IS 'Moles' as Refugees, Malik's Violent Jihad on Social Sites

Editor’s Note – As each day goes by since the December 2nd terror event in San Bernardino, California, the plot thickens and expands. The connections become more complicated and the fears that terrorists can get into America so easily has most frightened despite the President’s assurances. Of course, we think he is delusional, as is John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Say what you will about Donald Trump regarding a temporary ban on Muslims being allowed to enter the country, we are now seeing that our Homeland Security and State Departments have dropped the ball frequently. In fact, the NY Times reported today that they missed obvious issues with Tashfeen Malik when she was allowed to enter under a K1 fiance visa:

Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. But none uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.

… Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.

How confidant are you that those being brought in will not include ISIS “moles”? How about the knowledge that Canada just admitted its first contingent of Syrian refugees yesterday with our very open northern border?

With such political correctness controlling decision makers in the DHS who are more worried about “appropriateness” than your safety, we think it is time to worry more, not less. We wonder what the pond in San Bernardino will reveal and what will arise from the fact that Enrique Martinez bragged to his friends about ‘sleeper cells’ and that he was paid to be in a sham marriage.

Islamic State Manifesto: Sleeper Cells Sent To Europe Posing As Refugees

By John Rossomando – IPT News

The Islamic State claims it sent highly trained sleeper agents to Europe through Turkey posing as refugees as far back as 2012. A 99-page manifesto issued in January, “Black Flags from Rome,” also details the Islamic State (ISIS)’s desire to spark a Europe-wide Islamic insurgency using “Muslim No Go Zones” as bases of operations.

Syrian refugees check their baggage at the beginning of an airlift to Canada, at the Beirut International airport December 10, 2015 in a photo provided by the Canadian military. REUTERS/Corporal Darcy Lefebvre/Canadian Forces Combat Camera/Handout via Reuters
Syrian refugees check their baggage at the beginning of an airlift to Canada, at the Beirut International airport December 10, 2015 in a photo provided by the Canadian military. REUTERS/Corporal Darcy Lefebvre/Canadian Forces Combat Camera/Handout via Reuters

As an example, it claims that some Syrian refugees fled to Italy. “No doubt, some of these refugees were undercover fighters of Al Qa’idah and the Islamic State,” the manifesto says.

“They were quick to take the opportunity of entering into the different countries of Europe (most probably as early as 2012).

All this was happening under the nose of the European intelligence services whose job during this time (2012) was only to prevent European Muslims from entering Syria. (This shows how quick the Islamic groups were in planning ahead.

Years before Europe even knew where its Muslim citizens were going – experienced Islamic fighters had already found safety in Europe.)”

These highly trained fighters were instructed to form secret cells and wait until called on by the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. At that time they would “continue the Jihad and … seek revenge for the Western occupation of Muslim lands.

“Black Flags From Rome” claims the sleeper agents were well-trained in urban combat tactics similar to this month’s Paris attacks. It proudly contrasts past Al-Qaida’s terrorists with its fighters, whom it describes as “untrained” and “vulnerable,” noting that Western intelligence agencies never faced professionally trained fighters with combat experience.”

“These young Europeans had been professionally trained, and given training most specific to the context of the war they would battle within Europe,” the manifesto says.

ISIS training included instruction on buying and firing weapons and making improvised explosives. Such training could explain the sophistication of the Paris attacks and the attackers’ competence in making suicide vests, which experts say takes weeks of training.

“Their locations were unknown, and police raids wouldn’t even have the same impact as unarmed lone wolf terrorists’ (sic), because these young men were armed and able to shoot back in groups. There were small armies of the Islamic State within every country of Europe by late 2014, and the intelligence agencies didn’t even know about it!” the manifesto says.

ISIS propagandists based in Syria were quick to take responsibility for the attacks. An updated edition titled “Black Flags From the Islamic State,” written in the past week,calls them “one of the first organised attacks done by the Islamic State in Europe which involved a Network of Cells working together in an organized way.”

Police described the Paris attackers as “seasoned fighters by the looks of it and perfectly trained, with witnesses describing them as quite young and cool-headed,” the London Daily Telegraph reports.

Furthermore, during the attacks, a mid-level Syrian Islamic State leader known as @Jazrawi_Oooud tweeted during the attacks: “… Syrian refugees sent by Islamic state carried out today’s offensive names battle of Paris. More to come.”

This statement came out a day before the media or French authorities mentioned any possibility that people who might have infiltrated the wave of refugees from Syria could have been responsible for the attacks. A fake Syrian passport bearing the name “Ahmad alMohammad” was found next to a suicide bomber who blew himself up at the soccer stadium. Two other stadium bombers arrived on Oct. 3, blending in with scores of refugees on the Greek island of Leros.

Several of the Paris attackers fought for ISIS in Syria and their leader, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, freely traveled to and from Europe. The Islamic State claims it selected Abaaoud to lead the mission and trained him in insurgency skills before sending him to France to create clandestine cells with the aim of starting a jihad in France. Abaaoud hid among the flow of refugees from Syria, and travelled to Turkey and Greece before making his way to France, according to “Black Flags From the Islamic State.”

