VICE News Founder Shane Smith Talks with ISIS Fighter from Canada

https://news.vice.com/video/islamic-state-member-warns-of-nyc-attack-in-exclusive-interview-the-canadian-jihadist

The following statements were made by video phone by Canadian ISIS fighter Farah Shirdon (aka Abu Usamah Somali). He spoke to VICE News via Skype from Mosul, Iraq on September 23, 2014.

Even though they were made during the same interview, each statement - one and two - has a distinct narrative. Each details the nature of what ISIS considers an acceptable end-state for its current operations. Each has very distinct voice. As you will notice, the statements are altogether quite different when compared to one other.

1

“The reason [we’re fighting], you know – we’re tired of oppression. All those threats that I made, put that all aside, we don’t want, you know, no one likes fighting….if you leave us alone, we’re going to leave you alone. We’re tired, you know, I don’t want to fight, I want to be at home with my family. But why am I here? No one is asking that question…..Give us our freedoms. We want Sharia Law, just leave us alone..

If you come to me, I will come to you. Attack me, and we will attack [you]. I swear to you [President Barack Obama], you kuffar (infidel), I swear to Allah, we will fight you until the end. It doesn’t matter who comes after you, we’ll keep fighting you, and keep fighting you. I know so many people, thousands upon thousands that are living in the West, that are ready right now to make an [terror] operation. Why don’t you leave us alone? [You] back up, and we’ll back up.”

_____

2

“These kuffars (infidels), if they have a problem with us, and they seem to be attacking us day and night, but they don’t understand that Allah is on our side….these apostate regimes don’t seem to understand….Whatever regime attacks us, we will attack them. We love being under attack. I want martyrdom. Every single time I see a plane over my head, I become very happy. I think, ah, maybe this will be the time that I will go, and I will meet my Lord. But I wonder what this [prisoner of ours] Iraqi pilot – this apostate – I wonder what he thinks right now. And I wonder what the thousands of prisoners from the West that we have, that we will have to behead. I wonder what their families think. Only Allah knows…

“The only time we will stop is when the White House has a black flag over it. The only time we will stop is when we paint the White House black, God willing. We will stop when we behead leaders of the kuffars (infidels), thanks to Allah. And when we turn his children into our slaves, then maybe we will stop. Maybe. When we crucify Benjamin Netanyahu for his war crimes, then maybe. We want to fly the Islamic State flag over the White House.”

As I pointed out earlier, neither of these statements is like the other.

In the first statement, an ISIS fighter claims that his army is fighting for their freedom to be left alone.

But the second statement is much, much darker. In that statement, the fighter insinuates that the goal of ISIS is actually much broader - that it wishes to dominate the current global superpower and has plans to tactically decentralize in order to accomplish its goal.

So which is it? What really is the strategic intent of ISIS?

Right now, Progressives are markedly muted in regards to ISIS, save for a few extremes. I believe that an increasing number of Progressives will, in the coming months, begin to tie-in the ultimate old relic of old relic narratives: that the West forced ISIS to behave as they are, and that the West needs to reform its exploitative ways. Indeed, I sense that there is a new relativism abound, and it will passionately attach itself to this issue. With ISIS as the new chapter to their greater struggle, I believe Progressives have the potential to become more viscous than ever, particularly in their verbal attacks against President Obama, who may well continue escalating operations (although his committed posture has been weak so far) against ISIS.

Passionate Progressive ideologues will talk of the injustices of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the evils of capitalism, and various failed foreign policies going back several administrations. They'll continue to perpetuate the notion that the West is ultimately to blame for the current catastrophe in the Middle East, just as they have for the last twenty years.

While Sykes-Picot and all those other things are certainly very interesting, and quite  relevant, does it collectively explain the atrocities currently underway by the hand of ISIS? Does ISIS appear to simply be fighting to correct for perceived wrongs of the past, such as Sykes-Picot, and will they bury the hatchet once they achieve this limited goal?

Well, that depends on which quote from above, number one or number two, that is presented to the audience.

At the end of the day, my wish is to get others ready to see what is happening in our society. Should a reasonable person encounter a 'relativist' in their daily lives who tries to play the 'morally superior card' of desiring to appear neutral on the topic of the ISIS cause, the reasonable person needs to make sure the full story is being told. Or at least, make sure everyone involved in the conversation is willing to listen to the full story and all available evidence on the matter.

