Henry Mark Holzer post re: what we are facing beyond ISIL


GALTGULCH8

Recommended Posts

Here is the latest blog post by Henry Mark Holzer:

HENRY MARK HOLZER LEGAL AND POLITICAL COMMENTARY www.henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com
Another mile on the road to Pearl Harbor III


WWW.NATIONALREVIEW.COM, SEPTEMBER 20, 2014
Between beheadings, they’ll help train the “moderate” Syrian rebels.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.
And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.
The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
But the confusion is understandable.
Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars.
The Obama administration regards the Saudi government as America’s key partner in the fight against Islamic State jihadists. The increasingly delusional Secretary of State John Kerry reasons that this is because the fight is more ideological than military. Get it? The world’s leading propagators of the ideology that breeds violent jihad are our best asset in an ideological struggle against violent jihadists.
Aloof as ever from irony, Mr. Kerry gave this assessment while visiting King Abdullah in Riyadh on, of all days, September 11 — the thirteenth anniversary of the day when 15 Saudis joined four other terrorists in mass-murdering nearly 3,000 Americans in furtherance of the Islamic-supremacist ideology on which they were reared. The 19 were, of course, members of al-Qaeda, the jihadist network sprung from Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist “Wahhabi” Islam.
Secretary Kerry and President Obama, like British prime minister David Cameron, insist that the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda-launched jihadist faction, is not Islamic. Evidently, this is owing to the terrorists’ savage tactics. In essence, however, they are the same tactics practiced by our “moderate Islamist” allies.
Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam: the birthplace of Mohammed, the site of the Hijra by which Islam marks time — the migration from Mecca to Medina under siege by Mohammed and his followers. The Saudi king is formally known as the “Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques” (in Mecca and Medina); he is the guardian host of the Haj pilgrimage that Islam makes mandatory for able-bodied believers. The despotic Saudi kingdom is governed by Islamic law — sharia. No other law is deemed necessary and no contrary law is permissible.
It is thus under the authority of sharia that the Saudis routinely behead prisoners.
I happen to own the edition of the Koran “with English Translation of ‘The Meanings and Commentary,’” published at the “King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex” — Fahd was Abdullah’s brother and predecessor. As the introductory pages explain, this version is produced under the auspices of the regime’s “Ministry of Hajj and Endowments.” In its sura (or chapter) 47, Allah commands Muslims, “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks.”
The accompanying English commentary helpfully explains:
When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigor, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves. [italicized parentheticals in original.]
Sura 8 underscores the point with another of Allah’s exhortations: “I am with you: Give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks and smite ye all their fingertips off them.”
Following the 9/11 attacks, Americans Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg were among prisoners notoriously decapitated by al-Qaeda. Reacting to their beheadings, Timothy Furnish, a U.S. Army veteran with a doctorate in Islamic history, wrote a comprehensive Middle East Quarterly essay on “Beheading in the Name of Islam.” As Dr. Furnish recounted,
The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him.
As is always the case, the prophet’s example has been emulated by Muslims through the centuries. When Muslims conquered central Spain in the eleventh century, for example, the caliph had 24,000 corpses beheaded; the remains were piled into makeshift minarets atop which muezzins sang the praises of Allah. In more modern times, Furnish adds, “The Ottoman Empire was the decapitation state par excellence” — employing the practice to terrorize enemies for centuries, including, to take just one of many examples, beheading hundreds of British soldiers captured in Egypt in 1807.
A pity Sheikh Cameron was not around back then to correct the caliphate’s understanding of Islam.
The Saudis behead prisoners for such “offenses” as apostasy. You see, our “moderate Islamist” allies brook no dissent and permit no freedom of conscience. In this, the world’s most identifiably Islamic regime is no different from its Shiite counterpart (and regional competitor) in Tehran — to which President Obama respectfully refers by its preferred name, “the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Sharia is the law there, too. While the regime is said to have repealed the punishment of decapitation, it still prescribes stoning, flogging, and amputation for various violations, such as adultery and petty theft.
Such cruel — but not at all unusual — punishments are designed to enforce a societal system that, as I’ve previously outlined, degrades and dehumanizes women, while subjecting apostates and homosexuals to death and non-Muslims to systematic discrimination.
As night follows day, young Muslims schooled in the ideology promoted in Saudi Arabia gravitate to jihadist networks such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. As recited in Reliance of the Traveller, an authoritative sharia manual endorsed by scholars at the ancient al-Azhar University in Egypt and the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Saudi Arabia, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” They are simply acting on what “moderate Islamists” have been teaching them.
And now Republicans in Congress have joined Democrats to support President Obama’s hare-brained scheme to train 5,000 “moderate” Syrian rebels. As every sentient person knows, a force of that size will have no chance of defeating the Islamic State or al-Qaeda — even if we charitably assume that many in its ranks do not defect to those organizations, as they have been wont to do. The rebels will similarly have no chance against the Iran-backed Assad regime. In sum, our government, nearly $18 trillion in debt, will expend another $500 million to school 5,000 “moderate Islamists” in military tactics that cannot win the war in Syria but could eventually be used in the jihad against the United States. Welcome to Libya . . . the Sequel.
Oh, and did I mention that the training of these “moderate” rebels will take place in “moderate” Saudi Arabia?
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

McCarthy is a good friend of Mark Levin.

I have heard him speak and he has a sharp mind.

However, here is what the "left" "thinks" of him.

