Category Archives: Jihad

Farook Family Lawyers In Masterful Display Of Taqqiya (Deception In Furtherance Of Islam)

From the slimy, slick performance put on by Farook family members and lawyers, it is clear that the family is deceptive and is paying its reps to be deceptive, and I’m being charitable. The family’s proxies are practicing taqiyya, namely, deception is furtherance of Islam. They even profess to speak on behalf of “the Muslim community,” and not solely their clients.

“According to Dr. Sami Mukaram, an Islamic studies professor specializing in taqiyya,” and author of the only academic book exclusively devoted to it, “Taqiyya [dissimulation, deception, duplicity] in order to deceive the enemy is permissible.” (Gatestone Institute).

From describing the two San Bernardino shooters as “the alleged shooters,” as the two lawyers diligently did, to speaking of the Farook couple’s mere “involvement in this incident,” when in fact the two had instigated a massacre; to asserting that we don’t “know that anybody was involved”—the lawyers, DAVID S. CHELSEY and MOHAMMAD ABUERSHAD, behaved disgracefully. At one point, the uglier mug’s lips even curled up in a bemused snicker, which he quickly brought under control.

And the media is being mild about this pair’s conduct. In their dhimmitude, Westerners can’t even tell the truth about lying.

Sounding a lot like the Council on American–Islamic Relations, the shysters

“repeatedly emphasized how Islam had nothing to do with the shooting, how we should replace “intolerance” with “forgiveness,” and how “as a primarily Christian nation” [suddenly the US is Christian] the United States should be a place of compassion, not “bigotry and stereotyping.” (Mediaite.)

“Never saw any warning signs”? Nothing out of the ordinary? Lies. Your American son, nephew, brother travels to Saudi to import a bride whose face you seldom see, who stuffs the garage with ammo and the kid’s closet with gun cleaners—and granny, residing with evil in law, never noticed anything unusual?

Welcome to the new norm in tolerant America.

How stupid are we going to be?

Supremely stupid, judging from the enabling interview CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR, conducted with the taqiyya two: We are live from San Bernardino, California. We do have new information this morning. Let’s get right to the breaking news.

Attorneys for the shooters family are speaking out. The family saying that Farook and Malik, the male and female suspect, gave them no indication that they would do something like this. They say they are in shock like everybody else.

But there is more information and context about what they’re going through right now, what it means to the investigation. Here’s more of the interview.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CUOMO: How does the family explain the developments about their son and brother, the activities in the house, the activities with the murders? How do they explain what’s been learned about him?

DAVID S. CHELSEY, SHOOTERS’ FAMILY’S ATTORNEY: It’s really challenging, because they never saw any warning signs or any real characteristics that would let them know that any of this was going to take place.

So, for them, they’ve alluded to the fact that sometimes co- workers have done silly things, made fun of Syed’s beard, for example. It’s like there’s so little there to understand or explain what happened or why it happened. And that’s kind of what makes this fascinating. There’s no — there’s no connection to anything having to do with religion, although that’s tried to have been connected to. It’s just — there’s no evidence of anything, really.

CUOMO: You know, federal authorities are saying they believe there is proof that he had become radicalized. You say that’s not true?

CHELSEY: We haven’t seen anything. Believe me, we’ve met with the FBI and, you know, someone has alluded to the fact that they found something on the his computer that he may have talked to somebody who talked to — or spoken with somebody on the computer who viewed something about ISIS but it’s like, it’s so tenuous, there’s nothing really there. No one has been able to find anything.

We were in interviews with the FBI for three hours today. And there was — there was nothing found. As much as they asked the family, they couldn’t pinpoint any warning signs, any aggressiveness on the part of them.

CUOMO: They’re also flagging the travel abroad. Does the family have any insight into the trips to Saudi Arabia and who he met there and what he was doing there. Clearly, it’s raised the suspicions of the authorities.

