-time. After their expected victory, Egyptians can forget about another free election as far as anyone can peer into the future.”

Indeed, since the Brotherhood is focused on domestic policy, it should have no intrinsic problem accepting the fact that the military will decide on matters of national security and foreign policy, at least initially. This does not mean that motions in the National Assembly will not be raised and discussed and attempts will even be made to constantly undermine the authority of the SCAF. Recent months have provided sufficient proof that although the legislators in the National Assembly have debated and made decisions on crucial issues, the SCAF has either ignored these decisions or worse, adopted steps completely opposed to the decisions of the National Assembly.

Key Issues

a. The NGO Issue: The SCAF decided to release the American defendants in the court case involving pro-democracy NGOs (including the son of the U.S. Transport Secretary), who had been barred from leaving Egypt, after the State Department paid $300,000 bail for each of them. The judge appointed to deal with the case decided on the first day of hearings that the case would be adjourned for a few months. The SCAF is clearly indicating to American legislators that it is still to be considered a U.S. ally and that no limitations should be put on the $1.3 billion in U.S. aid that finances as much as 80 percent of Egyptian military procurement. This contrasts very clearly with the March 11 National Assembly vote to order an end to this aid, a reflection of tensions with the U.S. over the NGO activists charged with illegal activity.

b. Relations with Israel: Even though the atmosphere in Cairo today is not in favor of Israel (as it never really was in the past), the SCAF has given its approval for the continued presence of the Israeli ambassador in Cairo. The SCAF accepted Israel’s regrets for the killing of several Egyptian soldiers in the aftermath of a terrorist action on the road to Eilat in summer 2011. In March 2012, Egyptian intelligence head Murad Mowafi again brokered a cease-fire between Israel and the Islamic Jihad in Gaza. For the eleventh time, Egypt has repaired the gas pipeline with Israel and beefed up its troops in Sinai in its quest to “reconquer” this part of Egypt which had been left to al-Qaeda and Bedouin operatives.

c. The Challenge from Within: Following the departure of the American NGO defendants, Egypt’s parliament voted on March 10 to begin steps to withdraw confidence from the military-appointed government, a move that will pressure the SCAF to appoint a new cabinet led by the Muslim Brotherhood. A vote of no-confidence would take Egypt into new political waters and could set the stage for a confrontation if the SCAF refused to yield to the will of the National Assembly. It could also complicate negotiations with the International Monetary Fund over a $3.2 billion loan the government of Prime Minister Kamal al-Ganzouri is seeking in order to stave off a looming financial crisis after more than a year of political and economic turmoil. The problem for the Egyptian government is that it could not afford to continue antagonizing Washington for too long. Egypt is rapidly running out of foreign exchange reserves. The financial shortfall was created both by the collapse in business and the tourist trade following the revolution, and also as the long-term consequence of an unsustainably high and growing level of public subsidies. The IMF loan is vital if the country is to prevent a severe financial crisis.

d. Domestic Repression: According to several sources, more than 12,000 civilians have been detained by military tribunals in the past year – more than in the Mubarak era that lasted over 30 years. One year after the president’s fall, not a single senior officer in any Egyptian security force has been convicted in the killing of protesters during the 18-day uprising. Only recently did an Egyptian court rule as illegal the so-called “virginity tests” endured by hundreds of women who were arrested at rallies, demonstrations or protests. This procedure, performed by male doctors, was used as customary practice by the military.

e. The Trial of Former President Hosni Mubarak: The trial of the former president was slow to start after the revolution. Since he left office, Mubarak has spent no time in prison, instead remaining under 24-hour medical watch at advanced medical facilities. His defense lawyers have been allowed to call hundreds of witnesses, a process that could delay his trial indefinitely. And while Mubarak is granted all of the protections of due process, civilians facing much lesser charges are being tried rapidly in military tribunals. Lawyers, victims, and revolutionary groups have questioned the intentions of the SCAF or government prosecutors to deliver true justice.

To sum up, it seems that the military has managed to outmaneuver other forces in the country (Islamists, revolutionary youth, liberals, business elites, and even foreign governments) by creating conditions on the ground whereby everybody discreetly feels the military should play a role in safeguarding the political process, despite calls for its complete marginalization from political life. It is no coincidence that the only actual democracy Egyptians have ever experienced in five millennia was between 1946, the end of the British mandate, and 1952 when Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser and his “Free Officers” seized power and overthrew the monarchy. Egypt’s military held power for the next 60 years (18 years under Nasser, 12 with Anwar Sadat, and 30 with Hosni Mubarak) and it does not seem likely that Field Marshall Tantawi would be the last of Egypt’s military rulers. Nevertheless, unlike the past, there might be a situation of co-existence between the military and the growing power of Islam in Egyptian society. On this front the military can do very little. The external expressions of Islamocracy are widespread today in Egypt. It would be a fair assessment to say that they are here to last. But in no way does this have to be antagonistic to the actual military rule that still prevails in Egypt.

In today’s reality, a power-sharing arrangement between the SCAF and the Islamists seems very likely. One possible compromise would be to delineate specific areas as domains under the authority of the president-elect, with the establishment of a National Defense Council, much as the SCAF is today, to support him in these policy areas. Such a body is already provided for in the old constitution (Article 182), but it has only an advisory role. The executive roles adopted by the SCAF are pure improvisations because of the political vacuum created by the resignation of Mubarak. Such an alternative could appease the military but would limit the powers of the president and the Islamist-led National Assembly. In other words, it would be the continuation of the situation that prevails today in Egypt. Such an arrangement between the parties would hold as long as the specter of civil war remained present or as long as the Islamists continue to accept the supremacy in power of the military. Any detected weakness in the behavior of the military would be interpreted as a sign to end the de-facto arrangement.

About Jacques Neriah

Col. (ret.) Dr. Jacques Neriah, a special analyst for the Middle East at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, was formerly Foreign Policy Advisor to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Deputy Head for Assessment of Israeli Military Intelligence.