 ISIS map claims to depict plans to "surround and capture Europe"

ISIS map claims to depict plans to “surround and capture Europe”

If what “Black Flags From Rome” and “Black Flags From the Islamic State” say is true, it could influence subsequent debate over the flood of refugees from Syria and Iraq into Europe and possibly America.

It could mean that the attacks in Paris weren’t just a sign of a wounded Islamic State lashing out at Europe in retaliation for lost territory in Iraq as some suggest.

The Black Flag manifestos, and a third called “How to Survive in the West: A Mujahid’s Guide,” all show a greater strategy to import the group’s jihad to Europe.

“Once the media attention dies down, the Islamic State will tell another “sleeper Cell” (secret Cell which has not yet activated) to do another attack again,” Black Flags From the Islamic State says..

Rome’s Apocalyptic Prophecy

The manifesto’s title, “Black Flags From Rome,” draws from the Islamic State’s apocalyptic theology. Islamic prophecy states that Rome will be conquered by Muslims before the appearance of Islam’s Antichrist, the dajjal, appears. ISIS hopes to help that along.

In a hadith found in Sahih Muslim, Muhammad says:

“You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal and Allah will enable you to conquer him. Nafi’ said: Jabir, we thought that the Dajjal would appear after Rome (Syrian territory) would be conquered.”

The Islamic State, however, interprets this hadith as referring to Rome, Italy, rather than a region controlled by the Roman Empire in Muhammad’s day.

The dream of conquering Rome appears in other Islamic State propaganda such as issue four of, which shows an Islamic State flag fluttering atop the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square.

“We have to defend our communities in Europe, and buy time for the Armageddon in Syria to finish and for the Roman invaders to be defeated. The day these Roman (NATO) armies set off with their 960,000 soldiers to fight the Muslims in Dabiq (Syria), they should realise half the prophecy has already come into effect. The 2nd half of the prophecy is that they will lose, and Muslims will take over Rome … The next stop? The Anti-Christ (al-Dajjal) in Israel,” a subsequent manifesto published in July, “Muslim Gangs: The Future of Muslims In The West,” states.

Both “Muslim Gangs” and “Black Flags” urge exploiting anti-Muslim sentiment to radicalize European Muslims to build an army to fulfill this prophecy. The authors of “Muslim Gangs” advise using propaganda to unite Muslims around local humanitarian efforts.1272

“The Propaganda Arm is using soft power techniques to build a united Muslim community which appreciates self-defence, a community which can support fellow believers in (future) times of difficulty and war,” “Muslim Gangs” advises.

It urges Islamic propagandists to claim that aspects of Islam are being criminalized, and to frame police as enemies of the Muslims. This, it says, helps to build a sense of alienation:

“Tell them stories of how we feel unsafe and how they make it a crime for us to morally support Muslims around the world, and they do not even let us leave the West if we want to. Tell them that they should not talk openly with the police, or else they could be taken away from their parents. These are realities Muslims face everyday, we need to make them aware. “This will make the young generation stay distant from the police. They will hate it. The police will try to come to their schools to win their hearts and minds, but tell the kids: ‘Who do you trust more? Your fellow Muslim brothers, or the ones who imprison Muslims?'”

It urges establishing “no-go zones” and creating a culture of hostility to the police where lawlessness reigns and the jihadists can flourish.

“Al Qa’idah, the Islamic State and many Mujahideen groups thrived in areas where there was lawlessness because they could buy smuggled goods from the blackmarket and train without fear of police. If police did come, the people in the area would inform everyone because this was a no-go zone for the police,” “Muslim Gangs” states.

Abaaoud and his fellow Paris attackers used such a place in the Brussels, Belgium suburb of Molenbeek, which has been the source of the highest concentrations of jihadi foreign fighters who have left to fight in Iraq and Syria. Belgian authorities admit they have lost control of the suburb.

Other tactics include aligning with left-wing activists to fight neo-Nazis and using them to do undercover work for Muslims to “pave the way for the conquest of Rome.” It suggests that Muslims can use leftists to fight and sabotage the “financial elite.”

“War: right now you can do lone wolf attacks, but the West is not fertile for a full on war yet. Rather, the increasing amount of attacks from both sides will gradually create a state of war,” “Muslim Gangs” states.

White Muslim converts are seen as the Islamic State’s “secret weapon” because they can blend in more easily.

Additionally, the Islamic State wants followers to infiltrate gangs to learn how they operate, then develop into larger militias by using fear as a tactic to intimidate enemies and inspire recruits, which observers call “jihadi cool.”

“Black Flags” suggests using mosques as operating bases and exploiting attacks by neo-Nazi groups. It predicts that Muslims and neo-Nazis will launch reprisals against each other.

