An appeal to my reasonable conservative friends:

If you are not reasonable and open-minded, don’t read any further. I’m not looking for “zots.” I’m looking for reasonable people who are serious about making the right choice. When I know I’ve chosen wisely, I feel at peace, without doubt in my mind, and start to get excited – like Chrissy Mathews, I get “that tingle.” How do you feel when you know you’ve made the right choice?

At this point, you’ve been following the primary race for months, and that means you are looking to make the right choice. Are you aware of how important making the right choice is in this primary process? I agree, and that’s why it is important to keep an open mind. That’s why you’ve read this far, so you might as well hear me out.

Obama has made it clear that he is pinning his reelection efforts on class warfare. So, think about whom you would want the GOP nominee to be if you were Obama, and you needed a target for class warfare? I agree – Mitt Romney. Understand that Obama uses Alinsky tactics, and Alinsky tactic 13 is “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Simply put, it is much easier to attack an organization or an idea if you can ‘put a face on it’. If you can find a single individual who both represents your opponent, and who, given the right spin, can be portrayed as the face of evil, you can use this person as a proxy for your attacks on your adversary. What face would you put on the 1%? Mitt Romney.

You may think that Mitt Romney is a great guy, and a great example of success, and I agree with some of that (and certainly applaud his success), and I would add that you should have no doubt in your mind that this is exactly what Obama will do (stick a big, fat 1% on him), and you can imagine that he is licking his chops in anticipation of doing it. If Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is what the general election will look like. Click Here. No matter what he says or how well he says it, he will not be able to shake that label. How does that make you feel about Mitt? And it doesn’t help that he has a habit of making mistakes and saying the wrong thing. Click here. Even Romney booster John McCain no longer believes Romney can win. Click Here.

Besides the “1%er” card that will be played against Romney, the Democrats also have their old favorite: the race card. Mitt is a very committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, and until 1978, Mormon theology relegated blacks to a kind of second-class membership in the church. After considerable social and political pressure, the church’s “living prophet” declared a new “revelation” changing the previous position which had been held since the church’s inception. Already, many on the Left are raising a stink about this. We can be sure that if Mitt were the nominee, this ugly issue would only get uglier — much uglier. The Democrat-Media Complex will make sure of that.

Obama’s second trick is throwing “red meat” distractions to keep us from discussing the areas where he is most vulnerable, such as economic and foreign policy. The biggest distraction so far has been the contraception controversy. And Rick Santorum took the bait — big time. Rick Santorum is a great father with great moral values, but he is also a one trick pony. Social issues are important, but he just can’t stop talking about them, and that has gotten him in a ton of trouble. The issue isn’t that he talks a lot about social policy, the issue is that he just can’t change gears quickly enough to avoid the damage caused by Obama’s intentional deceptions and sleights-of-hand. Consider how many distractions Obama will throw out there if Rick is the nominee. We’ll be talking about birth control all the way through November. By the time Rick manages to shift the debate back to Obama’s weak points, it may be too late.

Rick also tends to make serious, and very public, mistakes. For example, he loses his cool very quickly. Click Here. Cringing? He also gets confused regularly – in this instance, he gives Obama credit for CREATING jobs, publicly, on CNN! Click here. Just imagine if he makes even ONE mistake like this in the months between the nomination and the general election. Understand the very real risk with Rick. How do you feel about that, given the stakes?

The issue of contraception is problematic for Santorum not only because the Left is skillfully and shamelessly using it to sidetrack discussion away from Obama’s staggering malfeasances in both foreign and domestic policy — but for another, more subtle but perhaps more important reason: The driving force behind Obama is the “Shadow Party” funded by George Soros, who has an obsession with population control. Soros and other Agenda 21 promoters believe that world population must be reduced by literally billions of people. Remember the Left’s over-the-top, hysterical, screaming reaction to the VP nomination of Sarah Palin? Her being the mother of five children, one of whom has Down’s Syndrome — a genetic disorder to which many leftists believe abortion is the only appropriate response — was a huge component in that. It may not have been openly admitted in the “mainstream” media, but Left-wing blogs were full of unimaginably cruel, sick attacks on little Trig Palin and the mother who bore him. Rick Santorum, the father of seven children, one of whom has Trisomy-18, has the Left’s bull’s-eye on his back.