2012/04/06

Muslim Brotherhood seeks U.S. alliance as it ascends in Egypt

Source Washington Times

Muslim Brotherhood seeks U.S. alliance as it ascends in Egypt

Vows to honor treaty with Israel

By Ben Birnbaum

A lawmaker from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said Thursday that there would be “no referendum at all” on the country’s peace treaty with Israel, hours after the Islamist group’s presidential candidate made his unexpected bid official.

“We respect international obligations, period,” Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a lawmaker from the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), told The Washington Times.

Mr. Dardery was on a good-will tour of Washington this week with three other Muslim Brotherhood representatives. Long shunned by Washington, the group has sought to soften its image in the West as it prepares to assume greater power in post-revolution Egypt.

On Thursday, the White House downplayed the significance of a meeting between administration officials and the Brotherhood’s envoys.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the FJP representatives met with “midlevel” officials from the National Security Council and that it was a reflection of the new politics in Egypt and the “prominent role” the group now plays in Cairo.

“We have broadened our engagement to include new and emerging political parties and actors,” Mr. Carney said.

“Because of the fact that Egypt’s political landscape has changed, the actors have become more diverse and our engagement reflects that,” he said. “The point is that we will judge Egypt’s political actors by how they act, not by their religious affiliation.”

Presidential ambitions

The Muslim Brotherhood’s ascendancy to power in the aftermath of longtime President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster last year has raised concerns among secular Egyptians and Coptic Christians, as well as U.S. and Israeli officials, about how the fundamentalist group would rule Egypt’s 85 million people and conduct its foreign relations.

Asked whether a Brotherhood-led government would put the 1979 Camp David Accords to a referendum, as many of the group’s leaders have promised, Mr. Dardery said no.

“No referendum at all concerning international obligations,” he said. “All our international agreements are respected by the Freedom and Justice Party, including Camp David.”

Meanwhile, FJP presidential candidate Khairat al-Shater filed papers Thursday with Egypt’s High Presidential Elections Commission. Egyptians will vote in the presidential election’s first round May 23 and 24, with the top two vote-getters facing off in a June 16 runoff.

The Brotherhood had promised not to field a presidential candidate but changed course Saturday, citing threats to democracy from the military council that has ruled Egypt since Mr. Mubarak stepped down in February 2011.

In Washington, Mr. Dardery said the Brotherhood fielded a candidate “to make sure that [the] democracy road is protected by the people of Egypt,” arguing that the military council had refused to give the parliament sufficient authority.

Mr. Shater, a businessman with a reputation for cunning pragmatism, joins a crowded field that includes Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik and moderate Islamist Abdel Moneim Abdoul Futouh. Salafist preacher Hazem Abu Ismail was disqualified Thursday, increasing Mr. Shater’s chances for victory.

Doubts about democracy

A poll taken by Egypt’s Al Ahram newspaper found that 58 percent prefer an Islamist candidate.

With Mr. Shater’s entry, some analysts now doubt that Mr. Moussa – once considered the overwhelming favorite – will make the runoff.

“Egypt is not moving toward a democracy,” said Eric Trager, an Egypt analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “It is moving toward a competitive theocracy in which the Muslim Brotherhood is pitted against more fundamentalist Salafists.

“The question is only which interpretation of the Shariah will be legislated, not whether Egypt will be a theocratic state.”

The FJP and the hard-line Salafist Nour Party won two-thirds of the seats in recent parliamentary elections and now dominate the constituent assembly tasked with writing Egypt’s new constitution.

The prospect of unchecked Islamist control has frightened secular Egyptians as well as the country’s large Coptic Christian community, which has faced escalating violence over the past year.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this week that U.S. officials “want to see Egypt move forward in a democratic transition, and what that means is you do not and cannot discriminate against religious minorities, women, political opponents.”

Egypt’s Islamist tide also has sparked concerns in Israel, which has maintained a cold but stable peace with its southern neighbor since 1979.

“The Muslim Brothers will not show mercy to us, they will not give way to us, but I hope they will keep the peace,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday. “It is important for us, but I think that it is also important for Egypt.”

Despite Mr. Dardery’s statements Thursday, many analysts remain skeptical about the Brotherhood’s true intentions.

Trouble in the Sinai

“Their discourse back at home about Israel being an enemy is consistent with where they have been all along, and I don’t think we should expect any change,” said Steven Cook, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “The Struggle for Egypt.”

“I think their hope is that they can put [the peace treaty] to the side at least for the moment, but the fact that they called for this referendum, the fact that they’ve used this issue makes it hard to believe that they wouldn’t bow to any political pressure [on Israel].”

Israel has had tense relations with Egypt’s military council, which the Jewish state says has not done enough to prevent terrorists from operating in the Sinai Peninsula.

Early Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu warned that the Sinai is becoming a “terror zone” after a rocket fired from the territory struck the southern Israeli resort city of Eilat. No injuries were reported.

The prospect of a further deterioration in relations between the two countries would raise difficult questions for Washington, which has given Egypt roughly $2 billion in aid annually since 1979.

“If they no longer respect agreements reached under previous governments, then they’re not a country worthy of our support,” said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Middle East and South Asia subcommittee.

But Mr. Ackerman, echoing a now-common school of thought in Washington, told The Times that Mr. Shater’s candidacy might be a positive development given the alternative.

“If I was writing the morning line on who can beat the Salafists, it’s the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said. “And if I have to choose between horrible and not that great, I’ll take not that great.”

Susan Crabtree contributed to this report.

As a Side Note:

A 1991 document written by U.S. MB leader Mohammed Akram (a.k.a. Mohammed Adlouni)explains the goal of the Brotherhood in America, which he identifies as “settlement:”

The general strategic goal of the Brotherhood in America which was approved bythe Shura [Leadership] Council and the Organizational Conference for 1987 is“enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and sta-ble Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observantMuslim base; aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts; presents Islam as acivilization alternative; and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.” …Thepriority that is approved by the Shura Council for the work of the Brotherhood inits current and former session is “Settlement.”

The document goes on to explain that “settlement” is a form of jihad aimed at destroying Westerncivilization from within and allowing for the victory of Islam over other religions:The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist process” with all that the wordmeans. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sab-otaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so thatit is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have notprepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and workwherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is noescape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slack-ers and the Mujahidin be equal.

