RUTHFULLY YOURS

A new video circulating today from ISIS features a 10-year-old kid, Yusuf, who claims to live in Raqqa and who warns that America’s fight against the terror group will “end in your lands.”

The video is the fourth in a series called “A Fertile Nation” and begins with scenes of ISIS fighters preparing for battle in what appears to be Raqqa. Coincidentally, the fighters huddle over an iPhone looking at a map of the city, presumably preparing their defensive positions against coalition forces.

Then Yusuf is introduced, reading quickly from a prepared script. He identifies himself and says that he is an American who made hijrah two years ago “from the land of kufr (infidelity)” to the Islamic State. The video then shows drone footage of what appears to be Los Angeles.

Yusuf then claims that his father is a former American soldier who fought “against the mujaheddin” in Iraq.

In the next scene, another boy, 7-year-old Abdullah, is introduced by Yusuf. Abdullah is seen performing ablution presumably before prayer.
New ISIS Video Features 10-Year-Old American Living in Raqqa

He says that he was taken by ISIS from Sinjar, meaning that he may be one of the captured Yazidi children taken when they overran that area in northern Iraq three years ago this month.

Yusuf continues:

We live in a small city called Raqqa. This city has scared the whole world because the Muslims who live in it have learned the meaning of jihad and have established the rule of Allah. Because of this all the nations of the world who are led by America have gathered to scare us away from what we have established. More and more there is more random bombings, including phosphorus bombs, and all kinds of planes, including B-52s, from jets to drones.

Yusuf and Abdullah then walk through the rubble of Raqqa. The video shows scenes of a damaged mosque and a destroyed playground.
ISIS to Jihadists: ‘Kidnap the Children’ of Westerners

A graphic is shown representing the purported damage to Raqqa from coalition bombing.

After a message about the travails of Muslims throughout history, scenes of ISIS fighters are shown, such as an anti-aircraft gun being fired at a coalition jet.

Yusuf then gives the following message:

My message to Trump, the puppet of the Jews, Allah promises victory and promised you defeat. This battle is not going to end in Raqqa or Mosul. It’s going to end in your lands. By the will of Allah we will have victory. So get ready for the fighting has just begun.

And continuing in Arabic, he concludes:

Do you think that we’re going to leave? Do you think that we’ll be finished? Never! We will remain until the Day of Judgement, with Allah’s permission.

Toronto-based automated investment provider Wealthsimple Financial Inc. introduced a Shariah-compliant portfolio targeting U.S. and Canadian investors on Wednesday in a move to expand its product offerings in an increasingly crowded robo-adviser market.

Robo-advisers have recently emerged as a popular segment of the market among passive individual investors seeking lower management fees and a reliable return on investment. However, the space has become crowded, with companies such as Charles Schwab Corp. and Bank of America Corp. launching their own robo-adviser offerings alongside startups such as Wealthfront Inc. and Betterment.

Robo-advisers are likely to report double-digit growth in assets under management in coming years from a base of less than $100 billion in 2016, according to a report released by Fitch Ratings Inc. last month. The Fitch report cited a recent study by KPMG that estimates robo-advisers’ assets under management will total more than $2 trillion by the end of 2020.

Wealthsimple’s Halal Investing portfolio is aimed at setting the company apart from its peers, said Michael Katchen, the company’s chief executive and co-founder.

“The Muslim community in North America is extremely large and underserviced,” Mr. Katchen said. He expects the portfolio’s interest to closely mirror the company’s socially responsible products that began as a niche offering and grew to one of its biggest services.

The new portfolio will track a group of 50 companies traded in the U.S. and Canada that don’t generate more than 5% of their revenue from alcohol, tobacco, gambling or pork production, and don’t make significant income from interest. Wealthsimple’s fees are a flat 0.5% for the first $100,000 invested and drop to 0.4% on any additional investment.

Mr. Katchen said there is a lack of affordable options aimed at Muslim investors, which opened the opportunity for the company to develop its own offering. He cited the Global Iman Fund managed by Global Growth Assets Inc., with a management fee of 2.82%, as a competitor. Another rival is New York-based Wahed Invest, which offers Shariah-compliant investments with management fees ranging from 0.29% to 0.99%.

“This is a way for people to achieve their long-term goals and make it acceptable to a group which hasn’t had that kind of option in the past,” Mr. Katchen said. CONTINUE AT SITE

Egypt lashed out Wednesday against a decision by the Trump administration to slash and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid to Cairo, in a rare sign of friction between two leaders who have lavished each other with praise.

The administration is cutting $95.7 million in military and economic aid and putting another $195 million in military assistance on hold because of unhappiness over Egypt’s human-rights situation, a State Department official said.

