RUTHFULLY YOURS

Should anyone have had any doubts, the barbaric murder of US photojournalist James Foley fully exposes the true nature of the Islamist terrorists menacing the Middle East. Unfortunately, the savagery exhibited in what happened to James Foley was not unique—beheadings and suicide bombings have become standard tactics in the Islamist terrorists’ way of war. Just weeks before Foley’s murder Kosovo jihadi Lavdrim Muhaxheri posted similar photos of himself “in action” in Iraq. Such Islamist-terrorist ritual beheadings were seen during the Bosnian jihad as well, when extremists would produce “promotional videos” of their efforts showing the decapitation of Serb prisoners, or, in another case, when Bosnian jihad veteran Omar Saeed Sheik was involved in the murder/ beheading of Wall Street Journal reporterDaniel Pearl.

The expansion of militant Islamism from places such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia to parts of the world such as the Balkans is no accident; it is part of a complex phenomenon involving several distinct elements, not the least of which is an organized, well-funded effort by hardline Islamist states to export their extremist ideologies to other parts of the world. With respect to the Balkans, for instance, by one estimate the Saudis alone spent $1 billion (US) on “Islamic activities” in Bosnia between 1992-98.[1]
A second important element in the spread of militant Islamism is the education of increasing numbers of local Islamic clerics in the Middle-Eastern universities and madrasas where the most extreme interpretations of Islam are promoted. All of the leaders of the Balkan militant Islamist movement, for instance, including individuals such as Nedžad Balkan, Bilal Bosnić, Nezim Halilović-Muderis, Nusret Imamović, or the Kosovo clerics (and Al-Azhar alumni) Zekerija Qazimi and Lulzima Qabashi, recently arrested for recruiting young men for the Syrian and Iraqi jihads, were educated in the Middle-East, where they were exposed to the ideology of militant Islamism and formed connections and ties with other members of the global jihad movement.

The biggest political drama of the summer isn’t about Hillary Clinton or immigration reform. It’s the intense behind-the-scenes battle between the CIA and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence over the committee’s report on the CIA’s alleged torture of terrorist detainees during the George W. Bush administration.

The committee wants to publish a 600-page summary of the 6,000-page report authored by committee Democrats to accuse the CIA of torturing prisoners by using the “enhanced interrogation techniques” — EITs — President Obama prohibited in 2009. The CIA is desperately opposed to publication, so much so that it admittedly spied on committee staffers writing the report.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The CIA’s objection to releasing the report seems strange because in 2012 Attorney General Eric Holder announced that there would be no prosecution of CIA interrogators. The CIA’s fear must be that whatever conduct the report blames them for is so terrible that it could ignite another round of intelligence “reforms” like those of the 1970s Church Committee which obstructed intelligence-gathering for many years.

Committee Democrats apparently want to revive the torture debate in time for the 2016 elections, perhaps to accompany a push to close Gitmo or repeal the post-Sept. 11 authorization for use of military force when, per Obama’s schedule, the last American forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.

The report apparently plays a lot of games with facts. One of its principal conclusions is rumored to be that EITs, which ranged from a slap in the face to waterboarding — were unnecessary because the intelligence gained through them could have been obtained by other means. That is speculative and it begs the question of timing. Was the intel gained and, if so, when? At this point, all we know is contained in former CIA Director George Tenet’s memoir, which says EITs yielded more valuable intelligence than the CIA, FBI, NSA and military operations combined.

It’s all very simple. We can’t fight Islam in the West without fighting the enablers of Islam in the West, namely the Leftists.

And, since the Left has many different and separate aspects, we have to fight against each one of them. Secularism, environmentalism, global warming alarmism, homosexualism, militant feminism, sexual relativism, multiculturalism, anti-Christianity, Islamophilia, post-nationalism, internationalism are just as important targets to attack as Marxist economics, the expropriation of the capitalist class (or, in its modern reincarnation, redistribution of wealth), and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Neglecting any of these fronts is like fighting a war leaving a battleground to the enemy, like fighting on the Western front and leaving totally undefended the Eastern one.

Secularism and atheism are certainly the first lines of important wars.

A secularist West will always lose to Islam, because it will have enough compassion, tolerance and self-restraint from violence that are the remnants of its Christian heritage, but it will have lost the ideals, the passion and certainty of fighting for a just cause that were once part of Christianity and have disappeared with its erosion.

Two quotes here serve as epigrams. Robert Spencer wrote in his great work Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t: “People who are ashamed of their own culture will not defend it.” And Dennis Prager said during one of his radio broadcasts, “Only good religion can counter bad religion.”

Some people claim that there won’t be a religious revival in Europe because we are past believing in God. That this is not true can be seen by the high – and increasing – number of Westerners who convert to Islam. Many of them give as a reason for their conversion the need for absolutes, boundaries and well-defined status.

A journalist writing for The Spectator on this subject explained why she is Catholic:

Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.

She doesn’t.

The left has denounced her as an interventionist. They just can’t explain how she is any more of an interventionist than her boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. And all that is without mentioning his attempt to implement the Arab Spring’s regime changes.