In another part of the document titled “The Process of Settlement,” the author explains that forthe Brotherhood’s goals to be accomplished, it is necessary to have a strong organizational base:In order for Islam and its Movement to become “a part of the homeland” in whichit lives, “stable” in its land, “rooted” in the spirits and minds of its people,“enabled” in the life of its society, [with] firmly established “organizations” onwhich the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization isachieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain “the keys” and the toolsof this process in carrying out this grand mission as a “Civilization-Jihadist”responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and—on top of them—theMuslim Brotherhood in this country….”

Read the entire PDF here Muslim Brotherhood of the United States

Related Material:

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Charm Offensive in Washington

United States of America (USA) vs Holy Land Foundations (HLF) Trial

The Muslim Brotherhood

Al Jazeera and Qatar: The Muslim Brothers’ Dark Empire?

CAIR and the HLF Connection

Egypt and The Muslim Brotherhood-STRATFOR

Extremism and CAIR

Gaza -Exporting Terrorism

Hamas

Muslim Students Association

MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATION — MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY (MSA MSU)

Our Savior Has Arrived

The Muslim Brotherhood and the Egyptian Crisis

Portrait of Sheikh Dr. Yusuf Abdallah Qaradawi Senior Sunni Muslim Cleric, Affiliated With the Muslim Brotherhood

The Investigative Project on Terrorism CAIR Statement Analysis

2012/03/28

Obama’s Support for Pro-Islamist Syrian Opposition and the Duplicity of Turkey

View this document on Scribd

2012/03/27

Whitewashing Islamic Terror in Toulouse

View this document on Scribd

2012/03/19

Protestors Decry Presentation on “Islamophobia” at JCC

Source Article Link Arutz Sheva

Protestors Decry Presentation on “Islamophobia” at JCC

Over 30 protestors gathered in front of the JCC in Manhattan to express their outrage over a forum entitled “Combating Islamophobia.”

By Phyllis Chesler & Fern Sidman

Protest against IslamophobiaOn Wednesday evening, March 14th ,over 30 protestors representing both Jewish and human rights organizations gathered in front of the Jewish Community Center on Manhattan’s upper west side to express their outrage over a forum entitled “Combating Islamophobia.”

Moderated by former first daughter Chelsea Clinton, the panelists included Rabbi Marc Schneier, co-founder of the Foundation For Ethnic Understanding, which fosters “twinning” programs between mosques and synagogues and Imam Shamsi-Ali, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Cultural Center of New York and the chairman of the Al-Hikmah mosque in Astoria.

Holding aloft signs and banners reading “What Are Muslims Doing for Peace???”, “Burning Churches, Honor Murdering Women. Where is the Muslim Protest?”, “Sharia Equals Death”, “Since 9/11, Radical Islamists Committed 11,961 Attacks, Killed 75,038, Injured 115,255”, “Wake Up! Islam’s Goal: Destruction of Our Way of Life”, “Stop Billions of Saudi Oil Monet Funding Worldwide Radical Islamic Intolerance and Terror”, “The Right of Jews to a Jewish State in Israel,” “The Right of Muslims to Convert to Other Religions,” the protestors took aim at what they perceived to be the hypocrisy that this event represented.

Narain Kataria, the President of the Indian American Intellectual Forum, declared, “We should not be talking about Islamophobia but about whether Islam is a religion of peace. This should be debated all over the country. We Hindus have suffered at the hands of radical Islamists. I believe that somehow the organizers of the conference on Islamophobia have been either heavily funded or misguided by Muslim organizations into believing that Islam if the religion of peace.”

Joining Kataria was protestor Dr. Arish Sahani who declared, “Shame on our intellectuals! Why don’t they teach their students that for 1400 years Muslims have been persecuting non-Muslims?”

Helen Freedman, the executive director of Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), said, “The JCC, in sponsoring ‘Combating Islamophobia’, is suggesting that it is un-American to fear Islam. Our liberal upbringing causes us to be offended by the accusation that we are racist when it comes to Islam, but isn’t there ample justification for concern about a political agenda disguised as a religion which promotes hatred of infidels and women? The radical, militant, hate-filled Islam that has spread across the world, butchering and maiming millions in its path, deserves to be feared and eradicated.”

Speaking of the recent controversy that has swirled around New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for authorizing police surveillance of mosques in the New York area and for using the documentary entitled “The Third Jihad” as a training tool for his department, protestor Marion Dreyfus, addressed the gathering passionately, “Commissioner Kelly is defending us. He should not be castigated. He should be admired and supported.”

(On the JCC panel, Imam Shamsi Ali, a very soft-spoken Indonesian, called for Muslim consultants to supervise the training materials for the NYPD where terrorism is concerned).

Continue reading the entire article at Arutz Sheva

2012/03/08

Detecting Terrorist Surveillance

Source Article Link: STRATFOR

Detecting Terrorist Surveillance

By Scott Stewart

As we noted last week, terrorist attacks do not materialize out of thin air. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Those planning terrorist attacks follow a discernable process referred to as the terrorist attack cycle. We also discussed last week how terrorism planners are vulnerable to detection at specific points during their attack cycle and how their poor surveillance tradecraft is one of these vulnerable junctures.

While surveillance is a necessary part of the planning process, the fact that it is a requirement does not necessarily mean that terrorist planners are very good at it. With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at surveillance and discuss what bad surveillance looks like.

Eyes on a Potential Target

As noted above, surveillance is an integral part of the terrorist planning process for almost any type of attack, although there are a few exceptions to this rule, like letter-bomb attacks. The primary objective of surveillance is to assess a potential target for value, security measures and vulnerabilities. Some have argued that physical surveillance has been rendered obsolete by the Internet, but from an operational standpoint, there simply is no substitute for having eyes on the potential target — even more so if a target is mobile. A planner is able to see the location of a building and its general shape on Google Earth, but Google Earth does not provide the planner with the ability to see what the building’s access controls are like, the internal layout of the building or where the guards are located and what procedures they follow.

