Emily's blog

by Kerry Patton

After a team of “unknown” (read: Hezbollah) criminals kidnapped Lebonese Pastor Walid Gharious, the unimaginable occurred.  The Archbishop of Baalbek-Deir al-Ahmar, Semaan (Simon) Atallah, submitted to Islam by placing the life of one of his own congregents in mortal jeopardy.

Here's the story: Three years ago, Pastor Gharious, baptized 24-year old Banin Qataya. Banin was a former Muslim who was forced by her father -- Sheikh Ahmad Qataya, Imam of the mixed Bekaa town of Nabha -- to marry a man against her own will. Approximately two weeks ago, she fled from her father’s home in an attempt to escape the physical and psychological abuse she endured.

A few days after her escape, Pastor Ghariuos was abducted. Not one Lebanese media outlet had the courage to identify Pastor Gharious’s abductors as Hezbollah terrorists. After reading numerous accounts of the situation, it is more than clear who was behind this atrocity.

Banin's father vowed on LBC TV that he would wage a “civil war” in Lebanon to get his daughter back. It is obvious that he rounded up his henchmen, who are part of Hezbollah, and began to enact his threat by abducting Gharious. Of note, the Sheik's town of Nabah is approximately 13 miles from Hezbollah’s stronghold of Baalbek.

According to Sawtbeirut.com, “The priest was driving his Toyota Avanza when the abductors, who were in two silver-and black-colored Grand Cherokee SUVs, intercepted him.” This statement alone proves that bystanders witnessed the event and enough circumstantial evidence exists that  investigators could eventually identify the kidnappers.

Archbishop Semaan Attallah was aware of multiple incidents involving armed terrorists shooting at his congregation in retaliation of the Baptism. CatholicCulture.org quoted the Archbishop as saying, “Last Wednesday, unknown assailants fired gunshots at the house of a priest from the Kairouz family in the town of Nabha, and a similar incident occurred on Sunday before the start of the municipal elections when shots were fired at the Our Lady Church in Nabha, and we have conducted intensive contacts with the relevant parties in the area in order to settle the situations.”

So the Archbishop conducted “intensive contacts with relevant parties.” Who were those “relevant parties?” Clearly, they were Hezbollah.

What happened next? Archbishop Attallah physically went to the office of Hezbollah official Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek and delivered Banin to her parents (who were there) and to the very organization that has done nothing but evil in Lebanon. Banin's delivery was obviously part of a negotiation to return Pastor Gharious, who was reportedly also released to Yazbek..

Instead of fulfilling his duty to his own, Archbishop Attallah submitted to Islam's demands as well as to the demands of the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization. Unlike Pastor Gharious, who fully understood his commitment as a Christian -- the Pastor was willing to risk his own life to convert Muslims to Christianity --  Archbishop Attallah gave up one of Christianity’s own  children.

While no one can say for certain what lays ahead for Banin Qataya now that she is in the custody of her father, it is easy to speculate what her fate will be. According to Sura 4:89, Banin Qataya will likely be killed:

“They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Quran.com)

If Banin is killed, it is Archbishop Attallah that will have her blood on his hands -- blood comes from one of his own. He has betrayed his people and worse, he has betrayed his God and those of us who follow the faith of Christianity.

Kerry Patton, a combat service disabled veteran, is a senior analyst for WIKISTRAT  and author of Sociocultural Intelligence: The New Discipline of Intelligence Studies and the children's book American Patriotism. You can follow him on Facebook or at www.kerry-patton.com.

by Gadi Adelman

The three top Egyptian Presidential candidates exude the peace the Arab Spring has brought us.

Fotouh: “Israel is an enemy.”

Morsi: “Jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal”.

Moussa: “Most of our people consider it [Israel] an enemy”.

When Egypt's election commission published the final list of those who will be allowed to run in the first presidential election since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak last year, the list ended up with 13 names out of 23 that had initially applied.Two high-profile candidates have been barred, Omar Suleiman, the former vice president and spy chief under Hosni Mubarak and Khairat al-Shater, the main nominee of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Suleiman was deemed ineligible because he had not submitted enough endorsing signatures to qualify. Shater was disqualified because he had been imprisoned and Egyptian law bans criminal convicts from running for president. After Shater was disqualified the Muslim Brotherhood nominated their backup, Mohamed Morsi, the Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.