That leaves Newt.

Newt is a flawed man, but recognize that his flaws are less subject to substantive attack. For example, Freddie and Fannie? It may be a big deal in the Republican primary, but Democrats do NOT want to go there! Yes, he’s had multiple marriages, but how many times has Rush been married? Do you still listen to Rush, at least here and there? And, of course, Democrats cannot launch credible attacks on the subject of adultery.

Nevertheless, we know that the Left will demonize Newt just as viciously as they would Romney or Santorum — because, after all, that’s what the Left DOES. A key difference, however, is that Newt fights back. Like the late, great Andrew Breitbart, Newt is a “happy warrior” who both understands the Left, and loves taking them on. Plus, like Breitbart, Newt understands that Big Media is every bit as much our opponent as is the Democratic Party. He is smart, articulate and confident enough to be able to answer their attacks on the spot, without hemming or hawing. People in media continually try to nail Newt with their “gotcha” questions — but they never succeed, do they?

Newt realizes, in a way few others do, that America’s very survival is threatened not only by terrorism and rogue states outside our borders, but by two major enemies within: communism and radical Islam. Yet, no other candidate besides Newt even mentions Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers and George Soros. Newt is the only one who seems to recognize — or at least, will publicly say — that Obama is not a misguided incompetent with well-meaning intentions, but rather a Marxist radical who believes America is more evil than good, and who is committed to destroying the freedoms that have made America great.

As for radical Islam, while Rick Santorum recognizes the threat from Iran, and is very knowledgeable on national security matters, only Newt will tell you about the giant strides that sharia (Islamic law) has already made right here in the U.S., thanks to CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MAS, MSA and the whole alphabet soup of Muslim Brotherhood-spawned groups that, despite proven connections to Hamas and other terror groups, are presented as legitimate “moderates” in our media and have infiltrated our government at high levels, including within the Department of Homeland Security.

We look around and see a perfect storm of economic collapse, national-security threats and inflamed social passions converging on us. America is — whether or not we yet realize it — in as much danger now as Britain was in the spring of 1940. Almost too late, the British people finally recognized that Winston Churchill — whom they’d previously despised as “impulsive” and “arrogant,” and castigated for his “poor judgment” and “grandiose ideas” — was actually the best man, perhaps the only man, who could lead them through the crisis. I’m not saying Newt is Churchill — but having studied Churchill, I am struck by the remarkable parallels between the two. Just as Churchill saw who Hitler really was long before most of his countrymen woke up, Newt understands the dangers to America that many people have so far been unable or unwilling to see. Newt will help open their eyes — because, like Churchill, Newt has a gift for explaining things in ways people can understand. Just as importantly, Newt has the bulldog tenacity and unabashed can-do attitude that the nation needs in its leader if we are to make it through the tough times ahead. As we saw so clearly during the South Carolina debate — when standing ovations kept erupting as Newt spoke — Newt has, as Churchill did, the power to inspire.

Before I close, I urge you to do one thing, and one thing only… please watch this video – click here. You’ve read this far, so another minute or two won’t kill you. Click here. Now, how do you feel about this man going up against Barack Obama?

As Thomas Sowell has said, “This is not just another election.” This is about the survival of our Constitutional Republic. That is why Sowell, as well as Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Fred Thompson, former Congressman J.C. Watts, Herman Cain and Michael Reagan, among many others, have endorsed Newt Gingrich to be our next President. He’s not perfect — but neither was Winston Churchill. Newt Gingrich, like the Prime Minister during the Battle of Britain, is the right man at the right time.

Is the United States fighting a global war on terror or not?

If the United States is fighting a GWOT (aka Overseas Contingency Operations for you Obama liberals out there), and we most definitely are, do covert monitoring operations reside so far outside of the realm of acceptability as an appropriate course of defensive action?

A better way to ask the question might be whether this NYPD surveillance of mosques and schools by one of the critical law enforcement entities tasked with protecting New York City, home to Ground Zero, is a wrong tactic?

