Posts

H.R. McMaster avoids Radical Islamic terrorist label again, calls NYC Muslim a ‘mass murderer’

H.R. McMaster, President Trump’s embattled national security adviser, referred to the Islamic terrorist suspect in Tuesday’s deadly jihadist attack in Lower Manhattan as among a grouping of “mass murderers.”

“Embattled” is right. McMaster is at odds with the Trump administration’s war against jihad terror, which motivated the President to issue a temporary ban on immigration from Muslim countries of concern, countries which were first identified by the Obama administration as problematic. Yet McMaster still refuses to acknowledge the nature of this war.

It was also recently reported that returning Islamic State jihadists were not just a threat to Britain and other parts of Europe, but that they were also making their way back into the US, creating a threat that is within McMaster’s jurisdiction of national security.

The Lower Manhattan attack is not the first time McMaster referred to a jihad attack as “mass murder.” He did the same in calling the 9/11 attack a “mass murder,” with no mention of the motivation of Islamic jihad behind it.

The jihad suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, “left behind a note declaring that the attack was perpetuated in the name of the Islamic State.” Saipov shouted “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “Allah is greater,” during the attack. Yet still McMaster refuses to acknowledge the role of the Islamic religion in the attack. Yet the jihadis have made their motives and goals clear. In the case of 9/11, the mastermind of the attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “revealed that al Qaeda’s plan to kill the United States was not through military attacks but immigration and ‘outbreeding nonmuslims’ who would use the legal system to install Sharia law.”

McMaster thinks (or pretends to think) that “extremists” are not religious people, despite their determination to expand the domains of Sharia by whatever means. This misguided view veils the fact that it is precisely Islamic religious zeal that motivates jihadists. From the Wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia — which is the same Wahhabi ideology that governs the Islamic State — to the terrorist state of Iran, ruled by its religious supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, one cannot deny the devoted religiosity of Islamic jihadists; yet McMaster remains in denial.

Sayfullo Saipov

“H.R. McMaster Avoids Islamic Terrorist Label Again, Calls Manhattan Jihadist a ‘Mass Murderer’”, by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, November 3, 2017:

(New York) H.R. McMaster, President Trump’s embattled national security adviser, referred to the Islamic terrorist suspect in Tuesday’s deadly jihadist attack in Lower Manhattan as among a grouping of “mass murderers.”

This despite reports that the suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, left behind a note declaring that the attack was perpetuated in the name of the Islamic State. And witnesses heard Saipov shout “Allahu Akbar!,” Arabic for “Allah is great,” during the terrorist assault.

McMaster has a history of minimizing the radical Islamic nature of such attacks. Only last month, he labeled the September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorist attacks “mass murder attacks,” instead of calling them acts of terrorism. This reporter previously exposed numerous other instances of McMaster minimizing the Islamic motivations of radical Muslim terrorists.

The latest incident came during a White House press briefing on Wednesday, when a reporter posed the following question to McMaster:

I know we’re focused on the Asia trip here, but I just wanted to talk for a second about the President weighing in on the man who’s been charged with mowing down pedestrians in New York City. He called for the death penalty. Have there been any conversations in the White House about how that could complicate prosecutors’ efforts, and even help the defense claim that this person can’t get a fair trial?

McMaster replied (emphasis added):

What the President wants is to secure the American people from this threat and from mass murderers like this, murderers like this. And so what he’s asked us for are options to take a look to assess if our tremendous law enforcement teams and our judicial system has all the tools they need to be able to combat this threat to the American people.

So what we owe him now is we owe him options — you know, options to take a look at to see if this is the time to reassess, change our capabilities in this area and the area of law enforcement in particular……

In February, CNN cited a source inside a National Security Council meeting quoting McMaster as saying that use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” is unhelpful in working with allies to fight terrorism.

In May, McMaster spoke on ABC’s This Week about whether Trump would use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in a speech that the president was about to give in Saudi Arabia. “The president will call it whatever he wants to call it,” McMaster said. “But I think it’s important that, whatever we call it, we recognize that [extremists] are not religious people. And, in fact, these enemies of all civilizations, what they want to do is to cloak their criminal behavior under this false idea of some kind of religious war.”

This reporter previously exposed numerous instances of McMaster’s minimizing the Islamic motivations of radical Muslim terrorists.

Breitbart News unearthed a 2014 speech about the Middle East in which McMaster claimed that Islamic terrorist organizations are “really un-Islamic” and are “really irreligious organizations” who cloak themselves in the “false legitimacy of Islam.”

