ISIA: Isis In America

[Lenno]

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...71#post2487871

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...rt/#more-99968

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...21#post2487921

[Lenno]

News, USA | 2 Replies Somali Lives Matter — But Infidel Lives Don’t!

Posted on April 27, 2015 by Baron Bodissey
4
A week ago six Somali-Americans were arrested in Minnesota and California for attempting to journey to Syria to join the Islamic State and fight in the jihad. Now their fellow Somalis back “home” in Minneapolis are protesting the arrest of the six, who they say are innocent.
In the video below you’ll see the characteristic carrot-and-stick approach of Muslim demonstrators. The ones who get their faces on TV are earnest-looking, appealing to the American tradition of reasonableness and fair play. Watch the American flags come out. Can the teddy bears and candles be far behind?
While all this is going on, other Somalis are on Twitter, issuing death threats and promising a “massacre”.
This is the time-tested method used by Muslims against the infidel: shrewd co-opting on one hand, threats of violence on the other. The second makes the kuffar more tractable, so that the first is more likely to have an effect.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for compiling and uploading this video:

Below are excerpts from a series of news stories about the arrests and their aftermath. The first group of articles concerns the threats on Twitter (Mohammed Coefficient = 100%):
From The Star-Tribune:

Tweeted Threats Against Informant in Minnesota Terror Case, Officials Bring Federal Charges
By Randy Furst
A man who made death threats on Twitter against federal law enforcement officials in connection with the prosecution of six Minneapolis men charged with trying to join the Islamic State in Syria was charged Friday afternoon in federal court in Minneapolis.
Mahamed Abukar Said was charged with two criminal counts for threatening “to assault and murder a Federal law enforcement officer.”
The complaints said he posted on Twitter a photo of the government’s confidential informant in the case and threatened federal prosecutors.
Included in the federal complaint filed Friday were copies of Said’s alleged tweets, including one that said, “Ima whack that us attorney general.”

From TwinCities.com:

Minneapolis Man Accused of Tweeting Photo of FBI Informant, Making Threats
By Amy Forliti
A Minneapolis man was charged Friday with threatening law enforcement officials and writing on Twitter that a “massacre” would happen if authorities did not free six Twin Cities men who were arrested earlier this week and accused of trying to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State terrorist group.
According to an FBI affidavit, Mahamed Abukar Said used his Twitter account to threaten to kill a federal law enforcement official and demand that the men be freed. In one tweet on Wednesday, Said wrote, “the Feds are getting two choices. Either they gon free my bros or the gon have a massacre happen then they gon take me too,” the affidavit said.
Said also used Twitter to retaliate against a man who cooperated with authorities, the affidavit said, and posted a picture of the informant on Thursday.
[…]
Court testimony about the use of an informant, along with the judge’s decision to detain the men, prompted angry reaction from some of the roughly 200 local Somalis who attended Thursday’s hearing in St. Paul.
The FBI affidavit in Said’s case says that as Thursday’s hearing was nearing an end, Said tweeted a picture of the informant. A message with that picture contained profanity and called the man a “snitch.” The tweet was visible for a short time before it was removed.

[Lenno]

Senior female Islamic State recruiter is student from Seattle

April 30, 2015 9:34 am By Robert Spencer 5 Comments
She could still be in the country, and plotting to wage jihad here — or simply still recruiting for the Islamic State. In any case, from the description below, she doesn’t seem to have been suffering from notable poverty or deprivation or oppression. John Kerry, call your office!
“Senior female Isis figure who helped recruit women from Europe to Syria is revealed as student from Seattle,” by Heather Saul, Independent, April 29, 2015:

A senior female Isis figure who reportedly helped recruit women to join the extremist group in areas under its self-declared caliphate has been exposed as a student from Seattle, who may have been living in the city up until March this year.
The person behind the influential @_UmmWaqqas Twitter account has been revealed by Channel 4 as a woman in her 20s who lived and studied in the US.
Her Twitter account had a following of over 8,000 before it was suspended and shows that British recruits, such as Aqsa Mahmood, and other women from Europe were in contact with her in the days running up their departure. Mahmood goes by the name of ‘Umm Layth’ online and tweets from the @_UmmWaqqas account included: “Legit I talk to @ummlayth everyday” and “Umm Layth has more BALLS than most men & more heart/iman to have left her home for Allah’s sake.” She is also reportedly listed as a contact for recruits in a travel document explaining the best methods for reaching territories held by Isis in Syria.
The investigation found her Twitter account was accessed by someone in Seattle as recently as March, but her friends insist that she has since moved away. One told Channel 4 she may have relocated to Saudi Arabia, while another suggested she could be living in Denver, Colorado.
Some of her more extreme tweets justified the brutal killing of a Jordanian pilot and other atrocities committed by the group, including one that read: “I now get why they caged the man & then poured concrete on him… Whenever the muslims are bombed in their homes they have nowhere to run.”
However, her social media accounts also presented a passion for American football, the Super Bowl, eating takeout food with her friends and going to the gym, while photographs of her day-to-day life were found to show locations in and around Seattle….