Of these 'morally-superior beings,' many of them do not want to discuss things in full detail. If the issue is pushed, a very likely course of action pursued by Progressives is to start dealing out character assassination and other personal condemnations. They often use of terms such as 'Islamaphobe' in responding to an otherwise logical debater. This means that they reached a conclusion on the matter at hand at some previous date, and have since closed themselves to the totality of evidence currently available on the issue.

Troubling as it may be, Progressives with this type of fixated ideology elevate their need to maintain an emotionally-charged viewpoint over calmly listening to pertinent evidence.  They simply love their theory more than the science of testing and coherently debating their theory with peers. Sadly, this mentality has never led human kind to a very good place.

Any truly civilized person would go looking for new evidence to inform their opinion. They would ask, 'If ISIS is successful, what kind of world will it be for Muslims who disagree with ISIS?' As responsible citizens, they might also ask, 'What would it be like for women to live under ISIS rule?'

I believe Progressives are citizens. Good people have died ensuring this status for them. But the problem is that they don't see themselves as mere citizens. They've been fed the party line for so long they've begun see themselves with elevated elite status. They've totally committed to the collectivist cause and seek continual social recognition for their sacrifice. Their world consists of an ice cream cone licking itself, satisfying itself only, and then everyone watching applauds. Repeat.

But I don't think Progressives truly feel free to think on their own, mainly out fear and resulting social backlash should they chose to 'go it alone' on a particular issue. As a result, they bury themselves inside their minds. They find ways to justify the notion that anyone not as 'committed to the cause' as themselves must be a lesser being. From an outsiders perspective, I see Progressives not as elite citizens, but as serfs who merely exist to please their chosen power structure. They're no more open-minded than a white Southerner in 1960 raising hell about a black man being served a chocolate malt at the next bar stool.

Arrogance like this - people like this - and their overwhelming hatred of America should be clearly seen for what it is. If unreasonable hatred is intellectualized and wins out as the battle-cry of a generation, it means anti-progress for humanity. That is a recipe to create monsters whose wishful end will justify all means available to achieve it. Once theoretical hatred of capitalism and Western society become more important than disavowing other, more lethal monsters than themselves, we're in real trouble as a society.

The good news is that there is an abundance of good information available as to the long-term intent and strategic goals of ISIS. The interview clip above is one of those sources, but there are several other, more thorough sources that delve much deeper into the issue. A reasonable person just needs to do a half-assed job of looking, and they'll find what they need to form an opinion.

If I were make a recommendation, I'd say that the best way to understand ISIS is to not to rely on traditional reporting at all. On the contrary, simply find information sources who are willing to step aside and let ISIS make their remarks, at length, with no edits, and then broadcast it to the world. All the viewer needs to do is sit back and listen. That is obviously the best way to learn.

VICE News is at the forefront of good information; a great place to start learning is here: http://youtu.be/AUjHb4C7b94 There are also a good number of links on the right-hand side bar of this page, namely the Middle East Media Research Institute.

In conclusion, ISIS either represents the victims of Western oppression or they are a purveyor of totalitarianism that will stop at nothing to conquer those that oppose it - even fellow Muslims. If Progressives claim moral superiority by advancing the notion that ISIS is the former, challenge them for evidence, while forcing them to comment on the abundance of evidence which overwhelmingly suggests ISIS is the latter.

Bill Maher

While I don't agree with absolutely everything he says, I can't say that my reaction to this Bill Maher video was negative. 

My reaction wasn't even neutral. In fact, I actually stood up from my chair and started clapping.

My first thoughts were, 'This is the start of a real conversation - one that addresses how warped our society has become.'

On this issue, at least Bill Maher is logical, consistent, and honest. That is refreshing. He might be a bit crude, but so what?! I think he actually highlights the tolerance of Christians. I am not threatened by him on the minor issues for which we disagree.

Why am I not threatened? It should be obvious, but just in case:

1) Because I understand that I don't have to agree with him in lock-step to understand the greater point he makes in the video below.

2) Because I'm confident that he will never head a movement to control people's minds, lobby for laws to take away choices from people, or participate in one-sided, politically-motivated character assassination of people whose only offense was to speak their mind in a public setting.

Grandiose final thought: a self-evident, non-threatening disagreement between two Citizens is the essence of America (by self-evident I mean that the individual makes decides what is or is not threatening, instead of the media doing so - something they have long since tried to do).

