A Grand Jihad Strategery Meet-Up

Caroline Glick has a new one and it's amusing. Heads are exploding in al-Jazeera's little world. Nor will this one be removed due to some spurious copyright infringement. Her satire is sans sappy music this time.

Instead, she has devised the conceit of a Grand Jihad strategy meeting, one that could have come straight out of the pages of Reliance of the Traveller.


The odd thing is, while I was up in the Baron’s office (re-establishing our connection to the internet satellite after a thunderstorm) I picked up Reliance just to have something to read while waiting for the reboot. The page opened randomly to some advice about when it is permissible for the caliph to use the tactic of a so-called “truce” in order to gain the upper hand in an emergency move. According to the book, this can only be done as a stop-gap measure until the time is right to conquer the infidel.

The verse closes with an admonishment from the Koran that Allah wants Islam to reign supreme. So much for good faith negotiations, hmmm? [No, I don’t have it in front of me, but tomorrow when I have to go upstairs again, I’ll attempt to find the exact quotation. No promises as it’s a very large tome. One no house should be without.]

Besides Caroline Glick’s video in the mail, there was a serendipitous link to Frank Gaffney’s Big Government post from last week, in which he discusses the Supreme Court’s June 22nd ruling on the spurious idea that support may be given to terrorist organizations if maybe they also hand out candy to orphans when they’re not blowing things up.

Hold it right there, said the Supremes…
- - - - - - - - -
Mr. Gaffney relies on The Investigative Project on Terrorism for the details regarding their decision. He prefaces IPT's details on the ruling this way:

Bad news today [June 22nd] for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

Notice the lopsided 6-3 ruling. This was not a narrow vote. However, I doubt it will stop Mr. Obama for long. He violates our laws with impunity. Why? Because he won - just ask him. In Chicago the winner makes the rules, not the useless legislature. While you're at it, ask him how often he was around during his brief tenure in the Senate. No, he didn't respect it then, either. At least he's consistent.

The Investigative Project lays out the ruling for us:

Under U.S. law, it is a crime for any person to provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. Known as the “material support” law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B has become a cornerstone in U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Since 2001, the U.S. has charged approximately 150 defendants with violations of the statute, and to date approximately 75 people have been convicted.

The statute defines “material support or resources” as:

“any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials” (emphasis added in the original).

The Court began by rejecting the argument which claimed that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment, then it went on discard First Amendment (free speech) notion:

…The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.

Here is the Court’s wording:

“Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further…terrorist activities…: ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

Amen, brothers.

So Islamists in the U. S. will have to break American law in order to perform zakat by giving material support to terrorists. Well, at least they can't claim injured innocence anymore.

They don’t have to do it this way...except that the Koran tells them to. Zakat is for jihad. Period. If they belonged to a peaceable group rather than “The ‘Religion’ of ‘Peace’” they’d be supporting some of the underfunded NGOs that try to help the endless numbers of sexually abused women and children suffering in Sharia-burdened hellholes.

But don’t hold your breath. As Mr. Gaffney pointed out:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do. It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order. Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

Let’s see how long it takes our President to ignore the ruling of our Supreme Court.