The answer, while crystal clear to many, might differ depending on where it is you live geographically as well as on the political charts, conditions that are by no means mutually exclusive.

If you are living in the enclave of Malibu, California you may have one point of view. On the other hand if you and your family ever take New York City buses, subways, bridges, tunnels or if you’re simply planning on visiting Times Square during your vacation to The Big Apple, your point of view might be completely different.

Read the article at The Political Commentator here.

On Friday, Feb. 17, a long-term FBI sting operation culminated in the arrest of a would-be terrorist while he was en route to the U.S. Capitol to carry out a suicide bombing.  Amine el Khalifi, a 29-year-old Muslim from Morocco who entered the U.S. with his parents on a trip to Disney World 1999 and illegally overstayed his tourist visa by over a decade, had been on the FBI’s radar since early 2011, during which he was “closely and carefully monitored,” according to a law enforcement spokesperson. Over this period, Khalifi’s planned target and method changed several times (from bombing a synagogue, to targeting an American general officer, to blowing up a building known to contain some DOD offices, to targeting a crowded restaurant frequented by high-ranking military personnel, to a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol), his ultimate goal of carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil remained the same.

Thanks to the FBI’s efforts (in particular, its undercover assets who engaged Khalifi over the long term), when Khalifi finally set out to commit the terrorist act he had been preparing for, law enforcement officials were able to make sure that he did so with inert explosives in his suicide vest. Khalifi was ultimately arrested en route from a mosque, where he had been praying before his attack, to the U.S. Capitol.

Because Khalifi intended to carry out this suicide attack alone, media are falling back on one of their favorite misnomers – ‘Lone Wolf’ – to describe him. This is as predictable as it is wholly incorrect, as even a brief glance at the criminal complaint filed against Khalifi shows. In fact, Khalifi was the opposite of a ‘lone wolf,’ both in reality and, even more importantly, in his own mind. His plans were conceived and materials acquired with the assistance of others, but perhaps more importantly Khalifi thought that his suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol was the first of a two-part strike on America by al Qaeda, with the second part being a larger attack on a military installation by domestically-based al Qaeda terrorists.

Equally predictable as the media trotting out the old, tired, and incorrect ‘lone wolf’ descriptor is the rush by some leftist organizations to shift the blame for Khalifi’s actions onto the FBI (here’s one example of many). According to this ‘logic,’ Without undercover agents acting as al Qaeda contacts and helping him along in the process, Khalifi (and others whose attacks the FBI has prevented) either would never have been able to carry out an attack or would never have engaged in terrorism in the first place. This is not only absurd, but it is as damaging to our agencies’ efforts to prevent domestic terrorism as the famed ‘Gorelick Wall’ of the late 1990s was. For whatever reason, a small number of media outlets, organizations, and individuals are so invested in terrorism denial (or, worse, terrorist support, even on a tacit level) that any level of preventive effort or post-action penalty is simply unacceptable. Instead, for these individuals and groups, terrorism (or, more correctly, “terrorism”) is in large part a result of U.S. international and domestic policy, and any efforts at prevention or deterrence are actually responsible for its existence and its spread. How’s that for Twister-induced logic?

It is clear that U.S. efforts to prevent and discourage terrorism have not been entirely effective, and whether some of those methods have resulted in the creation of more terrorists and an increase in the threat to the U.S. is a discussion worth having. However, such discussions require honesty and good faith on the part of all participants – something not all who wish to be involved have been willing to provide.

Regardless, the FBI’s case against Khalifi paints a convincing picture of a man who had firmly decided to carry out a terrorist attack on American soil, and who ultimately thought that he was acting in support of a larger al Qaeda plot. Those are neither the characteristics of a ‘lone wolf,’ nor of a man who had to be convinced and pressured by undercover FBI agents to become willing to act on his desire to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

On the surface, this case appears to be an example of how terrorists and terror attacks should be dealt with and prevented, and though there will always be some on the fringe who condemn law enforcement for daring to act before an attack has actually taken place (and who likewise condemn law enforcement for failing to prevent attacks that do take place), the method seen in the Khalifi case is one which must be engaged in – particularly in a society that is unwilling to live with anything less than a zero-risk security paradigm.

