FBI official: ISIS is recruiting U.S. teens

By Pamela Brown and Wesley Bruer

Updated 7:40 PM ET, Tue February 3, 2015

Washington (CNN)For the head of the FBI’s counterterrorist division, Michael Steinbach, the unknown worries him the most.

Steinbach is leading the daunting effort to stay on top of the evolving threat landscape, which includes targeting and recruiting teenage Americans. In an exclusive interview with CNN inside the agency’s Strategic Information and Operations Center, he acknowledged it’s extremely difficult to track every American who might travel abroad to join terrorist groups like the Islamic State.

“I’m worried about individuals that we don’t know about that have training,” Steinbach said. “We know what we know. But there is a number that’s greater than that that we don’t know.”

Steinbach says U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies don’t track individuals leaving the United States to vacation in Europe.

“Once you get to Europe, you can easily get down to Turkey and into Syria” Steinbach says.

There’s growing concern about homegrown violent extremism in the aftermath of last month’s terror attacks in Paris. Those strikes underscored the threat posed to the West by small groups of terrorists with western passports who are influenced by the rhetoric espoused by ISIS. Steinbach is concerned that type of attack could happen on U.S. soil.

ISIS images appear to show Jordanian pilot burned alive

When asked if there are ISIS cells in the U.S., Steinbach said “there are individuals that have been in communication with groups like ISIL who have a desire to conduct an attack” and those people are living in the U.S. right now, but he says the term “sleeper cells” is too simplistic, because the threat is much more complicated and diffuse.

In the U.S., the FBI has seen children as young as 15 recruited by ISIS and Steinbach said he “can’t speak with 100% certainty that individuals of that age group have not gotten over there successfully.”

In some cases, Steinbach said parents even encourage their children to be involved with terror groups.

“There are individuals out there who are inspired by the message of terrorist groups and they encourage family members, including their children, to follow that path,” he said, adding in those cases, the FBI holds the parents responsible.

Steinbach said the FBI is working around the clock to combat the recruitment of Americans but U.S. law enforcement can’t do the job alone. It’s up to families to speak up as well, he said.

“In the majority of cases, we know that someone recognizes that change in behavior, that radicalization,” he said. “That family member or friend chooses not to intervene. And by not getting involved, the story ends in a very familiar fashion, and that’s death.”

He also said ISIS is aggressively pursuing women on social media.

“The recruitment of women by ISIS is much more than we’ve ever seen by a terrorist organization,” he said. “We have seen everything from a female fighter — dedicated groups of women fighters — and those who have come over to support foreign fighters by marrying them.”

Colorado teen gets 4 years for wanting to join ISIS

He emphasizes ISIS is pushing out a false narrative of what it’s like in Syria in order to lure them.

Monitoring social media poses its own challenges, he said. The sheer volume of posts calls for strong analytical skills to weed through the data, which he said is a “full time job and a challenge.”

“We’ve seen lots of places, online media, forums, social media, where there have been calls to conducting lone wolf attacks in your home country through a variety of means, not necessarily a sophisticated technique, but use what you have, use the tools you have and conduct an attack,” Steinbach said. “They are using it successfully, I might add, to spot, assess, identify, target folks outside of war zones,” he elaborated.

And, of course, the FBI must also strike a delicate balance of respecting privacy concerns of Americans while trying to protect them.

“We don’t have a desire or a right to step on somebody’s freedom of expression. They have a right to express their opinion,” Steinbach says. “But when that opinion turns into violent rhetoric and then into action, that’s something different.”

Obama: ISIS only ‘interested in death and destruction’

Still, the recent arrest of an Ohio man, Christopher Lee Cornell, has drawn criticism that the government is making terrorists out of people. He raised red flags by posting messages supportive of violent jihad on social media and was eventually arrested for plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol. But there were doubts about how seriously Cornell sought to act on his threats.

To his critics, Steinbach says, “I need folks to understand that whether you’re talking about a foreign terrorist organization directing individuals or just inspiring individuals…we identify individuals with the intent. We don’t manufacture that intent. We don’t put that intent into their mind.”

But do they have the capability and manpower to combat so many individuals with the intent of attacking Americans?

“I don’t know if enough manpower is the right word,” he said. “Look, there are lots of threats out there, criminal threats, counter-intelligence-based threats, cyber threats and terrorism threats. And we have to identify those highest priority threats and focus the resources. There is a finite number of resources and we have to focus those resources on those threats.”

Posted on 3 Feb 15 by CNN

The Real History of the Crusades

Posted by sharia unveiled on February 8, 2015

by, Thomas F. Madden | Shoebat Foundation & Shoebat.com | h/t Bill Muehlenberg

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. The Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thought so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.

The threat of Islam
Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

Understand the crusaders
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

What really happened?
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors … unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? … And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood … condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The re-conquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, he had the power to restore the whole world to his rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:

Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself. … I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and his Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

All apologies
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. “Not for their destruction do I pray,” it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but “they only wait for the time of their deliverance.”
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these “collateral damage.” Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

The failure of the Crusades
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.

But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.

The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.

The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.

Europe’s fight for its life
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled “Of the Decline of the Faith”:

Our faith was strong in th’ Orient, It ruled in all of Asia, In Moorish lands and Africa. But now for us these lands are gone ‘Twould even grieve the hardest stone … Four sisters of our Church you find, They’re of the patriarchic kind: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antiochia. But they’ve been forfeited and sacked And soon the head will be attacked. Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The “Sick Man of Europe” limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden, is one of the top historians on medieval history and also on the Spanish Inquisition. He is an associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

Dr. Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs. The Crusades (Excellent Video)

Video courtesy of: Bill Warner (Thank you Bill)

Posted on 8 Feb 15 by Sharia Unveiled

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. What Barack Hussein Islama is trying to do again, to make Islam look ok and Christianity to look bad. The Crusades were actually the Roman Catholic Church (the ones that created Islam initially, until it got out of hand, just like the Muslim Brotherhood created ISIS until it got out of hand) going against the Muslims that were hellbent on killing everyone that did not believe the same way they did…so to defend themselves, the crusaders decided to kill EVERYONE that was not a Catholic…which included Jews and true Christians that did not believe what the Catholic Church conned off as being from Jesus.]

The Man Who Murdered Chris Kyle, The American Sniper, Should Be Profiled As A Suspected Muslim Jihadist (AMERICANS NEED TO START LEARNING HOW TO PROFILE MUSLIMS)

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

When we evaluate cases for potential Muslim terrorists, we always look for physical signs like a trimmed mustache and a beard that is lesser trimmed. And when it comes to a crime that was committed, we look at who the victims are. In  the story on Eddie Routh who murdered Chris Kyle, there are signs of concern, especially the facial hair, it does match the profile of a convert.

Mugshot of Eddie Routh

Eddie Routh. Notice the trimmed mustache.

Also, Routh was a prison guard over Muslim terrorists at Bilad Airbase in Baghdad in 2007. He never served in battle, but spent most of his time looking and talking to Muslims in jail. He could have likely interacted with the inmates and got converted; prison has a higher conversion rate than any mosque. Also,  why would he kill a Navy seal who was known to have killed so many terrorists?