The amount of time devoted to the surveillance process will vary depending on the type of operation. A complex operation involving several targets and multiple teams, such as the 9/11 operation or 2008 Mumbai attacks, will obviously require more planning (and more surveillance) than a rudimentary pipe-bomb attack against a stationary soft target. Such complex operations may require weeks or even months of surveillance, while a very simple operation may require only a few minutes. The amount of surveillance required for most attacks will fall somewhere between these two extremes. Regardless of the amount of time spent observing the target, almost all terrorist planners will conduct surveillance and they are vulnerable to detection during this time.

Given that surveillance is so widely practiced, it is amazing that, in general, those conducting surveillance as part of a terrorist plot are usually terrible at it. There are some exceptions, of course. Many of the European Marxist terrorist groups trained by the KGB and Stasi practiced very good surveillance tradecraft, but such sophisticated surveillance is the exception rather than the rule.

The term “tradecraft” is often used in describing surveillance technique. Tradecraft is an espionage term that refers to techniques and procedures used in the field, but the term also implies that effectively practicing these techniques and procedures requires a bit of finesse. Tradecraft skills tend to be as much art as they are science, and surveillance tradecraft is no exception. As with any other art, you can be taught the fundamentals, but it takes time and practice to become a skilled surveillance practitioner. Most individuals involved in terrorist planning simply do not devote the time necessary to master the art of surveillance, and because of this, they display terrible technique, use sloppy procedures and generally lack finesse when they are conducting surveillance.

The main reason that people planning terrorist attacks are able to get by with such a poor level of surveillance tradecraft is because most victims simply are not looking for them. Most people do not practice situational awareness, something we are going to discuss in more detail next week. For those who do practice good situational awareness, the poor surveillance tradecraft exhibited by those planning terrorist attacks is good news. It provides them time to avoid an immediate threat and contact the authorities.

Keying on Demeanor

The behavior a person displays to those watching him or her is called demeanor. In order to master the art of surveillance tradecraft, one needs to master the ability to display appropriate demeanor for whatever situation one is in. Practicing good demeanor is not intuitive. In fact, the things one has to do to maintain good demeanor while conducting surveillance frequently run counter to human nature. Because of this, intelligence, law enforcement and security professionals assigned to work surveillance operations receive extensive training that includes many hours of heavily critiqued practical exercises, often followed by field training with a team of experienced surveillance professionals. This training teaches and reinforces good demeanor. Terrorist operatives typically do not receive this type of training — especially those who are grassroots or lone wolf militants.

At its heart, surveillance is watching someone while attempting not to be caught doing so. As such, it is an unnatural activity, and a person doing it must deal with strong feelings of self-consciousness and of being out of place. People conducting surveillance frequently suffer from what is called “burn syndrome,” the belief that the people they are watching have spotted them. Feeling “burned” will cause surveillants to do unnatural things, such as hiding their faces or suddenly ducking back into a doorway or turning around abruptly when they unexpectedly come face to face with the person they are watching.

People inexperienced in the art of surveillance find it difficult to control this natural reaction. A video that recently went viral on the Internet shows the husband of the president of Finland getting caught staring down the blouse of a Danish princess. The man’s reaction to being caught by the princess was a textbook example of the burn syndrome. Even experienced surveillance operatives occasionally have the feeling of being burned; the difference is they have received a lot of training and they are better able to control their reaction and behave normally despite the feeling of being burned. They are able to maintain a normal-looking demeanor while their insides are screaming that the person they are watching has seen them.

In addition to doing something unnatural or stupid when feeling burned, another very common mistake made by amateurs when conducting surveillance is the failure to get into proper “character” for the job or, when in character, appearing in places or carrying out activities that are incongruent with the character’s “costume.” The terms used to describe these role-playing aspects of surveillance are “cover for status” and “cover for action.” Cover for status is a person’s purported identity — his costume. A person can pretend to be a student, a businessman, a repairman, etc. Cover for action explains why the person is doing what he or she is doing — why that guy has been standing on that street corner for half an hour.

The purpose of using good cover for action and cover for status is to make the presence of the person conducting the surveillance look routine and normal. When done right, the surveillance operative fits in with the mental snapshot subconsciously taken by the target as the target goes about his or her business. Inexperienced people who conduct surveillance frequently do not use proper (if any) cover for action or cover for status, and they can be easily detected.

An example of bad cover for status would be someone dressed as “a businessman” walking in the woods or at the beach. An example of bad cover for action is someone pretending to be sitting at a bus stop who remains at that bus stop even after several buses have passed. For the most part, however, inexperienced operatives conducting surveillance practice little or no cover for action or cover for status. They just lurk and look totally out of place. There is no apparent reason for them to be where they are or doing what they are doing.

In addition to plain old lurking, other giveaways include a person moving when the target moves, communicating when the target moves, avoiding eye contact with the target, making sudden turns or stops, or even using hand signals to communicate with other members of a surveillance team or criminal gang. Surveillants also can tip off the person they are watching by entering or leaving a building immediately after the person they are watching or simply by running in street clothes.

Sometimes, people who are experiencing the burn syndrome exhibit almost imperceptible behaviors that the target can sense more than observe. It may not be something that can be articulated, but the target just gets the gut feeling that there is something wrong or odd about the way a certain person is behaving toward them. Innocent bystanders who are not watching someone usually do not exhibit this behavior or trigger these feelings.

Principles of Surveillance Detection

The U.S. government often uses the acronym “TEDD” to illustrate the principles that can be used to identify surveillance conducted by counterintelligence agencies, but these same principles also can be used to identify terrorist surveillance. TEDD stands for time, environment, distance and demeanor. In other words, if a person sees someone repeatedly over time, in different environments and at a distance, or someone who displays poor surveillance demeanor, then that person can assume he or she is under surveillance.

However, for an individual, TEDD is really only relevant if you are being specifically targeted for an attack. In such an instance, you will likely be exposed to the time, environment and distance elements. However, if the target of the attack is a subway car or a building you work in rather than you as an individual, you likely will not have an opportunity to make environment and distance correlations, and perhaps not even time. You will likely only have the demeanor of the surveillant to key on. Therefore, when we are talking about recognizing surveillance, demeanor is the most critical of the four elements. Demeanor also works in tandem with all the other elements, and poor demeanor will often help the target spot the surveillant at a different time and place or in a different environment.