Two others of the Egyptian presidential front-runners faced off during the country's first televised presidential debate on Thursday. The hot topics were religion, Islamic law and Israel.

Amr Moussa, shown left,  faced off against Abdel Fotouh and the statements these two made and the points they agreed on give us a view to Egypt’s as well as the Middle East’s future. Moussa is the one-time Arab League chief and former foreign minister under Hosni Mubarak. Moussa is considered to be a moderate, and many experts see him as the favorite for Egyptians. If this guy is the “moderate” we need not look for a radical.

The Islamist candidate, Abdul Moneim Aboul Fotouh is a former leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood who many fear will impose an Islamic state should he be elected. Fotouh was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Guidance Bureau from 1987 - 2009. In 2011 he formally quit all political work with the Muslim Brotherhood and resigned from its membership, when he decided to run for president.

Do I really need to explain what will come of Egypt after these elections? I have been writing and speaking out on this since before the previous President, Hosni Mubarak was ousted.

During the debate, both candidates agreed that the constitution should be guided by Sharia, or Islamic law. That, in and of itself, should be enough to make any one shudder who understands Sharia.

At one point Moussa asked Fotouh about religious freedom and Christianity, as reported by Egypt’s Ahram online,

“You once said in a televised interview that Muslims can convert to Christianity and vice versa... is this still your position?”

Abul-Fotouh, taken aback, waffled at first and then stressed the importance of freedom of belief and of a moderate understanding of Islam. He, however, fought back and attempted to corner Moussa and paint him as too secular.

Moussa was twice asked: “What do you mean by the general principles of Sharia?” After equivocating, the one-time Arab League chief insisted that the general principles of Islamic Sharia law, as they existed in the 1971 constitution, should be applied.

“We want to know your vision about applying Sharia law, especially as you are now backed by radical Islamist groups; and in politics nothing is for free, there must be a deal and we need to know,” Moussa shot back.

It seems like a comedy and if it weren’t true it might actually be laughable. One radical candidate accusing the other of being “now backed by radical Islamist groups”.

When it comes to Israel and the peace treaty that has been in place with Egypt since 1979 they agree wholeheartedly,

Abul-Fotouh, shown right, stated, “Israel is an enemy which is built on occupation, owns 200 nuclear warheads, doesn't respect international decisions and attacks religious symbols. The majority of Egyptians are enemies of Israel. The agreement with Israel should be revised and the sections which are against our interests should be removed immediately and only what's in our interests should stay.”

He also called Israel a “racist state” during an interview Saturday with the private Egyptian CBC satellite station; he said he had opposed the treaty since its implementation.

“I still view the peace treaty as a national security threat to Egypt, and it must be revised.”

What’s more, he said that al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden's assassination by US Special Forces was an act of “state terrorism”. Yeah, I can already see the love this guy has for the U.S.

Moussa has also been a critic of Israel both as foreign minister and Arab League chief and agreed that most Egyptians view the Jewish state as an enemy,

“We have lots of disagreements. Most of our people consider it an enemy, but the responsibility of the president is to deal with such things responsibly and not run after hot-headed slogans.”

According to Ahram online the highlight of the show was when Moussa described Iran as an Arab country, Fotouh stated,

“Our relationship with Iran is based on our own independence. I am not against a relationship with Iran provided it doesn’t proselytize the Shia faith in Egypt and likewise we shouldn’t try to spread the Sunni faith there.”

Moussa had a short answer, wrong, but short,

“I am against a war with Iran. Iran is an Arab country! And we have to listen and talk.”

Mr. Moussa, far be it for me to correct you, a former foreign minister of Egypt and Secretary General of the League of Arab States, but… Iran is not an Arab country and if you really want to tick off an Iranian, tell him he is.

The third front runner for the President of Egypt is no different from the other two when it comes to Sharia and Israel. Mohamed Morsi, left, as I mentioned earlier, was the Chairman of the Freedom and Justice Party and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau.

The NY Times wrote of him back in April,

Mr. Morsi has campaigned explicitly both as a more conservative Islamist and as a loyal executor of Mr. Shater’s plans.

In a speech before Cairo University students just this past Saturday night, Morsi stated such loving lines; I have to admit that I myself cannot choose between these three gems. He stated,

“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal.”