Although there needs to be more investigations to prove that Routh converted to Islam, the possibilities are there. After all, there could be a motive to kill Kyle who became a wanted man for the Sunni insurgents he was targeting, had a price put on his head and was dubbed the Shaitan – devil – of Ramadi. That plus Kyle was an ‘Islamophobe’ who was open about his rightful hatred for Islam and the Quran. This makes him wanted.

Examining his killer gives also clues.  “During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions”.

What the media says that Routh had Post Traumatic Disorder is simply untrue. According to The Warfighter Foundation:

“Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.”

The Warfighter Foundation, a nonprofit veterans group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain information about Routh’s service record. It was through the information they received that the group discovered Routh had not experienced any type of combat.

“[Routh] held a non-combat arms occupation of 2111 (Small Arms Repairer/ Technician or more commonly referred to as an Armorer),” the group reported. “Balad Air Base had a Pizza Hut, 24 hour Burger King, Subway, Popeye’s, Baskin Robbins, movie theater, and even a miniature golf course. It even had a strictly enforced 10 mile per hour speed limit!”

So what is all this hoopla about him having PTSD?

It is known fact that Routh’s family contacted Kyle about their son’s diminishing mental health. Routh was admitted to inpatient psychiatric treatment prior to the events at Rough Creek Ranch, according to a report from the Daily Mail. But at times even all this is meaningless. My father was diagnosed as bipolar and I warned the rest home who thought I was mad to say he was a dangerous Muslim fundamentalist until they one day had to call the police after he held patients as hostages because a black nurse refused to convert to Islam after his persistent attempts.

Fundamentalist get an excuse bill. My father obtained his papers of all sorts of mental disorders in order to get a retirement and to evade police. “Routh had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past five months and told authorities that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, police records show,” the report says. One Pakistani terrorist in California used the same excuses after shooting Jews and they usually get away with it.

Further bolstering the rationale for expanded mental health screening and treatment is the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Prior to his enlistment in the Army, Bergdahl had been administratively separated from the Coast Guard for mental health reasons. Bergdahl disappeared from his command post in Afghanistan in 2008 and spent 5 years as a supposed Taliban prisoner of war. Yet we have proven beyond a shadow of doubt Bergdahl was a convert to Islam. He is no mental illness case.

ITS TIME WE PROFILE

In America, we profile folks mostly within a psychological framework and at times we miss crucial signs, that being infected with fundamental Islam is not some psychological illness, but that fundamental Islam can kill. Eddie Ray Routh murdered Kyle and his friend Chad Littlefield in cold blood and now with the new information revealed that, while the gunman is said to have had serious mental health problems, so they say, PTSD was not among them, especially since he never served a day in combat.

However, major media outlets continue to beat the PTSD drum, adding to the stigma associated with PTSD and mental illness, to the detriment of America’s veterans and mental health care at large. The last thing on the radar of media is that Routh could have been a convert to Islam.

There are usually signs. We have maintained that Americans still need a lesson or two when it comes to the politically incorrect guide in profiling Muslims who could potentially be dangerous, especially now that more than a decade after 9/11 and with the latest terror attacks, Americans who come across anyone who has a turban, most, it was found out, mistake that person of being Muslim. So we decided to shed some light, yes, and we will write it in blunt fashion with no pun intended, on the politically incorrect guide to profiling Muslims. Americans by large are as naive as a kindergartner on his first day in school, who confuses Sikhs from India, who dress up in colorful huge turbans confusing them as Muslim fundamentalists. This is according to a study released this Monday.

Just as we profiled Routh, the simplest method we maintain in profiling a Muslim when it comes to headgear, is that a reversal of your projected image about Muslim headgear makes a better chance for a positive identification of your subject: the bigger the turban, the lesser chance that this man is a Muslim fundamentalist.

Fact is that Muslims dressing up in turbans is rare. It is usually an Imam of a mosque who usually wears a small skimpy turban.

This is NOT a Muslim

This is a Muslim Imam

Americans are lousy profilers since the study shows that a whopping 60% of Americans who participated in the study by the non-profit National Sikh Campaign admitted to knowing nothing about the Sikhs who live, study and work in their midst. The National Sikh Campaign commissioned its study, based on interviews with more than 1,100 Americans, as a starting point to raise public awareness of the Sikh community at the national and local levels.

When shown a photo of a smiling older Sikh male in a red turban, 28% of respondents thought he was Middle Eastern and 20% believed he was Muslim while 35% thought he might be from India, or of Indian descent, yet Only 11% correctly identified him as Sikh.

This is terrible. Americans are trained not to look at race or religion to the point that they become dumb to danger. Sikhs have been very much part of the American fabric and frankly speaking they are just tired of being the target of being mis-profiled and most probably would beg that Americans to get a dose on correct profiling Muslims. In the wake of the 911, Sikhs have found themselves targeted — with sometimes bloody results — by Americans who presume anyone in a turban must be a Muslim.

It is always important to look at certain signs in every crime to analyze if it was Islamic terrorism that is involved. First of all, a Muslim hardly dresses like an Indian Sikh. In fact, a Muslim religious dress code is closer to the dress of Jews rather than Sikhs. While religious Jews at times wear a little skull-cap, a religious Muslim also wears a skull-cap, but it is usually a little larger.

At times its confusing and unless you are a pro and an expert profiler, you could easily get confused. Profiling Muslims is as one profiles spiders and scorpions and the descriptions have to be given bluntly. With scorpions, like the turban size, the larger the claws, the lesser the venom. I once positively identified a Muslim threat from a listing of 300 or so names without even seeing them and the guy was caught and identified by the victim. Looks can be deceptive. Yemenis for example whether Muslim or Jew usually look alike except that the Jew has a custom in certain circles to allow the hair over the ears to grow, and hang down in curls or ringlets.

A Yemeni Muslim. This one is extremely toxic. One sting of this one can kill, it is estimated over one thousand women and children.

A Yemeni Jew. Harmless.

One main key in profiling a Muslim fundamentalist is that they usually trim the mustache and a Sikh is proud to just let it go as you see here:

No need to profile

I know that the next photo I used as a joke, nevertheless, the look is not far off, although the turban is rarely seen in reality.

Profile. Notice the trimmed mustache and the flat circular fashion turban.

A white large looking skullcap like this one is usually worn by Muslims, but with the trimmed mustache to go with it is a dead giveaway.

Always remember, a Muslim fundamentalist is mandated by Islam to trim the mustache. Also, do not get confused because someone looks European, millions of Muslims have a European look, but the rules are the same, so don’t let some baby face fool you; either a shaved or a trimmed mustache with an untrimmed beard and a certain attire or headpiece is a dead giveaway to highly be a Muslim fundamentalist.

Jihadist European Muslim with shaved mustache is a deadly yellow scorpion with a very toxic venom.

And although Routh doesn’t have everything to positively profile him 100%, another dead giveaway is to look at the forehead, if you notice a dark mark on the forehead which is caused by continual prostration on a prayer mat or a prayer rug, this is a clear sign. So a combination of a mark on the forehead, trimmed mustache and untrimmed beard is highly likely this person is a Muslim fundamentalist.

Extremely poisonous. Approach with great caution.