Washington also wants to pressure Cairo on its ties with North Korea, a person familiar with the decision said.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has lauded Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, calling the former army general a “great friend and ally” and a partner in the fight against terrorism.

When the two leaders met in April in Washington, U.S. officials were assured by their Egyptian counterparts that legislation restricting the activities of nongovernmental organizations wouldn’t take effect. The following month, Mr. Sisi signed the bill into law.

The Egyptian law imposes strict regulations on nongovernmental organizations, and human rights groups have said the law essentially amounts to a ban of their work. U.S. officials see the Egyptian law as part of a crackdown on dissent under Mr. Sisi.

“People in the administration felt misled,” the State Department official said. “We definitely wanted to send a message that they need to do better on human rights.”

The U.S. moves came as White House special adviser Jared Kushner held separate talks in Cairo with Mr. Sisi and Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri as part of a Middle East tour that aims to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. As the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, in 1979, Egypt is seen as an important player in any resumption of talks.

The State Department official said the steps on aid weren’t timed to coincide with Mr. Kushner’s trip, and weren’t connected.

The $195 million in withheld military funds won’t be disbursed until the U.S. sees “progress from Egypt on key priorities,” said the State Department official, who declined to specify what Cairo must do to get the aid resumed.

In a statement Wednesday, Egypt’s Foreign Ministry criticized the measures as harmful to “Egyptian and American common interests” and said they represented a misjudgment about the nature of historic U.S.-Egyptian strategic ties. They also reflected Washington’s “lack of understanding about the importance of supporting the stability and success of Egypt.”

The U.S. has supplied Egypt, a key ally in the Middle East, with nearly $80 billion in military and economic aid in the past three decades, and the decision to use U.S. aid to express its displeasure over Egyptian government policies is a major shift for the Trump administration.

Mr. Trump raised his concerns about North Korea with Mr. Sisi in a call last month, according to a White House account. Mr. Trump stressed the need for countries to stop hosting North Korean guest workers and providing economic or military benefits. CONTINUE AT SITE

Hamas and Abbas have turned Palestinian journalists into weapons in their internecine war. Palestinian journalists are now being targeted not only for expressing their views and reporting in a way that angers their leaders; they are also arrested and tortured in the process of the settling of scores between Abbas and Hamas.

The Palestinians indeed live under two dictatorial regimes, where freedom of expression and freedom of the media are violated on a daily basis.

By taking journalists hostage, the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas have demonstrated that they are operating more as militias than as governments. We have before us a preview of the deadly drama of any future Palestinian state.

Palestinian journalists have once again fallen victim to the continuing power struggle between the Palestinian Authority (PA), which has jurisdiction over parts of the West Bank, and Hamas, the Islamist movement that is in control of the entire Gaza Strip.

Neither the PA nor Hamas is any champion of human rights, especially freedom of the media. The two parties regularly crack down on their critics, including journalists who do not toe the line or dare to report on issues that are deemed as reflecting negatively on the PA or Hamas.

The past few weeks have been particularly tough for Palestinian journalists. In this period, several journalists found themselves behind bars in PA and Hamas prisons, while others were summoned for interrogation and had to spend hours in interrogation rooms facing and detention centers.

To make matters even worse, a new Cyber Crime Law passed by the PA paves the way for legal measures against Facebook and Twitter users who post critical or unflattering comments about President Abbas and his senior officials. Critics say the law is a grave assault on freedom of expression and it will be used as a tool in the hands of Abbas and his henchmen to silence their critics or throw them into prison. In addition, the PA has blocked more than 20 news websites that are affiliated with Hamas and Mohammed Dahlan, an ousted Fatah leader who has long openly challenged Abbas.

The PA-Hamas war is hardly a secret. The two entities use every available method to bring each other down. Abbas’s PA has not hesitated to take extreme measures against the two million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. These measures include depriving the Gaza Strip of medical supplies, electricity and fuel, as well as forcing thousands of PA civil servants into early retirement and cutting off salaries to thousands of others.

Hamas’s retaliatory capacity towards the PA for these punitive steps is limited — by Israel. Fortunately for Abbas and the PA, Israel is sitting in the middle between the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Had Israel not been so situated, Hamas and its Gaza Strip followers would have marched into the West Bank and taken over Ramallah, the de facto capital of the Palestinian Authority, and overthrown Abbas’s PA.

The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s diseased society.

The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil — of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.

Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.

Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling “deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient” — or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, “Doublespeak.”

This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.

To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes — such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and “apostates” — both have become totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness — and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas — and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran — use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.

The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media — to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood — is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell’s view of a diseased society.

These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press — whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling — is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.

Alexander recently wrote:

“Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn’t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words ‘pro-life’ changed to ‘anti-abortion,’ because the AP Stylebook instructs, ‘Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.’ It goes on, ‘Avoid abortionist,’ saying the term ‘connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.’

“Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. ‘People struggling to enter Europe’ is favored over ‘migrant’ or ‘refugee.’ While it’s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees.”

Though members of the anti-Donald Trump camp would die before admitting ‎it, they are in a state of exhilaration over his presidency. Every time he opens ‎his mouth, they feel vindicated in their opposition to his election and justified ‎in their personal loathing of him. The same goes for Israeli Prime Minister ‎Benjamin Netanyahu’s detractors.‎

I know exactly what they are going through, as this is how I experienced the ‎eight years of former U.S. President Barack Obama’s tenure. When Obama ‎was inaugurated in January 2009, I wept both tears of sadness and joy. I was ‎upset that this radical Saul Alinskyite with an anti-Semitic pastor was about to ‎take the helm of the most important position in the world. I was amused, ‎however, that he had emerged out of nowhere to swipe the Democratic ‎candidacy out of the clutches of Hillary Clinton, who was promised by her ‎party that she was a shoo-in. But mainly I was relieved, as a columnist, to be ‎able to spend the next several years calling the powers-that-be to task, rather ‎than having to defend them. ‎

In general, it is much easier to be a critic than a champion, because all ‎positions are flawed in some way. This is especially true where our preferred ‎politicians are concerned. Those we elect to represent our worldview not only ‎have faults; we are lucky if any of them are even capable of understanding the ‎debate, let alone articulating it. So we end up having to do that on their behalf. ‎

To be effective in this endeavor, we have to be clever, and that takes work. It’s ‎hard always having to preface support for an idea by acknowledging its ‎blemishes — as Winston Churchill did when describing democracy as the ‎‎”worst form of government … except for all those other forms.” Imagine how ‎trite and pathetic that sentence would have sounded had its order been ‎reversed.‎

Indeed, to put up a good defense, we have to anticipate the ‎prosecutorial argument of our adversaries and head it off at the pass by ‎presenting its merits, even when we don’t really wish to see any. Members of ‎both the Left and the Right who fail to do this come off as fanatics or fools. ‎

In contrast, being on the offensive requires little more than hurling darts at the ‎heart of a matter. Which is why I so frequently go after Palestinian Authority ‎President Mahmoud Abbas, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the ‎Iranian regime and all their apologists in the West. ‎

Far trickier is defending Trump and Netanyahu, both of whom I voted for and ‎still support, in spite of valid reasons to have qualms about each.‎

The Taliban vowed to create “a graveyard for the American Empire” with “lofty spirits” after President Trump didn’t heed their lobbying for a withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In unveiling an Afghanistan strategy at Fort Myer outside D.C. on Monday night, Trump said that “perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” a continuation of the Obama-era policy that kept the door open to negotiations with the terror group and categorized them as armed insurgents.

The Taliban killed two U.S. soldiers in a suicide bombing earlier this month and claimed responsibility for the death of a U.S. soldier in July. They also claimed an Afghan military recruit who killed three U.S. soldiers in June was one of their fighters who had infiltrated security forces.

“America will continue its support for the Afghan government and the Afghan military as they confront the Taliban in the field,” Trump said. “Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.”

Trump noted that “the American people are weary of war without victory” and said that despite his “original instinct” to pull out his advisers convinced him that “the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable.”

In a statement from spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid released in print and on video, the Taliban said, “It seems America is not yet ready to end the longest war in its history. Instead of trying to understand ground realities, they still arrogantly believe in their force and might.”

“So long as a single American soldier remains in our homeland and American leaders continue treading the path of war, we shall also sustain our jihad against them with lofty spirits, absolute determination and additional firmness,” Mujahid vowed, calling it “our religious obligation and national duty — we shall remain true to this duty so long as souls remain in our bodies.”

“America should have thought about withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan instead of continuing the war,” he added. “As Trump stated ‘Americans are weary of the long war in Afghanistan’, we shall cast further worry into them and force American officials to accept realities. The Afghan Mujahid nation is neither tired nor will it ever get tired in pursuit of winning their freedom and establishing an Islamic system. If America does not withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the day will not be far when Afghanistan shall transform into a graveyard for the American Empire and the American leaders can understand this concept.”

Ahead of last Friday’s Camp David meeting at which Trump discuss Afghanistan strategy with his team, the Taliban issued an open letter to Trump telling him that if the U.S. military hasn’t won the peace so far “you shall never be able to win it with mercenaries, notorious contractor firms and immoral stooges.” CONTINUE AT SITE

The measures to place bollards or planters in public areas were never implemented in Barcelona because the leaders of the Catalan independence movement did not want to be seen as taking orders from the central government in Madrid.

Far more difficult to explain is why no one reported suspicious activity at the chalet.