Early stages of the proposed Islamic insurgency would use primitive weapons like Molotov cocktails, pellet guns and slingshots against neo-Nazi gangs. It suggests copying tactics used during the early stages of Syria’s civil war, such as making attacks using homemade weapons and capturing more advanced weapons.

Recruits are obtained by “showing the glamorous nature of Jihad” and emphasizing great spiritual rewards for those who engage in jihadi attacks. Video recordings of“spectacular attacks” can put potential recruits in awe of jihad, “Muslim Gangs” says. It also suggests using such recordings to fundraise among Muslims who “might be willing to donate” to defending Muslim neighborhoods.

In the process, “Black Flags” suggests forming militias that would take over buildings, roads and weapons depots.

“As the Islamic militias begin to arm themselves and train each other, they will be able to fight more battles … This will make them even richer and more financially independent, buy even more advanced weaponry from the black market and cause even more damage to the enemies,” “Black Flags” says.

Muslim gangs are urged to fight to seize territory outside Muslim neighborhoods and build alliances with other gangs with the goal of creating a large army.

“Muslim fighters from all European countries will continue the fight, breaking borders until they can reach; Northern Rome,” “Black Flags” says.

Obama – Muslim Brotherhood Allegiance

Editor’s Note – As we here at SUA have witnessed, with more and more evidence coming to light, this administration is working “against” our American values. He has made our allies enemies and our enemies friends. They are not our friends. They hope to take our Nation over.

The Muslim Brotherhood is working to take over the world,  under the “Caliphate.” It is looking more and more like Obama is helping them, and it clear that he has aligned America with his Islamic friends.

Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties

By, Garth Kant – World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.

Critics blasted that notion.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”

andrew mccarthy

The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.

“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.

Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”

“The recent discovery of an Obama administration document evidencing support for the Muslim Brotherhood is unsurprising,” she said. “It merely confirms the consistent position of the White House’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood since Obama’s election.”

Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and president of the Center for Security Policy, said PSD-11 was part of a series of mistakes that “were the consequences of embracing, legitimating, funding and even arming the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“They will prove to be among President Obama’s worst security policy legacies — and that’s saying something!”

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went a step further than saying there are no moderate Islamists; he stated there is not even a moderate Islam.

A tweet from a supporter quoted Farrakhan as saying, “What is moderate Islam? There is no such thing,” during a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.

In his 2010 bestseller, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” McCarthy described an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that revealed the groups’ grand plan to destroy the West from within by having its component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and how it had found the ideal partner in Obama.

farrakhan

McCarthy told WND, “The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate — not in its theoretical orientation and, as we’ve seen in Egypt, not in practice when it has a chance to govern.

“And it is simply a fact that many of the world’s most violent and influential jihadists got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a gateway to violent jihadism — not in all cases, but in many.”

McCarthy has described non-violent jihad as just as great a threat as violent jihad, because they are both means to overthrow Western governments and install strict Islamic law, or Shariah.

He drolly observed: “Obviously, we prefer non-violent Islamists to violent Islamists. We’d also rather have pneumonia than cancer … that doesn’t make pneumonia desirable.”

In a recent article in which he described the government’s “cognitive dissonance in seeking out ‘moderate Islamists,’” McCarthy stressed, “If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate.”

McCarthy explained in greater detail to WND how “non-violent” does not mean “moderate” when it comes to Islamists.

“‘Islamist’ is the term we apply to those who believe in Islamic supremacism, which is essentially the imposition of classical Shariah (which recognizes no separation between spiritual and political life).”

He called it “a system that rejects individual liberty and is deeply discriminatory against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals.”

“Consequently, it is not ‘moderate.’ A person with extreme, anti-Western views is not a moderate, regardless of whether he is willing to commit acts of terrorism to impose his views on society.”

Clare Lopez

Lopez, who honed her analytical acumen during 20 years of service as a CIA field operative, and who served as an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students, described the difference between violent and non-violent Islamic extremism as merely a difference in timing and tactics.

“ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram for example, tend to stage violent attacks in an effort to destroy the will to resist among the enemy and also to punish the enemy, or infidel, for refusing to accept or implement or follow Islam faithfully.”

“On the other hand, ” she said, “the Muslim Brotherhood tends to take a longer-term approach that works patiently to infiltrate and subvert a target government, whether infidel or ‘unfaithful Muslim,’ from within.”

Lopez insisted it doesn’t make sense to work with any Islamist groups, “when all are jihadis and all want to destroy our civilization & subjugate us to Shariah.”

Bachmann referred to the Muslim Brotherhood document seized in an FBI raid on suspected terrorists “delineating their plan to destroy the ‘miserable house of the U.S. from within civilization through jihad.’”

McCarthy told WND the Obama administration did not originate the problem of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. government, but it has greatly exacerbated that problem.

“Obama officials have intentionally sought to ally with Islamic supremacists, even those connected to terrorist organizations, on the harebrained theory that these Islamists will promote stability — i.e., they will work with us against jihadist organizations like al-Qaida, even though they share al-Qaida’s Shariah ideology and hostility toward the West.”