[Lenno]

Reza Aslan hypes “Islamophobia”

April 29, 2015 4:59 pm By Cinnamon Stillwell 33 Comments
At an April 13 lecture at the University of California, Riverside, UCR creative writing professor and self-styled expert on Islam and the Middle East Reza Aslan employed biased sources, isolated statistics, and ad hominem attacks to blame critics of radical Islam for the alleged rise in “Islamophobia” in post-9/11 America.
“Islamophobia: The Real Enemy” was delivered before a student-dominated audience of some three hundred who laughed heartily at Aslan’s fashionably anti-American jokes, clearly responding to his personable, hip demeanor. Dressed casually in jeans, no tie, and an untucked shirt, he was, effectively, one of them.
Aslan explained that, “as a Middle Easterner, as a Muslim,” Islamophobia was “a personal issue” that had been “brought home on a personal level.” The child of Iranian immigrants who came to California in the early 1980s at the height of the hostage crisis—or, as Aslan put it, “an era in which Iran, the Middle East, and Muslims were being demonized”—he described how “tough” it was to be “Iranian/Muslim.” Consequently, he tried to “separate himself from his heritage, culture, [and] religion,” by “pretending to be a Mexican,” which, he joked, “tells you how little I understood America . . . they don’t like Mexicans, either.” The audience responded with knowing laughter.
Praising America as “a unique . . . country of immigrants” united by “adherence to a set of values,” Aslan claimed this unity is tested “in times of societal stress,” particularly after 9/11, when, he alleged, there was an “unprecedented surge of Islamophobia” and “every passing year, the numbers” got “higher and higher.” Citing alarming figures depicting a country awash in “mosque burnings” and anti-Muslim violence, he alluded to FBI statistics without acknowledging that, in 2013, sixty percent of religiously motivated hate crimes targeted Jews, while only eleven percent were directed at Muslims.
The visual aids projected onto the large screen behind him revealed the bias of at least one of his sources. Relying primarily upon the left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP)’s inaccurate 2011 report, “Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” Aslan sought to blame the supposed rise in “Islamophobia” on:

[A] well-planned, well-executed deliberate attempt to turn Muslims into an internal enemy by a very small cabal of individuals and organizations that have been funded to the tune of nearly 46 million dollars.

CAP’s report explained, Aslan noted, why “after 9/11, there was a rallying around Muslims,” but “the further away we got from 9/11, the higher the anti-Muslim sentiment” grew. He contended that it was “not a naturally evolving process” based on Americans’ reaction to real world events, but the work of handful of “misinformation experts,” “pseudo-scholars,” and “hate groups.” He bemoaned that their “reports are cited” by the media, politicians, and the “average American” as “actual studies,” even as he quoted the vacuous CAP report to a university audience.
One of the report’s targets, Middle East Forum president Daniel Pipes—whom Aslan dubbed, “the intellectual Islamophobe”—has pointed out that, in addition to CAP’s “predictable leftist-Islamist alarmism about those of us trying to warn the world of lawful Islamism,” its financial allegations are faulty, it has “a budget many times larger than all of the organizations it attacks,” and “its secret Business Alliance has a host of corporate donors.” Presumably, Aslan did no research into the four-year-old CAP report, nor into its second, equally tendentious iteration, before largely basing his lecture on its findings.
Rather than rigorous critique, Aslan insulted those named in the report (Islam scholar Robert Spencer is a “moron,” blogger and activist Pamela Geller is the “screeching queen of Islamophobia”), took quotes out of context, and belittled such dissidents from the Muslim world as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel. Referring to the anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism of 1920s America, Aslan made an asinine comparison to two anti-Semitic figures of that period, Fr. Charles Coughlin and Henry Ford:
The Charles Coughlins of today never tire of preaching about the Judeo-Christian values upon which this country was founded. . . . A generation from now, they will look back at this time the same way people look at the 20s—with disgust. They will be as disgusted with Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer as Coughlin and Ford.
He then asked the audience:

What kind of America do you want to live in? The divisive America that the anti-Muslim ideologues preach or the one that finds unity in diversity and celebrates differences?