On Friday, Feb. 17, a long-term FBI sting operation culminated in the arrest of a would-be terrorist while he was en route to the U.S. Capitol to carry out a suicide bombing.  Amine el Khalifi, a 29-year-old Muslim from Morocco who entered the U.S. with his parents on a trip to Disney World 1999 and illegally overstayed his tourist visa by over a decade, had been on the FBI’s radar since early 2011, during which he was “closely and carefully monitored,” according to a law enforcement spokesperson. Over this period, Khalifi’s planned target and method changed several times (from bombing a synagogue, to targeting an American general officer, to blowing up a building known to contain some DOD offices, to targeting a crowded restaurant frequented by high-ranking military personnel, to a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol), his ultimate goal of carrying out a terrorist attack on American soil remained the same.

Thanks to the FBI’s efforts (in particular, its undercover assets who engaged Khalifi over the long term), when Khalifi finally set out to commit the terrorist act he had been preparing for, law enforcement officials were able to make sure that he did so with inert explosives in his suicide vest. Khalifi was ultimately arrested en route from a mosque, where he had been praying before his attack, to the U.S. Capitol.

Because Khalifi intended to carry out this suicide attack alone, media are falling back on one of their favorite misnomers – ‘Lone Wolf’ – to describe him. This is as predictable as it is wholly incorrect, as even a brief glance at the criminal complaint filed against Khalifi shows. In fact, Khalifi was the opposite of a ‘lone wolf,’ both in reality and, even more importantly, in his own mind. His plans were conceived and materials acquired with the assistance of others, but perhaps more importantly Khalifi thought that his suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol was the first of a two-part strike on America by al Qaeda, with the second part being a larger attack on a military installation by domestically-based al Qaeda terrorists.

Equally predictable as the media trotting out the old, tired, and incorrect ‘lone wolf’ descriptor is the rush by some leftist organizations to shift the blame for Khalifi’s actions onto the FBI (here’s one example of many). According to this ‘logic,’ Without undercover agents acting as al Qaeda contacts and helping him along in the process, Khalifi (and others whose attacks the FBI has prevented) either would never have been able to carry out an attack or would never have engaged in terrorism in the first place. This is not only absurd, but it is as damaging to our agencies’ efforts to prevent domestic terrorism as the famed ‘Gorelick Wall’ of the late 1990s was. For whatever reason, a small number of media outlets, organizations, and individuals are so invested in terrorism denial (or, worse, terrorist support, even on a tacit level) that any level of preventive effort or post-action penalty is simply unacceptable. Instead, for these individuals and groups, terrorism (or, more correctly, “terrorism”) is in large part a result of U.S. international and domestic policy, and any efforts at prevention or deterrence are actually responsible for its existence and its spread. How’s that for Twister-induced logic?

It is clear that U.S. efforts to prevent and discourage terrorism have not been entirely effective, and whether some of those methods have resulted in the creation of more terrorists and an increase in the threat to the U.S. is a discussion worth having. However, such discussions require honesty and good faith on the part of all participants – something not all who wish to be involved have been willing to provide.

Regardless, the FBI’s case against Khalifi paints a convincing picture of a man who had firmly decided to carry out a terrorist attack on American soil, and who ultimately thought that he was acting in support of a larger al Qaeda plot. Those are neither the characteristics of a ‘lone wolf,’ nor of a man who had to be convinced and pressured by undercover FBI agents to become willing to act on his desire to carry out a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

On the surface, this case appears to be an example of how terrorists and terror attacks should be dealt with and prevented, and though there will always be some on the fringe who condemn law enforcement for daring to act before an attack has actually taken place (and who likewise condemn law enforcement for failing to prevent attacks that do take place), the method seen in the Khalifi case is one which must be engaged in – particularly in a society that is unwilling to live with anything less than a zero-risk security paradigm.