Although some Catalans are having second thoughts about the wisdom of promoting Muslim mass immigration as a strategy to achieve Catalan independence, at least 10,000 Catalans with links to the separatist movement have actually converted to Islam in recent years.

As details emerge of the August 17 jihadist attack in Barcelona, the evidence points to one overarching conclusion: the carnage could have been prevented if a series of red flags had not been either missed or ignored.

The failure to heed intelligence warnings, enhance physical security and report suspicious activity are all factors that facilitated the attack, which had been in the planning stage for more than six months.

The attack was also enabled by the idiosyncrasies of Spanish politics, especially the tensions that exist between the central government and the leaders of the independence movement in Catalonia, the autonomous region of which Barcelona is the capital.
Failure to Install Bollards on Las Ramblas

The Barcelona attack could have been prevented had municipal officials complied with an order to install bollards, vertical poles designed to prevent car ramming attacks, on the Rambla, the city’s main tourist thoroughfare.

On December 20, 2016, one day after a Tunisian jihadist drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people and injuring 56, Spanish National Police issued a circular ordering all central, regional and municipal police departments in Spain to “implement physical security measures to protect public spaces” to prevent jihadist attacks “in places with high numbers of people.” The circular advised:

“Municipalities should protect these public spaces by temporarily installing large planters or bollards at access points to hinder or prevent the entry of vehicles.”

The measures were never implemented in Barcelona because the leaders of the Catalan independence movement did not want to be seen as taking orders from the central government in Madrid.

After receiving the directive, Catalan autonomous police, known as the Mossos d’Esquadra, accused the central government of “alarmism” and insisted that it would not order municipalities in Catalonia to implement this “indiscriminate measure.” The Mossos also claimed to have the jihadist threat under control, that local police were trained to “detect symptoms or radicalization,” and that there were “no concrete threats.”

After the Barcelona attack, Deputy Mayor Gerardo Pisarello blamed the absence of bollards on the Catalan Interior Ministry. “The City of Barcelona has never refused to install bollards. Whenever it has been requested, we have done so,” Pisarello said. Ada Colau, Barcelona’s leftwing mayor, however, has repeatedly refused to “fill Barcelona with barriers,” insisting that it must remain “a city of liberty.”

El Periódico de Catalunya, a paper based in Barcelona, elaborated:

“The total absence of police collaboration between the Mossos d’Esquadra, which is the police force deployed on the ground, and the National Police and the Civil Guard translates into huge security deficiencies. The relationship between police forces — influenced by the political situation — is terrible and, in the case of the Mossos and the National Police, it is open war.

Cambrils, Spain.

The road to September 11 wended its way through this Spanish town where Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, met up with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the former refugee to Germany and current Gitmo inmate, who had been serving as Osama bin Laden’s point man for the attacks that would kill thousands.

The hotel where Atta and Osama’s man met is a few blocks away from where the Muslim terrorists climbed out of their crashed car, drawing knives, axes and machetes, before a police officer working overtime to earn extra money shot most of them dead on the spot outside the Club Nautic.

The distance between where Atta was planning 9/11 and the latest terror attack in Spain is 110 meters. Stroll past a pub, a hair salon and a real estate agency in this seaside resort town and you’re there.

Cambrils hadn’t been the original target of the terrorists. Their dream target was the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona. When their bombs went off prematurely, they went to Cambrils and Las Ramblas in Barcelona because it was likely to have foreign tourists that they could run over, stab and mutilate.

The consistent pattern of the big Islamic terror attacks in recent years, from the Boston Marathon to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, from Bataclan to the Manchester Arena, from the Champs-Élysées to London Bridge, is to look for nightlife spots or crowds of tourists all packed into the same place.

The Sagrada Familia, which at completion will be able to hold 14,000 people, would have been a target closer to the scale of September 11. When Pope Benedict arrived in ’10, 6,000 people were able to fill the cathedral. Around 10,000 visitors tour the building every day. Had the terrorists been able to move their original plot along, the way that Atta and Al-Shibh did theirs, thousands might have died.

The message of Driss Oukabir had been clear. “Kill all infidels and only leave Muslims who follow the religion”.

That’s always been the “sacred” mission of Islam. The bloody chapters of the plot played out in Cambrils, where the terrorists were gunned down as they tried to butcher pedestrians, Barcelona, where pedestrians were run over in a van, and Alcanar, where the terrorists squatted a house and filled it with gas canisters and TATP explosives before the whole thing was accidentally blown sky high.

But the Jihad didn’t come from these places. It came, as always, from an Islamic population center and its satellite mosque.

Ripoll, Spain.

Like the river that adjoins it, the history of this small Catalan town of 11,000 flows back to the beginning of human history. Dig in the right places and you can find everything from bronze axe heads to Roman tombs. These days you can also find Muslim terrorists squatting in their mosques and plotting murder.