“Today Egypt is close as never before to the triumph of Islam at all the state levels.”

“Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals.”

The first round of Egypt’s presidential election is scheduled for May 23 and 24. The president will be elected to a four-year term.

There are a total of 13 candidates for the President of Egypt and we all know how lucky 13 is, but the 3 above are the frontrunners and more than likely one of them will emerge the victor.

But I guess we really have nothing to worry about, our administration knows what they are doing when it comes to Egypt. Let’s not forget that Obama bypassed Congress and gave them over $1.5 billion in aid of your tax dollars just this past March.

As was reported by the Washington Post on March 22,

The Obama administration has decided to resume funding for Egypt’s military and will bypass congressional requirements that U.S. officials certify the country’s progress toward democracy, according to Capitol Hill aides.

This year’s allocation of aid — more than $1.5 billion, with the bulk earmarked for the military — was withheld amid the country’s crackdown on pro-democracy groups, including several U.S.-based organizations with close ties to political parties in Washington.

Yes, we’re in good hands. What could possibly go wrong?  After all, 13 is such a lucky number.

Gadi Adelman is a speaker on terrorism, jihad, sharia and Islam. He is a contributing editor for the Family Security Matters website as well as writing for Conservative Camp, Faith for Freedom, Gold Coast Chronicle and Pronline news. He has his own weekly radio show "America Akbar" that can be heard on the Radio Jihad network.

by Ryan Mauro

In early April, I wrote that the senior U.S. officials who told Mark Perry of Foreign Policy that Azerbaijan agreed to let Israeli aircraft land in its territory could have blood on their hands, since regardless of whether the leaked story was true or not, Iran would send a warning shot towards Azerbaijan.

Only days after the story was published, Azerbaijan arrested 17 Al-Qaeda operatives with links to Iran as they were about to carry out terrorist attacks. One Azeri officer was killed and three were wounded during the sweep.

Mark Perry’s article was published on March 28. On April 6, Azerbaijan announced the arrests and said that the Al-Qaeda terrorists were planning to attack police, mosques and shrines. Some had undergone two months of training in Iran and were armed there. Others were indoctrinated in Syria and still others had been trained in Pakistan and had fought NATO troops in Afghanistan. Already in February, European officials warned that Iran and Al-Qaeda were tightening their relationship in order to carry out attacks on common enemies.

Although it can’t be proven that Iran had a direct role in the Al-Qaeda plot, the timing points to it. We know that in January, Iran paid at least two terrorists $150,000 to attack the Israeli ambassador, a rabbi and a teacher at a Jewish school in Azerbaijan. The cell leader met with Iranian intelligence. In March, Azerbaijan rounded up 22 terrorists that were trained near Tehran by the Revolutionary Guards to carry out a wave of terror attacks that were to include the U.S. and Israeli embassies, among other targets. Iranian hackers struck Azeri websites after the arrests.   

There’s no proof that Iran had a direct role in this Al-Qaeda plot, but the timing is curious, and it fits into this pattern. Iran cannot convincingly deny that it knows about Al-Qaeda’s training and organizing in its country. If the regime is able to stop tens of millions of Iranians from organizing protests, it’s hard to believe that the Iranian regime is unable to detect a network of foreigners belonging to the most high-profile terrorist group in the world.

The problem with state-sponsored terrorism is that, in many cases, we won’t know for sure if/how a government is involved. When Iran and Hezbollah decided to blow up the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan in 2008, they reached out to local militants for cover. In December, District Judge George Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah contributed materially to the 9/11 attacks behind-the-scenes.

If Iran was involved in this latest terror scheme, it could be argued that it was planned before the Foreign Policy story. It’s hard to know for sure, but officials leaking stories like this need to be fired and, when necessary, prosecuted. The Iranian regime isn’t going to just shrug its shoulders. It’s going to respond, and this latest Al-Qaeda plot could very well be a part of that response.

H/T to Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard for reporting on these latest arrests.

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent security analyst for Fox News.

A suicide bomber intercepted on his way to the Capital building in Washington, D.C.; a plot to blow up a synagogue uncovered; a plan to shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft thwarted; a scheme to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol prevented.

In each of these cases, a catastrophe was prevented by the FBI in undercover counter-terrorism sting operations.