MOHAMMAD ABUERSHAD, SHOOTERS’ FAMILY’S ATTORNEY: Well, Syed Farook traveled to Saudi as part of his pilgrimage. He went to Hajj. That was the first time he went there. The next time he went there was to get married. He met his wife online through an online dating Web site, and he traveled over there to get married to her.

He never travelled to Pakistan. He travelled to Saudi.

CUOMO: You say Pakistan, because that’s where his wife was born.

ABUERSHAD: His wife was born in Pakistan. She was born and raised in Pakistan. At the age of 18 to 20, she moved to Riyadh.

CUOMO: What do they know about her? This is highly unusual for a woman not just be involved in the planning but the actual execution of these kinds of murders.

ABUERSHAD: Well, they don’t know that anybody was involved and that she was involved in the planning of this. She was very conservative. She was a stay-at-home mom. She was helping to raise the children. She helped take care of the mother at the house.

They were a very close-knit family. Not too many people knew anything about them.

And back to your original question, the family was in shock, as everybody else was when they heard out about this. This wasn’t something that they saw overtime developing or occurring.

CUOMO: The nature of the relationship with him and his wife, it is always hard in a tight-knit family to not understand how you don’t know everything about each other. You’re saying that is the case, that there was a loner aspect to him, there was a change with him when he got married.

How so?

ABUERSHAD: He was always conservative. He always kept to himself. His wife, compared to the rest of the family, she was — they were on their own little planet. They weren’t married that long. They were kind of like newlyweds. They kind of kept themselves in the whole situation.

The families, the sisters would talk to her and they see her once in a while. It wasn’t something they would be getting together every single day, every single week. It was just — they see her at family events, they talk to her, that would be it.

CUOMO: Was she known to have different views on faith or on the world than they did?

ABUERSHAD: She was Muslim and so are they. It’s the same view.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Even cretin Alice CAMEROTA is skeptical: I don’t know, Chris. I mean, it’s just hard to digest what the attorneys are saying where they’re saying, you know, how can they be connected when authorities say that their house was like a bomb-making factory. I mean, why — is this willful blindness that these attorneys are exercising?

But CUOMO will have none of his colleague’s skepticism: Well, two things. One, he says that once the guy got married, they didn’t see him as often. They saw him at family meetings, not necessarily at the house. Second, it has to be noted, the family is not under any umbrella of suspicion so far as we know from the investigators. All of their dealings with them have been voluntary. That is since the mother was first detained by authorities. And that was a little bit of a difficult process.

So, we don’t have any reason to point finger beyond what we’re hearing right now, certainly the investigators haven’t given any proof for it.

CNN.

UPDATED: In The West The Inmates Run The Asylum

Europe, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Terrorism, The West

Emasculated West Primed For Muscular, Manly, Muslim Takeover

EU, Europe, Gender, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Religion, Sex, The State, The West, Welfare

I can see why women—biologically programmed to like powerful men who can take care of them—would find Muslim men more attractive than the West’s soft, repulsive, liberal men. Indeed, from this Jerusalem-based imam comes excellent locution and logic to describe an emasculated, feminized West, primed for a muscular, masculine Muslim takeover. His “Europe has become old and decrepit” is three minutes and 11 seconds into the supremely reasoned sermon.

So where are the West’s manly leaders? “I have a blond wife, a blue-eyed child and a … shotgun,” said one European, residing near a refugee encampment, to InfoWars’ correspondent. But he (and his hearsay) is but one (and if he defended his fair flock; he and European males like him would be jailed). Most men just hand their women over. Yuk.