Time, environment and distance also have little bearing in an instance like the Fort Hood shooting, where the assailant is an insider, works at a facility and has solid cover for action and cover for status. In such instances, demeanor is also critical in identifying bad intent.

The fact that operatives conducting surveillance over an extended period can change their clothing and wear hats, wigs or other light disguises — and use different vehicles or license plates — also demonstrates why watching for mistakes in demeanor is critical. Because of a surveillant’s ability to make superficial changes in appearance, it is important to focus on the things that cannot be changed as easily as clothing or hair, such as a person’s facial features, build, mannerisms and gait. Additionally, while a surveillant can change the license plate on a car, it is not as easy to alter other aspects of the vehicle such as body damage (scratches and dents). Paying attention to small details can be the difference between a potential attacker being identified and the attacker going unnoticed.

One technique that can be helpful in looking for people conducting long-term surveillance is to identify places that provide optimal visibility of a critical place the surveillant would want to watch (for example, the front door of a potential target’s residence or office, or a choke point on a route the potential target frequently travels). It is also important to look for places that provide optimal visibility, or “perches” in surveillance jargon. Elevated perches tend to be especially effective since surveillance targets rarely look up. Perches should be watched for signs of hostile surveillance, such as people who don’t belong there, people lurking, or people making more subtle demeanor mistakes.

Paying attention to the details of what is happening around you (what we call practicing good situational awareness) does not mean being paranoid or obsessively concerned about security. Living in a state of paranoia and looking for a terrorist behind every bush not only is dangerous to one’s physical and mental health but also results in poor security. We are going to talk more about practicing a healthy and sustainable level of situational awareness next week.

2012/03/07

The Anti-Islamist Muslim Voice

For the individuals who have been asking for such a group for many years, this has been long overdue. I ask all those who love freedom and not the tyranny that comes from an Islamic Theocratic Ruling Class under Shari’a Law, support this group..Walt

Source Article Link: PJ Media

Where are the responsible Muslims? Supporting the NYPD in Manhattan today.

Written By Phyllis Chesler

Mention terrorism and Islam in the same breath and instant accusations of “Islamophobia” and “racism” are sure to follow.

Ever since 9/11, when 19 Arab-Muslims hijacked three airplanes in the name of Islam to murder 3,000 civilians in New York and Washington, D.C., Americans have been told that Muslims are really the victims and that we must consult with Muslim groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) to be further enlightened.

As of today, this is no longer true. A new organization of Muslim voices has finally arisen. From now on, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition (AILC) is the Muslim group with whom government leaders, media, academics, and human rights groups must now consult.

The AILC assembled this bright and chilly morning at 1 Police Plaza in New York City to demonstrate their support for the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and their right to see the films The Third Jihad and Act of Valor, both of which portray real terrorist attacks.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former Navy physician and a religious Muslim who founded AILC in 2010, said that his group felt compelled to come here “to support the NYPD, given the relentless and unfair pummeling they have endured by Islamist groups.” He insisted: “We, as Muslims, should be monitoring extremism,” not “grievance mongering.” Dr. Jasser pointed out that “80 percent of terrorist arrests are of Muslims. We are only 1% of the population.” He suggested that “Muslims start taking responsibility instead of charging ‘Islamophobia.’”

He continued, “The more we exaggerate necessary monitoring, the more we will inflame Muslims and Islamists. Where are the responsible Muslims? Here we are.”

The AILC is not an Islamist Muslim voice. It is an anti-Islamist Muslim voice. It is pro-West, pro-human rights, and anti-terrorism. Many of its members express thanks to

America for given them refuge from Islamist regimes. Others born here view their native country as a universal beacon for liberty and freedom.

Composed of a diverse group of American and Canadian Muslim leaders, AILC condemns the role that the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, Wahhabism, and other pro-Shari’a groups have played in North America and Europe.

Canadian Tarek Fatah, a founding member of both the AILC and the Muslim Canadian Congress, addressed the media. He said that the NYPD “is one of the major fighters against Muslim terrorists. To CAIR, I say: We are Muslims too. Who gave you the right to speak on our behalf? The Muslim Student Association (MSA) keeps turning out terrorists like Aafia Siddiqui and Anwar al-Awlaki. They should be investigated. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to destroy Western civilization. I say: It ain’t gonna happen.”

Manda Zand Ervin, a founding member of both AILC and the Alliance for Iranian Women, said: “I ran away from Islamists. I am grateful to be here. I am disappointed that American feminists and elites have decided to support Islamists and that academia has chosen to stay above the fray. Muslim men in America are demanding shari’a law so that they can subjugate and beat their wives here with impunity.”

 Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the author of 14 books and an emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She once lived in Kabul, Afghanistan. She may be reached through her website www.phyllis-chesler.com.

Continue Reading the entire article at PJ Media

Permission was given by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and PJ Media to post this article.

A Liberal vs. Multiculturalism: An Interview with Salim Mansur

Source Article Link: PJ Media

A dissident Muslim confronts the Sharia apologists.

Written By Phyllis Chesler

Recently, PJM sat down with professor and author Salim Mansur, whose latest book I reviewed here.

In this interview, Salim describes himself as a “Muslim dissident” and he challenges all those who describe themselves as “moderate” Muslims. Unlike many “moderate” Muslims, Salim is opposed to a shariah-compliant nation and believes that religion and state must be separate in order for modernity, human rights, scientific inquiry, and democracy to flourish. He says so, below, in his own words. He also has strong words to say about immigration and Canada’s multicultural policy. Born in Calcutta, India, Salim arrived in Canada in the spring of 1974.

Phyllis Chesler: Tell us about what you do.

Salim Mansur: I am a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. London is mid-way between Toronto and Detroit. I have been at Western since 1990. As you know, I have published two books: Delectable Lie: a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism (2011), and Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim (2009). I also write as a freelance national columnist for the Sun Media in Canada, and my weekly columns are published in the Toronto Sunand syndicated across Canada.

P: You may note that I did not indicate what your religion was or currently is in my review of your book. I did not do so because the work stands on its own merit, and does not have to be framed as the work of a “Muslim dissident.” But how would you describe yourself in terms of religious identity?