But according to New York Times opinion writer David Shipler in an article entitled, “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the FBI,” they are merely “dramas” somehow manufactured by the FBI on “suspects [who] naively played their parts until they were arrested.”

Shipler tells us about one such “naive” suspect, an “Oregon college student” named Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who “thought of” using a car bomb to attack people participating in a Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon.

In contrast to Shipler's narrative, authorities say that Mohamud came up with the idea himself and wanted to kill a "huge mass of people with their families." Authorities began investigating Mohamud after they received a tip that he was "intensely interested in committing violent jihad." They watched Mohamud as he bought explosives and practiced setting them off.  At one point, an agent asked Mohamud, “You know there’s gonna be a lot of children there?” to which Mohamud answers, “Yeah, I mean that’s what I’m looking for.” According to an affidavit, the agents asked him many times if he was prepared to commit such a violent act. Mohamud answered, “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.”

All of these details Shipler conveniently leaves out of his article.

Ten-thousand people attended the ceremony. An undercover FBI agent was able to provide Mohamud with a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of fake explosives that night. After Mohamud repeatedly tried to trigger the blast, he was arrested.

Shipler then tells us his opinion of the FBI sting on Mohamud that undoubtedly saved many innocent lives: “This is legal,” he writes, “but is it legitimate?”  

Did I hear right?

Shipler explains: “Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech.” We then find out that our hapless terrorist wannabe’s “pure speech” is found outside mosques, in emails with radical oversees extremists or with FBI agents posing as member of Al Qaeda or other “groups” (the term “group” itself  being an interesting appellation used by Shipler for Al Qaeda).

To Shipler, it an issue of “susceptibility.”  “Who is susceptible?” he asks. “Anyone who plays along with the agents, apparently.”

Shipler implies that the FBI has unfairly targeted otherwise harmless individuals for what he calls their “idle talk.” Nowhere in his article does he mention the issue of culpability for an individual who, with just a little help, is willing to transform what Shipler calls “idle talk” into a full-blown, meticulously planned terrorist attack.  

Post 9/11, sting operations have become the mainstay of law enforcement agencies charged with preventing terrorist attacks on American soil. Judging from the number of attacks since 9/11, this strategy appears to be working. Yet Shipler questions if “cultivating potential terrorists” is the best use of the” manpower designed to find the real ones.”

He quotes David Raskin, a former federal prosecutor says that the FBI’s goal in sting operations is not “to find somebody who’s already engaged in terrorism but find somebody who would jump at the opportunity if a real terrorist showed up in town.”

But to Shipler, “that is the gray area.”

Gray area? I don’t know about you, but most of us wouldn’t “jump at the opportunity” to perpetrate a terrorist attack if given half an opportunity to do so.

by Diana West

It's probably fair to call Spencer Ackerman of Wired.com the king of the see-no-Islam beat. Whenever the government -- first, the FBI, now, "the entire US military" -- decides to purge training materials about Islam that undermine the Big Lie that "Islam is a religion of peace," Ackerman seems to be the one to break the story. Something to be proud of in the coming caliphate -- probably good for a pasha-ship, at least.

The latest from the Voice of Submission:

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday ordered the entire U.S. military to scour its training material to ensure it doesn’t contain anti-Islamic content, Danger Room has learned. The order came after the Pentagon suspended a course for senior officers that was found to contain derogatory material about Islam.

Guess what? Any course about Islam that is not a fanciful whitewash is going to contain derogatory material about Islam because Islam is based on principles such as supremacism and censorship, not to mention practices such as polygamy, slavery and killing apostates, all of which free people consider reprehensible -- hence "derogatory."

But was the "derogatory" material in the course factual? (I am currently awaiting a response from the public affairs officer at the staff college where said course was taught.)

The extraordinary order by General Martin Dempsey, the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. armed forces, was prompted by content in a course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism” that was presented as an elective at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia. The course instructed captains, commanders, lieutenant colonels and colonels from across all four armed services that “Islam had already declared war on the West,” said Lt. Gen. George Flynn, Dempsey’s deputy for training and education.

“It was inflammatory,” Flynn told Danger Room on Tuesday. “We said, ‘Wait a second, that’s really not what we’re talking about.’ That is not how we view this problem or the challenges we have in the world today.”