The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that’s not much of a firewall.

Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn’t have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations. That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.

Hillary isn’t disavowing Obama. She’s disavowing Hillary.

The new Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. And she’s somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.

Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.

The cop-hating radical lawyers of Eric Holder’s Justice Department are reportedly continuing to feed the passions of the lynch mob in Ferguson, Mo., that is screaming for the blood of the white cop who shot and killed a young black man earlier this month in what now almost certainly appears to be an act of self-defense.

A white police officer’s racism, an allegation for which there is no evidence whatsoever, supposedly caused the unfortunate incident. But the leftists who run the federal government need this. They want it badly. A police officer has to be sacrificed to appease Democrats’ political base and to help fend off an increasingly likely Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate in November.

Federal civil rights charges may be in the works against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot Michael Brown after an intense physical altercation that left Wilson with severe head injuries.

The feds may simply ignore local authorities and go forward with a case against Wilson, says Hans von Spakovsky, who worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under President George W. Bush. He is currently a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and is co-author of the recently published Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

“Eric Holder has completely politicized the Justice Department,” von Spakovsky told WND’s Greg Corombos. “As we can see, unfortunately, this is happening in other places like the Travis County (Texas) D.A.’s office” that charged Texas Gov. Rick Perry with a crime for threatening to veto legislation.

“That should concern every American,” he said. “I don’t care what their political background is because that is a threat to everyone’s liberty and everyone’s freedom when that kind of power is used for political purposes.”

Von Spakovsky said “I am fearful that they will try to pursue a federal case even if there’s no evidence to justify it, because of the fact that they really see everything, including Eric Holder, through the prism of race even when race is not a factor in a case or an incident.”

Writing in the Washington Post last Friday, Natan Sharansky argued that Western nations are quite right to hold Israel to a higher standard than its nondemocratic neighbors; the problem is that they hold Israel to a higher standard than they hold themselves. Many Westerners would doubtless deny doing so. But for proof, just compare the recent war in Gaza to the Iraq War.

According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2009, of the victims of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq whose age and gender could be determined, 46 percent were women and 39 percent were children. The study, based on data from Iraq Body Count, covered the period from March 2003 to March 2008, but specifically excluded airstrikes carried out during periods of intense fighting, such as the initial U.S. invasion and the 2004 battle of Fallujah. In other words, it excluded those periods when fire was likely to be heaviest and most indiscriminate due to the need to protect troops at risk.

By contrast, according to statistics published by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 12 percent of all Palestinians killed in Gaza were women and 23 percent were children (239 women and 459 children out of 1,976 fatalities). Thus even if OCHA’s numbers are accurate, the percentages of women and children killed in Gaza were far lower than the percentages killed in U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. Yet one would expect them to be higher, for at least three reasons.

First, unlike the NEJM study, OCHA’s figures cover the entire war, including periods of intense fighting when soldiers’ lives were at risk. In other words, they include the battles involving the heaviest fire, which NEJM’s study excluded. Second, the NEJM figures referred only to airstrikes, which utilize precision weapons; OCHA’s figures also include people killed by non-precision weaponry such as artillery fire. Third, though the claim that Gaza is one of the world’s mostly densely populated places is nonsense, almost all the fighting took place in dense urban areas: Since Hamas’s strategy depends on massive civilian casualties, it locates its rocket launchers and tunnels mainly in such areas. In contrast, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq weren’t limited to dense urban areas.

In short, even if OCHA’s figures are credible, Israel comes off well by comparison with coalition forces in Iraq. But in fact, they aren’t. First, OCHA doesn’t say whether any of these “children” were combatants, though it’s hardly unheard of for 16- or 17-year-old Palestinians to bear arms. More importantly, however, it doesn’t say how many of these women and children were actually killed by Hamas rather than Israel.

Today, Wednesday, I started the day with Toronto’s Number One morning man, John Oakley, at AM 640. We focused on two stories – the policing of Ferguson, Missouri, and the decapitation by ISIS of my fellow Granite Stater – James Foley of Rochester, New Hampshire, who was kidnapped while reporting on the Syrian uprising.

His executioner – the man standing next to him in the picture at right – was speaking with a British accent. That’s to say, he’s one of thousands of citizens of western nations – British, American, European, Canadian and Australian – who’ve flocked to join the planet’s coolest new gang and saw the heads off anyone who gets in their way: Christian, Yazedi, Kurd, Shia, Alawite, and, indeed, plenty of little schoolgirls in pretty pink dresses. As I said to John, more British Muslims are serving with ISIS than as soldiers of the Queen.

As the apologists for mass Muslim immigration assure us, not every western Muslim wants to join up with the head-hackers. That’s true, but the number of folks back home cheering them on is not insignificant: I mentioned to John a poll showing that “15 per cent of French people back ISIS”. Ah, but don’t worry: it’s probably an outlier.