Gaffney told WND that “such a policy shift was the predictable consequence of having individuals associated with the Brotherhood holding positions of influence in the Obama administration and/or serving as advisers to several of its senior members, including the President, himself.”

arab-spring-obama

He said examples of such individuals could be found in a course on his center’s website, along with a detailed treatment of the policy repercussions of such penetration.

The problem of increasing Islamist influence in America has been compounded, critics say, by the Obama administration’s policy of admitting tens of thousands of poorly vetted Muslims from countries where Islamism is prevalent.

“All the while,” said Bachmann, “knowing many of the Muslims would prefer living in Muslim societies dominated by Islamic Shariah law, a governance system known for its incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution.”

Making the problem even worse, she said, was how former secretary of state “Hillary Clinton embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood by issuing visas to enter the U.S. to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and to other terrorist organizations, even though the U.S. Government listed them with terrorist affiliations.”

Bachmann was one of five Republican Congress members who stirred bipartisan controversy in 2012 by raising concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital.

She also publicly questioned the role of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, because of her and her family’s extensive documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

McCarthy told WND that Abdedin’s role in State Department policy still should be explored in light of her considerable Islamist connections.

“Her role should not be overstated — Hillary Clinton, like President Obama, has a record of sympathizing with Islamists, and Ms. Abedin’s influence on U.S. policy is more an effect than a cause of her boss’s predilections.”

“Still,” he added, “the State Department has aggressively pushed Obama’s policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be foolish to assume that the implementation of that policy was unconnected to the installation of pro-Islamists in high-ranking policy positions.”

Gaffney told WND: “It is deeply regrettable that the sorts of serious and legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of key agencies posed by Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in June of 2012 were never the subject of investigations — either before or subsequently — by the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”

“Had they been,” he speculated, “we might have averted myriad disasters, including, but not limited to: the debacle in Libya (inter alia the murderous attack on our facilities in Benghazi); the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt; our arming al Qaida and Islamic State forces in Syria; turning a blind eye to the increasing Islamic supremacism of a putative NATO ally, Turkey; undermining our ally, Israel; abandoning Iraq; releasing five top Taliban commanders in exchange for a deserter, etc.”

How should the U.S. deal with Islamism?

McCarthy told WND the better approach would be “to accept that the challenge we face is Islamic supremacist ideology, which fuels both the terrorist threat and the broader Shariah-based challenge to our liberties, particularly free speech.”

“Our foreign policy should be based strictly on American interests. Foreign policy often involves having to sort out bad actors from worse actors, and any involvement with bad actors ought to be limited to what the protection of our interests requires — it is not our job to remake Islamic societies.”

He suggested, “We should resist alliances with Islamists, deal with them only to the extent our interests require it, ditch the notion that they are an asset rather than a liability in confronting violent jihadists, and — where we can do so usefully — promote pro-Western Muslims who reject Shariah supremacism.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, during the Open Government Partnership event in New York September 20, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Lopez indirectly referred to the Obama administration’s refusal to use the words “Islamic extremists” by counseling that the U.S. should “name the enemy” as “all who fight or support jihad to impose Shariah.”

“Declare war against that enemy. Study the enemy. Know the enemy. Then deploy a whole-of-government approach to defeating that enemy utterly.”

Lopez also pointed out the existence of the presidential directive effectively making it the policy of the administration to support “moderate Islamists” was actually made public a year ago by Gulf News, a publication not widely known in the U.S.

The story detailed a wide range of Obama administration contacts and meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members, including the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi under the murkiest of circumstances.

Gulf News had reported attempts were under way to obtain State Department records documenting its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood using a Freedom of Information, or FOIA, request.

The Washington Times reported, “Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.”

Jill Farrell, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND the presidential directive can not be obtained by FOIA.

“The White House itself is not subject to FOIA,” she said, “however, we have been actively making FOIA requests to the State Department and others in the federal alphabet soup that might possibly uncover communications with the White House, as we did with our Benghazi inquiry that blew the lid off with the (Deputy National Security Adviser) Ben Rhodes ‘not a failure of policy’ email.”

Jihad in America – Cells Already Here, Training Camps

By Denise Simon and Scott W. Winchell

With the surge of terror across the globe and here at home, especially after the Paris “Charlie Hebdos” attack and the kosher market massacre, everyone keeps asking, are they coming or are they already here?

They are here!

In fact, just today an Ohio man, Christopher Lee Cornell (Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah) was arrested by the FBI and was reportedly influenced by the same man who influenced the Kouachi brothers, Anwar al Awlaki and that Cornell also may have known the brothers from online networks:

The FBI has arrested an Ohio man for allegedly plotting an ISIS-inspired attack on the U.S. Capitol, where he hoped to set off a series of bombs aimed at lawmakers, whom he allegedly considered enemies.

Christopher Lee Cornell -– also known as Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah -– was arrested earlier today on charges of attempting to kill a U.S. government official.

