web analytics
October 23, 2014 / 29 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘boston bombings’

Online Jihadi ‘Mein Kampf’ Urging: ‘Attack Sporting Events’

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

We live in a world profoundly confused about how, when and whether to assign blame when terrorists hurt innocent people.

Did the Tsarnaev brothers maim and murder innocent Americans because Islam instructs them to do so?  That goes further than almost anyone is willing to go.

Did the Tsarnaev brothers detonate bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on April 15th because they were indirectly but clearly instructed to do that by a powerful jihadi strategist, and did that man issue those instructions because he, and many others, believe they were told to do it because Islam insists on it?  That may be the case, whether or not U.S. officials want the connection known.

A man who was involved at the very start of the global jihad movement, who was a colleague as well as strategic rival to Osama bin Laden, whose efforts have been linked to the 7/7 bombings in London, the ’04 train bombings in Madrid, possibly to a Paris metro bombing way back in 1995 and even perhaps to the 09/11 bombings, is certainly someone we all should know about.  And while learning about him, it will be useful to consider whether his legacy connects to the Tsarnaev Boston Terror Bombings. Because by all knowledgeable estimates, this is the man who conceived of, trained others for, and wrote the manual on the modern global Islamic jihadi war against the West.  And the most recent battlefield in that war was the finish line in Boston.

WHO IS THE GRAND STRATEGIST OF MODERN GLOBAL JIHAD?

His name is Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, although he’s also known as abu Musab al Suri (the Syrian).  Perhaps his most significant contributions to the cause of global jihad was his insistence that the old-style al Qaeda, with its rigid hierarchical structure, was a disaster for the movement and had to be jettisoned in favor of a different strategy.  In his 1600 page manifesto, al Suri stressed the need for the global jihadi movement to create a new fighting style focused on “individual terrorism.”

This innovation, also known as “leaderless jihad,” is a strategy designed to escape detection. Al Suri advised followers not to have cells or “brigades” larger than ten members, and ideally the cells would be in the single digits.  He also advocated that jihadists use the Internet and other methods to gather their information to conduct attacks. Those unwilling to embrace his strategy before and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, have now largely become believers, whether by necessity or by revelation.

But perhaps al Suri’s greatest significance to those of us still reeling from the horrors of the Boston Marathon bombings, is advice he offered in this magnum opus, written while on the run between 2001 and 2005, “The Call for Global Islamic Resistance.” It is available online.

In CGIR al Suri urged his followers to select places for terrorist attacks which could produce maximum carnage for minimum cost. For example, he wrote, “sports competitions attract thousands of spectators and television cameras.” He also suggested local sleeper cells focus on oil fields and transportation systems – think of recent events in Algeria and Canada. The CGIR is considered “the textbook of home-grown terrorism”; it has also been referred to as the “Jihadi Mein Kampf.”

The section of CGIR which proposes sports events as a logical, simple, efficient way to pursue jihad against the infidels and bring attention to the cause was reprinted in the Winter 2012 edition of Inspire magazine – a major (and now online) jihadi source for staying current and in touch with the global jihad movement.

On this topic, al Suri’s advice is offered as a discrete article in Issue 9 of Inspire, “The Jihadi Experiences: The Most Important Enemy Targets Aimed at by the Individual Jihad.” He advises that the best way to turn a Western population against their own leaders and towards support for the jihadi cause is through hysteria caused by mass slaughter, amplified by television cameras and other media.

The type of attack, which repels states and topples governments, is mass slaughter of the population. This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas, annual social events, large international exhibitions, crowded marketplaces, sky-scrapers, crowded buildings….

Dr. James Lacey, director of the War Policy and Strategy Program and an instructor at the Marine Corps War College in Quantico, is a former infantry officer and was an embedded journalist.  Lacey’s translation of al Suri’s work, Terrorist’s Call to Global Jihad, was sponsored by the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Terrorism and the Methodology of the Left

Wednesday, May 1st, 2013

The left has a clearly defined set of responses to a terrorist attack. After all the hopes for a properly right wing terrorist have come to naught, it begins the long slow process of rolling back the laws and emotional attitudes stemming from the attack.