Delivering the keynote address at last April’s Norwich University ROTC Centennial Symposium, McMaster criticized “modern-day barbarians like Daesh and al-Qaeda who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to perpetuate ignorance, incite hatred, and commit the most heinous crimes against innocents.”

Breitbart News also reported that McMaster endorsed and touted a book that frames jihad as a largely peaceful “means to struggle or exert effort,” such as waking up early in the morning to recite prayers. It argues that groups like al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have hijacked the concept of jihad to wage warfare using such tactics as suicide bombings.

That same book calls Hamas an “Islamist political group” while failing to categorize the deadly organization as a terrorist group and refers to al-Qaeda attacks and anti-Israel terrorism as “resistance.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK “loses” 56,000 Muslim migrants due for deportation, including over 700 ex-cons

Oxford allows accused rapist Tariq Ramadan to continue teaching: “We must protect Muslim students”

Google bows to Muslim pressure, changes search results to conceal criticism of Islam

“Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”

“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslim such as Omar Suleiman without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?

This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said.

Suleiman, however, still isn’t satisfied: “One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said ‘much still needs to be done.’” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.”

This should have made Google executives stop and think. The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. There is no firm evidence that anyone has ever been killed by a “hate-filled Islamophobe,” and the claim that Hamas-linked CAIR and the SPLC make in this article, that this supposed “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, is supported by not a scintilla of evidence. Suleiman is equating critical words with murderous deeds, and Google should have realized at that point that he had an agenda and wasn’t being honest.

“Suleiman said Google should differentiate between ‘criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia’, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.”

That’s not clear. He apparently is saying that there is acceptable criticism of Islam that is not “hate-filled Islamophobia,” but if that is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon,” at least by this legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be “infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of Islam but not any other religion?

Suleiman says: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.”

The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has ever identified anyone he thinks is a legitimate critic of Islam who is not “Islamophobic.” Over 16 books now, as well as thousands of articles and over 45,000 blog posts, I have attempted to present a reasonable, documented, fair and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of “hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never given my work a fair hearing, but have read it only to search of gotcha!-quotes they could wrench away from their obvious benign meaning in order to claim I was saying something hateful. And this isn’t just me — this happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.

This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half, makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce some critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But he won’t, and can’t. It seems much more likely that he pressured Google to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam, but knowing that he couldn’t tell them that he was trying to bring Google into line with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”

Mr. Suleiman, if you and your colleagues hadn’t spent years tarring rational criticism of Islam that was accurate and presented in good faith as “hate-filled Islamophobia,” I might have believed you. But as one of your primary victims, I don’t.

I discuss the Islamic supremacist initiative to compel the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws under the guise of stamping out “hate speech,” an initiative that is now galloping forward and achieving immense success, in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“US Muslim groups welcome changes to Google results,” by Michael Hernandez, Anadolu Agency, July 26, 2017:

Queries about Islam and Muslims on the world’s largest search engine have been updated amid public pressure to tamp down alleged disinformation from hate groups.

However, activists who have worked to bring about the changes say more work remains.

In the past, users on Google seeking information about the religion or its adherents would be presented prominently with what many criticized as propaganda from hate groups.

That has recently changed.

Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.

Google did not confirm to Anadolu Agency the changes but said it is constantly updating its algorithms.

The search giant referred the agency to a recent blog post in which it said it was working to push back on what it called “offensive or clearly misleading content”.

“To help prevent the spread of such content for this subset of queries, we’ve improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content,” it said.

Combatting Islamophobia

One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done”.

Imam Omar Suleiman, who has been at the forefront of efforts to combat misleading information about his faith on the web, argued that Google and companies like it have a responsibility to combat “hate-filled Islamophobia” similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.

Suleiman said Google should differentiate between “criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia”, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.

“Google does not need to silence criticism of Islam and honest discussions about Islam, but heavily funded hate groups that are able to work the SEOs to get their websites showing up on the first, second page – I think that’s deeply problematic,” the popular imam said, referring to search engine optimization — the way in which websites are able to improve their placement in search engine results.

The task of sorting out legitimate criticism or debate about Islam from misleading information will not be easy, particularly in societies that value freedom of speech — a fact Suleiman, who is the founder and president of the Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, acknowledged.

Google told Anadolu Agency it does not seek to remove content from its platform simply because it is unsavory or unpopular, but does its best to prevent hate speech from appearing.

One way it is working to improve on the effort is by providing users with a mechanism in autofill suggestions that would allow users to alert the company when an offensive term appears.