Recognizing that a guy who I formerly perceived as a philosophical enemy has made a spectacularly valid point makes me happy in a very simple way. 

So without further ado, I say this to Mr. Maher: Touché. You've made a brilliant exposé. I hope it goes viral.

PBS Frontline Video Documentary: Losing Iraq

Voices from the Front: An Iraqi Army Officer’s Account of the Battle Against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

Excellent Foreign Intrigue article: http://foreign-intrigue.com/2014/09/voices-from-the-front-2/

I fear we have lost the initiative in countering the ISIS threat. The US seems focused solely on destroying ISIS equipment and senior leadership, instead of being be concerned with mid-level leadership.

ISIS leadership anticipated US-led airstrikes. They moved fighters and equipment out of strongholds more than a month ago.  They now blend in with the various population hubs which support them, daring the United States to escalate the situation by attacking these hubs.



The US airstrikes currently underway, I'm afraid, have more to do with countering the bad mid-term election optics which currently serve to highlight Obama's impotence in the face of the beheading videos. This administration has always, and continues to be, obsessed with their image in the media. To be sure, all administrations are guilty of this, but the Obama team takes media paranoia to a new level.

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that 15,000 troops are needed to destroy ISIS. If either Obama or Congress ultimately heeds this recommendation, and US ground combat operations recommence in Iraq or begin for the first time in Syria, I strongly believe that operations must be quick. The whole thing needs to be over in 3-4 months. During that time, every asset in the US military arsenal should be used for full victory. We cannot settle for anything less, and in order to win there has to be a willingness to get dirty with the people spreading the dirt.

Otherwise we, as a Country, are the equivalent of a soccer team 'trying' to win while taking great pains to ensure that our uniforms receive no grass stains. That is a laughable scenario, but you can get your bottom dollar that if we only engage halfway, the other team - ISIS - would do just that: they will laugh at us.

We must also be willing to take extreme risks if they become necessary. For example, surprise drop the entire 173rd Airborne to cut-off escape routes after the Peshmerga, under the advisement of US Special Forces, attack a major ISIS stronghold - something like that. Right now, ISIS believes the United States is risk averse, and they are correct. As a result, they can formulate tactics based on knowing what we won't do.

In 2004 I was a member of a four-man counter-ambush patrol in Iraq. We were trying to sneaky-pete our way on foot to catch guys setting up IEDs. Quiet-like. The four of us volunteered - one man from each of three squads and our Platoon Sergeant. I'll save the long story, but the short of it is that we got in trouble with our Battalion HQ. They didn't like the low number of guys. Well, guess what, we were armed to the gills! We had a QRF standing by - one that we coordinated ourselves. We had justifiable reasons why we did what we did, but we overruled. Bottom line, the sort of risk averse mentality displayed by our HQ negatively affects combat operations and needs to stop.

Risk averse behavior has been the style of United States General Officers since the Clinton administration.  We have weapons in our arsenal that we are afraid to use, often because they are deemed as too expensive to risk. Why, then, spend billions on these expensive shiny things? We pay billions in jump pay to servicemen but never really use this 'risky' capability. Shit, our entire society is risk averse, except for squirrel suit skydivers.  In engaging in combat operations, we need to act like American Wild Weasel Pilots over Vietnam in 1966.

In 2005 my Marine infantry platoon was living at a combat outpost under a bridge in Iraq, 10 miles away from the Battalion HQ. At combat outposts you only bring what you need; any non-essential gear is locked away in sea bags placed in storage back at HQ. When it came time to go home, the HQ started issuing out directives for every Marine to take inventory of his issued gear and fill out a form.

No problem, I thought to myself. I get it. They have to know who has what in terms of equipment so they can record combat losses. It helped that I was conditioned to do gear layouts twice a week for a portion of my predeployment cycle. It usually went something like this: "layout off of your stuff on two ponchos, fold your socks this exact way and stack them this exact way and place them two inches from the upper right corner, next to your gay-ass motherfucking reflective running belt. Then stand at parade rest for 1.5 hours waiting for the CO to come by to admire your stack of socks."

Well, in contrast, this combat equipment inventory was easy! I was a team leader and team leaders were allowed to verify our guy's equipment.