The strong response by the Pentagon brass illustrates growing sensitivity around the issue since Danger Room’s investigation of anti-Islam material in the FBI’s counterterrorism training last September. That story sparked strong condemnation of the training material from the U.S. Attorney General on down, and prompted the White House to order a review of U.S. counterterrorism training last October [links in the original].

Despite that White House order, the “Perspectives” course, taught since 2004, not only evaded review, but had defenders in the Joint Forces Staff College that taught it.

Danger Room first learned about the course last month, and determined that one of its guest lecturers was Stephen Coughlin, who has taught FBI and U.S. Army audiences that Islamic law is a danger to U.S. national security. We sought comment from a representative for the Joint Forces Staff College, who defended the propriety of the course [link in the original].

Stephen Coughlin delivers impeccably sourced briefs on jihad ("enemy threat doctrine") based on facts, sacred texts and law books, all as codifed by the most authoritative Islamic sources. I know: I've heard his briefs on multiple occasions.

Feedback from students has been “mostly positive, usually around the 90% range,” Steven Williams, a spokesman for the college, e-mailed Danger Room on Mar. 14. “Students generally appreciate thought-provoking discussion and the freedom to consider critical perspectives.”

The Pentagon, though, told a very different story Tuesday. Flynn disclosed that since an unspecified “revision” of the course in the summer of 2011, multiple officers who attended the course had raised internal objections about its presentation of Islam and Muslims. He estimated that about 20 officers attend each eight-week elective course, which is offered four times a year.

Flynn said he heard about the objectionable material on Friday after a colonel enrolled in the course complained about the anti-Islam lessons. “We looked at it and we found the material to be objectionable and we started digging into it to see, how did the course get this way?” Flynn said.

Objectionable, obshmectionable -- is the material true? Is the enemy threat doctrine relevant to training senior staff officers charged with defending the country against it? Oops, I forgot -- "the war on terror" (whatever that was) is over.

The course was scheduled to hold its second weekly meeting of the semester on Wednesday. But class will not be in session.

It all sounds a little like Heidelberg University in the 1930s, where a lot of classes were not in session once senior Nazi officials closed them (and their Jewish professors) down, after which Nazis threw what they considered to be "objectionable material" on a bonfire on May 17, 1933.

Or maybe it sounds more like classrooms in the Soviet Union when, after the new encyclopedia (whitewash) of Soviet history came out around 1940 or so, all conflicting (read: factual) study materials (and conflicting teachers) were also purged.

Flynn has appointed a two-star general to spend the next 30 days investigating how the course came to include anti-Islam material in apparent contravention of the White House directive.

Can't wait to read that. Does it start with the birth of Mohammed?

Accordingly, Dempsey has issued a letter to the chiefs of all four military services and the leaders of the military’s regional commands to make extra-sure that their own educational and training materials “are consistent with our values,” said Brig. Gen. Richard Gross, Dempsey’s senior legal adviser.

“Possibly, we did not follow the procedures we should have followed in academically approving the course, but that’ll be formally determined when we complete the inquiry into this,” Flynn said.

Last month, Williams, at the Joint Forces Staff College, assured Danger Room that the course followed the White House-approved guidelines issued by the Department of Homeland Security (.pdf) to prevent anti-Islam material from being taught by the U.S. government. He described the class as including “the basic tenets of Islam; the context in which it was founded; the life of the Prophet Mohammed; Islam’s early development; the practice of Islam in various countries; the foundations and principles of terrorism; the roots of Islamic militancy, and a broad overview of various Islamic radical groups and their philosophies” [links in the original].

But although the course material is unclassified, Williams would not disclose it to Danger Room. Flynn spoke more candidly about the material on Tuesday.

“We have an elective that did not meet the educational standards or the values of our JPME enterprise, so we’re going to suspend the course,” Flynn said Tuesday, using the acronym for joint professional military education. He added that his inquiry will determine whether “academically, did it go through the academic review process to make this truly an accredited course we should be teaching.”

Flynn’s inquiry will examine the chain of command to determine how the inappropriate material got into a course taught to senior military leaders. Flynn said there was as yet no indication that the anti-Islam instructions had disseminated beyond the Joint Forces Staff College, but the various inquiries will have to determine that.

“We’ll take whatever action is warranted,” Flynn said.