Yet even such signs do not mean its always a poisonous black widow, there is a chance that having such signs could mean that these species with these looks can sting and at times only when provoked. If you still want to find out, all one has to do is to show them a Charlie Hebdo cartoon or offer them to wear a crucifix and see how they react, its sort of like sprinkling holy water to a demon possessed individual, they react violently, but make sure you do it from a distance or while you have plenty of security around, especially at an airport.

But the rule of having a trimmed mustache and elongated beard at times could still be deceiving since this practice is not followed by all Muslim males who are slacking off, but still, this by no means this Muslim is peace-loving and even the mark on the forehead does not necessarily have a usual pattern and at times one could have several spots, sort of like a Mitsubishi logo, as you see this one Jew hater here, who does not even have a long beard but has the mark of an Antichrist Christian Jew hating demon:

A poison spewing Muslim fundamentalist. He is still lethal since he can either bight or spread his poison through the atmosphere and even in the airwaves.

But even if one has all three signs, a forehead mark, a trimmed mustache and an untrimmed beard, this by no mean he is the most dangerous. A Muslim with the forehead mark and with no beard or trimmed mustache is a dead giveaway that this is a stealth Jihadist who got rid of the two markers as to blend in the crowd.

Had Americans followed this simple technique alone, 911 would have been prevented. In the following photo of the 911 mastermind Muhammad Atta, notice his forehead somewhat has a darker pigment than the rest of his skin.

The most lethal. One bight out of this Muslim can kill over 3000 men women and children.

He shaved it all off before the mission. Also, don’t let that smile fool you, in preparation for an attack, they do everything to blend in. You just focus on the forehead. A shaven beard with the mark is code red, get the heck out of that plane and tell security that you have a strange feeling about that passenger’s demeanor. Its either you get accused of the politically incorrect profiling or 3000 more dead Americans are on the way, choose what you do and choose it wisely and stop profiling Sikhs. Here is one terrible story:

Slain soon after 9/11

One of the brothers, Arizona gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi, was slain four days after 9/11 by a white American who reportedly bragged that he wanted to go out and “shoot some towelheads” to avenge the attacks.

The gunman, Frank Silva Roque, got a death sentence for his actions that was later reduced to life imprisonment.

A second brother, Sukhpal Sodhi, died in 2012 after he was hit, apparently by a stray bullet from a gang fight, in his San Francisco taxi cab.

This is terrible, be it that these were innocent and even a Muslim who are positively profiled, they do not deserve such fate. When you profile and the signs are there, always call the authorities and never deal with the situation yourself unless it is an obvious emergency.

The bottom line is that Sikhs wear their turbans in a peaked style while Muslim clergy wrap theirs in a flat, circular fashion, but many Americans failed to notice a difference.

American patriotic Sikhs, notice the turbans are different from Muslims in a peaked style.

Jaswant Singh Sachdev, a prominent member of the Sikh community in Arizona, said he remembered a time when Sikhs were viewed as “nobility” in American society.

The mood changed, he said, during the 1979-81 Iranian hostage crisis when supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was cast as a villain in US media.

“When they see it, even the children, it is always the turban that causes suspicion and fear in those who see it for the first time,” he said.

But at times, there is no way one can profile a Muslim and is why some object on Muslim profiling. Muslims can shave their beards and even avoid having a mark on their forehead, yet they can still be identified as a stealth Muslim, but this needs further scrutiny.

Such scrutiny demands you ask the right questions and listen to what they say. Ask the Muslim, what do you suppose we do with Shariah laws that calls for killing converts or amputating a hand? If he is unwilling to denounce these Sharia rulings then this is a dead giveaway, especially if he insists that Islam means peace. These days, you should usually reverse what is logical and be like the defensive paranoid driver in order to survive the streets. But even that is not conclusive since a sleeper Muslim, probably the most dangerous type, is the one who can dress himself to look like almost any religion.

Now that you have completed your lesson, here is your first quiz. Try to profile the following individual:

When it comes to Americans, they have long ways to go and most of the time, when everyone shouts at you for pointing out your concern, is when you most likely have hit the nail on the head. I can say that Obama could be a Shinto, a Buddhist, a New Ager and no one would say a thing. But accuse him of adhering to the religion of peace, and you have a bunch of American plump farm caged chickens start pecking at your head. As for me, I don’t care, I am a free range rooster and the chickens want nothing to do with me. I simply have to look out for the fox whom I have profiled already.

Posted on 29 Jan 15 by Shoebat Foundation

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Funny how, whenever any Muslim commits “shaheed” (the obligated act of martyrdom from the Qur’an) against Westerners, the Obama administration makes sure it is deemed/labeled/diagnosed as PTSD/work stress…while making sure the reports do not mention Muslim, jihadist, or Islam…when reality lets people that know about Islam and the Trojan horse president, it is really a farce, it is a jihadist, shaheed action, to further “dispose” of the “great satan” inhabitants…the profiling isn’t for vigilante justice, it is basically so you can tell (not 100% but at least 90% certain) that a Muslim could be planing something…it’s just a way to see if something might happen and do what you can to stay clear of a Muslim fitting the profile…]

What turned Erdogan against the West?

Supporters hold up a portrait of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan while waving Turkish and Justice and Development Party (AKP) flags during an election rally in Istanbul, March 23, 2014. (photo by REUTERS/Murad Sezer)

As any Turkey watcher would easily confirm, hostility to the West has increasingly marked the rhetoric of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his ruling Justice and Development (AKP) and pro-government media in the past two years. Especially since the Gezi Park protests in June 2013, the narrative of Erdogan and his entourage has revolved around Western “conspiracies” and a “national will” that is bravely fighting them

Yet for those familiar with the AKP’s 14-year history, this may have come as a surprising turn. When the AKP was created in 2001, hostility to the West was not something with which it identified itself. On the contrary, party founders claimed to have disowned the Islamist, anti-Western “National View” tradition from which they came. Likewise, in the first years after the AKP came to power in 2002, Westernization (i.e., integration with the European Union) was the party’s prime objective. Back then, Europe was the source not of treacherous conspiracies that had to be thwarted, but of democratic criteria that had to be embraced.

Not surprisingly, the fiercest opposition to the AKP during that period from 2002 to 2010 was mounted by the anti-Western breed of Turkish secularists, known as neonationalists. This quarter — whose slogan is “Neither the US nor the EU, but a fully independent Turkey” — accused Erdogan’s government of “selling Turkey out to imperialism.” In 2007, one of Turkey’s best-selling books was nonsense titled “Moses’ Children,” which declared Erdogan to be a “crypto-Jew” colluding with the Elders of Zion. In the same era, the argument that Turkey should move closer to Russia instead of the EU was promoted by neonationalist generals, who would be implicated in the alleged Ergenekon coup plot to overthrow the AKP.

So, what happened that things turned upside down in the past two years? Why is the cry for a “fully independent Turkey” coming from AKP quarters now? Why is a paranoia of “Jewish agents” seeking to undermine Turkey being fueled by the pro-government press and social media?

Government quarters will likely answer these questions along those lines: “The West is aggressive against Muslims. Palestine is bleeding. Muslim blood is flowing in Syria. Egypt’s legitimate Islamist government was overthrown in a bloody coup. The West is responsible for all these and standing up against Western imperialism is our justified reaction.”

This answer, however, is unconvincing for a plenty of reasons. Here are some of them:

• If “Western imperialist aggression against the Muslim world” is the problem, then the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was its most tangible example during the AKP’s rule. The invasion, however, did not turn the AKP against the West. In fact, Erdogan, who was party leader but not yet prime minister at the time, was eager to join the United States in the war, but failed to persuade then-Prime Minister Abdullah Gul and his party’s parliamentary group.

• If the Syrian civil war is the key problem of the past several years, how it leads to blaming the West is equally hard to comprehend. For if the AKP is to be angry with someone because of its aversion to Bashar al-Assad’s regime, this should be Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Assad’s leading supporter. Yet, sympathy is the only sentiment for Putin that one comes across in pro-government media. Erdogan’s angry tirades against the international community never target Putin, either. (AKP quarters seem also untroubled by Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian territory, which has ruffled the Muslim Crimean Tatars).

• When it comes to the military coup in Egypt, which truly unsettled the AKP grassroots, it should have spawned reactions first and foremost against Saudi Arabia, the most straightforward, resolute and powerful supporter of coup leader Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Again, though, we have heard no tirades from Erdogan blasting the Saudi monarchy. On the contrary, last week we had a day of national mourning after King Abdullah’s death.

In short, the strong anti-Western sentiment in the AKP world is hard to explain with — or at least only with — the West’s “imperialist” foreign policy. What could be the actual reason, then?

In my view, it’s the West’s continuous meddling in “our domestic affairs.” In the past several years, not a month has passed without a Western think tank issuing a report criticizing the state of press freedom or judicial independence in Turkey. Western media are awash with commentaries of a Turkey “moving toward authoritarianism.” The EU’s progress reports warn of “regression” on democratic norms. Washington often voices “concern” over the state of freedoms in Turkey.

Russia, on the other hand, never meddles in “our domestic affairs.” Moreover, Putin — himself under Western fire over Russia’s grave record on freedoms — praises Erdogan as a “tough man.” Erdogan’s chief adviser, Yigit Bulut, in return, describes Putin and Erdogan as the world’s “two greatest leaders” today.

But then here is another question: The West was similarly meddling in “our domestic affairs” a decade ago as well. Why was Erdogan not angry at the West at the time?

The answer is not that hard to find. A decade ago, the real power in Turkey did not rest with Erdogan, but with the Kemalist establishment, represented by the military and the judiciary. Erdogan was in fact under the threat of their iron fist. Hence, the West’s meddling in “our domestic affairs” and its pressure on Turkey to abide by European norms was playing into Erdogan’s hands.

In 2008, for instance, the European Commission’s then-president Manuel Barroso visited Turkey after a court case was opened to outlaw the AKP. He urged the Turkish judiciary to respect the “Venice Criteria,” which would rule out party closures merely based on ideology. It was hard-core secularists keen to see the AKP banned who denounced this “imperialist” meddling, while AKP members seemed quite happy with it.

Starting from 2010, the AKP subdued the old Kemalist establishment and laid hands on “full power.” With its newly found self-confidence, the party went back to its own ideological agenda. Its intimidating response to reactions from Turkish society served only to intensify those reactions. Growing political tensions dragged the AKP into a sharp us-versus-them rhetoric, in which the West morphed into a diabolical force behind “the enemies within” — such as secularists, liberals and, especially, the Gulenists.

In sum, it’s not the West, but rather the AKP that has dramatically changed since 2002. (If any key change took place in the West, the United States has shifted in a positive sense, moving from Bush’s aggressiveness to Obama’s moderation). The fundamental change was Erdogan attaining “absolute power.” He refuses to tolerate any limits imposed on his power by the international community and the liberal values it promotes, hence he yearns for a “fully independent” Turkey. In response to criticisms over press freedoms, for example, Erdogan today tells the EU “to mind its own business.”

None of these mean that all Western criticism toward Erdogan and his government is justified. Some in the Western media have used a prejudiced tone against Ankara, driven by ideological bias against “Islamists,” or as a reaction to Erdogan’s conspiratorial narrative. There is also no doubt that the Western foreign policy has no shortage of hypocrisy. Washington’s unconditional defense of Israel or leniency for the coup in Egypt, for instance, deserve lots of criticism. Moreover, some Western fiats on Turkey could be really driven by mere interests, and resisting those fiats is certainly a rightful stance.

Yet still, none of these reasons fully explains, let alone justifies, the categorical anti-Western rhetoric we hear from Turkey’s ruling elite today. The real explanation, I think, is their rejection of Western-style liberal democracy in favor of a self-styled authoritarian democracy. It is no coincidence that Hungary’s anti-EU leader Victor Orban agrees, for now he applauds Turkey, along with Putin’s Russia, as a good model for “illiberal democracy.”

Posted by al-Monitor

Four Star Admiral: the Muslim Brotherhood Has Penetrated ALL of Our US National Security Agencies Under the Obama Administration [Video]

05 Feb, 2015 by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I could not agree more. Every one of these Marxists should be removed from office, especially Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett (who is not even in office, but is the consigliere to Obama and is from Iran). We have allowed the enemies from within to gain control of virtually every security and intelligence agency we have. We are lousy with Islamists within our walls, who are conducting a silent coup within our government. Our conquest by Islam is happening right before our very eyes. The Muslim Brotherhood has meetings with the Obama Administration all the time and then they call for a decade of Jihad and the death of Egypt’s al Sisi. All with the blessing of Barack Obama. Everything our president has done screams that he is aiding and abetting the enemy.

From TPNN:

Retired 4-Star U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, speaking at the National Press Club in January, says that under Obama’s guidance, the Obama Regime has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism front group, saying that the radical anti-freedom organization has penetrated every U.S. security agency. Admiral Lyons said that “the transformation of America has been in full swing ever since 2008,” the year Obama was elected based upon his campaign promise to “fundamentally transform America.”

Speaking about Obama’s refusal to attend the recent march in France, reportedly attended by more than 50 world leaders to condemn Islamic terrorism following the gruesome murders of cartoonists who had the audacity to lampoon Islam, Admiral Lyons said that act was a “signal to Islamic Jihadis,” and is “one of many signals he sent over the years while in office.”

“There’s no question we got a hell of a job ahead of us,” Admiral Lyons said. “With the Muslim Brotherhood penetration in every one of our national security agencies, including all our intelligence agencies,” he proclaimed.

Admiral Lyons said that our “lead intelligence agency” is “headed by a Muslim convert,” a reference to Obama CIA head John Brennan.

The new GOP majority in both houses of Congress were elected to “stop the transformation of America, not to see how they could work with the president.”

Admiral Lyons asserted that there is no such thing as radical Islam, but that “Islam is Islam.”

“The threat is Islam. Let’s make no mistake about it. There’s no such thing as radical Islam,” Lyons asserted.

When four-star admirals come forward and tell you that Islamists are running the show in America, you had better listen. This is something that Trevor Loudon and I have been harping on for years. Barack Obama will not stop our enemies, because he is one of them. He has gutted our military and intelligence agencies. He has replaced our leaders with Islamists, communists and sycophants. The treasonous damage he has done will cripple or destroy us if we do not have the spine to face evil and cull the Islamists and their sympathizers from our midst in our halls of power, our military and our intelligence agencies. Islam does not need a Trojan horse…they have Obama.

Posted on 5 Feb 15 by Right Wing News

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Sorry to say this, but with a Word from the Lord that came down that tells us that if America does not come back to God, as a covenant country (only two countries exist that have a covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…Israel and America) we have been given harbingers, and refused to come back to Him, we have been given signs and prophesies in the Old Testament through Israel’s history when they turned their backs on God…they always suffered an economic collapse, then a capture/destruction…America now, is far worse than any country in the past that has been judged by God…and America is not mentioned, through iconology or symbolism, in the end times of Revelation, the “Apocalyptic” book of the Bible. There is a Shemitah that will happen against the US in September, where the dollar…our entire economy…will die, the US dollar will be taken out of the World currency, then shortly afterwards, Barack Hussein Obama will enforce martial law on the US, and will rid the US of American law, and will shuffle in Shari’a (Islamic law)…and the Muslim Brotherhood will have conquered America, just as they have planned, with a Trojan horse as president.

When the Word comes that America needs to come back to Christ, it doesn’t mean just an “Ask the Lord for forgiveness and everything will be ok again”…it means we need to come back to Him…by turning away from our national signs…the sins of homosexuality/transgendering (Sodom and Gomorrah was punished for this and was destroyed), all crime, both violent and non-violent (the laws of God, and the laws of the US originally were basically, an eye for an eye…but we no longer do that, so criminals get away with murder so to speak), abortion (this falls under the worship of the idol/god molocke), following false gods (wanting more wealth, more material things, more clout…being obsessed with hobbies like material items {PC gaming, console gaming, texting, best house, anything that is being obsessed over} is actually following false gods because they have become the god in your life, they are what you want most of), pornography (this is a lust, fornication, adulterous problem…it causes some people to become obsessed over stalking people, raping people, having illicit sex with people they don’t know, having illicit sex without marriage, cheating on spouse if married), pharmacia (Greek word for pharmacy…but overall it entails ALL drugs, good and bad), not to mention uncourteousness, selfishness, laziness, unhelpfulness…the list goes on…America would have to repent, and turn away from all this…the proper medication usage is the only exception…but drug use, improper medicine use, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, following false gods, lack of manners…all must be changed…or America will be destroyed…destroyed as we know it…destroyed from what it is now…

Obama Cooperates With Grandson of Muslim Brotherhood Founder

Adina Kutnicki — February 1, 2015

IF one understands how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is to western civilization, let alone America, one then realizes what it means to embrace the grandson of its founder, Hassan al-Banna!! Ramadan Exhorts COLONIZING U.S./Canada FBO Islam!

IT is with this mind that the readers should internalize the following commentary. Enough said.

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

AS always, one can count on the (w)academic community – intellectual “acanemics” –  to propagate the most outrageous falsehoods, all in order to push through their ideological objectives. In fact, historical truth is as valued as soiled toilet paper.

INHERENTLY, anti-American/anti-western profs lend “intellectual” cover to Islamic supremacists/jihadists. Dangerous reprobates.

BUT when you factor in enumerable Islamists educated in the west, the landscape becomes even more ominous. Deadly.

IN this regard, they selectively bare their Islamic fangs before certain audiences, yet, their western educated silvery tongues – honed via their pedigrees – convince many that they are “reformers”. Moreover, some attended (and teach) at the most prestigious universities, garnering them even bigger megaphones and wider prestige. Mind you, to those who are paying attention, it puts paid to the hogwash that Islamists are deprived, uneducated, alienated and otherwise disadvantaged!

John Kerry said it would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors.

ENTER, Tariq Ramadan (via this linked video), as slippery as a snake, opining that “Islamophobia” is a root issue to examine, yet feigns “moderation” in this and that. Oh yeah. Orwellian doublespeak.

MOST significantly Tariq Ramadan…hold onto your seats…is the GRANDSON of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder Hassan al-Banna!!

YES, it must be understood how earth shaking this factor is, as he is an heir apparent to the most dangerous (worldwide) Islamic umbrella/front group, bar none. Regardless, Barack HUSSEIN Obama gave him open sesame, as indicated below.

AS expected, Islamists, whatever their stripes, can’t stay away from Muslim Brotherhood and other associated terror groups: Ramadan headlined at ICNA!

ICNA has established a reputation for bringing anti-American radicals to speak at its annual conferences. Moreover, experts have long documented the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorist groups. Yehudit Barsky, a terrorism expert at the American Jewish Committee, has said that ICNA “is composed of members of Jamaat e-Islami, a Pakistani Islamic radical organization similar to the Muslim Brotherhood that helped to establish the Taliban.” (Pakistani newspapers have reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a leading architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was offered refuge in the home of Jamaat e-Islami’s leader, Ahmed Quddoos.) On September 27, 1997, another Pakistani Islamist leader, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, played host to an ICNA conference at his Florida-based fundamentalist madrassa (religious school), which served as a recruitment center for Taliban fighters.

In 2000, CNSNews.com made public a press release, originally posted on a Middle Eastern website, from a July 2000 ICNA meeting, which read: “Jamaat e-Islami’s supporters have an organization in America known as ICNA …” The press release also recounted some of the views expressed at the aforementioned ICNA meeting. These included an exhortation that “Islam must be translated into political dominance”; pleas for support for “jihad” in “Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq [against U.S. forces], southern Sudan, and … in Bosnia/Kosova [sic]”; an appeal for unity among Pakistani Muslims against “Hindu Brahmins and Zionist Jews”; and an endorsement of Muslim women’s inclusion in carrying out jihad. One Islamic leader present at the ICNA event complained about “human rights violations” being carried out by the U.S. government against the terrorist mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman, spiritual leader of Egypt’sIslamic Group.

In part because of such revelations, ICNA is now under investigation by U.S. authorities for possible connections to terrorist groups. In December 2003, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee requested that the Internal Revenue Service provide detailed information on 25 U.S. Muslim organizations, including ICNA…..

DESPITE the above – or more accurately due to it – Barack HUSSEIN Obama opened America’s gates to Ramadan, a Swiss citizen of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood legacy!

MUSLIM SUPREMACIST TARIQ RAMADAN says, “We are not here to adopt Western values, we are here to colonize the U.S. (and Canada) and spread Islamic sharia law”

Banned from entering the U.S. by George W. Bush, Ramadan was welcomed back by Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton. He states that “Canada has one of the easiest legal systems to penetrate and advance sharia from within…but if that doesn’t work, we won’t hesitate to use violent jihad.”

IN the main, you gotta thank said Islamic supremacists for slipping up, even though Tariq Ramadan believes that his doublespeak via taqiyya is lost on clueless Americans. In other words, while some are more “in your face” than others, their Islamic designs are one and the same: a global caliphate under Shariah Law!

SO realize that another linked video clip, by leading British Islamist Anjem Choudhary, is a mirror image to Ramadan. Choudhary is the same jihadist who was cited in an intelligence analysis this investigative journalist was part of. It was not for nothing.

INTRINSICALLY, when one is less than 6 degrees separated from “43 Islamists on trial for a Euro-terror plot” (for starters), well, others would do well to hear what he (they) have to say. Indeed, they mean (Shariah law) business.

BOTTOM LINE: it is always, hands down, better to know with whom you are dealing, thus, to internalize where you stand.

IN effect, just like Choudhary lays it on the line, so too does Tariq Ramadan. A host of others alike. Agreed, some choose to come out in full Islamic garb, while others charm with their smooth-style western clothing and affectations, yet, their final messages are still the same:submission to Allah!

IS it any wonder why the Islamist-in-Chief granted him a visa and embraces these same brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia? 

“My bothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.

Our prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means to defeat the enemies of Allah.

Tell the infidels in public we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.

The only law we must respect and apply is the Shari’a.”

Tariq Ramadan – www.facebook.com/pages/Quoting-Islam 

CLEAR as a bell!!

Posted on 1 Feb 15 by Joe for America

Islamic Tribunal Confirmed in Texas,US: Sharia Law Now Being Implemented as Judicial Process

Islamic Tribunal of Texas. (Dallas, TX. Headquarters) Photo courtesy of: Breitbart 

by, Bob Price | Breitbart | h/t F. Peter Brown | Center for Western Journalism

An Islamic Tribunal using Sharia law in Texas has been confirmed by Breitbart Texas. The tribunal is operating as a non-profit organization in Dallas. One of the attorneys for the tribunal said participation and acceptance of the tribunal’s decisions are “voluntary.”

Breitbart Texas spoke with one of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi. He said the tribunal operates under Sharia law as a form of “non-binding dispute resolution.” El-badawi said their organization is “a tribunal, not arbitration.” A tribunal is defined by Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a court or forum of justice.” The four Islamic attorneys call themselves “judges” not “arbitrators.”

El-badawi said the tribunal follows Sharia law to resolve civil disputes in family and business matters. He said they also resolve workplace disputes.

In matters of divorce, El-badawi said that “while participation in the tribunal is voluntary, a married couple cannot be considered divorced by the Islamic community unless it is granted by the tribunal.” He compared their divorce, known as “Talaq,” as something similar to the Catholic practice of annulment in that the church does not recognize civil divorce proceedings as ending a marriage.

He also said there is a difference between how a man and a woman can request a divorce under their system. “The husband can request the divorce directly from the tribunal,” El-badawi stated. “The wife must go to an Imam who will request the divorce for her.” He called it “two paths to the same result.” The practice of Khula is the process where a wife can initiate a divorce proceeding and where the husband can agree to the divorce in exchange for a financial compensation. It appears the wife must agree to give up any claim to the “dower” that was not already paid or to return it if it has already been paid. Once the financial issues are resolved the husband can then proclaim the Talaq (divorce).

El-badawi said they follow Texas family law when it comes to child support, visitation, and custody. He said that in most cases, custody of children is awarded to the mother.

Breitbart Texas asked what happens when there is a conflict between Sharia law and Texas law. El-badawi said most of the time, the laws are in agreement. When pushed further he admitted that, “we follow Sharia law.” However, he explained, “If the parties are not satisfied with the tribunal’s decision, they do not have to accept it and they can take the matter to Texas civil courts.” He did not say what the social ramifications of rejecting the “judge’s” decision would be.

The website for the Islamic Tribunal states, “The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers.  Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.”

It goes on to state, “It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective.”

In explaining Sharia law, the website states, “Stoning adulterers, cutting of the hands, polyandry and the like (all can be traced in the relevant literature and can be explained in their Islamic legal mentality and rational context in fairness and justice), are mainly a part of Islamic Criminal Law.  In fact criminal law within Islam only makes up a fraction of the Shari’ah.  It is unscholarly and unfair to generalize that type of understanding, that is Criminal Law, to compromise the whole of Islamic law if we stick to speaking in technical terms.”

The website lists four “judges:” Imam Yusuf Z.Kavakci, Imam Moujahed Bakhach, Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh and Dr. El-badawi. It states the Islamic Tribunal resolves business disputes, divorce (Talaq) cases, community problems, serious family problems, and Khula.

El-badawi restated several times that participation in the tribunal is voluntary. However, he would not discuss what happens to someone who did not follow their rulings.

– – –

Here is an ‘enlightening’ video of Chris Matthews attacking concerned Americans from Texas just one year ago…and calling sharia law in America ‘..non-existent..’ Ugh, what a blind, ignorant liberal fool.

Posted on 1 Jan 15 by Sharia Unveiled

“Will Obama Step Down?”

Did you know this? Unbelievable. Nobody is reporting this yet. Why?

January 25, 2015 5:58 am Global Insecurity

(gopthedailydose) – Newt Gingrich speaks to the gathering of conservatives at the Iowa Freedom Summit, characterizing the current global threat in crystal clear terms. He says, “There is one common pattern occurring everywhere across the planet and that is radical Islamists, who hate our civilization, are prepared to cut off our heads and are determined to impose their religion by force.”

Gingrich says he’s not going to spend a lot of time talking about Hussein Obama’s “pathological incapacity to deal with reality.” He says, “There’s no point in trying to get him to learn how to say the words ‘radical Islamists’ because he has a speech impediment which blocks him from being able to say the words.”

He points out that even the institution of the U.S. Army has become so corrupted by the dishonesty we now live with that they described the Ft. Hood attack as a workplace violence incident.

He says, “We have an elite, frankly in both parties, unwilling to tell the truth. You’re not going to win this war if you can’t tell the truth. You’re not going to win this war if you can’t admit it’s a war.” He affirms his willingness to live in peace with respectful, peace loving Muslims who allow other views but when faced with the Sharia insistent radicals, Gingrich admits to a desire to kill them before they cut off his head.

He points to the critical nature and the significance of the fight in which we are now engaged, comparing it more than once to the battle against communism. Gingrich recommends Congressional hearings into the threat of radical Islam and completely writes off the dangerous Obama regime as well as a potential Hillary Clinton presidency as incapable or unwilling to responsibly address the threat.

Gingrich supports driving them off of the Internet and that whatever it takes to do so we should do.

He also points out the Saudi funding of supposed objective experts who are engaging in the “undermining and weakening the survival of the United States.”

He says we should make it clear that from here on out, the United States is not going to tolerate any kind of advocacy for Sharia or violence against the West, recruiting or fundraising by any terrorist organizations or individuals. He supports those who leave the United States to engage in radical Islamic terrorism losing their U.S. passports and citizenship.

Gingrich points out how, while his countrymen were showing total cowardice in the face of confronting Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill actually took the time to read “Mein Kampf,” and determined that Hitler actually meant what he was saying, and eventually Hitler proved him to be correct.

Gingrich believes that today we are in the same environment, that our government lies to us daily about the threat, that the intelligence community has been co-opted and that the military is afraid to tell the truth.

He says that, starting with the Congress, we the people need to demand the truth highlighting the indisputable fact that we the people have a right to defend our civilization as well as ourselves and our families from these barbarians.

Posted on 24 Jan 15 by GOP The Daily Dose

Why Won’t The White House Name Islamic Extremism?

An Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeatedly refused to name Islamic extremism as the ideology behind recent terrorist attacks.

By Elliot Friedland | Mon, January 19, 2015

The White House has refused to name Islamic extremism directly as the motivating factor behind the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, instead referring to the ideological motivations indirectly.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary was asked in a briefing why the White House will not speak about Islamic extremism. A reporter asked him “the leader of France, your ally in this effort, has put a name on this ideology, which he calls “radical Islam.” You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason.“

He responded “I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification that they have cited that I think is completely illegitimate, right? That they have invoked Islam to try to justify their attacks.” Earnest here is categorically refusing to accept the terrorists’ own explanation for their attacks, seemingly on the grounds that attempting to understand the motivations that terrorists themselves put forward is tantamount to a tacit acceptance or even support for their views.

On being pressed, Earnest detailed two reasons for not wanting to name the ideology behind worldwide Islamist terrorism.

“The first is accuracy” he said. “We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.”

This proffered explanation is completely devoid of any context or teleological purpose. It is also deceptive. An act of terrorism is only that because of its connection to a political ideology, the advancement of which the spread of terror is supposed to aid. There is no such thing as an act of terrorism shorn of an attendant ideology, that is simply murder. Seemingly the White House is attempting to construct the idea of  “an act of terrorism” in a way that removes any need for the state to identify the causal ideology. That way it is not part of a broader trend, it simply is. Furthermore, Earnest places the act of terrorism first, arguing that the explanations only came afterwards, as if the true goal is wanton slaughter, with any explanation sufficing afterwards in an attempt to cover it up. This line of thinking is palpably false.

Earnest goes on “The second is this is an act that was roundly condemned by Muslim leaders. Again, I’m describing to you the reasons why we have not chosen to use that label because it doesn’t seem to accurately describe what had happened. We also don’t want to be in a situation where we are legitimizing what we consider to be a completely illegitimate justification for this violence, this act of terrorism.”

It is absurd to say that identifying a person’s motivation is the same as legitimizing it. One can speak perfectly easily about apartheid (for example) without legitimizing a legal system which enshrines white people as superior to black people. On the contrary, identifying and deconstructing the ideology behind apartheid was a key factor in ultimately defeating it.

He does not mention that many of those Muslim leaders who condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks are themselves terrorist sympathizers or supporters. The King of Saudi Arabia, for example, had Raif Badawi, the human rights activist, flogged just after the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The Council on American Islamic Relations also condemned the terrorist attacks, despite being designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization themselves. They are a Muslim Brotherhood front group that operates in America and are listed by the State Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror financing trial in American history.

The point blank refusal to refer to Islamic extremism as such drew criticism. MSNBC covered the issue on its “Morning Joe” show, asking a government spokesman to explain why the government refused to name the issue, in sharp contrast to other world leaders who have defined the driving ideology of global terrorism in no uncertain terms.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, described Islamic extremism as a “poisonous, fanatical death cult.” The British communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has just written to 1,100 Imams and mosques across the country, urging them to do more to tackle “men of hate” within Muslim communities. Responding to criticism of the letter, Cameron said that “Anyone reading this letter who has a problem with it, I think really has a problem. It’s the most reasonable, sensible, moderate letter that Eric could have written.”

Instead of identifying the issue in this way, however, the White House will be hosting a summit in February on countering violent extremism in general.

Earnest said that the summit aimed to “discuss how extremists are using social media platforms to try to inspire acts of violence and inspire extremism — expressions of extremism by other people.” He also said there would be a focus on ”strategies that we can employ to better promote pluralism, inclusion and resilience in communities all across the country.”

Earnest also alluded to the possibility of putting White House pressure on journalists and other media professionals to self-censor when it was deemed to be in the national security interest to do so. He was asked a question about a statement made by a previous White House press secretary regarding the 2012 Charlie Hebdo firebombing. Asked about the cartoon cited as provocation by the terrorists the spokesperson said that the White House “questioned the judgement of the publication of that particular cartoon.”

In response Earnest upheld the previous statement, saying that certain publications can put American soldiers abroad in danger, adding “the President and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

The White House has failed to lay out a either a comprehensive defense of free speech or accurately identify Islamic extremism as the source of international jihadism. It’s inability to do so will severely hamper American efforts to fight global terrorism.

Posted on 19 Jan 15 by The Clarion Project

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters nor the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. This shows 2 things…#1 that our government only follows after what they are told to say, which is dictated by our illustrious king, Barack Hussein Islama (when he tries to hide the truth about Islam, his religion and his “Change” for the United States of America), and #2, the federal government is very incompetent and stupid, and does not have a clue concerning Islam. They go by what they are told by their king and leader (BHO)…they (the DEMONcrats) refuse to do any research into what Islam is, nor the history of Islam, to find out what these radical. extremist, Islamic terrorist are doing is actually Islam…in fact, it is OBLIGATED for them to do…

ob·li·ga·tion
ˌäbləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations

an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
“he has enough cash to meet his present obligations”
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, assignment, commission, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt;
literary trust
“no obligation may be placed upon you without your consent”
compulsion, duty, indebtedness;
duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
“he felt an obligation to tip well”
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
“they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme”

So, for the “radical, extremist Muslims to perform these acts, is very much what Islam is…contrary to what the president/mahdi Barack Hussein Islama, or anyone in the White House, or any “Moderate” Muslim leaders say, the true fact concerning Islam IS THAT THESE ACTS ARE ISLAM, AND NOT JUST DEMENTED VERSIONS OF PSYCHOS CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS…it’s like ISIS…they are doing exactly what their final prophet (although a false, demon possessed one) told them to do, more so than any other terrorist group…even destroying the Kaaba, because, marching around the meteorite stone seven times, then kissing/touching/looking at it is worshipping it, which goes against what Muhammed said. ISIS killing Shi’ite Muslims, and even Sunni Muslims as hypocrites, is what Muhammed said to do, because they are not follow, exactly, word for word, what Muhammed said to do…which was perform lesser jihad to terrorize the world into becoming so scared the world submits to allah or dies…

So, for the WH to make such an ignorant statement concerning the extremist Islamic terrorism, is just imbeciles following the wolf in sheeps clothing, that is leading them to their deaths, which BHO is doing that…because the US will not be free, nor Christian by the middle of 2016…due to prophesies of the dollar/economy dying in Sept 2015, and martial law coming around Oct 2015, the once president, but then newly appointed DICKtator will push off his GRAND JIHAD that the Muslim Brotherhood vowed they would perform to conquer America, the Great Satan, and make it an Islamic country.

Yes this is my opinion, but it is based on prophecy that has been put out, as well as watching the signs and seeing the evidence coming out…one more piece of bad news…in my Bible studying, I regret to say that, through symbolism and iconology and such in Revelation, America isn’t really mentioned, and going to back to the Old Testament, when you look at what had happened to Israel/Judah many times that they left God/ Yeshua’s side, Israel/Judah suffered economic destruction, then country destruction/slavery…there is a prophecy against America that sometime in 2017 Russia will attack America, the dominoes are lining up for this to happen, after all we are friends now with Cuba (which is also friends with Russia), and nuclear ICBMs can reach us without a problem from Cuba. And if you do research on Russia and America currently, there is a huge distrust and a new cold war, with reports going on about Obama trying to to do a false flag against Russia using Ukraine, and the mess is just going on between Russia and the United States of Obamamerica.

One thing that the White House (other than Barack Hussein Obama, the WH Imam, because he already knows) does not know concerning the Muslim world leaders that talk against the “extreme Islamists” is that, once again, according to the Qur’an, the Sira, aHadiths and Shari’a, Muslims are to perform taqiyya…]

In Shi’a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] The corresponding concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman “concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.

The Qur’an:

• Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
• Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
• Qur’an (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
• Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
• Qur’an (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
• Qur’an (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
• Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

• Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'”  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
• Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
• Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”
• Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
• Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveller (p. 746 – 8.2) –  “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

H/T to The Religion of Peace

The White Slaves of Barbary

6 October, 2014 – 13:26 aprilholloway

Much attention and condemnation has been directed towards the tragedy of the African slave trade, which took place between the 16^th and the 19^th centuries. However, another equally despicable trade in humans was taking place around the same time in the Mediterranean.  It is estimated that up to 1.25 million Europeans were enslaved by the so-called Barbary corsairs, and their lives were just as pitiful as their African counterparts. They have come to be known as the white slaves of Barbary.

Slavery is one of the oldest trades known to man. We can first find records of the slave trade dating back to The Code of Hammurabi in Babylon in the 18th century BCE. People from virtually every major culture, civilization, and religious background have made slaves of their own and enslaved other peoples. However, comparatively little attention has been given to the prolific slave trade that was carried out by pirates, or corsairs, along the Barbary coast (as it was called by Europeans at the time), in what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, beginning around 1600 AD.

Anyone travelling in the Mediterranean at the time faced the real prospect of being captured by the Corsairs and taken to Barbary Coast cities and being sold as slaves.

However, not content with attacking ships and sailors, the corsairs also sometimes raided coastal settlements in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, and even as far away as the Netherlands and Iceland.  They landed on unguarded beaches, and crept up on villages in the dark to capture their victims.  Almost all the inhabitants of the village of Baltimore, in Ireland, were taken in this way in 1631.  As a result of this threat, numerous coastal towns in the Mediterranean were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants until the 19^th century.

Captured victims arrive on the Barbary coast to be sold as slaves.

In the 13th and 14th centuries, it was Christian pirates, primarily from Catalonia and Sicily, that dominated the seas, posing a constant threat to merchants. It was not until the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the 15^th century that the Barbary corsairs started to become a menace to Christian shipping.

Around 1600 AD, European pirates brought advanced sailing and shipbuilding techniques to the Barbary Coast, which enabled the corsairs to extend their activities into the Atlantic Ocean, and the impact of Barbary raids peaked in the early to mid-17th century.

While the Barbary slave trade is typically portrayed as Muslim corsairs capturing white Christian victims, this is far too simplistic.  In reality, the corsairs were not concerned with the race or religious orientation of those they captured. Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. And the corsairs were not only Muslim; English privateers and Dutch captains also exploited the changing loyalties of an era in which friends could become enemies and enemies friends with the stroke of a pen.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature,” said historian Robert Davis, author of Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy. “But that is not true,” he added.

In comments which may stoke controversy, Davis claims that white slavery had been minimized or ignored because academics preferred to treat Europeans as evil colonialists rather than as victims.

The Barbary slave trade is typically depicted as Muslims capturing white Christians, such as in the artwork above, but this is not entirely accurate.

Life as a Barbary Slave

The slaves captured by the Barbary pirates faced a grim future. Many died on the ships during the long voyage back to North Africa due to disease or lack of food and water. Those who survived were taken to slave markets where they would stand for hours while buyers inspected them before they were sold at auction.

After purchase, slaves would be put to work in various ways. Men were usually assigned to hard manual labour, such as working in quarries or heavy construction, while women were used for housework or in sexual servitude.  At night the slaves were put into prisons called ‘bagnios’ that were often hot and overcrowded. However, by far the worst fate for a Barbary slave was being assigned to man the oars of galleys. Rowers were shackled where they sat, and never allowed to leave. Sleeping, eating, defecation and urination took place at the seat. Overseers would crack the whip over the bare backs of any slaves considered not to be working hard enough.

Occasional incidents continued to occur until another British raid on Algiers in 1824, and finally, a French invasion of Algiers in 1830, which placed it under colonial rule. Tunis was similarly invaded by France in 1881. Tripoli returned to direct Ottoman control in 1835, before finally falling into Italian hands in the 1911 Italo-Turkish War. The slave trade finally ceased on the Barbary coast when European governments passed laws granting emancipation to slaves.

Galley Slaves of the Barbary Corsairs.

The end of the Barbary corsairs

Corsair activity began to diminish in the latter part of the 17th century, as the more powerful European navies started to force the pirates to cease attacking their shipping. However, it wasn’t until the first years of the 19th century, that the United States of America and some European nations began to fight back more fervently against the Barbary pirates.

Algiers was frequently bombarded by the French, Spanish and Americans, in the early 19th century. Eventually, after an Anglo-Dutch raid in 1816 on Algiers, the corsairs were forced to agree to terms which included a cessation of the practice of enslaving Christians, although slave trading of non-Europeans was allowed to continue.

A Sea Fight with Barbary Corsairs, c. 1681.

Occasional incidents continued to occur until another British raid on Algiers in 1824, and finally, a French invasion of Algiers in 1830, which placed it under colonial rule. Tunis was similarly invaded by France in 1881. Tripoli returned to direct Ottoman control in 1835, before finally falling into Italian hands in the 1911 Italo-Turkish War. The slave trade finally ceased on the Barbary coast when European governments passed laws granting emancipation to slaves.

Featured image: A slave caught by Barbary pirates. Image source.

References:

Slavery and White Guilt – James Eden. Available from:   http://www.westernspring.co.uk/slavery-and-white-guilt/

Barbary pirates – Wikipedia. Available from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#Barbary_slaves

African Slave Traders and their White European Slaves – Grumpy Opinions. Available from:  http://grumpyelder.com/2012/08/african-slave-traders-and-their-white-european-slaves/

America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe – The Library of Congress. Available from: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

British Slaves on the Barbary Coast – BBC / Robert Davis. Available from:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml

New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe – The Guardian. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books

When Europeans were slaves – Ohio State University. Available from: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

By April Holloway

Posted on 6 Oct 14 by Ancient Origins

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. And the article did not mention…the African slave trade was done by Muslim slave traders…it was a part of #1 jihad…forcing new converts…convert or become a slave, and #2 funding jihad across the world, although it wasn’t very high at all back then, the fact was that it still happened, primarily through piracy and capturing Africans, as well as Europeans, to be sold as slaves.

One thing that is happening right now in the US is that the current Islamic Trojan horse regime, and it’s allies are trying to push, in a round about way, the white slavery in America. Working real hard on racism, that-the-white-man-had-the-black-man-as-slaves-so-vent-your-anger-at-them is what is being pushed off, and the Muslims are following in with this, in their racist recruiting, not telling the Black folk that it was the Muslims that actually captured their ancestors and sold them.]