A former federal prosecutor closely associated with U.S. neoconservatism and Islamophobia,

Andrew C. McCarthy is a political pundit who serves as co-chair of the Center for Law and

Counterterrorism, a joint project of the National Review Institute[1] and the Foundation for

Defense of Democracies.[2]

A frequent contributor to the right-wing National Review, McCarthy

often focuses his invective on "Islamic supremacists" in the Middle East and the purported

failure of liberals to confront jihadists. A case in point was his April 2012 National Review

Online article "Obama Funds the Egyptian Government." Pointing to the decision by the Barack

Obama administration to release financial aid to Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood fared well

in early democratic elections, McCarthy ridiculed the administration—as well as other members of

what he called the "useful-idiot brigade," such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham—for

attempting to engage the Brotherhood.[3]

In making his argument, McCarthy minimized differences between the Brotherhood and the Salafist

movement.[4] Referring to the Brotherhood's presidential candidate Khairat el-Shater, McCarthy

wrote: "Shater is Washington's new darling. That much is

clear from an unintentionally hilarious dispatch from the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick, who

portrays the Brotherhood as America's 'indispensable ally against Egypt's ultraconservatives.'

Sure, they may be the world's leading exemplar of what Kirkpatrick gently calls 'political Islam,'

but our policy geniuses reckon the Brothers are much to be preferred over the 'Salafis'—reputedly,

the more hardcore Islamic supremacists."[5]

The Muslim Brotherhood has long been a key topic of

McCarthy's writings. In a May 2010 article for the Washington Examiner, McCarthy argued that both

the Brotherhood and Salafists reject western rationalism and the Christian unity of faith and reason,

instead favoring Sharia determinism. "Both support the development of fundamentalist Muslim enclaves

and the ultimate supplanting of American constitutional democracy by Islamic law. Nonterrorist

Islamists want to overthrow the U.S. government every bit as much as the terrorists do. They are not

moderates. Their differences with the terrorists are over means and methods, not goals."[6] - See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mccarthy_andrew_c#sthash.SAC0Po0o.dpuf

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mccarthy_andrew_c

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

A...

Hmm he doesn't sound as "evil" in the Wiki lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

McCarthy is a good friend of Mark Levin.

I have heard him speak and he has a sharp mind.

However, here is what the "left" "thinks" of him.

A former federal prosecutor closely associated with U.S. neoconservatism and Islamophobia,

Andrew C. McCarthy is a political pundit who serves as co-chair of the Center for Law and

Counterterrorism, a joint project of the National Review Institute[1] and the Foundation for

Defense of Democracies.[2]

A frequent contributor to the right-wing National Review, McCarthy

often focuses his invective on "Islamic supremacists" in the Middle East and the purported

failure of liberals to confront jihadists. A case in point was his April 2012 National Review

Online article "Obama Funds the Egyptian Government." Pointing to the decision by the Barack

Obama administration to release financial aid to Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood fared well

in early democratic elections, McCarthy ridiculed the administration—as well as other members of

what he called the "useful-idiot brigade," such as Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham—for

attempting to engage the Brotherhood.[3]

In making his argument, McCarthy minimized differences between the Brotherhood and the Salafist

movement.[4] Referring to the Brotherhood's presidential candidate Khairat el-Shater, McCarthy

wrote: "Shater is Washington's new darling. That much is

clear from an unintentionally hilarious dispatch from the New York Times' David Kirkpatrick, who

portrays the Brotherhood as America's 'indispensable ally against Egypt's ultraconservatives.'

Sure, they may be the world's leading exemplar of what Kirkpatrick gently calls 'political Islam,'

but our policy geniuses reckon the Brothers are much to be preferred over the 'Salafis'—reputedly,

the more hardcore Islamic supremacists."[5]

The Muslim Brotherhood has long been a key topic of

McCarthy's writings. In a May 2010 article for the Washington Examiner, McCarthy argued that both

the Brotherhood and Salafists reject western rationalism and the Christian unity of faith and reason,

instead favoring Sharia determinism. "Both support the development of fundamentalist Muslim enclaves

and the ultimate supplanting of American constitutional democracy by Islamic law. Nonterrorist

Islamists want to overthrow the U.S. government every bit as much as the terrorists do. They are not

moderates. Their differences with the terrorists are over means and methods, not goals."[6] - See more at: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mccarthy_andrew_c#sthash.SAC0Po0o.dpuf

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mccarthy_andrew_c

Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

A...

Hmm he doesn't sound as "evil" in the Wiki lol

Never been on the "Rightweb" site. I see that it is a service of the Institute for Policy Studies, which has quitea reputation on the Left, especially the extreme lift. I think Richard Barnett was one of the founders.

Anyway,to see whatI had been missing, I went to the IPS "rightweb" site, which claims that it is the repository for all the info, including the dirt, about what it calls "rightists".. Interested in what they have on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I searched on a few terms: "David Kelley," " Yaron Brook," "Nathaniel Branden," just for starters. And found,...nothing. No entries. "Ayn Rand" had a few, usually leading to entries on conservatives who have quoted her. But nothing like the hate-filled invective on Rand on the leftist "alternet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never been on the "Rightweb" site. I see that it is a service of the Institute for Policy Studies, which has quitea reputation on the Left, especially the extreme lift. I think Richard Barnett was one of the founders.

Anyway,to see whatI had been missing, I went to the IPS "rightweb" site, which claims that it is the repository for all the info, including the dirt, about what it calls "rightists".. Interested in what they have on Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I searched on a few terms: "David Kelley," " Yaron Brook," "Nathaniel Branden," just for starters. And found,...nothing. No entries. "Ayn Rand" had a few, usually leading to entries on conservatives who have quoted her. But nothing like the hate-filled invective on Rand on the leftist "alternet."

Jerry:

My first time also. I was astounded at the venom and 1984 "Newspeak" that dominated the invective.

Thanks for the info.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now