Diana West is a journalist and columnist. Her book, The Death of the Grown Up: How America's Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization was reviewed by Steven Emerson, who said it is "a must-read for anyone who wants to understand why ... many in the West are apologetic when confronted with the excesses of radical Islam and what we need to do to win the War on terror. This is a phenomenal book that will truly alter the way you view society." 

by Tawfik Hamid

It is unconceivable for many to understand how the US -the most powerful country  on earth- after 10 years of military operations in Afghanistan failed to achieve a clear and decisive victory over the Taliban and was unable to end their ambition to control the country. Some experts argue that the US is actually failing in this war.

The recent riots against burning the Quran and the violent reaction against US officials that followed the incident have just elucidated the difficulties that the US faces in this battle.

Currently, the US is virtually pleading for a peace treaty with the Taliban who actually suspended the peace talks with the US.

Furthermore, President Hamid Karzai has recently endorsed a 'code of conduct' that
allows Afghani men to beat their women to appease the Taliban. This -by itself- is a clear indication that Karzai sees the Taliban - NOT the US - as the victorious side in this war.

Additionally, despite using several approaches, the US has failed to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan.

Among the reasons for the failure of the US to clearly win the war in Afghanistan or to put an effective exit strategy lies in our ineffective strategic communication and not tailoring our efforts to the various diverse ethnic and sectarian groups in Afghanistan.

Admiral Mike Mullen has blasted the US 'strategic communication' efforts in Afghanistan. Admiral Mullen's criticism comes as officials admit the US is losing the war of ideas against the  Taliban.

In this analysis, I will address 10 critical points and tactics that should have  been used by the US to improve its strategic communication that could possibly have had a positive impact leading to a better outcome of this war.

1. Show respect, but don't show weakness.

An apology for the urination of US soldiers on Afghan dead bodies was an appropriate step to show a positive image of the US as such an apology does not show weakness. However, decisions such as asking female US soldiers to wear the Hijab to show cultural sensitivity to Afghan people is an act that is interpreted by many in Muslim societies that the US is defeated by the Taliban. They simply see such an act as if the US  culture is bowing to Muslim culture. This makes the US perceived as 'weak' and thus can only encourage more Afghans to join the Taliban to attack our troops as  the traditional Muslim mentality tends to respect 'power' , NOT weakness.

On several occasions the US failed to show the needed critical balance between showing respect without being perceived as being 'weak'.

Examples of US actions that could be perceived by the Jihadists as a sign of 'weakness'
include:

a. Excessive bowing of President Obama to the king of Saudi Arabia.

b. Defending building the Mosque at Ground Zero in NY without asking for similar
rights for Non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim world.

c. Defending the rights of Muslim women to wear the Hijab without defending the
rights of Muslims (such as Rifqua Bary) to choose their faith.

d. Threating to punish the CIA officers who used harsh methods to get information
from the terrorists.

2.  Effective use of negative reinforcement.

Negative reinforcement represents a fundamental component of the mind of many Muslims. In fact, many in the Muslim world worship 'Allah' predominantly because of the negative consequence for not doing so. Such negative consequence is typically extreme torture in Hell for infinity.

The US strategic communications could have used negative reinforcement to show the Afghan population that following the terrorist path of the Taliban can only have  negative consequences for them and can only cause the opposite of what they want to achieve.

For example, informing the Afghan people that the US is likely to stay an extra three months in Afghanistan in response to every terror act against them could have paralyzed the ability of the Taliban to recruit young Muslims to become suicide bombers. This is mainly because in this case they would not have been able to convince these young Muslims that terrorist acts would make the US leave Afghanistan.

If the US had adopted this approach at an early stage in the war they could have  significantly limited the ability of the Taliban to recruit young Afghans.

Similarly, informing the Afghans how Taliban terrorist acts against civilians would make many Muslim women - who might lose their income after the killing of their husbands in these terror acts - adopt prostitution, could have made many radical  Muslims think twice before accepting doing a terror act. Most Muslims see that 'chastity of Muslim women' is the most important thing that needs to be protected in one's life.

In addition, informing the Afghans that insults to the Quran and Prophet Mohamed  are caused mainly by a response to terrorism could have made many of them feel that they would carry a grave sin for doing terrorism as - in such case - the outcome of their attacks would be an insult to Islam and to the prophet Mohamed.  In other words, the power of love of Afghan people for Islam and to its founder Mohamed could have been used as a power to deter them from doing terrorism rather than participating in it.