JUST WEEKS AFTER the attacks of September 11, 2001, a small number of elite special were inserted into northern Afghanistan.  The Degüello, by Special Forces veteran Scott Zastrow, tells the story of the first unit to deploy: ODA 555, or ‘Triple Nickel,’ an A-Team from Ft. Campbell, Kentucky’s 5^th Special Forces Group (Airborne).  Accompanied by an Air Force combat controller, the ten-man team infiltrated northern Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley by helicopter shortly after the 9/11 attacks.  Their mission was to link up with Northern Alliance fighters, train and prepare them for an eventual advance on Kabul, and prep the battlespace for a follow-on invasion of coalition forces.

Though titularly a work of historical military fiction, The Degüello‘s content is made up almost entirely of truth hidden behind a paper-thin veneer of slightly altered events and identities (a necessity for operational security reasons).  Within the relatively short (238 pp.) text, Zastrow recounts Triple Nickel’s exploits and experiences, from 9/11 to the capture of Kabul, in the fast-paced and personal style of a writer who personally experienced the events he is writing about.

THE TEXT IS broken up into two parts, each of which is made up of several short, highly-readable chapters, and which primarily take place in two geographic locations. The majority of the first 89 pages takes place on Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and encompasses the events of 9/11 and the team’s isolation and preparation for deployment.  Zastrow delivers a detailed recounting of team members’ reactions as they learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as of the rampant speculation that resulted from a handful of A-Teams, Triple Nickel among them, being sequestered in 5^th Group’s Isolation Facility (ISOFAC) in preparation for mission briefing and deployment.  In addition, the departure scenes he includes – one of a single soldier, and one poignant scene of a soldier who is leaving behind a young family – afford the reader a brief look inside the personal lives of the men who make up the ranks of this elite career field.

Part 1 concludes with the team’s departure from Karshi-Khanabad (K2) air base in Uzbekistan in MH-47 helicopters bound for Afghanistan, where the remainder of The Degüello takes place.  Triple Nickel’s struggle to communicate with and train Northern Alliance fighters is realistically and often humorously portrayed, as are the team’s efforts to eliminate key Taliban targets and personnel in the vicinity of Bagram air base – efforts that include everything from air strikes and small arms to a cleverly-implemented improvised explosive device (IED).  Zastrow vividly describes several combat scenes, recounting everything from the sights and smells of close quarters combat, to the risk of friendly-fire casualties, to calls for emergency close air support. Part 2 culminates in the assault on Kabul, the rescue of foreign missionaries who had been taken captive by the Taliban, and the retaking of the long-abandoned U.S. Embassy compound.

THOUGH THIS SUBJECT matter has been covered in differing depth by other writers, the first-person knowledge and passion Zastrow brings to the narrative makes this portrayal of Triple Nickel’s exploits unique.  One particular area where the author excels is his depiction of Special Forces soldiers as people – incredibly competent and deadly people, but people all the same.  In an interview with Digital Book Today, Zastrow characterized the team’s members as “a group of guys from the ‘Isle of Misfit Toys’ who can go from Jackass to Professional at the drop of a hat when the situation calls for it.”  By not shying away from his characters’ relationships, interactions, strengths, and frailties, he successfully demonstrates the range of roles and behaviors that Triple Nickel’s members were capable of.  The end result is a portrayal of these elite soldiers that almost any reader will be able to relate to in some form.

The few issues with The Degüello largely stem from its status as a self-published book.  Typos and small punctuational and grammatical errors that would have been caught by a professional editor are present, and the absence of pictures and maps noticeably contrasts with the book’s visual nature, geographic references, and specific mentions of photographs being taken by and of team members.  Such errors and omissions, which are products of the limited budget with which self-publishers are frequently saddled, would likely be remedied in the event of a second printing or of the book’s purchase by a major publishing, and they do not take away from the story itself or the skill with which Zastrow tells it.

FAST-PACED AND engaging, The Degüello is a must-read  for anybody who is interested in Special Forces, the war in Afghanistan, or the events immediately following the 9/11 attacks on America.  It is available in both hard copy and Kindle formats, and is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime war story that readers will not be able to put down until the last page has been turned.

The Degüello by Scott A. Zastrow (ISBN 055781541X; $32.99 hardcover, $9.99 Kindle) is published by Lulu.