And by the way, the Imam strikes a better pose than, say, Father Michael Pfleger and the prototypical white, liberal, male preacher. Be honest: Who looks better? The ascetic-looking Muslim in his white flowing robes, speaking in that deep manly voice, or this emasculated thing (which is what the West’s religious leaders generally look and sound like):

The Western, radical liberal preacher:

The Muslim Manly Preacher:

To follow on the report of Paul Joseph Watson, InfoWars’ young correspondent (some four minutes into the broadcast): Indeed, if you accept and want the growing “superstate bureaucracy,” you accept and want its imported populations. I’ve debunked the demographic argument, which is an extension of the argument from statism:

As explained in this 2010 column:

… Exemplified by Mark Steyn, Wilders’ worthy supporters in the US make sure he knows they love him for standing tall for speech, women, and individual rights—no-brainers all. Like Steyn, they generally steer clear of addressing the perils for their own country of mass, third-world immigration (legal and illegal).

I am told that I don’t understand Mr. Steyn of the dooms-day demographics. So I listened to his “End of Europe” lectures, in which he vividly describes the multitudes of Muslims going forth to North America and Western Europe to be fruitful and multiply and push for Islam. Their Pan-Islamist identity trumps their new assumed identity. Because of numbers, Mark asserts, History is on the march in the Muslim direction. By 2030 much of what we think of as the developed world will be part of the Muslim world.

Here Steyn hits a brick wall. Other than making babies at home and total war abroad, Steyn used to propose nothing much at all. Oh yes, if you’re not already fighting (futilely, in my opinion) in Iraq and Afghanistan, you can show your marbles by publishing offensive cartoons, making rightwing movies, and writing right-wing text.

The “One-Man Global Content Provider” is wrong. Demographics need not be destiny. The waning West became what it is not by out-breeding the undeveloped world. We were once great not because of huge numbers, but due to human capital — people of superior ideas and abilities, capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy.

Declining birth rates—and their antidote; the mass immigration imperative—are the excuses statists make for persevering with immigration policies that are guaranteed to destroy western civil society and shore up the State.

It would be productive if Steyn were to also demand, asap, as this writer has, the implementation of an immediate, defensive, libertarian, negative-rights, leave-me-alone strategy: don’t let the homie Jiahdis who hold western passports back in. Government-issued papers do not a natural right confer. Citizenship is no natural right; staying alive is.

‘Enemedia’ Chooses Its Own Angle On San Bernardino Shooting

GUNS, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Propaganda, Terrorism

Just as I thought the left-liberal “enemedia” could surprise no more, I tuned into CNN and MSNBC to watch their coverage of the San Bernardino shooting; perhaps Chris Hayes had ferreted out more information than Sean Hannity’s lame, prolix reporter?

What do you know?! The androgynous creatures in trendy eye-wear had decided to “treat” the shooting as a case of what the left calls “gun violence.” (The logically correct term is goon violence.) You can just imagine a quick editorial meeting in which, speaking in hushed but fussy falsettos, our anchors arrive at a decision to misreport reality just a tad, go with a certain angle, and NOT TO MENTION THE CAMEL IN THE ROOM. Rather, the murder of 14 people and the wounding of 17 or more would be used as a “teaching moment” to push more gun laws.

France allows its law-abiding citizens no guns. Somehow, the country’s Jihadis found a way to pull off a couple of mass murders this year. (Now Europe’s left-liberals are blaming “Europe’s open borders.” Wait a sec; don’t they like open borders? The stupid are so confusing.)

It’s true. Liberals are stupid. Arguments from freedom are based on reason. Arguments from statism rely on emotion: “If I get Uncle Sam to ban guns; fewer bad thing will happen to me.” Dumb, right? You can’t fix stupid, said comedian Ron White. “There is not a pill you can take, not a class you can go to. Stupid is forever.”

Columnist Jack Kerwick’s reductio ad absurdum best illustrates the absurdity of the “gun violence” speak:

Imagine if, while discussing the Holocaust, we spoke about ‘gas chamber violence,’ or while discussing Islamic State mass beheadings, we talked instead of ‘machete violence.’ Or suppose that discussions of the lynching of blacks were peppered with references to ‘rope violence.’ None of this would sit well with decent human beings, for it is clear, or at least it is thought that it should be clear, that such descriptions miss entirely that which is fundamental to the phenomena being described—the perpetrators responsible for these wicked deeds.