S: I am a Muslim by faith, a Sunni Muslim, and raised by my parents in the mainstream of the majority Hanafi madhab or school of Sunni Islam. But as many of my generation of Muslims, my parents sent me to an English middle school run by Catholic priests, and this upbringing and education taught me to be open to the world around me.

P: And how about your intellectual identity?

S: I am a liberal or, more precisely, I would say a classical liberal. I believe in freedom, individual freedom based on individual rights, and I view the struggle for freedom as the defining element in the making of the modern world.

P: Are you, or have you been, politically active? Which political party do you support, or with which political party are you affiliated?

S: I am not at present politically active. But I was for sometime, and I did stand for a parliamentary seat as an officially nominated candidate in the 2000 Canadian federal election. I was nominated by the Canadian Alliance but I did not win the seat I contested. Canadian Alliance was a center-right conservative party, and at the time of the 2000 election it was the main opposition party in Ottawa. Later the Canadian Alliance merged with the Progressive Conservatives to form the Conservative Party of Canada under the leadership of Stephen Harper, the current prime minister of Canada.

Read the entire interview at PJ Media

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the author of 14 books and an emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies. She once lived in Kabul, Afghanistan. She may be reached through her website www.phyllis-chesler.com.
Permission was given by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and PJ Media to post this article

2011/12/06

Muslim Brotherhood Confessions

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

Muslim Brotherhood Confessions

By Raymond Ibrahim

The online version of the long-running Arabic journal Ruz al-Yusif carries an exclusive interview with Sheikh Osama al-Qusi entitled, “Former Salafi: Salafis Have Distorted Islam.” In the interview, Qusi discusses the “true thoughts” of the various Islamic groups, which “they conceal under a political mask”; he insists they have “distorted and exploited” Islam.

What he says concerning the Muslim Brotherhood and its methods of indoctrination and subversion are particularly noteworthy—notwithstanding Obama’s Director of National Intelligence’s assurances that the Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization.

First, about Sheikh al-Qusi. He spent the last 39 years in different Islamic organizations in Egypt—beginning with the Brotherhood in the 1970s and ending with the more extreme Salafis. He still claims to be, not just a Muslim, but a Salafi—a sincere follower of “pure” Islam, as dictated by its prophet Muhammad. But he maintains that all Islamic groups are “manipulating” Islam for their own political ambitions. Accordingly, he “announced his break and washed his hands of them all, refusing to be a merchant of religion.” If laudable, some of his positions are unorthodox, for instance, that it ispermissible to have a Christian or female for a leader.

When asked to discuss “how it all began” for him, Qusi reminisced:

In the beginning, one is a born Muslim; then you begin to be lured, from whence, you do not know.

I was a medical student in the 1970s and the Muslim Brotherhood lured me to them from within the university. Nor did I even realize they were the Brotherhood. Anwar Sadat was president during this time, when he committed his greatest mistake—a mistake he paid for with his life. Not that he released these groups from the prisons after [his predecessor] Abdul Nasser had incarcerated them; but rather for giving them the green light to work in all fields of Egyptian society, thinking he would use them to get rid of his Socialist and Communist opponents. So he permitted them to work in trade unions, school unions—giving them every opportunity to hold official positions [Emphasis added].

As a student I had noticed that some of my fellow classmates were considerably older, eventually realizing they were former prison inmates. They began to distribute hand-written copies of Sayyid Qutb’s books, which were banned at the time. And we thought that they were heroes, imprisoned for their commitment and intellectual rigor, persecuted by the regime for their patriotism. Unfortunately, they greatly influenced us, since, at the time, we did not know how to differentiate truth from falsehood in regards to the ideas, principles, and pronouncements they exposed us to—to the point that religion and politics became one and the same for us. This was the beginning of my deviation.

When asked how he would describe the Muslim Brotherhood, Qusi cautiously answered: “All these organizations—without exception—are not without radicalism.”

Here, then, is firsthand testimonial from someone closely affiliated with the Brotherhood on how born Muslims can be lured and indoctrinated from within—and all in a very legal, peaceful manner. Sadat’s fault was less that he freed the Brotherhood, more that he allowed them legitimacy.

Qusi went on to discuss how these groups learned that the assassination of Sadat and the strikes of 9/11 were nothing to celebrate, to the point that some of those involved renounced these acts, having learned that stealth and patience are more effective than open warfare, which only brings unwanted attention.

All this is a warning to the West, where Muslim organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group, implement the strategy their parent organization has perfected over the course of decades—incrementally subverting free societies from within.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

2011/12/01

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

The Obama administration’s censoring of photographs of the late Osama bin Laden, lest they “offend” Muslims, is one thing; but what about censoring words, especially those pivotal to U.S. security?

Weeks earlier, the Daily Caller revealed that “the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.”

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.  In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim PublicAffairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.  Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.  Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.  In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Accordingly, after discussing the matter with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.  They will not be tolerated.”

Even before these Muslim complaints and threats, President Obama alluded to censoring words when he said soon after taking office: “Words matter … because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [“war on terror”] is through the battle of [Muslims’] hearts and minds” (followed by oddities like commissioning NASA to make Muslims “feel good” about themselves).

As if there were not already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies—including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College—the administration’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters.  Last year’s QDR, a strategic document, does not mention anything remotely related to Islam—even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.

This attempt to whitewash Islam certainly has precedents, such as a 2008 government memo that not only warned against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims, but tried to justify such censorship as follows:

Never use the terms “jihadist”  or “mujahideen” in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means “striving in the path of God” and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions [emphasis added].

Aside from the fact that the above definitions are highly misleading, the notion that the words we use can ever have an impact on what is and is not legitimate for Muslims is ludicrous:  Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government—that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel—to define Islam for them. For Muslims, only Sharia determines right and wrong.

The U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims and worry more about providing its intelligence community—not to mention its own citizenry—with accurate knowledge concerning the nature of the threat.

Without words related to Islam, how are analysts to make sense of the current conflict?  What are the goals and motivations of the “jihadists”?  What are their methods?  Who might be “radicalizing” them?  Whom are they affiliated to?  Who supports them?  These and a host of other questions are unintelligible without free use of words related to Islam.