JUST WEEKS AFTER the attacks of September 11, 2001, a small number of elite special were inserted into northern Afghanistan.  The Degüello, by Special Forces veteran Scott Zastrow, tells the story of the first unit to deploy: ODA 555, or ‘Triple Nickel,’ an A-Team from Ft. Campbell, Kentucky’s 5^th Special Forces Group (Airborne).  Accompanied by an Air Force combat controller, the ten-man team infiltrated northern Afghanistan’s Panjshir Valley by helicopter shortly after the 9/11 attacks.  Their mission was to link up with Northern Alliance fighters, train and prepare them for an eventual advance on Kabul, and prep the battlespace for a follow-on invasion of coalition forces.

Though titularly a work of historical military fiction, The Degüello‘s content is made up almost entirely of truth hidden behind a paper-thin veneer of slightly altered events and identities (a necessity for operational security reasons).  Within the relatively short (238 pp.) text, Zastrow recounts Triple Nickel’s exploits and experiences, from 9/11 to the capture of Kabul, in the fast-paced and personal style of a writer who personally experienced the events he is writing about.

THE TEXT IS broken up into two parts, each of which is made up of several short, highly-readable chapters, and which primarily take place in two geographic locations. The majority of the first 89 pages takes place on Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and encompasses the events of 9/11 and the team’s isolation and preparation for deployment.  Zastrow delivers a detailed recounting of team members’ reactions as they learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as well as of the rampant speculation that resulted from a handful of A-Teams, Triple Nickel among them, being sequestered in 5^th Group’s Isolation Facility (ISOFAC) in preparation for mission briefing and deployment.  In addition, the departure scenes he includes – one of a single soldier, and one poignant scene of a soldier who is leaving behind a young family – afford the reader a brief look inside the personal lives of the men who make up the ranks of this elite career field.

Part 1 concludes with the team’s departure from Karshi-Khanabad (K2) air base in Uzbekistan in MH-47 helicopters bound for Afghanistan, where the remainder of The Degüello takes place.  Triple Nickel’s struggle to communicate with and train Northern Alliance fighters is realistically and often humorously portrayed, as are the team’s efforts to eliminate key Taliban targets and personnel in the vicinity of Bagram air base – efforts that include everything from air strikes and small arms to a cleverly-implemented improvised explosive device (IED).  Zastrow vividly describes several combat scenes, recounting everything from the sights and smells of close quarters combat, to the risk of friendly-fire casualties, to calls for emergency close air support. Part 2 culminates in the assault on Kabul, the rescue of foreign missionaries who had been taken captive by the Taliban, and the retaking of the long-abandoned U.S. Embassy compound.

THOUGH THIS SUBJECT matter has been covered in differing depth by other writers, the first-person knowledge and passion Zastrow brings to the narrative makes this portrayal of Triple Nickel’s exploits unique.  One particular area where the author excels is his depiction of Special Forces soldiers as people – incredibly competent and deadly people, but people all the same.  In an interview with Digital Book Today, Zastrow characterized the team’s members as “a group of guys from the ‘Isle of Misfit Toys’ who can go from Jackass to Professional at the drop of a hat when the situation calls for it.”  By not shying away from his characters’ relationships, interactions, strengths, and frailties, he successfully demonstrates the range of roles and behaviors that Triple Nickel’s members were capable of.  The end result is a portrayal of these elite soldiers that almost any reader will be able to relate to in some form.

The few issues with The Degüello largely stem from its status as a self-published book.  Typos and small punctuational and grammatical errors that would have been caught by a professional editor are present, and the absence of pictures and maps noticeably contrasts with the book’s visual nature, geographic references, and specific mentions of photographs being taken by and of team members.  Such errors and omissions, which are products of the limited budget with which self-publishers are frequently saddled, would likely be remedied in the event of a second printing or of the book’s purchase by a major publishing, and they do not take away from the story itself or the skill with which Zastrow tells it.

FAST-PACED AND engaging, The Degüello is a must-read  for anybody who is interested in Special Forces, the war in Afghanistan, or the events immediately following the 9/11 attacks on America.  It is available in both hard copy and Kindle formats, and is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime war story that readers will not be able to put down until the last page has been turned.