From the United Kingdom’s point of view, the Afghan war has long been in essence a British civil war relocated to the Hindu Kush and played out between those British passport-holders loyal to Queen and country and those who regard themselves as soldiers of Allah. But the execution of James Foley broadens the scope, and foreshadows a world in which Americans are beheaded by nominal “Australians”, Australians by “Belgians”, Belgians by “Canadians”, Canadians by “Germans”, Germans by Americans.

There are two approaches to ISIS: You can kill it. Or you can feed it. And right now we’re feeding it – with manpower, and with victims. And, as it feasts, it grows.

The vice president’s Boeing 757 delivered Eric Holder to St. Louis yesterday. In Ferguson, Holder announced that he was “a black man” and therefore had the power to heal Ferguson in ways that no other law enforcement official could. Yet his comments were sure to throw gasoline on fire burning hot with racial division.

That shouldn’t shock anyone. It’s the community organizing model of running the Justice Department. What is shocking is who is fueling the Justice Department’s “training” of police departments around the country: radicals, communist-affiliated organizations, and George Soros. I stumbled across this section of my book Injustice this morning. It notes:

A stable of academics serving as paid consultants help to fuel the DOJ’s fixation on racial profiling by the police. One such consultant, Dr. Jack McDevitt of Northeastern University, heads the Institute on Race and Justice (IRJ). Past collaborators with the IRJ include Angela Davis, a former member of both the Communist Party USA and the original Black Panther Party. The IRJ receives at least $440,448 in DOJ funds to teach department lawyers about racial profiling by police departments. But the IRJ’s reports on this issue have another deep pocket benefactor—George Soros and his Open Society Institute. Soros sponsored the IRJ’s project “Confronting Racial Profiling in the 21st Century: Implications for Racial Justice,” the very same work that IRJ is doing for the DOJ. Thus, police departments are subjected not only to DOJ muscle, but DOJ muscle with the financial backing of George Soros.

The DOJ training is basically sensitivity training for local cops. It is DOJ’s way to let them know what is and is not acceptable in Washington, D.C. If you behave in a way DOJ does not approve of, expect a visit from the Civil Rights Division.

But police training with even one degree of separation from Angela Davis is totally unacceptable. She is the perhaps the most toxic symbol of radical, violent, murderous opposition to the police and the legal system. In a sane government, the Justice Department wouldn’t have anything to do with any organization that has anything to do with her. But under Eric Holder, at least half a million dollars of your money goes to an organization she has collaborated with.

Most of us, even many Democrats these days, are beginning to acknowledge the complete foreign policy failure of our president (for an overview see Bret Stephens’ The Meltdown [1] in Commentary), but we still have to deal with over two years of Obama and we have a serious problem that needs to be handled immediately.

We could die. Not all of us but a lot of us. And our society as we know it could be destroyed.

Sound apocalyptic and a little overwrought?

Well, it is apocalyptic, but not so overwrought.

Surely you saw the Islamic State video with that journalist’s head being lopped off, not to mention other videos with people being shot in the back and dumped in open pits. You know too that the jihadi who beheaded the journalist was British. And indeed the Islamic State is comprised of violent religious fanatics from all over the planet who are well armed, virtually a terror army, and rich. They have explicit instructions to return to their home countries and wreak havoc for the glory of a coming global caliphate. Also, they have allies from North Africa to the Philippines who more or less seek the same thing under various names.

It’s not just Houston that has a problem now. It’s Western Civ!

So what are we going to do about it? Well, there’s a lot that can be done militarily, though much of that will probably have to wait for a new president, but just as importantly we must…

Build a fence across our entire Southern border and do it now. Make it as secure as we can. Spare no expense. Add whatever high tech accoutrements deemed necessary.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon leaders stepped before reporters today for the first time since the beheading of journalist James Foley, with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warning that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) is “beyond anything that we’ve seen.”

“ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded,” Hagel said at the briefing alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey. “…So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and– and — and get ready.”

One thing that was lacking, as with President Obama’s Wednesday statement on the murder of Foley, was a hard game plan to move forward and defeat the terrorist organization.

“We continue to explore all options regarding ISIL and how best we can assist our partners in that area, the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq, against ISIL,” Hagel said. “…We will continue to stay focused, as I said, on what we’re doing now and exploring all options as we go forward.”

Hagel stressed that U.S. assistance, such as airstrikes in the Iraqi operation to retake Mosul dam and helping Kurds defend Irbil, “have stalled ISIL’s momentum and enabled Iraqi and Kurdish forces to regain their footing and take the initiative.”

Not long before the Pentagon briefing began, though, new reports emerged of ISIS offensives. Al Iraqiya reported that ISIS forces had launched an attack on Amerli, a Turkmen town that has been under siege and crying for help since June 18 — heroically holding off the terrorists until today.

Kurdish accounts on Twitter were also reporting a large convoy of ISIS fighters moving toward Mount Sinjar, now that international attention was turned away from the site of the Yazidi siege.

“The president, the chairman and I are all very clear-eyed about the challenges ahead. We are pursuing a long-term strategy against ISIL because ISIL clearly poses a long-term threat. We should expect ISIL to regroup and stage new offenses,” Hagel said, not mentioning any of the terror group’s latest moves.