For it, terrorism, like anything else, either fits into its narrative or conflicts with it. The narrative defines the world, past, present and future, in terms of the political agenda of the left. An event that clashes with the agenda must have its meaning changed so that the power of the narrative is restored.

Most violent attacks, from a street mugging to September 11, cause people to seek out security by combating the attackers. The left’s task is to shift the narrative so that people see it in an entirely different way. The perpetrators become the victims by the trick of transforming the real victims into the real perpetrators. The lesson shifts from going on the offense to learning not to give offense.

The process is gradual and the playbook is infinite. Weapons of mass distraction are brought out. New villains are introduced and the emotional resonance of the events is drowned in ridicule. The tones are also many, from urging everyone to let love defeat hate to displays of virulent hate against the people “truly” stirring up trouble, but they all share a common agenda. Only the tactics vary.

Unlike the right, the left is systematic. It studies structures and people and plots its lines of attack accordingly. It pits emotion against emotion and law against law. It waits for the initial shock to fade before launching its first wave of attacks over process.

The left’s honest response, the one that shows up on its Twitter feeds and in posts on its own sites, is that the country is overreacting. Some leftists will even be bold enough to say that we had it coming. But its public response is more discreet. It exploits the grief for its own ends, diverting shocked city residents into interfaith memorials, some of which are progressive enough to include denunciations of American foreign policy and vigils for the dead on both sides.

But even here, the left generally restrains itself. It waits until the weeks or months have passed to begin deadening the emotion surrounding the event with sarcastic remarks and jokes until the sacred becomes fully profane. It waits somewhat less time to begin lecturing the country on how our foreign policy made them hate us, knowing that in a contest between the establishment’s narrative of inexplicable Islamic radicalization for unknown reasons and their narrative of American evil, they have the upper hand because they provide a realistic motive and the establishment does not.

Still this too comes later. The left knows that there is a window on human emotion. There is a time when people need to mourn and a time when they will feel a diminishing outrage and even begin to agree with observations whose thrust is that the United States of America is the real terrorist. And so there are things that the left will say on DailyKos and then on Salon that it will not say on CNN or the editorial page of the New York Times.

The editorials explaining how a lack of American support for Chechen independence led to the marathon massacre are coming. They just haven’t splashed ashore in mainstream liberal newspapers yet. Timing is everything and the difference between the left of the counterculture and the left of the culture is that it knows what people will be willing to listen to and when. And it knows where to begin.

Against the horror of the bombing, the left juxtaposes the horror of police state. It pits the fear of terrorists depriving us of our lives and freedoms against the fear of the government doing the same. And considering the history of government abuses, it does not take long for this line of argument to make a compelling emotional dent in the responses of even many ordinary people to the attacks.

The left begins by raising all sorts of procedural questions about how law enforcement and the military are treating the enemy. It develops a burning conviction that our civil rights are the only thing about the country worth keeping. It hammers away at any law enforcement or military mistake, no matter how minor, and collects these together to amass a narrative of the police state.

Call it What it is: Islamic Terrorism

Monday, April 29th, 2013

A growing problem, the radicalization of Muslim youth, all too often gets brushed off as a Western problem: specifically, being racist toward Muslims, and making them feel alienated and angry .

Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] have thwarted a terrorism plot – one that enlisted the help of al Qaeda in Iran — to derail a VIA Rail passenger train. A combined effort between the RCMP, Toronto and Montreal Police and the FBI led to the arrest of two men on terrorism charges: 35 year old Raed Jaser of Toronto and 30 year old Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal. This news comes on the heels of the double bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and injured more than 170. Among the dead was an 8 year old boy.

Meanwhile an international manhunt is underway for a fourth young man in London, Ontario wanted for questioning in the terrorist attack on an Algerian gas plant back in January. Libyan born Mujahid Enderi, who goes by the name of Ryan, is being investigated by authorities, along with three Londoners – Aaron Yoon, Ali Medlej and Xristos Katsiroubas – also implicated in the terror attack. The latter two, both age 24, were among the 29 militants killed in the four-day siege and hostage-taking in Algeria that claimed the lives of 37 hostages.

