IT'S 'JIHAD' MR. PRESIDENT

September 23, 2013

Saturday, Islamofascist gunmen -- one of whom is a woman -- stormed an upscale Nairobi shopping mall, telling Muslims to leave and then shooting others. Four Americans were injured. Officials are now saying at least 62 people were killed and 200 wounded in the weekend attack, while 63 were reported missing. 

Attacks on soft civilian targets like this are reminiscent of the horrors of Islamist attacks in Beslan (a school) and Mumbai (hotels).

Kenya’s interior minister Joseph Ole Lenku says two male Islamic militants have been killed and more hostages have been freed as military forces led a new rescue operation Monday.

If Americans are serious about preventing such nightmares from happening here, it's time to stop crying racism at those calling for better border security -- and start paying attention at who's coming, who's here . . . and why.

Our President does not and will not acknowledge this as a terrorist attack, will not acknowledge that Islamic extremists are behind it, nor will he use the word "Jihad." The only phrase Barack Obama uses to describe this massacre is "violent extremism."

It just looks bad for Obama if Muslim Jihadists were behind this massacre. It doesn't fit his scenario of Islam being a religion of peace and worthy of our protections.

Nairobi’s Westgate mall is more than a retail center. It’s a social hub — a space for shared enjoyment and community celebration. It’s also a place for kids. In fact, a children’s event was taking place on Saturday. Then the jihadists ramped it up and turned it into a death trap. And that’s not all they did this weekend.

Rampaging through a mall.

Attacking a funeral in Iraq.

Blowing up worshipers in a Pakistani church.

This weekend has verified the identity of the global jihadist movement: a death cult that finds spiritual unity in the murder of innocents.

Let’s be clear. Westgate was attacked for two reasons. First, in its public character, the mall offered al-Shabab an opportunity to spread terror across all of Kenyan society. Second, packed with families, Westgate offered the terrorists hundreds of strategic pawns. In its killing sprees, al-Shabab seeks a new regional understanding: that its resolve is supreme above all others. That unless its adversaries yield, more Westgates will follow.

At a basic level, al-Shabab’s strategy is far from original. By definition, terrorism involves the deliberate cultivation of fear as a political tool.

Yet modern Salafi Jihadism takes this dynamic to an unprecedented level. It has the instinctive reflex toward unrestrained brutality. Gratuitous violence guarantees attention. Think about the Iraq war. The image of masked assailants sawing off the heads of bound and terrified prisoners is seared indelibly into our memory.

Of course, this raises a key question: How do the jihadists excuse their atrocities?

In the blend of theocratic absolutism and perverse consequentialism. From the jihadist perspective, their violence is justified in the service of God’s intrinsic will.

Grappling with this notion of ordained will is crucial. It affords us insight into the existential rigidity with which these terrorists regard the world. In short, Salafi Jihadists claim that the price of peace is our non-interference — they hint that our acquiescence will buy us our safety. They’re lying. Theirs is an ideology with a supra-national (and, as they see it, divine) pursuit — a global caliphate of absolute power. Take al-Shabab. As Beifuss and Bellini note in their study of terrorist iconography, Branding Terror,, al-Shabab’s logo, a rifle-sheltered Koran sitting upon a green globe, is unmistakably clear in its prevailing message: This group will never find satisfaction in local politics.

Iraq’s recent history offers us a guide to al-Shabab’s likely path.

IIn 2006–07, as a flood of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) car bombs drove Iraq toward functional oblivion, many claimed that an American military withdrawal would engender political reconciliation. They believed that the presence of American forces was providing the fuel for AQI extremism. The fallacy of their argument is proved in today’s Iraq. Now, in America’s absence, AQI has morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Salafist pretense of a nationalist-Islamic resistance has given way to ISIL’s ultimate ideal of a regional political implosion.

It says much about the Salafi Jihadist movement that chaos and despair are its closest allies — the fog of anarchy provides the opening for its borderless brutality.

Faced with these outrages, the responsibility of global civil society is abundantly clear.

Just as we must guard against those who would use atrocities to spread bigotry, so must Salafi Jihadism meet our unhesitating resolve. These terrorists pursue the destruction of democratic society. They want us to believe that opposing them is futile. That they’ve already won.

Instead, faced with their threats, we must furnish something else — a renewed stand against them.


We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.