Arrest caught on a screen shot - courtesy Heavy.com
Arrest caught on a screen shot – courtesy Heavy.com

Further investigation revealed his intent to attack the U.S. Capitol, and he planned to detonate pipe bombs there and open fire on any employees and officials after the bombs went off, according to government documents.

The FBI and Department of Homeland security issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies across the country, notifying them of the case.

“The alleged activities of Cornell highlight the continued interest of US-based violent extremists to support designated foreign terrorist organizations overseas, such as ISIL, by committing terrorist acts in the United States,” the bulletin read. “Terrorist group members and supporters will almost certainly continue to use social media platforms to disseminate English language violent extremist messages.”

See the release at Heavy.com and other documents.

Just this past week, even Diane Feinstein, D-CA, the former Chairwoman, and now the Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they are. She should know, and and so should the White House. Here is what she said:

“I think there are sleeper cells not only in France but certainly in other countries and, yes, in our own,” she told CNN. “This calls for vigilance. … Hopefully, we can be more active in terms of doing those things which enable us to find terrorists, see who they’re communicating with and to track that.”

With the Caliphate now formed in the Levant, better known as the Islamic State (Also ISIS, ISIL, Daesh) the spread of the threat has expanded and it appears the cell in Paris had roots to Yemen and Syria. In fact, AQAP release a new video today claiming responsibility and that it was years in the making the same day the newest edition of “Charlie Hebdos” hit the news stands. (Sheikh Nasr Ben Ali al-Aanesi spoke on the video.)

%CODE%

The lure appears to be working well for the master marketing team of al Qaeda and Daesh and the latest word of warning has been sent by officials that more cells may have been activated. We may not immediately because patience has been one of their calling cards but it appears likely that it will be sooner than later here.

Sheikh Nasr Ben Ali al-Aanesi
Sheikh Nasr Ben Ali al-Aanesi

With the Fort Hood Massacre, the Oklahoma Beheading, the Attacks in Canada, the Hatchet Attack in New York, and now the convert in Ohio, we are in a new era and we all had better keep alert.

But we ask, what has been done to secure us to date, especially since we have known about them for years and years right here at home besides this Ohio Muslim convert?

Many cases and studies have been done by those who were aware long ago of the rise of sleeper cells and training camps.

The FBI introduction to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) file on Clarence Smith—aka Clarence 13X—reads only, “Smith was the leader of the ‘Five Percenters,’ a notorious Harlem street gang. He was shot to death in 1969” [1].

Yet, as a lyrical sample from Lord Jamar (a prominent Five Percenter and hip-hop artist) reads in his Greatest Story Never Told, “Allah [Clarence Smith] was assassinated in 1969, that case was never solved. His movement survived him, today it’s known as the Nation of Gods and Earths” [2].

The Five Percenters are just one facet of indigenous Muslim evolution in the United States; others, like Jama`at al-Fuqara’, retain ties to Pakistan and are ideological affiliates of militant Salafist groups such as al-Qa`ida.

This article will examine trends among three predominantly African-American Islamic movements, at least one of which should be considered a domestic terrorism concern for the United States. It also serves to provide counter-terrorism professionals with knowledge enabling them to differentiate terrorist threats from more benign religious groups.

Heffelfinger  illustrates further where some of these groups are and the threat they have “today,” as in 2008, so imagine how much worse it is today:

Critical for intelligence and law enforcement officials is the ability to distinguish non-violent, pietistic or spiritualist movements from Salafist-inspired ones that advocate or practice militancy. Today, the Five Percent Nation is largely leaderless, with various teachers propagating the beliefs of Clarence 13X and poses no serious terrorist threat, although gang activity and criminality is a concern.Islamberg-NY-sign

The Seas of David will, in all likelihood, dissipate and pose no further threat. Such movements, however, may serve at times as a gateway to more conservative—sometimes militant—Salafist groups, such as Jama`at al-Fuqara’.

The Jama`at al-Fuqara’/Muslims of America deserves a more comprehensive treatment, as the group is clearly one of the most glaring domestic terrorism concerns for the United States.(Read more here, it is extensive and worth the read. Our emphasis added.)

Heffelfinger was not the only one by a long shot. As late as 2012 an article in Law Enforcement Today entitled “Informant: Islamic Compounds in America are Training for Jihad” was posted by Martin Mawyer. His introduction speaks volumes:

In Hancock, NY an Islamic community that sits on 80 acres of land has decided to form its own government.  They call their community: The Town of Islamberg.  They have their own mayor, deputy mayor and five town council members.  None of them are elected, of course.

They even boast that their “town” provides departments of education, medical, finance and land development services.

This Islamic compound has truly become a city-state.  Though not recognized as a legitimate township by the City of Hancock, this Islamic community nevertheless enforces its own laws on the “citizens” within its borders.  They do so by using the iron fist of Sharia law.