In yet another case, Somali and Canadian security forces are now probing whether or not a former York University student was part of a team of suicide bombers last Sunday who stormed a courthouse in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, killing and injuring dozens. A separate car bomb targeted Turkish aid workers. Mahad Ali Dhore grew up and studied in the greater Toronto area and is reportedly one of the nine Al Shabab militants involved in the well planned attack.

Despite these recent acts of terrorism against innocent citizens, excuses were made that blamed the victims and exonerated the perpetrators.

Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw strongly suggested that America is partly to blame for the Boston bombings because the young Muslim men involved may have felt “alienated” and angry over U.S. drone strikes on “innocent civilians” in Muslim countries abroad.

New Canadian Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau said, “there is no question that this happened because of someone who feels completely excluded, someone who feels completely at war with innocence, at war with society.”

Geraldo Rivera tweeted, “regrets to my Muslim brothers/sisters. We know how Boston will aggravate life’s friction—Now’s the time for patience pride & understanding.”

Blaming America and appealing to a presumed guilt will not solve the problem of Muslim radicals wishing to infiltrate, dominate, Islamize and kill Western citizens. Their Wahhabi ideology is influencing Muslim youths in the West, who are being taught to hate and wage jihad on Western soil. Such messages are being promulgated through a high percentage of mosques, training manuals and radical mentors online and through al Qaeda camps overseas, with the complicity of a media that justifies and enables these acts.

According to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon , “The Internet is a prime example of how terrorists can behave in a truly transnational way; in response, states need to think and function in an equally transnational manner.” The internet is a powerful tool in promoting propaganda; financing terror; efforts to recruit and radicalize; and the execution of strategies, attacks and cyber-attacks.

In addition, the fact that a Canadian citizen with dual citizenship, living in Lebanon, was involved in a bus bombing involving Hezbollah in Bulgaria last year raises greater concern about Canadians traveling overseas to carry out terrorism acts. Last year The Special Senate Committee on Anti-terrorism reported that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is aware of between 45 to 60 Canadians (most in their early twenties) having traveled or attempted to travel to countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia to join al Qaeda-affiliated organizations to execute terrorism-related activities. Some of them have returned to Canada after full terrorism training, or even after having executed terrorism acts abroad.

Infiltration strategies present yet another terrorist front. According to Canadian-Iranian activist and translator Shabnam Assadollahi, Iran has been engaged in infiltration strategies that began in the early 1990s when its former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, came into power with the goal of spreading terrorism abroad. Not long ago, Assadollahi blew the cover of Hamid Mohammadi, an Iranian official working as Cultural Counselor to the Embassy in Canada, through the translation of an interview in Farsi that revealed Iran was using its embassy in Canada to mobilize loyalists of the Islamic Republic of Iran to infiltrate the Canadian government and attack the United States.

Ban Ki-Moon Caves In, ‘Rejects’ Falk’s Boston Terror-Israel Link

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

It took five days, but United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon finally said he “rejects” United Nations Human Rights Council official Richard Falk’s comments that cited “the American global domination project: and US-Israeli relations as provocations for the bombings.

Falk, a Jewish American who has long history of accusing Israel of “war crimes” and “apartheid, wrote as “long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment, those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy.”

Israeli officials as well as the UN Watch organization protested his remarks, but Ban’s spokesman simply stated that Falk “speaks independently” and does not necessarily represent the United Nations.

Further condemnations of Falk appeared in the media, including The Wall Street Journal, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations tweeted, “Someone who spews such vitriol has no place at the UN.”

Ban‘s spokesman finally announced five days Falk’s article, “The Secretary-General rejects Mr. Falk’s comments [which] undermine the credibility and the work of the United Nations.”

Education by Murder in Boston

Sunday, April 28th, 2013

What will be the long-term impact of the Apr. 15-19 Boston Marathon attack and the ensuing action-movie-style chase, killing a total of four and wounding 265?

Let’s start with what its impact will not be. It will not bring American opinion together; if the “United We Stand” slogan lasted brief months after 9/11, consensus after Boston will be even more elusive. The violence will not lead to Israeli-like security measures in the United States. Nor will it lead to a greater preparedness to handle deadly sudden jihad syndrome violence. It will not end the dispute over the motives behind indiscriminate Muslim violence against non-Muslims. And it certainly will not help resolve current debates over immigration or guns.