Amid a nationwide increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims, the effort to combat misinformation is more imperative than ever, Muslim group said.

Hate crimes against Muslims

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the U.S.’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said it tracked a 584 percent increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes from 2014 to 2016.

The group is not the only one to find such numbers. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks hate incidents and groups in the U.S. and said it found hate groups increasing in number for the second consecutive year in 2016, fueled largely by a near-tripling of anti-Muslim groups.

“The growth has been accompanied by a rash of crimes targeting Muslims,” the center said in its annual report.

Information people receive from a variety of sources — television, radio and the Internet — no doubt plays a role in fomenting hatred among some of those who perpetrate attacks but could also be used to stop them.

“We are seeing a rise in hate crimes towards Muslims, and there is a direct connection between this demonization of Islam and Muslims and the hate crimes that are being perpetuated against Muslims in the United States,” Suleiman said.

Still, he maintained that such voices should not be censored but “should not be featured prominently as authoritative voices.”

Suleiman added: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims…

Yes, you do.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Robert Spencer at Breitbart: From Rushdie to Geller: The Steady Erosion of Free Speech

Video: Robert Spencer on Fox’s Varney & Co.: US & UK Must Do More to Fight ISIS At Home

86% of Muslim migrant ‘children’ are actually adults by Christine Douglas-Williams

86 percent of migrants in Sweden were discovered to be lying about their age, presenting themselves as children under 18, when they were in fact, adults. Many of these migrants committed rape, murder and other crimes:

In some cases, migrants who later turned out to be adults have even carried out murders in Swedish asylum homes meant for children….another migrant claiming to be a child stabbed and slashed a woman with a knife after she refused his sexual advances….In one case, an Ethiopian, who claimed to be 16-years-old, raped a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old whilst being fully aware that he was HIV positive.

Sweden is the poster country of failed immigration policy. It has failed abysmally to protect its citizens and its culture from barbarian incursion. Here is the “new” multicultural Sweden following its “generous” welcome of Muslim migrants: it is now on the brink of civil war, and its National Police Chief has called out, “HELP US, HELP US!” 80% of its police force want to quit; the country has been dubbed the rape capital of Europe; and violent crime is rampant in Muslim no-go zones, which police are so terrified to enter that they have turned their anger against Swedish citizenswho are calling for police help in these zones.

Western culture clearly needs to be defended and preserved against enemies, in accordance with Trump’s recent advice — in his speech in Warsaw — to fight terrorism as a clash of civilizations and to defend Western values “at any cost.”

“86 Per Cent of Recently Tested ‘Underage’ Migrants in Sweden Are Actually Adults”, by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, July 7, 2017:

The Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine (RMV) has released new figures that show a majority of cases of disputed “underage” migrants are actually adults.

The RMV released figures this week after medically testing 1,481 migrants to determine whether or not they had lied about being under the age of 18. Of the total number, it was revealed that 1,215, or 86 per cent, of the individuals tested were adults.

The testing took place over a three-month period between March and June of this year and involved an MRI of the knee joint and an x-ray of wisdom teeth. The results were then examined by doctors who determined whether the migrants were adults or children.

Of all the migrants tested, only 49, or 3.3 per cent, were female (33 of which were found to be over 18). The figures show the overwhelming number of migrants that claim to be underage are either boys or men.

Since the height of the migrant crisis in 2015, the Swedish government has been plagued with cases of asylum seekers who claim to be underage to receive both preferential treatment and a better chance of claiming asylum.

In some cases, migrants who later turned out to be adults have even carried out murders in Swedish asylum homes meant for children. The most publicised case was the stabbing to death of asylum worker Alexandra Mezher last year.

In November 2015, another migrant claiming to be a child stabbed and slashed a woman with a knife after she refused his sexual advances.

The murders shocked Sweden and led to the call for, and eventual implementation of, medical checks to ensure migrants were the age they claim.

Underage migrants in Sweden have also been involved in a number of sex attacks in Swedish schools and music festivals. Earlier this year, Swedish journalist Joakim Lamotte claimed sex abuse by migrants was widespread in Swedish public schools and both victims and teachers were afraid to address the subject because of political correctness.