I interviewed a member of this camp, which sits deep in the Catskills Mountains of upstate New York.  The Islamic group that has established this camp is part a network known as Muslims of the Americas (MOA), which has documented links to Al Qaeda.

MOA has established similar villages in nearly three-dozen locations nationwide, with other prominent camps found in Texas, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, California and Tennessee. (Read more here.)

Anwar al-Awlaki
Anwar al-Awlaki

Remember, that interview took place in 2012, where are we today in 2015? Even further back in 2007, another article came out entitled “Red House, Va has radical Islamic terrorist training camp” and you can read the commentary with charges and denials by many including Muslims in Virginia. Read more from Eric Stackleback from 2012 on this case and view his interview.

Many of these reports have been published many times, where is the FBI and the White House? In 2012, World Net Daily posted an article entitled “35 Training Camps Now Operating Inside U.S. – Government does nothing to impede expansion of ‘Soldiers of Allah’ network.”

This is not new, but fortunately of late, many more people are discovering the work done over the years.

In the period between 2006 and now, Stand Up America staff has been part of some of these investigations and financing some of the work investigators performed on others like Adnan al Shukrijumah who was operating in Hamilton, Ontario, and who was just recently killed by Pakistani officials.

Ryan Mauro at the Clarion Project and Brigitte Gabriel’s group Act For America have also done extensive work on exposing the many enclaves, training camps and sights of older crimes that may be related to terror.

A Clarion Project investigation has discovered a jihadist enclave in Texas where a deadly shooting took place in 2002. Declassified FBI documents obtained by Clarion confirm the find and show the U.S. government’s concern about its links to terrorism. The investigation was completed with help from ACT! For America Houston.

The enclave belongs to the network of Muslims of the Americas, a radical group linked to a Pakistani militant group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra. Its members are devoted followers of Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, an extremist cleric in Pakistan.

Be alert America, “see something, say something” applies at all times.

TerroristCells

 


This article was expanded from a cross-post at the Founders Code

 

DOJ Produces Legal Rationale of CIA Killing al-Awlaki

Editor’s Note – The killing of Anwar al Awlaki  and another US citizen, Samir Kahn by the CIA has raised questions of the legality of our government assassinating one of its citizens because he was a known terrorist operative/leader in 2011. Two questions arose.

The first was the legality of making that order, the second was whether or not it was legal for the CIA to carry out the deed. A third issue arises as well – if it was legal in the United States, was it legal in the land it was carried out in; Yemen?Drone-kills-Awlaki

Naturally, constitutional and international legal and diplomatic questions arose and many asked the Obama Administration for its legal explanation for coming to the conclusions they did and then relied upon when carrying out the assassination.

Congress demanded the rationale from Obama’s Department of Justice and just recently, the second of two documents were released finally. The first was released last year on the legality of the killing itself, and now the second provides the rationale for the CIA carrying out the order. Vice News provides us with the details below and the document can be read from a copy of the original.

You be the judge:

A Justice Department Memo Provides the CIA’s Legal Justification to Kill a US Citizen

By Jason Leopold – Vice News

“This white paper sets forth the legal basis upon which the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could use lethal force in Yemen against a United States citizen who senior officials reasonably determined was a senior leader of al-Qaida or an associated force of al-Qaida.”

So begins a 22-page, heavily redacted, previously top-secret document titled “Legality of a Lethal Operation by the Central Intelligence Agency Against a US Citizen,” which provides the first detailed look at the legal rationale behind lethal operations conducted by the agency. The white paper [pdf below] was turned over to VICE News in response to a long-running Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department.

It’s one of two white papers the Justice Department prepared in 2011 after lawmakers demanded to know what the administration’s legal rationale was for targeting for death the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. The first white paper, released last year, addressed why the targeted killing by the US military of an American abroad was lawful. This second white paper addresses why it was lawful for the CIA to do so. Neither white paper identifies Awlaki by name.

Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.
Anwar al-Awlaki, left, in a 2010 video, and Samir Khan, shown in North Carolina in 2008.

The May 25, 2011 document is based on a 41-page Justice Department memo that lays out the government’s legal basis for targeting Awlaki without affording him his right to due process under the US Constitution. For years, the Obama administration was pressured by lawmakers to share the memo, but officials refused — and wouldn’t even confirm that such a memo existed.

One of the most controversial legal arguments advanced in the white paper is the justification for civilians at the CIA engaging in hostilities abroad. The 1942 Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Quirin, which is footnoted in the white paper, says that “by universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction… between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants.

“[A]n enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property” is an example of a belligerent who is an “offender against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by a military tribunal.”

‘They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill.’

Because CIA personnel are not part of the armed forces when they engage in hostilities, they are deemed to be unlawful combatants. The white paper acknowledges this, but argues that the CIA officers who are unlawful combatants are not war criminals as long as they comply with the laws of war.