3. Target preachers of hate - not just the terrorists.

Many of the preachers of hate who incite terrorism play a fundamental role in the phenomenon of terrorism. In general, the Mullahs - unlike suicide bombers - could be deterred if they felt that they would lose their life for preaching hatred and encouraging violence. Informing the Mullahs who incite terrorism that the US would target them for doing so would have made many of them change their message to become less violent.

4. Re-direction of Afghan Anger.

It was virtually impossible to prevent Afghan anger during the combat operations  in Afghanistan. This anger has resulted from several reasons such as occasional  killing of civilians, insults to Islam by some US military personnel, the feel of occupation by foreign forces, etc.

The Taliban managed to capitalize successfully on such anger and have used it effectively to recruit more people for Jihad against America.

The US could have redirected the anger of the Afghani people - or at least part of it - toward the Taliban instead of the US.

This could have been achieved by clarifying to the Afghans in several ways that the US invasion of Afghanistan and their suffering occurred predominantly because the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda who attacked the US on Sep 11.

In other words, the US message should have been that - if the Taliban had not helped Al-Qaeda, the US would not have occupied them.

Throwing the blame of the US invasion of Afghanistan and its consequences, on the Taliban instead on the US, could have helped diverted the Afghani anger toward the former instead of the latter.

5. Careful use of words.

On repeated occasions president Obama used the expression that the US will "withdraw" from Afghanistan. The use of this word can make the US perceived as being weak and thus could be used by the Islamic Radicals to claim victory over the US and attract new recruits.

Instead of using the word 'withdraw' which conveys 'defeat' of the US, the US officials could have used the world "changing our tactics" (e.g. from full military confrontations to secretive intelligence operations). The latter expression would be perceived as a sign of "strength" instead of "defeat."

Additionally, the use of this expression could create mistrust between Taliban fighters - as they may feel that some of their members may work with the US.  Creating 'mistrust' within Afghani fighters could only work  for our benefit.

6. Effective use of the Quran.

In many situations some Quranic verses could have been used to prevent revenge from innocent people. For example, the Quranic verse "Quran 6:164 No one should be held responsible for the wrongdoings of someone else" could have been used to convey a message that revenging from innocents who did not commit a mistake is against Islam.

Effective use of religious jargon could have protected many innocent Americans such as the US military personnel who were assassinated in an act of revenge for the recent incident of burning of the Quran.

7. Discrediting the Taliban as being ignorant about Islam.

One of the best ways that could have weakened the Taliban was to prove to the Afghan public that the Taliban are ignorant about Islamic teachings.

For example, the Taliban attacks during "Al-Ashhur Al-Hurom" (the Prohibited Months) are forbidden in Islam. The "Al-Ashhur Al-Hurom" are four lunar months in the Islamic Calendar [i] where fighting is forbidden [ii].

The aim of "Al-Ashhur Al-Hurom" was to create time for peace negotiations to exist during wars so that people can feel the advantage of peace which could encourage  them to choose peaceful resolutions - instead of fighting - to solve their conflicts.

The concept of "Al-Ashhur Al-Hurom" existed in the Arab culture before Islam and  was adopted by the Quran [iii] itself (Quran 2:217).

Showing the Afghani population how the Taliban do not respect an approved Islamic concept such as "Al-Ashhur Al-Hurom" could have exposed them as ignorant people who oppose the teachings of the Quran. This could have discredited them among the Afghan population.

8.  Expressing US power.

Power which does not necessarily mean the use of military action - is an important concept of many in the Muslim world. US leaders who talk about withdrawing the US troops from Afghanistan are simply sending a message that the US is 'weak'. This  perception of weakness of the US among the Afghan people can only work for the benefit of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda who would claim that they have defeated the most powerful country on earth. To avoid this situation, the US officials must clarify
to the Afghans that the US is capable of coming back to Afghanistan whenever it wishes to do so. Such a statement can prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from using the US withdrawal to convince the Afghanis that the US is week. Expressing the US power via powerful statements is fundamental to weaken the recruiting capabilities of Islamic jihadists.

9. Using our Muslim allies more effectively.

A fatwa by Saudi Arabia to articulate that terrorists and suicide bombers are criminals and will die as infidels could have impeded the ability of Radical Islamic groups to recruit suicide bombers. The US could have used different forms of diplomacy with it's supposed ally Saudi Arabia to ensure that such fatwa is created.