Aslan never defined “Islamophobia” beyond calling it “bigotry towards Muslims.” Avoiding reference to the authoritarianism, sectarian conflict, misogyny, persecution of religious minorities, and other human rights abuses emanating from the Muslim world, he provided no context for this purported fear. As for Islamic terrorism, he blithely declared, “None of you are going to die by a terrorist; you have more to fear from a Lazy Boy [recliner].
To the obvious fact that it’s erroneous to accuse “anyone who criticizes Islam of being Islamophobic,” Aslan responded in typical profanity-laden style: “That’s bulls**t!” Asserting that criticizing Islam is tantamount to attacking all Muslims, he added, “If it involves an entire group of people, you’re a bigot.” He eventually chalked up such prejudice to a “problem with America . . . a crisis of identity,” concluding, “The problem isn’t with Islam, it’s not with Muslims.”
By peddling this view to a broad audience, Aslan inoculates radical Islam from criticism. He claimed that, “Ninety percent of my efforts now are in the fields of film, pop culture, [and] fiction” and that, “the reason I teach creative writing . . . is that nothing I do will have as much influence as a sitcom.” Referencing the influence of the television show “Will & Grace” on Americans’ views of homosexuality, Aslan observed, correctly, that popular culture has the power to change the public’s beliefs on core issues.
No doubt, Aslan will continue lecturing receptive young audiences on the perils of “Islamophobia,” and he won’t be alone. The 2015 annual conference of the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project at the University of California, Berkeley focused on developing a field of “Islamophobia studies.” The subject is all the rage in Middle East studies and throughout academe, which is doing its utmost to distract attention from the backdrop of supremacism, dysfunction, and bellicosity in the region. Americans should beware the protestations of Aslan and his fellow travelers, for they intend not to educate, but to mislead.
Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

UK Muslim guilty of jihad

[doat]

A country with no boarders.

[Lenno]

Online jihadis call for jihad murders of cartoonists in US, Australia

April 30, 2015 7:47 pm By Robert Spencer 4 Comments
Foreign Policy follows a generally dhimmi line, but the clueless Obama-era FBI reads it to gather its “intelligence,” so it is worth looking into occasionally. Here is a piece on ongoing attempts to intimidate the West into silence by calling for the murder of those who violate Islam’s blasphemy laws. It is precisely to show that we will not be cowed into silence by this violent intimidation that we’re holding our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in the Dallas area this Sunday.
Very few people seem to grasp what is at stake. Some of said that they cannot support such initiatives because they find the Muhammad cartoons to be in poor taste, and consider them in the same way that Christians regard Piss Christ — it’s legal, but that doesn’t make the people doing it any more admirable than other louts and mockers.
The insuperable problem with that line of thinking is that once again it leads either to bowing to violent intimidation, or to some authority being granted the power to decide which speech is acceptable and which isn’t — which is the road to tyranny. What is at issue here is not being respectful, or refraining from mockery, or deliberately provoking jihadis — what is at issue here is whether the West will submit to murderous threats, which will only lead to more demands for submission and more murderous threats, and whether it will accept Sharia blasphemy laws or stand for a free and genuinely pluralistic society in which people put up with offense even to their core beliefs without resorting to violence or attempts to gain hegemony over the group doing the offending.
At issue, in short, is whether the West will remain free, or submit to being muzzled. At stake is the very foundation of what makes for a free society.
“Online Jihadis Call for Attacks on Cartoonists in United States, Australia,” by Elias Groll, Foreign Policy, April 27, 2015 (thanks to Paul):

Australian cartoonist Larry Pickering is no stranger to controversy. The right-wing provocateur has drawn former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard clad in a ***** and is currently waging a campaign on his website against Halal meat. His depiction of the Prophet Muhammad being roasted on a spit as a pig sparked an array of threats, and in January, Australian authorities put Pickering under police protection.
In recent days, jihadis have once more begun an online drumbeat calling for Pickering’s murder, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi chatter and statements on the Internet. Other statements contained threats against American cartoonists as well.
On Monday, an Australian Twitter user and proclaimed supporter of the Islamic State militant group posted the address of the Australian, a newspaper that has published what the user, @AusWitness2, described as insulting images of the Prophet Muhammad. In the aftermath of the massacre at the offices of satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, the Sydney-based newspaper was one of several outlets that published the magazine’s cartoons, which frequently depicted the prophet in satirical and sometimes unsightly ways. On Friday, @AusWitness2 complained about Pickering Muhammad cartoons.
On Thursday, an account purporting to belong to Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, an American jihadi reportedly fighting in Somalia, called for attacks to be carried out in the United States similar to those on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