What it will do is very important: it will prompt some Westerners to conclude that Islamism is a threat to their way of life. Indeed, every act of Muslim aggression against non-Muslims, be it violent or cultural, recruits more activists to the anti-jihad cause, more voters to insurgent parties, more demonstrators to anti-immigrant street efforts, and more donors to anti-Islamist causes.

Education by murder is the name I gave this process in 2002; we who live in democracies learn best about Islamism when blood flows in the streets. Muslims began with an enormous stock of good will because the Western DNA includes sympathy for foreigners, minorities, the poor, and people of color. Islamists then dissipate this good will by engaging in atrocities or displaying supremacist attitudes. High profile terrorism in the West – 9/11, Bali, Madrid, Beslan, London – moves opinion more than anything else.

I know because I went through this process first hand. Sitting in a restaurant in Switzerland in 1990, Bat Ye’or sketched out for me her fears concerning Islamist ambitions in Europe but I thought she was alarmist. Steven Emerson called me in 1994 to tell me about the Council on American-Islamic Relations but I initially gave CAIR the benefit of the doubt. Like others, I needed time to wake to the full extent of the Islamist threat in the West.

Westerners are indeed waking up to this threat. One can get a vivid sense of trends by looking at developments in Europe, which on the topics of immigration, Islam, Muslims, Islamism and Shari’a (Islamic law) is ahead of North America and Australia by about twenty years. One sign of change is the growth of political parties focused on these issues, including the U.K. Independence Party, the National Front in France, the People’s Party in Switzerland, Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Progress Party in Norway and the Swedish Democrats. In a much-noted recent by-election, UKIP came in second, increasing its share of the vote from 4 percent to 28 percent, thereby creating a crisis in the Conservative party.

Swiss voters endorsed a referendum in 2009 banning minarets by at 58-42 margin, a vote more significant for its ratio than its policy implications, which were roughly nil. Public opinion polling at that time found that other Europeans shared these views roughly in these same proportions. Polling also shows a marked hardening of views over the years on these topics. Here (with thanks to Maxime Lépante) are some recent surveys from France:

* 67 percent say Islamic values are incompatible with those of French society * 70 percent say there are too many foreigners * 73 percent view Islam in negatively * 74 percent consider Islam intolerant * 84 percent are against the hijab in private spaces open to the public * 86 percent are favorable to strengthening the ban on the burqa As Soeren Kern notes, similar views on Islam appear in Germany. A recent report from the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach asked what qualities Germans associate with Islam:

* 56 percent: striving for political influence * 60 percent: revenge and retaliation * 64 percent: violence * 68 percent: intolerance toward other faiths * 70 percent: fanaticism and radicalism * 83 percent: discrimination against women In contrast, only 7 percent of Germans associate Islam with openness, tolerance, or respect for human rights.

These commanding majorities are higher than in earlier years, suggesting that opinion in Europe is hardening and will grow yet more hostile to Islamism over time. In this way, Islamist aggression assures that anti-Islamism in the West is winning its race with Islamism. High-profile Muslim attacks like the ones in Boston exacerbate this trend. That is its strategic significance. That explains my cautious optimism about repulsing the Islamist threat.

Americans Donate More than $21 Million for Boston Terror Victims

Thursday, April 25th, 2013

Americans have opened their hearts and wallets one week after the Boston marathon terrorist attack and have donated more than $21 million for the victims.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino announced last week the creation of The One Fund Boston, which Fox News said has raised $15 million from corporations and another $6 million from public donors.

Several websites also have been created to raise funds, the news outlet reported. Friends and relatives of newlywed Patrick and Jessica Downes, each of whom lost a leg below the knee, have raised $680,000 for their medical care.

Another website was dedicated to eight-year-old Martin Richard, who died in the bombing, with $230,000 raised so far. His sister lost a leg in the terrorist attack, and her mother suffered serious injuries and underwent brain surgery.