The Degüello by Scott A. Zastrow (ISBN 055781541X; $32.99 hardcover, $9.99 Kindle) is published by Lulu.

“The greatest deception the devil ever pulled-off was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”

Selected excerpts from Islamization and Jihad:

What is ISLAM?

 

ISLAM is a self-propagating, theocratic ideology that’s anchored to the belief that Mohammed (Muhammad, Mohamet) was the last true prophet of God (Allah); and that the true Word and Will of Allah was gradually revealed to him by the Angel Gabriel (Jibrīl), over the course of 23 years.

 

Muslims believe that these revelations were “channeled” by Mohammad and written down by his entourage (Sahabah). Following his death in 632 AD, his dictations were eventually gathered into one official compilation known as the Holy Quran (Koran, Qur’an). The content of the Quran, along with anecdotal and biographical texts about Mohammed, known as the Sunnah and the Hadiths, became the doctrinal source of Islamic civil Law known as Sharia.

 

Sharia Law encompasses, regulates, and prescribes every aspect of human activity: from what to eat, what to say, what to do, and wear—to how to deal with non-Muslims (Dhimmi and Kafir) and apostates (those who turn away from the Faith).  It is the implementation of Islamic religious doctrine through political enforcement.

 

What does the term ISLAMIZATION mean?

 

In a nutshell, ISLAMIZATION is the transformation of a regional population into an Islamic state. In essence, an Islamic state is any nation whose population (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) is regulated by Sharia Laws: such as the crime of blaspheming Allah or his Holy Prophet, Mohammed.

 

The self-propagating mandate of Islam is to continually strive to transform the entire world into a unified Islamic society.  For Islamists (Muslims), this religious duty of manifesting such a society is called jihad.

For Muslims,  jihad is a fundamental religious mandate to manifest the expansion of the Ummah—and Dar al-Islam—by various other methods, as well: including proselytization, propaganda, stealth jihad, and cultural invasion.

U.S. officials have reportedly confirmed that deadly bombings in the Syrian cities of Damascus (in December and January) and Aleppo (Friday) were the work of al Qaeda in Iraq, whose members were acting with authorization from al Qaeda central head and Osama bin Laden successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. According to McClatchy:

The Iraqi branch of al Qaida, seeking to exploit the bloody turmoil in Syria to reassert its potency, carried out two recent bombings in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and likely was behind suicide bombings Friday that killed at least 28 people in the largest city, Aleppo, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

The officials cited U.S. intelligence reports on the incidents, which appear to verify Syrian President Bashar Assad’s charges of al Qaida involvement in the 11-month uprising against his rule. The Syrian opposition has claimed that Assad’s regime, which has responded with massive force against the uprising, staged the bombings to discredit the pro-democracy movement calling for his ouster.

The international terrorist network’s presence in Syria also raises the possibility that Islamic extremists will try to hijack the uprising, which would seriously complicate efforts by the United States and its European and Arab partners to force Assad’s regime from power. On Friday, President Barack Obama repeated his call for Assad to step down, accusing his forces of “outrageous bloodshed.”

The U.S. intelligence reports indicate that the bombings came on the orders of Ayman al Zawahiri, the Egyptian extremist who assumed leadership of al Qaida’s Pakistan-based central command after the May 2011 death of Osama bin Laden. They suggest that Zawahiri still wields considerable influence over the network’s affiliates despite the losses the Pakistan-based core group has suffered from missile-firing CIA drones and other intensified U.S. counterterrorism operations.

More will be said about this in the near future, and it remains unknown just how the U.S. government confirmed AQI’s involvement. However, the expansion of al Qaeda in Iraq beyond that state’s borders – evidently for the first time – demonstrates AQI’s strength in Iraq’s post-America phase. Despite years of hunting terror cells and individuals within AQI, the U.S. was not only unable to defeat the AQ franchise, but left it in good enough condition that it has now begun to carry out acts on an international (if still regional) scale.