The government is “very concerned with the status of the CIA,” said international law expert Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of criminal law at the School of Oriental and Criminal Studies at the University of London. “There’s absolutely no question that if any of these CIA agents involved in Anwar al-Awlaki’s killing ever went on vacation in Yemen or ever went on vacation in a state that has universal jurisdiction over war crimes, they could be arrested and prosecuted for murder. They certainly have committed murder under the laws of other states. Whether they have committed murder under American domestic law is another question.”

The white paper outlines five possible legal authorities that might prohibit the CIA from using lethal force against a US citizen abroad: three statutes (the foreign murder statute, conspiracy to murder an individual outside the US, and the War Crimes Act) and two constitutional provisions (the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process).

It relies on the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and the relatively unknown legal doctrine known as the “public authority justification” to explain why the CIA’s actions are not unlawful, concluding that there is no law prohibiting the CIA from killing a US citizen in Yemen based on the facts of his particular case — redacted from the white paper — described by the CIA to the Justice Department.

Individuals typically use the public authority justification in criminal cases, arguing that the government authorized their actions. For example, a person wearing a wire for the FBI might be violating a state’s eavesdropping law. However, if the defendant successfully uses the public authority justification, he would not be found guilty even though he clearly violated the law. The white paper concedes that the public authority justification has rarely, if ever, been used to justify the government’s own acts.

%CODE%

Heller says he agrees with the legal analysis of the public authority justification, but only as it pertains to the military’s lethal actions abroad — not the CIA’s.

According to the white paper: “Given the assessment that an analogous operation carried out pursuant to the AUMF would fall within the scope of the public-authority justification, there is no reason to reach a different conclusion for a CIA operation.”

homepage_targeted_assassinations_1Heller told VICE News this is the “sum total” the white paper says about the CIA’s public authority justification, and that the government falls short of making its case. Still, he says, the white paper is significant “as it indicates [the Justice Department] knew they had to talk about the CIA specifically, and knew they couldn’t just lump in the military and the CIA together.

“They clearly realize they needed to come up with their independent justification of why [the CIA] has public authority to kill,” Heller continued. “Unfortunately, the memo doesn’t really tell us anything because of the way it’s been redacted. If the question is, Where does the CIA get their authority to use lethal force abroad?, given that’s the necessary condition for them to avoid this foreign murder statute, this memo doesn’t tell us anything. It could be there. But if it is, it’s behind a redaction.”

Although the white paper says that the CIA expressed to the Justice Department that it preferred to capture “this target,” the agency assessed that a capture operation in Yemen “would not be feasible at this time.”

“The CIA has further represented that this sort of operation would not be undertaken in a perfidious or treacherous manner,” the white paper says.

A footnote states that the white paper “addresses exclusively the use of force abroad, in the circumstances described herein. It does not address legal issues that the use of force in different circumstances or in any nation other than Yemen might present.”

Still, the logic and legal rationale could be applied to the same types of lethal operations against Americans in other countries who the government may determine are part of al Qaeda or an “associated force” of the terrorist organization.

When is a war not a war? Yemen!

Editor’s Note – When is a war not a war? Nine years of pounding Yemen apparently does not constitute a war. Whether it began as a by-product of the “War On Terror” or the renamed Obama version: “Overseas Contingency Operation”, its still warfare. The armed forces of the USA and our covert CIA have been quite busy under the Obama watch.

How does this jive with the rhetoric prior to Obama taking the helm in 2009? Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan… but NOT Syria…? Assassinations, targeted drone strikes, heavy gunships, naval launches…

Arab spring brings steep rise in US attacks in Yemen

by 

Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Covert US strikes against alleged militants in Yemen have risen steeply during the Arab spring, and are currently at the same level as the CIA’s controversial drone campaign in Pakistan, a new study by the Bureau reveals.

At least 26 US military and CIA strikes involving cruise missiles, aircraft, drones or naval bombardments have taken place in the volatile Gulf nation to date, killing hundreds of alleged militants linked to the regional al Qaeda franchise. But at least 54 civilians have died too, the study found.

In the latest attack, US drones struck three areas of the rebel-held city of Zinjibar on March 22, killing up to 30 al Qaeda-linked militants, according to Yemen intelligence officials. Naval vessels – possibly American – also bombarded the city.

The missile strike ‘targeted vehicles and bases of the al Qaeda group. A lot of people were apparently killed and their vehicles were completely destroyed at the scene’, eyewitnesses told news agency Xinhua.

At least five US attacks – some involving multiple targets – have so far taken place in Yemen this month alone, in support of a government offensive to drive militants from key locations. In comparison, Pakistan’s tribal areas, the epicentre of the CIA’s controversial drone war, have seen just three US drone strikes in March.

The recent surge in attacks appears linked to the appointment of the new president, Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. In his inauguration speech he called for ‘the continuation of war against al-Qaida as a religious and national duty.’

Despite multiple confirmed reports of American military action in Yemen, the US rarely acknowledges its secret war. A State Department spokesperson, speaking on background terms, would this week say only: ‘I refer you to the Government of Yemen for additional information on its counterterrorism efforts.’