If only we had men like these brothers in the #States, our beloved Muhammad would not have been drawn. Allahu Akbar pic.twitter.com/NhxsytpKk5
— Mujahid Miski (@Hoor_Watermelon) April 23, 2015

[Lenno]

Free Speech, “But” – Paris, Copenhagen, Now Garland Texas…

Posted on May 4, 2015 by sundance
Considering the jihadist attack in Garland Texas, it will not take long for the professional left to begin espousing the familiar tome: “free speech, but“….
There is no “but” in any sentence about “free speech”. It is, it exists, -or-, it is not, it does not exist. It is that simple.

The fact that a simple event depicting pictures of Muhammad needs to spend $10,000 to hire security -IN AMERICA- should be the real story. The fact that a simple event depicting pictures would be considered “controversial” -IN AMERICA- should be the sub line of the real story. Alas, these simple considerations will be lost amid the “but” crowd.
“But”, free speech does not protect offensive speech – is another familiar, perhaps the most frequent, refrain from the “but” crowd. Insufferably wrong. The only speech that needs first amendment protection is “offensive speech”, if your speech wasn’t controversial or offensive it would not need protection.
As BigFurHat accurately opines:

[…] This event was to see if ordinary Americans could draw a F*CKING CARTOON without the penalty of death.
Apparently not. So why would you be sympathetic to hair-trigger unreasonable monsters in our midst? Why would you cower, rather than say, “ya, right, if I doodle your prophet I’m going to die. Not in America, Omar.” (link)

And, in a larger sense, showcasing this absurdity is exactly the purpose of the event.

Why do marchers march? Why do protesters protest? Why can every American carry their soapbox to any street corner or public square and stand atop it? Because the central tenet of our foundational principles says We Are Free To Speak. Period.
“But”, you must accept the consequences therein – yet another similar refrain. And what “consequences” should be allowable? “Consequences” yes, but drawing out those consequences while contrast against the foundational principle of freedom is exactly what the event was highlighting.
Authentic Islam, carried out to it’s fullest political construct, is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.
If the central tenet of any belief commands a person to kill another person for drawing a picture – it’s the belief that must be confronted within a society that values freedom, not the artist drawing the picture.
“But”, other progressive societies restrict “provocative speech“ – another espousal from the “But” crowd. We are not ‘other societies’, we are a formed national society based on valuing ‘individual freedom’ not ‘collective freedom’. Our foundation puts the freedom of speech as the first freedom, the first amendment – a bill of unalienable rights endowed not by government or man.
We, our nation, were born as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The outlined rights of the individual are embedded as more valuable than the rights of the state, so long as the expression of those individual rights does not impede upon the same rights of another – nor form a delivery obligation unto another individual.
“But”, your expression of freedom (drawing a picture), is by measure and consequence, having an impact upon my ability to believe in my religion. A statement finally reached when having a conversation with anyone practicing Authentic Islam.
This is where it is claimed that the tenet of their belief demands they must not allow depictions of the Prophet Muhammad; and therefore an individual freedom of expression or belief is impacting their first amendment right to their religious belief.
That part of the argument is exactly evidence that Authentic Islam is antithetical to our U.S. constitutional freedom.
That part of the argument is exactly what the purpose of the event in Garland Texas was drawing out.

Free Speech, you either have it or you don’t….
….there is no “but”.
The Unwavering Failsafe – Just to make sure there never would be a “but” our forefathers cemented the first amendment with the establishment of the second amendment to protect it.

Last night in Garland Texas their foresight worked seamlessly.

[Lenno]

Comments Daily Mail Blacks Out Muhammad Pics At #GarlandShooting

This is what being in Britain will get you, different laws = no free speech.

[Lenno]

NY Times Reporter Reporter: “Free Speech Aside, Why Would Anyone Do Something So Provocative As Hosting A Muhammad Drawing Contest?”…Update: NY Times Schooled By The Atlantic: “Who Gets To Decide What Is Provocative?”


“Free speech aside”. This is a foreign correspondent who also worked for the AP. Scary that we have journalists like this.
I’m willing to bet that she didn’t say this in the case of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. And what would be the difference here? Ah, conservatives

[Lenno]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/421495407...#sp=show-clips


Muslims In Texas Take Guns And Open Fire On A Crowd Of Conservative Americans, Righteous Police Officers Take Up Their Guns And Kill The Muslims'

extensive article here:
http://shoebat.com/2015/05/03/muslim...l-the-muslims/

A third suspect?