RUTHFULLY YOURS

Conservatives see the threat of aggressive Islam, which puts us far ahead of liberals, who merely live in stupefied denial. But conservatives tend to treat Islam as monolithic, which it is not.

Right now the Trump administration is considering whether to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, which sounds to Arab ears like “Is the Pope Catholic?” Do the Saudis play double games?” “Are the mullahs of Iran really genocidal?”

The answer is Yes! Yes! and Yes!

Which is why even Saudi Arabia, Russia, Syria, Bahrain, and the UAE have officially designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group. One of biggest on the Sunni side of the street.

A new article in Cairo’s Al Ahram this week gives an explanation even the New York Times could understand (if it wanted to). The MBs promote violent Jihad, and carry it on themselves in their civil war against Egypt. They sponsor Hamas terror against Israel. They follow radical doctrines. Most of all (and here comes a new word), the MB’s are taqfiri. (TAHK-fear-ey). They regularly declare other Muslim groups to be infidels, which means they will kill other Muslims unless they submit to the MB version of Islam. From its most basic belief, the Ikhwan is at war with all Muslims who do not follow its militant war doctrine. The doctrine of taqfir is basic, and deviation puts you outside of the circle.

And yes, there are peaceful Muslim sects, like the Ahmadiyya. But they are small minorities in constant trouble from the violence-supporting majority.

There are also rational Muslims like Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has said in a famous speech:

It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible! …

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

Those may be the most important words any Muslim leader has said since 9/11/01.

Yet Obama chose to ignore Sisi and supported the Muslim Brotherhood instead. What does that tell you?

Hillary’s closest confidante, Huma Abedin, comes from an MB family, was indoctrinated from childhood onward, and is paid by a family “charity” who are all MBs. Hillary and Bill know all that, of course, but the Moobs bring in huge amounts of money to the Democrats, and that’s what counts for the Clintons. (It should also matter to the rest of us.)

The Justice Department has enlisted a former Islamic State fighter in what they say is an effort to combat radicalization.

But the program, centered around Brooklyn native Mohimanul Alam Bhuiya, is fraught with considerable risks as so-called “deradicalization” efforts around the globe have failed spectacularly, and recent high-profile cases of former terrorists-turned-therapists experiments have not ended well.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mo, a U.S. citizen whose full name is under seal, left New York City in the summer of 2014 to join Islamic State in Syria.

Mo, now 28 years old, quickly became disillusioned, he says now. Four months in, he sent an email to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Please help me get home,” he wrote, according to court documents. “I’m fed up with this evil.”

[…]

Authorities in November 2014 deported Mo back to Brooklyn, where he pleaded guilty to two terrorism charges. He told the FBI that he acted as a building guard for Islamic State and taught other recruits how to use computer software.

Since then, Mo’s work with the U.S. government has included an unusual form of cooperation: conducting an intervention with a 15-year-old boy from Brooklyn who was posting tweets that appeared to support violence and Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The intervention so far has successfully dissuaded the teenager from joining the terrorist group.

It turns out that the Justice Department program is intended to reduce the sentences of U.S. terror supporters:

Under the new initiative, Brooklyn federal prosecutors will also use more discretion before charging someone with providing “material support” to terrorists, a broad violation that carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. Prosecutors may try to arrest some individuals on a lesser charge without the terrorism stigma, such as wire fraud.

For suspects already in custody, prosecutors will give more consideration to a shorter prison sentence in exchange for a longer period of supervised release that includes counseling or treatment.

There’s certainly no reason to question the motives of federal prosecutors backing this program, but there is evidence that calls into question their judgment.

Self-styled “community organizer” and “civil rights activist” Hesham El-Meligy was detained earlier today by the NYPD after refusing a bag search while attempting to board the Staten Island Ferry.

Predictably, El-Meligy is claiming racial profiling and “Islamophobia,” and insisting his rights were denied. But fellow Staten Islanders are pushing back on his claims.

A religious and political activist on Staten Island claims he was placed in handcuffs, frisked and issued two summonses by NYPD officers based on the way he looks.

Hesham El-Meligy, a Muslim who was born in Egypt, was temporarily detained and searched by police at about 8 a.m. Wednesday at the Staten Island Ferry terminal in St. George, after he refused a random bag check.

After a search of his backpack, he was issued summonses for trespassing and disorderly conduct and allowed on to the ferry, police said Thursday.

El-Meligy, founder of the Islamic Civic Association on Staten Island and chairman of the Staten Island Libertarian Party, said he believes the bag check wasn’t so random.

He took to Facebook hours after the incident, saying he felt singled out because his Egyptian heritage.

“I have no doubt that many (people) are in fact stopped randomly, but the manner this was done in my particular case made it feel different,” said El-Meligy.