Problem was, HQ said the forms were needed immediately. I can't say for sure, but lets say it was Tuesday. Battalion getting the forms on Wednesday was not acceptable. So we were going to make a 10 mile trip in HMMVWs down one of the most dangerous roads in all of Iraq, just so that we could drop off equipment inspection forms.

What's more, in order to verify that equipment was present it had to be seen. The Marines had much of the gear to be inspected back at the base in storage, therefore it could not be accounted for. Nevertheless, after vocalizing my argument against the inspection, I was overruled.

We were about two weeks from rotating in off the line for good. Once pulled off the line, we were scheduled to be at Battalion HQ for a week before departing for Camp Victory at Baghdad International Airport. During this time at HQ we knew that almost every day we'd be doing redundant gear inspections and a great many more forms. So the fact that we were making a special trip down IED alley to just to deliver the initial, rather tentative wave of inspection forms was asinine. We risked the lives of Marines over meaningless paperwork. At least no Marines were killed as a result.

What is the point of my personal accounts surrounding military decision-making? Even the military occasionally gets detached from its true purpose: winning in combat. Some leaders get "bureaucrat-ized" - they issue orders to 'part the seas' for paperwork. Priority is given to producing powerpoint presentations. Their intentions are good; they have a steadfast belief in the chain-of-command and decide not to ask questions. But they sometimes get tunnel vision. They sometimes ask Marines to risk their lives for stupid paperwork-oriented reasons, but cringe when four heavily armed Marines try a new (more quiet) technique of inserting into an ambush position in order to increase chances of killing the enemy.

Calculated risks and adaptive tactics are not stupid. Winning every war in the history of our Country until 1945, and losing every war since then because we became risk averse and began to embrace a policy of limited war - that is definition of stupid.

I've listed two short scenarios for what I would deem as an acceptable approach to a new ground combat mission in Iraq/Syria:

Scenario One. Total annihilation must be the goal. When the Iraqi Army decides to retake Mosul or other ISIS strongholds, we should only participate if their intention is to flatten it. Marines are good at killing everything they see, and would be ideal for this mission.

Scenario Two. If the Iraqi Army decides to conduct counterinsurgency in Mosul, US Army Special Forces should advise them and work with Iraqi/Peshmerga Special Forces to coordinate the battlespace. That's it. It will be a cluster-fuck quagmire if US military conventional forces rejoin the counterinsurgency fight in Mosul or anywhere else in the Middle East. If scenario two occurs, it can be in conjunction with sporadic bouts of scenario one sprinkled in.

The op-tempo of either scenario should be very high. We should not construct any large bases because our purpose cannot be to occupy. The 75th Ranger Regiment, 3rd and 5th SFG, the 82nd/101st/173rd Airborne, SEAL Teams, three carrier battle groups, various air assets based in Europe, and a MEU of 1,100 combat Marines - all of these units can sustain high optempo for 3-4 months when working as a total force. 

No micro-management on the part of politicians or any bullshit appointed State Department Special attaché. In order to achieve an attainable military objective, all of the people in the units I listed above just need to be allowed to deal out death to the enemy.

Unless they are allowed to do this, I am 100% against countering ISIS with ground forces. Anything less than a mindset that is fully committed to bringing the most intense combat possible means that we will lose more Americans, but gain nothing in the end.

Beyond the Orange Jumpsuit Videos

Acknowledging the rise of a new islamic caliphate has, only recently, gained main stream media acceptance.

We are currently at a juncture where we need to pause and reflect on the situation. How did we get to this point? Our reflection must include the Progressive voices of three years ago, who claimed that the definition of fear mongering was to simply report the facts of a developing situation.

In the case of the restoration of the Khalifah (islamic caliphate), Progressives said that the definition of fear mongering was to use the public, video-recorded statements of various forces in the Middle East who were in the process of taking action to restore the Khalifah.

But that is not the end of the story. Progressives took their rhetoric further and said that even floating the idea of the new Khalifah was 'dangerous.'

 

In my view, when Progressives play the 'free speech is dangerous' card, they are really just conforming with their party's long-held historic platform - one that seeks to ban things for which it disagrees.

Never mind that in the case of the islamists coveting the notion of a new caliphate, there were huge amounts of readily available information which clearly staked out the issue. I would go so far as to say that keeping the words of the caliphate-backing islamists from the American public has to be one of the most grand media deceptions of the last century. The evidence is everywhere. No research needs to be done. All that is needed is to replay the the islamist's own words.