Along with a testament to AQI’s resilience, the three deadly attacks in Syria over the course of three months show the risk of assuming the makeup of the centers of protest or the active anti-regime population. The risk of al Qaeda and other criminals and terrorists having a presence among the Libyan opposition was intentionally ignored or glossed over during the NATO action there, and the ongoing fighting within that nation and the steady stream of weapons across its borders into neighboring countries in the weeks and months since NATO’s involvement ended demonstrate the problematic nature of that decision. As discussions about aiding the Syrian rebels in any number of ways (from arming them to intervening militarily on their behalf) continue, the likelihood that AQI is operating among the rebels (even without their approval) will need to be taken into very serious account.

Finally, it is worth noting (even if only for its ironic value) that Assad played a role over the last near-decade in arming and supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, counterterror analyst Leah Farrall notes that “the most recent place [al Qaeda] is known to have held a “summit” of leaders [circa 2004] was Damascus.”

As with the rest of the developments in Syria, this will bear watching. However, the presence of an active AQI in revolutionary Syria should give all of us pause – particularly those calling for support of the rebels through such means as arms shipments, which have the distinct potential to put firepower in the wrong hands.

U.S. officials have reportedly confirmed that deadly bombings in the Syrian cities of Damascus (in December and January) and Aleppo (Friday) were the work of al Qaeda in Iraq, whose members were acting with authorization from al Qaeda central head and Osama bin Laden successor Ayman al-Zawahiri. According to McClatchy:

The Iraqi branch of al Qaida, seeking to exploit the bloody turmoil in Syria to reassert its potency, carried out two recent bombings in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and likely was behind suicide bombings Friday that killed at least 28 people in the largest city, Aleppo, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

The officials cited U.S. intelligence reports on the incidents, which appear to verify Syrian President Bashar Assad’s charges of al Qaida involvement in the 11-month uprising against his rule. The Syrian opposition has claimed that Assad’s regime, which has responded with massive force against the uprising, staged the bombings to discredit the pro-democracy movement calling for his ouster.

The international terrorist network’s presence in Syria also raises the possibility that Islamic extremists will try to hijack the uprising, which would seriously complicate efforts by the United States and its European and Arab partners to force Assad’s regime from power. On Friday, President Barack Obama repeated his call for Assad to step down, accusing his forces of “outrageous bloodshed.”

The U.S. intelligence reports indicate that the bombings came on the orders of Ayman al Zawahiri, the Egyptian extremist who assumed leadership of al Qaida’s Pakistan-based central command after the May 2011 death of Osama bin Laden. They suggest that Zawahiri still wields considerable influence over the network’s affiliates despite the losses the Pakistan-based core group has suffered from missile-firing CIA drones and other intensified U.S. counterterrorism operations.

More will be said about this in the near future, and it remains unknown just how the U.S. government confirmed AQI’s involvement. However, the expansion of al Qaeda in Iraq beyond that state’s borders – evidently for the first time – demonstrates AQI’s strength in Iraq’s post-America phase. Despite years of hunting terror cells and individuals within AQI, the U.S. was not only unable to defeat the AQ franchise, but left it in good enough condition that it has now begun to carry out acts on an international (if still regional) scale.

Along with a testament to AQI’s resilience, the three deadly attacks in Syria over the course of three months show the risk of assuming the makeup of the centers of protest or the active anti-regime population. The risk of al Qaeda and other criminals and terrorists having a presence among the Libyan opposition was intentionally ignored or glossed over during the NATO action there, and the ongoing fighting within that nation and the steady stream of weapons across its borders into neighboring countries in the weeks and months since NATO’s involvement ended demonstrate the problematic nature of that decision. As discussions about aiding the Syrian rebels in any number of ways (from arming them to intervening militarily on their behalf) continue, the likelihood that AQI is operating among the rebels (even without their approval) will need to be taken into very serious account.

Finally, it is worth noting (even if only for its ironic value) that Assad played a role over the last near-decade in arming and supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, counterterror analyst Leah Farrall notes that “the most recent place [al Qaeda] is known to have held a “summit” of leaders [circa 2004] was Damascus.”

As with the rest of the developments in Syria, this will bear watching. However, the presence of an active AQI in revolutionary Syria should give all of us pause – particularly those calling for support of the rebels through such means as arms shipments, which have the distinct potential to put firepower in the wrong hands.