But at least one eyewitness to El-Meligy’s detention disputes his account:

In 2017 we are facing a new and more sophisticated array of physical security and cybersecurity challenges that pose significant risk to people, places and commercial networks. The nefarious global threat actors are terrorists, criminals, hackers, organized crime, malicious individuals, and, in some cases, adversarial nation states. Everyone and anything is vulnerable, and addressing the threats requires incorporating a calculated security strategy.

According to Transparency Market Research, the global homeland security market is expected to grow a market size of $364.44 billion by 2020. A large part of the spending increase over the past year is directly related to cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors.

A security strategy to meet growing challenges needs to be both comprehensive and adaptive. Defined by the most basic elements in managed risk, security is composed of:

Layered vigilance (intelligence, surveillance);
Readiness (operational capabilities, visual command center, interdiction technologies);
Resilience (coordinated response, mitigation and recovery).

The specifics of a security approach may vary according to circumstances, but the mesh that connects the elements is situational awareness combined with systematic abilities for critical communications in cases of emergency.

Because society is undergoing such a rapid technological change, the traditional paradigms for addressing threats are evolving with the security challenges. Two particular security challenges characterize the current and future connective landscape in both the public and private sectors: protecting critical infrastructure, and protecting the Internet of Things (IoT) and Smart Cities.

The Security Challenge of Protecting Critical Infrastructure

In the U.S., most of the critical infrastructure, including defense, oil and gas, electric power grids, health care, utilities, communications, transportation, education, banking and finance, is owned by the private sector (about 85 percent) and regulated by the public sector. Protecting the critical infrastructure poses a difficult challenge because democratic societies by their nature are open and accessible. According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, a Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence based at the University of Maryland, between 1970 and 2015, 2,723 terrorist attacks took place in the U.S.; of these attacks, 2,055 (75 percent) targeted critical infrastructure.

A news issue of Al-Shabaab’s magazine calls on jihadists to emulate the British converts who murdered a soldier on a Woolwich street in 2013, along with a poem warning that jihadists would be “marching” to Maine.

The issue of Gaidi Mtaani also features a lengthy story about late al-Qaeda recruiter and cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, whose lectures are cited by American terrorists to this day, playing paintball in San Diego in the 1990s.

The Somali terror group, allied with al-Qaeda, has previously urged Western jihadists to draw inspiration from the attack on 25-year-old Fusilier Lee Rigby, who was first struck by a car and then stabbed and hacked by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. London-born Adebolajo, 28, who was raised Christian before converting to Islam, filmed a statement before police arrived at the murder scene, vowing “you people will never be safe.” Both are serving life in prison.

Al-Shabaab’s magazine dubs Adebolajo 2013’s “Muslim of the Year,” declaring “good men are hard to find.”

“In an age stained with defeatism and cowardice, a room full of Mujahid Adebolajo is exactly what today’s world needs,” the article, bylined Abu Maryam, states. “…If a pictures speaks a thousand words, then blood in British streets speak a million words. Knowing that the British Government only understands the language of violence, instead of writing his letter on paper, Adebolajo decided to write his letter on the streets of Southeast London using the blood of a British soldier.”

Adebolajo was “practically teaching the British public and the world in general, the elementary principle of universalism” through the murder, the terror group argued, with eye-for-an-eye reasoning.

“World media and left wing conservatives can deceptively portray Mujahid as a psychopathic slayer if they please, but after watching the video and hearing his words, deep down inside everyone knew he was making perfect sense. Amidst the hustle and bustle of London streets, specifically targeting a British soldier once stationed in Afghanistan clearly expresses the political motives behind the killings and disproves the fallacy that the attack was a haphazard intent to randomly slay Britons,” the article continues.

“It’s quite ignorant and presumptuous of non-Muslims and Muslims alike to think that the driving force of Mujahid’s actions were fueled by an inherent disdain for British culture or values,” the terror group argues, noting that if Adebolajo just wanted to kill fellow Britons there were more people at the scene he could have attacked.

“Their message couldn’t be any simpler, ‘We swear by Allaah the All-Mighty we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.’ These same axioms expressed by Mujahid in England, were reiterated by Nidal Hasan, Mohamed Mirah, and the same concepts that will continue to be personified through bloodshed in Western streets, unless taken seriously.” Hasan killed 13 at Fort Hood in 2009, while Mohammed Merah killed French soldiers and Jewish children during a 2012 shooting spree in Toulouse and Montauban.

Merah was born in Toulouse while Hasan was born in Virginia, keeping with the article’s theme of urging attacks at home by jihadists native to Western countries.

A poem bylined by the same author of the article says to “tell the West we’re a roaring flame/That can’t be doused that can’t be tamed/And until you cease your bombs and planes/We’ll keep marching till we reach the State of Maine.” CONTINUE AT SITE