10. Fighting an effective war in "Brainstan."

In a period 10 years, the US could have made significant change in the thinking of young Afghans if it had developed effective educational systems to fight radicalism at its cognitive levels  (Cognitive-based Anti-Radicalization). Such systems could have been structured and created in a way to educate the society without [iv] being dependent on the existence of school buildings.

Middle East Forum reports:

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum got jeered for comparing the legalization of same-sex marriage to that of polygamy, but, whether or not the comparison is rationally sound, thoughts of the former's facilitating the latter bring a smile to many Islamists. If the definition of marriage can evolve in terms of gender, some Muslims ask, why not in terms of number?

 "As states move toward legalizing gay marriage, the criminalization of polygamy is a seemingly striking inconsistency in constitutional law," an article in Muslim Link asserts. "Be it gay marriage or polygamous marriage, the rights of the people should not be based on their popularity but rather on the constitutional laws that are meant to protect them."

According to a survey carried out by the Link, polygamy suffers from no lack of popularity among American Muslims. Thirty-nine percent reported their intention to enter polygamous marriages if it becomes legal to do so, and "nearly 70 percent said they believe that the U.S. should legalize polygamy now that it is beginning to legalize gay marriage."

For the continuation of this article, click here.

Anders Breivik, left, set off a massive explosion at the main government office building in Oslo last summer and then massacred dozens of teenagers at a Labor Party youth camp on a nearby island.
by Bruce Bawer
The anti-anti-Islamism crowd in Norway, in short, would seem to have hit the jackpot.  Other countries have put critics of Islam on trial, one at a time.   But now pretty much every prominent critic of Islam in Norway will be ushered into an Oslo courtroom, presumably to account for their views on Islam, the absurd pretext being that their testimony will contribute in some way to the defense of a mass murderer whose guilt has already been established beyond all doubt.  The brilliant, and ironic, thing here is that the goal of the defense – and of the defendant, who apparently made up the list of witnesses himself – is utterly identical with the goal of the country’s leftist cultural elite: namely, to implicate all of us writers in Breivik’s actions.  Of course, Breivik wants to do this in order to mitigate his own guilt in the eyes of the court and the country; the cultural elite wants to do it in order to discredit forever the criticism of Islam.
Stay tuned.
For the continuation of this article, click here.

The Nation of Islam maintains a staggering 50,000 active members, which means that  tens of thousands of people with a militant-bend are being indoctrinated with a barrage of race-fueled venom. In his special on the Nation of Islam, Glenn Beck exposes the organization's history of violence, its ties to the left and its engagement in a rabid strain of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.

All are different groups with different paths to travel, but, according to Beck share a common goal. Islamists seek to establish a caliphate, and thus, an authoritarian state, but can only do so through the annihilation of the West.

Historically, strange bedfellows have banded together to defeat a common enemy — in much the same way as Islam’s Grand Mufti conspired with Adolf Hitler to annihilate the Jewish race. Beck believes Farrakhan has found such strange bedfellows in other radical movements across the country.

For a continuation of this comprehensive expose and more videos, click here.

by Raymond Ibrahim

According to Al Quds, last Tuesday it was revealed that the Christian Orthodox Church in Tunis, one of very few churches in the country of Tunisia, is being “abused” and receiving “threatening messages” from “Salafis.” Church members are described as “living in a state of terror,” so much so that the Russian ambassador in Tunis specifically requested the nation’s Ministry of Interior to “protect the church.”

The abuse has gotten to the point where “Salafis covered the cross of the church with garbage bags, telling the church members that they do not wish to see the vision of the Cross anywhere in the Islamic state of Tunisia.”

Among all the Arabic-speaking nations, Tunisia has long been described as one of the most “secular” and “liberal”; it was also the first nation where the much ballyhooed “Arab Spring” began. Now its very few churches are not tolerated, and their crucifixes abhorred. If this is “tolerant” Tunisia, what should one expect from the more “radical” nations? More evidence of the true nature of the “Arab Spring.”

Raymond Ibrahim, a Middle East and Islam specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. A widely published author, he is best known for his book,  The Al Qaeda Reader .  Mr. Ibrahim's dual-background—born and raised in the U.S.

This article appeared originally on FrontPageMag.com