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic the language, the less precise the knowledge; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the current conflict, to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam—starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission to a worldview based on Sharia, a code of law antithetical to Western common law. It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine—without fear of reprisal, such as when counter-terrorism strategist Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for focusing on Islamic doctrine and therefore being politically incorrect. In short, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum—“Know thy enemy”—seriously.

2011/11/28

Illinois State Government’s Muslim Brotherhood Love Affair

Source Link: FrontPageMag

Illinois State Government’s Muslim Brotherhood Love Affair

By Ryan Mauro

The Muslim Brotherhood’s stated objective in the U.S. is to “wage a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” This is done through thinly-disguised front organizations with credentials as “moderates” that can win the affection of the media and officials. These fronts’ relationship with the government of the state of Illinois is a perfect example of this strategy’s success.

On August 30, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn announced who would serve on his newly-created Muslim American Advisory Council.  Among those chosen were Ahmed Rehab and Safaa Zarzour. The former is the National Strategic Communications Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Executive-Director of its Chicago chapter. The latter is the secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and is the chairman of CAIR-Chicago’s board. ISNA is listed in the Brotherhood’s own documents as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

Both CAIR and ISNA are Muslim Brotherhood fronts and are listed by the federal government as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, which was shut down for financing Hamas. CAIR’s founders belonged to the Islamic Association for Palestine, which was also shut down as a front for Hamas. The two organizations went to court to get their designations lifted, but a judge determined that the government provided “ample evidence” connecting them to Hamas to justify the labels.

In 2007, the federal government said that, “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists” and “the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.” In 2009, the FBI ended its outreach programs with CAIR because of the evidence of its involvement with Hamas.

The well-documented and well-publicized evidence of CAIR and ISNA’s involvement with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood has not stopped Illinois Governor Quinn and other officials from courting them. After all, opponents of the Brotherhood fronts are subject to being called “Islamophobes. As Quinn said in his announcement of his Muslim American Advisory Council, Illinois has “more than 400,000 Muslims and 300 mosques” and that’s a lot of voters.

“I congratulate CAIR-Chicago on another successful year of serving the needs of the Muslim population in Illinois, and for working toward ensuring justice and civil rights for all the communities you serve,” Quinn said in an email in March. Circuit County Clerk Dorothy Brown and Attorney General Lisa Madigan also complimented the group.

The website of CAIR-Chicago lists endorsements from the Secretary of State, five Democratic members of Congress, four mayors including that of Chicago, and various other officials in the state. It even includes praise from the superintendent of the Chicago Police Department and the Springfield FBI office’s Special Agent in Charge. Another Democratic Congressman, Mike Quigley of the 5th district, apologized to Muslims “on behalf of this country for discrimination you have faced” in September, playing into the theme of anti-Muslim hysteria and victimization the Islamists constantly use.

This isn’t the first time that Illinois officials have embraced terror-tied Muslim Brotherhood members. In December 2009, Imam Kifah Mustapha was appointed as the state police’s first Muslim chaplain. He, like CAIR and ISNA, was labeled as an “unindicted co-conspirator” by the federal government in the Holy Land trial. Documents introduced into court show that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s secret “Palestine Committee” to support Hamas in the U.S.

As a registered agent of the Holy Land Foundation, he raised the Hamas front hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The HLF sponsored his band, al-Sakhra, which performed songs supporting Hamas, jihad and violence against Israel. He also sat on the board of directors of the Hamas front named the Islamic Association of Palestine. CAIR also enjoys his support as a major fundraiser.

The Illinois State Police fired him in June 2010 as their chaplain after it Mustapha’s extremism was reported on. CAIR-Chicago immediately responded with a lawsuit accusing the State Police of McCarthyism and “fear-mongering and anti-Muslim rhetoric that has senselessly engulfed our nation.”

He has been the imam at the Mosque Foundation of Bridgeview since 2002, which was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1970s after it wrested control from moderate Muslims. It quickly began promoting extremism, including Hamas, suicide bombings and speaking out against assimilation.

Shockingly, despite all of the incriminating facts about Mustapha, he was given a six-week tour of FBI facilities including its main training center and the National Counterterrorism Center in September 2010 as part of its outreach campaign. A local news report said that “he pushed agents to fully explain everything from the bureau’s use of deadly force policy to radical and ethnic profiling.” The FBI responded to the outrage by saying his involvement posed no risk.

Far too many of the Prairie State’s officials have been swindled by the Muslim Brotherhood and the voters of Illinois need to hold them accountable. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and all of the officials whose public endorsements are proudly published on CAIR-Chicago’s website should be embarrassed and hopefully, replaced.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

The below article is written by Joseph Haba, a reader of The American Kafir,  used the articles as a comment to several articles here.. I find it an excellent read and quite factual concerning the relationship of France, Islamic Ideology and the United States. I hope you will enjoy it as well. Walt

ARE AMERICAN POLITICIANS STILL IN THE STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT FRENCH THREAT?

By Joseph Haba
October 2, 2011

Politicians today believe they are good for the people. While they become multibillionaires, the population becomes extremely poor as they suffer humiliation in the hands of self-serving politicians. To humiliate people, politicians attack the economic power of ordinary people. Next, they engineer social injustice, social division, and interest groups to create enmity and distrust among the constituents. Finally, they enshrine psychological concepts of superiority for the wealthy and inferiority for the poor. In his gripping account of terror, Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef who is one of the founding leaders of Hamas (a terrorist organization) wrote, “A moderate Muslim is actually more dangerous than a fundamentalist, however, because he appears to be harmless, and you can never tell when he has taken that step toward the top. Most suicide bombers began as moderates” (p. 12). Are moderate Muslim in the world ready to join American enemies to attach America one day from this comment? This author was a terrorist who is now a born again Christian.

The relationship between the United States and France, for most scholars and those who care about the United States appears to be harmless, and American politicians can never tell when France has taken the step to attack the United States. However, my research has proved that France is more dangerous than any terrorist organization for the following reasons:

AMERICA’S KINDNESS IS THROWN AWAY UPON EVIL FRENCH POLITICIANS AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES

The United States politicians and the media have not told Americans that France is a viper numb with cold and out of perceived friendship. France is placed in America’s bossom. However, sooner will France be capable of uniting the whole world against the United States, France will turn upon its benefactor and inflict a fatal bite upon Americans. The warning signs are there.