Hundreds killed
A detailed examination of US military activity in Yemen over nine years reveals that most attacks – as many as 35 – have taken place after May 2011, as Arab spring-related protests gripped the country.

Total US attacks 26 – 44 (some multiple) with up to 34 since May 2011
Total killed 275 – 516
Civilians reported killed 54-104

All but one of the strikes have taken place under President Obama, who has taken a personal interest in the Yemen campaign. By the time he came to office al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had grown to become, in his words, ‘a network of violence and terror’ that had attracted a number of US citizens to its cause, including radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

AQAP even began publishing online propaganda magazines in English, and was behind a number of attempted terrorist attacks against the US, the UK and their allies.

With the CIA heavily engaged in Iraq and Pakistan, the job of crushing AQAP was handed to the Pentagon’s elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) – the same unit that had captured Saddam Hussein and would later kill Osama bin Laden.

But from the start, JSOC’s operations were mired in controversy.

Acting on intelligence that an AQAP meeting was taking place in the southern Yemen desert on December 17 2009, JSOC launched at least one cruise missile loaded with cluster bombs at the gathering. A Yemen parliamentary commission later found that 14 alleged militants died in the attack. But so too did 44 civilians.

The massacre the United States won’t admit or deny

A copy of the commission report obtained by the Bureau identifies by name all of the civilians killed, which include five pregnant women and 22 children, the youngest just a year old. Eight families were effectively wiped out, the commission found, although it did not attribute blame to either US or Yemen forces.

A secret massacre
Two years on, the US will neither confirm or deny whether any investigation into those deaths has taken place, or if any compensation has been paid to the families of victims. The Pentagon, Centcom, the State Department and US Senate Armed Services Committee all declined to comment on the matter this week.

A spokesman for Sheikh Himir Al-Ahmar, the commission’s chairman and now Yemen’s deputy speaker, told the Bureau: ‘The families of the victims were indeed paid appropriate compensation by the Yemeni Government (according to the standard of compensations given out to victims in Yemen). The American authorities did not get involved in this process in any way.’

In contrast, affected families of a killing spree carried out by a US soldier in Afghanistan recently received $50,000 (£31,500) for each victim.

The US refusal to acknowledge the attack is undermined by a secret diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks revealing that then-Centcom chief General David Petraeus – now director of the CIA – and Yemen’s president and prime minister at the time, Ali Abdullah Saleh had sought to hide the US’s role in the incident.

According to the secret cable, ‘[President] Saleh lamented the use of cruise missiles that are “not very accurate” and welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs instead. “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Saleh said, prompting Deputy Prime Minister Alimi to joke that he had just “lied” by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.’

Amnesty International, which carried out its own investigation into the December 2009 attack, said this week that the US failure to investigate credible reports of civilian deaths was troubling.

‘With an increase in such operations in places like Yemen, unless one gets to the bottom of who was killed, why, and what precautions were taken to protect civilians, then there is a risk such mistakes will be repeated in the future,’ said Philip Luther, director of Amnesty’s Middle East programme.

There have been other Pentagon errors too. When its elite Special Forces hit a supposed militant convoy in May 2010, they instead killed the region’s popular deputy governor, Jaber al-Shabwani. That error led to a year-long pause in US attacks, after local tribes strongly protested.

It took the chaos of the Arab Spring to see the US return to the offensive. As Yemen’s people revolted against President Saleh and his cronies, JSOC and CIA drones took to the skies, supplemented by US naval and air assets. President Obama has been fighting an almost unreported war in Yemen ever since.

Yemen’s ramshackle air force
At least 20 US strikes have taken place in Yemen since May 2011, the Bureau understands. The actual number may be as high as 34. But reports are often confused, with the US and Yemen governments unwilling to clarify events.

There are also claims that the Yemen Air Force carries out some precision strikes. Yet an investigation of its capabilities reveals it to be a ramshackle, low-tech outfit, wracked by the recent political unrest.

‘Barely functional’ – why US is likely to be behind Yemen’s precision strikes

Alan Warnes, chief correspondent at defence publication AirForces Monthly, says Yemen’s air force is incapable of precision or night-time attacks: ‘The only aircraft they have capable of night flying would be quite antiquated fighters. I think it’s the Americans who are doing it rather than the Yemenis.’

Recent close co-operation between the CIA and JSOC does appear to be paying off. Some two dozen named Al Qaeda militants and their associates have died since last spring, with the group under almost constant attack. Civilian deaths are also now reportedly rare – although there have been further errors.

Obama’s greatest success in Yemen came on September 30 last year, when two US citizens were among four high-value militants killed. Anwar al Awlaki, the radical preacher, died with Samir Khan, editor of AQAP’s English-language propaganda magazine Inspire.

Days later a follow-up attack killed other militants – but also Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and 17-year-old nephew. AQAP’s ability to speak to an English-language audience was apparently destroyed, possibly terminally. Yet these deaths of American citizens continue to generate significant controversy in the US.