Terrorism and Immigration Reform

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

One of the questions raised by the events in Boston last week is whether it should effect changes in U.S. immigration policy.

As a child of the Holocaust I am very sensitive to immigration issues. The sorry actions of Breckenridge Long, a State department official who was thinly disguised anti-Semite contributed mightily to the numbers of my people who perished in the Holocaust. From a PBS website:

[In] an intra-department memo he circulated in June 1940… [Breckenridge Long] wrote: “We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way…”

90 percent of the quota places available to immigrants from countries under German and Italian control were never filled. If they had been, an additional 190,000 people could have escaped the atrocities being committed by the Nazis.

Needless to say I am very much in favor of immigration reform. Never again should the State Department be able to pursue such restrictive immigration policies.

That said I understand the dilemma this country faces. America is a very desired place to live by people of all nations, especially those that are economically depressed. Illegal immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere have risked their lives trying to gain entry just so they could work at menial jobs. Jobs that very few Americans are willing to do. Those jobs provide income for their impoverished families back in their country of origin – even at the very low wages they make.

So an open door policy would mean a flood of immigrants coming in hoping to improve their lives. They would all be seeking the same number of limited jobs. The same menial ones that Americans are unwilling to do. There is a limit to how many of even those jobs are available. What America does not want is a new dependency class that will break our welfare system… and possibly even destroy our economy. So immigration must be controlled.

And yet there has been an almost free flow of illegal immigrants coming across our southern borders. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently living here.

In a perfect world, they should all be penalized for violating our immigration laws by being deported. But it is not as simple as that. Most of these people have jobs that actually aid the economy. Jobs that would mostly go unfilled. They have lived here many years, pay taxes, have families and are law abiding respected members of their new adopted communities. Their children have known no other world. Having been born here they are legally American. They are also culturally American. Deporting their parents (who would take their children back with them – or leave them here in some sort of foster parenting situation) would be counter-productive and a great injustice.

In my view there needs to be a way to allow these people to stay here legally – unfair though their entry may have been. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be penalties for what they did. But deportation would be an injustice in far too many cases – and it would probably hurt the economy.

Proposed legislation would deal with these issues. Based on media reports I see a more or less fair resolution of the problem. It includes fines, requirements to have jobs, and a ten year waiting period that provides a path to citizenship. It also includes measures to tighten our borders so that crossing them illegally will be reduced by 90%.

But one thing I have not seen addressed is who we will be allowing in.

As a Jew and a child of the Holocaust – remembering the Breckeniridge Longs of the world – I am loathe to base restrictions on any particular religion. But that is precisely what I am doing. I propose that Muslims be given extra scrutiny when they apply for immigration. And that those who are found to be here illegally be deported.

I am not proposing they should be completely barred. As I have said in the past many times, most Muslims are not terrorists. Most are law abiding citizens and should be given the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a country based on that credo. Religious freedom embedded in the Bill of Rights is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. Immigration policy should reflect this. So I would never suggest that Muslims be barred from entry. Nor would I ever suggest quotas for them that are different than for anyone else.

But I do believe they should get extra scrutiny. There should be extra vigilance by immigration officials – backed by law that will enable them to profile Muslims and check their backgrounds more thoroughly.

It should be obvious by now that it is from their number that the greatest threat of terror comes. Radical Islamist/Jihadists are Muslim by definition. There is no way to separate them as a distinct ethnic or religious group. If an immigrant is Muslim – this ought to be seen as a red flag and it should generate extra scrutiny.

This should not be seen as racist or in any other way prejudicial. It is nothing more than prudence in light of recent history. A history that includes violence as the philosophy of one of their branches. A branch that believes in murder and carnage to achieve their religious goals. A branch that 2 American Muslims somehow gravitated to. Ignoring Islam’s part in this because of a misguided form of political correctness is why things like the Boston bombings happen.

This will of course not eliminate all terrorism. We will still have the Timothy McVeighs of the world. But there can be little doubt where the source of the vast majority of terrorism in the world lies. And that is in the Islamist version of Islam.

Visit Emes Ve-Emunah.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/haemtza/terrorism-and-immigration-reform/2013/04/24/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: