Posts

California: Muslim stabbed four ‘in the name of Allah,’ planned to read Qur’an until cops arrived, then shoot them


The Qur’an? Didn’t Faisal Mohammad know that, as Pope Francis has told us, “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”?
Despite the fact that Mohammad “was found to have an image of the ISIS flag, a handwritten manifesto with instructions on how to behead someone, and reminders to pray to Allah,” everyone who participated was sure that his stabbings had something to do with “images of masculinity” and nothing to do with Islam, and that only “Islamophobes” thought otherwise. This is no surprise. The University of California Merced is no different from any other campus all over the country: full of indoctrinated bots who have been thoroughly imbued with the notion that when Islamic jihadists attack us, it is our fault.
“FBI releases 2015 attack plan of radicalized California university student who stabbed 4 on campus,” Associated Press, November 18, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

MERCED, Calif. – A troubled California university freshman who burst into a classroom in 2015, stabbing four people before police shot him dead, planned to praise Allah while slitting the throats of classmates and use a gun taken from an ambushed officer to kill more, according to records released by the FBI.
Authorities determined that Faisal Mohammad, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of California, Merced had no connections to organized hate or terror groups and no past behavior to suggest violence.
Still, records released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Daily Beast publication include a chilling, handwritten 31-step plan for the Nov. 4 attack with names of people to target.
The plan included putting on a balaclava at 7:45 a.m. and saying “in the name of Allah” before stepping into his classroom and ordering students to use zip-ties he provided to bind their hands.
Mohammad also planned to make a fake 911 distress call to report a suicidal guy [sic; this is how they write at AP these days] and wait for police outside the classroom before ambushing from behind “and slit calmly yet forcefully one of the officers with guns.”
He planned to take a gun from an officer and kill classmates before making another fake distress call to 911 to report the shootings. Step 26 was to read the Quran until he heard sirens, and then “take calm shot after shot” with the gun as authorities arrive….
…investigators said the perpetrators were influenced by the Islamic State group, but not directly connected to it. Families in both cases said they had no clue of their relatives’ radicalization.

Of course not!
RELATED ARTICLES:
Netherlands: Muslims threaten to murder teacher over Muhammad cartoon, teacher goes into hiding
Pakistan: Five Muslims gang-rape and torture deaf-mute Christian girl for 2 months as police do nothing
Sweden: Discrimination Ombudsman rules that municipality’s ban on hijab, burqa, and niqab is illegal
Philippines: 48-year-old Muslim marries 13-year-old girl
France: Muslims write on walls of two schools ‘You are all dead, you are all dead. Samuel Paty. Allah Akbar.’
Egypt: Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar refutes claim that Islam allows Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump is Right: Our Exit from Afghanistan is Long Overdue


President Trump is withdrawing a significant number of troops from Afghanistan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is livid. According to AP, McConnell “warned against a potentially ‘humiliating’ pullout from Afghanistan that he said would be worse than President Barack Obama’s 2011 withdrawal from Iraq and reminiscent of the U.S. departure from Saigon in 1975.” Not to be outdone, Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican leader on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted: “We need to ensure a residual force is maintained for the foreseeable future to protect U.S. national and homeland security interests and to help secure peace for Afghanistan.” But McConnell and McCaul are advocating for a failed policy. It is long past time to leave Afghanistan.
In his State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, President Trump stated: “As a candidate for President, I pledged a new approach. Great nations do not fight endless wars.” Epitomizing the need to do this was what happened when Trump first moved to end America’s longest endless war, the war in Afghanistan, with a treaty with the group that the U.S. entered Afghanistan in order to topple, the Taliban, in February 2020. The ink was still fresh on the signed document when the Taliban launched a new attack against Afghan government forces, killing twenty Afghan soldiers and police officers.
The attack was a fitting symbol of the fruitlessness of these endless wars and the bankruptcy of the assumptions and policies that had led to their being waged.
After all these years, we have little to show for all our efforts in the nation that has been ominously dubbed the “graveyard of empires.” The U.S. has sacrificed the lives of numerous heroic service members and squandered trillions for nearly two decades in the fond hope that it could remake Afghanistan into a stable, Western-style republic that would respect the human rights of all its citizens. That’s still the plan, as far as the architects of our intervention are concerned: One foreign policy establishment wonk counseled patience, saying that Afghanistan “is not going to become Switzerland overnight,” a fact that is as obvious as Joe Biden’s dementia.
Great. So we know now after almost twenty years that it isn’t going to happen overnight, but how long exactly is it going to take? To that question the advocates of endless intervention have no definite answer. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in late 2019: “We are never going to get the U.S. military out of Afghanistan unless we take care to see that there is something going on that will provide the stability that will be necessary for us to leave.”
All right, but what’s it going to take? Do Rumsfeld, McConnell, and McCaul really think that after nearly twenty years, one more year, or five more years, or ten more years, will do the job?
Afghanistan will never be a Western-style republic and will likely never be free of the Taliban without a massive transformation of Afghan society, no matter how long we stay, and such a transformation is not on the horizon. This was clear relatively early in the conflict, but the obviousness of this fact did not make successive Republican and Democratic administrations rethink the wisdom of being there.
And so after all this American expenditure of personnel, money, and materiel, there is absolutely no doubt that once we leave, the Taliban will make gains and may even regain control of the Afghan government.
Did that mean that America had to keep troops there for fifty years? A hundred years? Should we just make Afghanistan the fifty-first state and seal our commitment there forever? Or should the U.S. instead focus on what is best for America in Afghanistan, working to contain the jihad there and to ensure that the Taliban does not and cannot engage in international jihad terror activity, while otherwise leaving the Afghans to their own devices?
America’s tragic misadventure in Afghanistan makes it clear that a new foreign policy strategy is urgently needed, and that the ideas and assumptions that have governed U.S. foreign policy for nearly a century needed to be consigned to the dustbin of history. President Trump had proposed to do that. Now we are likely to see instead a retrenchment of the forces that made the tragedy of two decades of war in Afghanistan happen in the first place. President Biden, or President Harris, or President Pelosi, or whatever horror show we may be facing next, could send the troops that Trump withdraws right back into the belly of the beast.
After all, as Trump said last September, “the top people in the Pentagon…want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars, you know how we’re doing.” He is getting us out. Others, wanting to keep the Masters of War happy, may get us right back in.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Netherlands: Muslims threaten to murder teacher over Muhammad cartoon, teacher goes into hiding
Pakistan: Five Muslims gang-rape and torture deaf-mute Christian girl for 2 months as police do nothing
Sweden: Discrimination Ombudsman rules that municipality’s ban on hijab, burqa, and niqab is illegal
Philippines: 48-year-old Muslim marries 13-year-old girl
France: Muslims write on walls of two schools ‘You are all dead, you are all dead. Samuel Paty. Allah Akbar.’
Egypt: Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar refutes claim that Islam allows Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

15 Dem Senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, urge Facebook to block ‘anti-Muslim hate’


Incitement to violence against any group should always be blocked. The problem here is that Islamic advocacy groups and their allies in the West have for years claimed that any honest discussion of the motivating ideology behind jihad violence was “anti-Muslim hate.” Facebook already makes such discussion virtually impossible to find. Expect it to be completely blacked out in a Biden/Harris administration.
“US senators call on Facebook to address anti-Muslim bigotry,” Middle East Eye, November 16, 2020 (thanks to Henry):

Democratic senators are calling on Facebook to “do more” to mitigate the spread of anti-Muslim bigotry, after the social media giant was criticised for failing to address attacks against the faith group on multiple occasions, including the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings.
In a letter sent to Facebook to CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday, a group of 15 Senators said the platform needed to immediately enforce its community standards to address anti-Muslim hate and ban the use of event pages for the purpose of “harassment, organizing, and violence” against the Muslim community.
The letter also said that Facebook had not taken proper steps to enforce its “call to arms” policy, a year-old rule created in large part due to pressure from Muslim advocacy groups, which since 2015 had flagged multiple instances where organisers of Facebook events had advocated for followers to bring weapons to mosques and other places of worship.
“We recognize that Facebook has announced efforts to address its role in the distribution of anti-Muslim content in some of these areas,” the letter, signed by Senator Chris Coons, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and 12 others, said.
“Nevertheless, it is not clear that the company is meaningfully better positioned to prevent further human rights abuses and violence against Muslim minorities today.”
An independent civil rights audit of the social media company released in July outlined that despite having policies that did not allow for hate speech against religious groups, incidents of hate speech continued to persist across Facebook.
Muslim Advocates, a rights group that called for the audit two years ago, thanked the senators for writing the letter.
“Since 2015, Muslim Advocates had warned Facebook that the platform’s event pages were being used by violent militias and white nationalists to organize armed rallies at mosques,” the group’s executive director Farhana Khera said on Monday.
“We need to know what Facebook plans to do to end the anti-Muslim hate and violence enabled by their platform – and end it now.”…
“As members of Congress who are deeply disturbed by the proliferation of this hate speech on your platform, we urge you to do more,” the senators’ letter read.

RELATED VIDEO: Guest on US-funded Alhurra denigrates Christians

RELATED ARTICLES:
Swamp Rat Boasts of How He Lied to Trump to Defy Syria Withdrawal Orders
‘Non-Muslim women are being kidnapped, raped, lured, converted to Islam, punished and brainwashed’
UAE Official: Hamas and the PA Are ‘Corrupt’ and ‘Murderers’
Islamic Faith Community of Austria complains that counterterror measures foster ‘Islamophobia’
Hungary: ‘Threat not as high as in Germany or France, because we hardly have any immigrants from Islamic countries’
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden transition official wants speech restrictions, criminalization of burning of Qur’an


I’m not in favor of the burning of any book, and I believe that people ought to read and understand the Qur’an rather than burn it. However, note that Stengel is calling for legal “guardrails” against “speech that incites hate.”
If someone burns a Bible, no one cares. If someone burns a Qur’an, there are riots and death threats. So for Stengel, burning a Bible would not be “speech that incites hate,” but burning a Qur’an would be. Saying that “speech that incites hate” must be criminalized is tantamount to calling for the heckler’s veto to be enshrined in law. Stengel says: “Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.”
So if Muslims riot over burned Qur’ans, we must outlaw burning Qur’ans. That would only signal to Muslims that they can get us to bend to their will by threatening violence, and ensure that we will see many more such threats. In Richard Stengel’s ideal world, non-Muslims are cowed into silence by Muslims who threaten to kill them if they get out of line, and by non-Muslim officials who react to the threats by giving the Muslims what they want.
Note also that Leftist and Islamic groups in the U.S. have for years insisted, with no pushback from any mainstream politician or media figure, that essentially any and all criticism of Islam, including analysis of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims, is “hate speech” and “speech that incites hate.” Thus Richard Stengel will silence that as well, and the global jihad will be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded.
In a year or two I might have told you “I warned you this was coming,” but by then I probably won’t be able to.
“Joe Biden transition official wrote op-ed advocating free speech restrictions,” by Steven Nelson, New York Post, November 13, 2020:

President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team leader for US-owned media outlets wants to redefine freedom of speech and make “hate speech” a crime.
Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.
He wrote: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting ‘thought that we hate,’ but not speech that incites hate.”
Stengel offered two examples of speech that he has an issue with: Quran burning and circulation of “false narratives” by Russia during the 2016 election.
“Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?” Stengel wrote.
“It’s a fair question. Yes, the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate,’ but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”…
“Since World War II, many nations have passed laws to curb the incitement of racial and religious hatred. These laws started out as protections against the kinds of anti-Semitic bigotry that gave rise to the Holocaust. We call them hate speech laws, but there’s no agreed-upon definition of what hate speech actually is. In general, hate speech is speech that attacks and insults people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin and sexual orientation,” Stengel wrote.
“I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites ‘imminent lawless action’ or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateen and the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely?”…

RELATED ARTICLES:
America’s First Black President Says It’s a ‘Myth’ That America Has No ‘Racial Caste System’
Why Would It Be So Wrong for Joe Biden to Return to the Iran Deal?
Obama says Biden advised against raid on Osama bin Laden
Lebanese Christian: Europe has erred in assuming Muslim immigrant communities would adopt European worldview
Muslim warns Macron to end his ‘Islamophobia,’ says ‘you are still alive, but just wait until a Muslim reaches you’
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Zarif: Biden ‘more promising’ for the Islamic Republic than Trump


It doesn’t take a genius or “expert” to recognize that Joe Biden would be a better president from the standpoint of the Iranian mullahs. The surprising and embarrassing aspect of this is that so many seem to be ignorant of it or indifferent to it, even as Zarif acknowledges it openly. Biden and the Democrats are a boon for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is seeking to expand its influence in the West and elsewhere, and will be enabled to do just that by Biden and his team.
“Why Iran sees Biden as the “more promising” candidate in the U.S. election,” by Elizabeth Palmer and Tucker Reals, CBS News, November 2, 2020:

Tehran — Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has indicated to CBS News that the Islamic Republic’s leadership would prefer Joe Biden win the U.S. election. It was a first for a country that has been reluctant to tip its hand.
Zarif first insisted that Iran‘s government has no preference between President Donald Trump or Biden, but pushed to respond, Zarif said that “the statements by the Biden camp have been more promising, but we will have to wait and see.”…
“What is important for us is how the White House behaves after the election, not what promises are there, what slogans are made. The behavior of the U.S. is important. If the U.S. decides to stop its malign behavior against Iran, then it will be a different story no matter who sits in the White House,” the U.S.-educated diplomat said.
U.S.-Iran relations have disintegrated since President Trump’s unilateral move in 2018 to pull out of the nuclear deal reached with Iran under former President Barack Obama. The Trump administration not only withdrew from that agreement but has since hit Iran with a series of harsh economic sanctions — a “maximum pressure” bid to force Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal.
The Biden camp has signaled that, if he wins, his administration would attempt to renegotiate the deal hashed out when he was vice president, but the Iranian Foreign Minister insisted to us that that is not Tehran’s hope.
“If we wanted to do that [renegotiate], we would have done it with President Trump four years ago,” Zarif told CBS News, adding that “under no circumstances” would Tehran consider renegotiating the terms of a deal which has since been adopted as a United Nations Security Council Resolution….
“We can find a way to reengage, obviously. But reengagement does not mean renegotiation,” he said. “It means the U.S. coming back to the negotiating table.”…
“I know that Vice President Biden understands that that won’t happen [renegotiate the terms of the nuclear deal], and may act differently,” said the Iranian foreign minister. He expressed hope, however, that Mr. Trump, too, “is capable of acting differently.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:
Bangladesh: Catholic bishop says that Muhammad cartoons are ‘an unforgivable injustice’
Canada: Imam Denounces Free Speech, Trudeau Agrees
Four women accused of being supporters of the Islamic State, and their nine children, allowed to return to Sweden
Pakistan: Muslim security guard shoots bank manager to death because he ‘insulted the prophet’
Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria accuses UK, US, Canada and others of bias against Nigerian Muslims
EDTORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Kamala Harris: Biden will restore aid to ‘Palestinians’, reopen East Jerusalem consulate and PLO office in D.C.


Returning to the old arrangement: pressuring our only reliable ally in the Middle East, while coddling and enabling those who would conquer and subjugate us.
“Exclusive: Q&A with Kamala Harris ahead of election,” Arab American News, October 28, 2020:

DEARBORN — Democratic vice presidential nominee and California Senator Kamala Harris visited Metro Detroit last Sunday, making a notable, unannounced stop in Dearborn to grab dinner at the Khalaf Grill. The visit by Joe Biden’s running mate was just one of several visits by both prominent Democratic and Republican candidates in the last few weeks ahead of the critical upcoming general election….
Many Arab voters in Dearborn and Hamtramck hold foreign policy issues important, particularly the Israel and Palestine conflict, Syria, the war on Yemen and others. What can a Biden presidency mean for lasting peace and demands for human rights in the Mid East region? Could we see an end to continued U.S. military engagements in the region?
Joe and I are committed to helping the people of the Arab world meet the challenges they face. The United States cannot dictate the outcomes in other countries, but we do have a responsibility to advance human rights and democratic principles on behalf of all people. We have an obligation to promote universal values and work toward a more peaceful and secure world.
Joe and I also believe in the worth and value of every Palestinian and every Israeli and we will work to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity and democracy. We are committed to a two-state solution, and we will oppose any unilateral steps that undermine that goal. We will also oppose annexation and settlement expansion. And we will take immediate steps to restore economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem and work to reopen the PLO mission in Washington.
In Syria, Joe and I will once again stand with civil society and pro-democracy partners in Syria, and help advance a political settlement where the Syrian people have a voice. We will work to protect the most vulnerable Syrians and lead the global coalition to defeat ISIS. And instead of standing by as the government of Saudi Arabia pursues disastrous, dangerous policies, including the ongoing war in Yemen, we will reassess the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia and end support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen….

RELATED ARTICLES:
100 Rabbis: The SPLC Makes Life More Dangerous for Jews by Covering for Radical Islam
Biden plans to undo Trump’s America-First foreign policy
SITE Intel Group: Jihadist says Vienna attack ‘part of the bill’ that Austria must pay
Austria: At least seven dead, hostages taken, suicide bomb detonated in Vienna
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.