First France has to stifle the United States army by creating conflicts and involving the United States. For example, “In May 1950, President Harry S. Truman authorized a modest program of economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, including Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam. When the Vietnamese Nationalist (and Communist-led) Vietminh army defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, the French were compelled to accede to the creation of a Communist Vietnam north of the 17th parallel while leaving a non-Communist entity south of that line.” Was it necessary for the United States to help France to retain control of its colonies?… And everyone knows how the Vietnam war ended.

France has to prevent the United States from getting lucrative markets, and France will continue to do everything to immobilize the United States economic power. For example, “With the end of the Cold War the list of disagreements between the USA and France increased. France and the USA clashed about the liberalisation of cultural goods, knowing both that the spread of culture goes with that of values and economic powership. They clashed again about NATO’s strategies and leadership, in 1996, and again for the appointment of the new UN Secretary-General, after B. Boutros-Ghali.” France has been dismembering American business in Africa, and the French consider the United States as a threat to their national security. According to French officials, “US threat is a genuine concern for French authorities, as admitted by Michel Roussin, then Minister of Co-operation : a series of meetings were held at the highest levels of the French Government, in 1993-1994, to discuss strategies to defend French interests against those of the US. While visiting Gabon in July 1995, President Jacques Chirac verbally attacked “the Anglosaxons (who) dream of pushing France out of its position in Africa without paying a price”.

Finally, and maybe most important, France uses American officials to weaken and undermine American security For example, Barack Obama has declared that France is America’s greatest ally, yet France exported nuclear technology to Iran, according to U.S. intelligence reports, which had an active nuclear weapons program at least until 2003. France also sold nuclear technology to Pakistan (www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/…/nuclear-power-in-france-setting.pdfSimilar). “U.S. intelligence officials claimed Pakistan was a key supplier of uranium enrichment technology to North Korea, and some media reports suggested that Pakistan had exchanged centrifuge enrichment technology for North Korean help in developing longer range missiles” France also delivered and built Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq that was bombed by Israel in 1981. “France’s Areva nuclear engineering firm said it would sell China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp. 20,000 tons of uranium over a decade. The contract is worth around $3.5 billion dollars.”

For French President Nicolas Sarkozy, nuclear reactors are the bridge between the West and the Islamic world… Since December, Sarkozy has signed deals with or offered nuclear technical advice to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco.” “France hopes to sell a nuclear power station to Libya in 2010…French firms also want to gain access to Libya’s massive unexploited oil reserves, as do the rest of the world’s oil companies. France has a 1.3 billion-euro trade deficit with Libya, mainly due to oil imports.” “French nuclear scientist with involvement with a terrorist group Monday, opening a formal investigation into his suspected links with Al-Qaeda in North Africa” (http://www.rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5467.asp). More troubling, “Did you know Obama is using your tax dollars to support pro-Al Qaeda brigades in Libya?”

What does it mean for France to sell nuclear technology to countries that support terrorists? First, it allows France to have many friends while America’s enemies are emboldened. Second, Muslims who want to attack westerns will consider France as their protectors against the United States. As a result, more Americans will be trying to fight emboldened enemies as billions of dollars are spent for war on terror and thousands of Americans are killed and wounded. In addition, many tourists will not consider the United States as their destination for vacation, and many investors will prefer doing businesses elsewhere, but the United States. America will continue to spend her time defending itself against enemies while French people continue to create jobs for the French people. Should we say that all of these are making the United States to lose millions of jobs? Should Americans care? Do you understand why France was against President Bush for the Iraq war?

Many Americans don’t know that by 2050 Muslim leaders will be ruling Europe because the number of Muslims will be more than the number of White Europeans. Europeans know this and they are doing their best to befriend them. In the United States, there will be about 26 million Muslims in 2050. If war breaks out between Europe and the United States, will Muslims in the United States support European Muslims? The Qu’ran is clear:

In another development, France has used the United States to remove pro-American presidents from power in Africa. We saw the cases in Guinea and Ivory Coast where France financed Al-Qaido through Muslim rebels, and burning pro-American Christians (See picture). What Americans don’t understand is that if the French occult network, Francafrique, was dismantle, America could create more than 20 million jobs by doing business in Africa. “On top of its mining opportunities, the continent offers interesting agricultural opportunities, “such as the plantations or outgrower production of tea, coffee, cocoa, cotton, sugar, and the like” as well as “some low-tech manufacturing for local markets, such as beer and soft drinks, plastics and cement, and a very limited amount of export manufacturing (eg textile) by subsidiaries of foreign firms, especially under the Lomé Convention which gives African countries special access to European markets” Not only that if American businesses could legally supply weapons, logistical support to courts and police units, training of soldiers and officers, and the organisation and management of “presidential guards” to about 50 countries in Africa. Do you understand the stakes?

FRANCE OPPOSE ENGLISH AND SUPPLY PROSTITUTES TO THEIR ACCOMPLICES

“Pro-French elites in Africa are selected through various means, including the promotion ofFrench language (as opposed to English), in general, and the maintenance of close relations between the main actors, including heads of states. These relations are very similar to those in force in crime syndicates, with the promotion of a fake friendship based on the share out of riches, private meetings involving exchanges of gifts or supply of prostitutes, implying in return a secrecy linking accomplices, and even familial ties, with, for instance, current French President being the godfather of one of Senegalese President Abdou Diouf’s daughters”

2011/11/25

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

Source Link: Family Security Matters

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

By Clare M. Lopez

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan. The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community…” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself. That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah. On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan.

The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community. . . .” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself.

That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah.

On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The Imam featured in the series, Husham Al- Husainy, who marries Jeff, the Catholic who converted to Islam, and Shadia Amen was actually featured on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News back in 2007. Al-Husainy is a radical Muslim who refused to answer Hannity’s questions regarding Hisballah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and instead went on an angry ranting spree.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.

Older Posts »