Rather than debating openly and honestly, Progressives target anyone - commoner or otherwise - who doesn't sign on to the Progressive world view. Those who refuse to march in lock-step with the Progressive's chosen PC terminology of the day will, in turn, have their character targeted for assassination. And then the three-day news cycle repeats. And repeats again.

It is in this sense that Progressives champion elitism, all while claiming to be fighting against elitism. It is really fucking unbelievable how many people don't see this contradiction.

Do something really PC-unfriendly that garners a lot of attention - well, Progressives will probably take steps to silence you. In some cases, they will use the force of law. Let us not forget that the maker of the now famous 'Innocence of Muslims' movie sat in a California prison for a year after we discovered that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

Progressives even touted the notion that legitimate 100-year-old laws are already on the books that could be used to prevent a citizen from disrespecting the prophet mohammed.

Reality check: if the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater law' were really used that way, and the state restrains a serf from speaking out against religion (Islam), wouldn't the state, then, be promoting that religion? Where is separation between religion and state? If that happens, would we really be Citizens anymore, or only mere serfs with limited rights in free speech?

Let's recap. While Progressives promote a separation between church and state, they simultaneously want the government to sensor free speech against Islam. No contradiction there.

And while they talk about the Catholic Church's war on women, they basically remain silent on the actual war on women in the Islamic world. 'Culture must be respected,' they say. Okay. Agreed. But if you follow up by asking Progressives where the line between culture and human rights is located, they'll probably answer with, 'it depends' or something like that.

This is why, in my view, Progressives seem to be confused by very simple concepts most of the time. They don't apply their logic evenly, and they are wholeheartedly ashamed to apply it universally. As a result, they must remember a hundred different definitions of the same thing, you see? And so, in the end, they really don't stand for anything, other than a very ambiguous relativism.

What about how progressive women have no problem covering their hair while traveling to predominantly Muslim countries, yet crucify Western culture for promoting societal gender norms?

Got all that? Makes perfect sense, right? I digress.

Eat shit...I mean...eat this video, hypocritical Progressive idiots. People living in the real world saw ISIS coming a long time ago.

Shame on you for your elitist mocking of what eventually came to be true. I guess that's our fault too, right?

We are a Nation of Laws, Not Men

What does mob rule look like?

This is what mob rule might look like: https://vine.co/AntonioFrench

I say 'might,' because, so far, this mob hasn't exerted rule over anything, other than the airwaves.

For now, they have few tangible results, other than a visit from a self-described 'activist' U.S. Attorney General, and a Federal investigation into the August 8, 2014, shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

But if local authorities are ultimately pressured into arresting Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, without sufficient evidence of his guilt, only then does the mob become truly dangerous.

We already know that many in our Country have long-since embraced the notion of 'trial by media.' The shooting death of Michael Brown is just the most recent example. 

But if trial by mob actually exerts influence to the point where evidence no longer the paramount item in an investigation, it means that Mr. French's videos will no longer simply depict a jeering gathering of folks expressing their First Amendment rights. It means that the mob, and whatever meandering sense of justice they propel forward at any given moment, will have actual legal traction.

I don't pretend to know what will ultimately happen in this case. I hope justice is served, that's all. What I do know, however, is that the Federal authorities doing  the 'independent investigation' into the shooting of Michael Brown need to stay in their lane and stick with the facts. They must use facts only, and all of the facts. They cannot be selective in which facts they implement.

If the Feds decide they want to prosecute Officer Wilson, and local Ferguson prosecutors disagree with the Feds based on evidence or lack thereof, but are overruled, it means that the mob will have gained far more legal traction than it could have ever dreamed of on its own.

My thoughts turn to Ben Franklin. As he exited the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he responded to a woman who asked him, "Sir, what have you given us?"

He said, "A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

If Mr. French, his mob, or the left-wing media gets what they want in the end - which is a total disregard for real evidence - we will have the answer to Mr. Franklin's insinuated question. We will no longer be Citizens in a Republic.

And if the act of removing the blindfold from Lady Justice becomes routine procedure at the federal level in the coming years? What then? What do we do?

Answer: arm yourselves. With knowledge, wisdom, principles, and very solid restraint.

The Dumbest Media Segment I Have Ever Seen

This was run through the following number of stupid filters: zero