In one case, an Ethiopian, who claimed to be 16-years-old, raped a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old whilst being fully aware that he was HIV positive……

RELATED ARTICLES:

UN declares ancient Jewish holy site is “Palestinian”

Hugh Fitzgerald: Couillard Comes to His Senses

Fitnaphobe Anjem Choudary: The United Kingdom’s leading Islamic Apologist

220px-Anjem_choudary

Anjem Choudary

England has become a hot bed for those who practice and further Islamic shariah laws. The UK’s leading Fitnaphobe is Anjem Choudary. Choudary is a Mohammedan and a true believer who understands that Fitna (resisting Islam) is worse than slaughter.

Anjem Choudary is a leader and the main spokesman of the Islamist group Al Muhajiroun in the United Kingdom. The British-born Choudary is also a solicitor and chairman of the Socety of Muslim Lawyers, a group remarkably similar in ideology and activity to Al Muhajiroun. In October 2000, for example, the Society of Muslim Lawyers joined Al Muhajiroun in issuing a fatwa against Israel.

According to Discover the Netorks:

[I]n October 2000, Choudary co-signed and issued a “Warning to All Jews…in the UK” that “if you support Israel financially, verbally or physically you will become part of the [Middle East] conflict.” Choudary, in other words, explicitly warned Jews in democratic Great Britain, the mother of parliaments, that if they opened their mouths in support of Israel, they risked being attacked in England by Islamist terrorists.

Choudary in 1999 was chief recruiter in Great Britain for the International Islamic Front (IIF), a group persuading and assisting young British Muslims to undergo “guns and live ammunition” combat training and then go overseas to fight Jihad (“Holy War”) in Chechnya and the Balkans. The head and chief sponsor of IIF in England was the founder of Al Muhajiroun, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad.

Tom Trento from The United West did a revealing interview with Choudary titled “Criticize Islam You Die – Anjem Choudary.” During the interview Choudary reveals his Fitnaphobia in no uncertain terms. Choudary’s clarity and honesty in describing his distrust and dislike for non-Muslims is refreshing and worthy of note. Choudary says what he means, and means what he says. He is a recognized Islam scholar.

Anjem Choudary explained his own view of the world in the following 2003 interview, titled “In Israel There Are No Civilians,” with reporter Ori Golan of the Jerusalem Post:

Are Muslims in the UK becoming more politicized?

Undoubtedly the more battlefronts the Muslim society experiences, the more radicalized it becomes. We’ve seen Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Chechnya – and of course Iraq and Palestine. I think this is something which increasingly politicizes the Muslim community.

What is Jihad?

Jihad is defined by the classical scholars as struggling for the sake of Allah in order to make His name the highest. Jihad dafeh is the defensive type of Jihad protecting life and our property. It can be fulfilled verbally, financially and physically by creating public awareness in favor of Jihad.Jihad involves fighting on the battlefield to the degree necessary to repel the aggressors.

What about killing civilians?

In Israel there are no civilians. You have to remember that they are occupying Muslim land.

Including babies and old women who get blown up in the marketplace?

Those people in the land are occupiers and aggressors and are part of the atrocities which, as far as we’re concerned, are as bad – if not worse – as in Nazi Germany. As far as women are concerned, they are a part of the army. By and large the operations are targeted at people who are part of the army, but invariably innocent people will be caught up in the explosions but this is what we call collateral damage.

Are all Zionists fair game?

We would not target anyone who supports Zionism as such; we believe in a healthy debate and dialogue with anyone. But it is one thing having a view and another giving money to kill someone or occupy someone’s land. Anyone involved in killing Muslims or organizing to displace Muslims is part of the enemy.

Is Islam a peaceful religion?

No, we can’t say that, because the roots of the word Islam is not peace, but submission – to have complete submission to the Creator.

What are your feelings about the Briton who carried out the suicide attack in Tel Aviv?

One must be happy for fellow Muslims when they fulfill their obligations. It is a very noble thing. Whenever a Muslim goes to a battlefield and performs a legitimate operation sanctioned by the sharia (Islamic law), this is something that should bring pleasure to the heart of all Muslims. I pray to Allah that he did this sincerely and had no other objectives but to please Him. If so, then he will get to Paradise.

Is there a conflict between being British and Muslim?

A Muslim can only have one identity. However, the fact that I have a British passport does mean that I have a covenant with the British government. This means that I will not violate the sanctity of any individual here and they will not violate the sanctity of my life. Britain is an aggressor in Iraq and it makes them a target only for people from outside.

Muslims in Afghanistan or in Iraq have the legitimate right to retaliate. Hence the attack on 9/11 was justifiable under sharia because they had been attacked in 1998. Under sharia law, for a Muslim from outside to bomb the Israeli embassy in London, would be acceptable.