Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 2, 2016 in Featured, Internet, Media, Politics, Polls, Terrorism | 25 comments

Trump used in jihadist terrorist recruiting video

terrortrump-660x330 (1)

Life imitates campaign rehtoric? Republican Presidential nomination front runner Donald Trump and his supporters had criticized Democratic Presidential nomination front-runner Hillary Clinton for saying Trump’s anti-Muslim rhentoric was being used by terrorists in recruiting videos. Trump had demanded an apology and the Clinton campaign hadcarefully inched back the claim. Clinton’s claim seemed logical when she made it — particularly to anyone who has read any one of the many books on ISIS and the image it seeks to paint to young Muslims about life in the United States and what the United States (in their view) represents. But now it’s for real: Trump’s rhetoric is being used by a terrorist group — and when it comes to footage with inflammatory polemics the old saying “there’s a lot more where that comes from” applies.

Terror group al-Shabab, al-Qaeda’s Somalia-based affiliate, is using a clip from Donald Trump in a purported Islamist propaganda video — and it’s gaining traction among Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) online channels.

The nearly hour-long video, produced by al-Shabab’s media arm al-Kataib, uses a soundbite from the Republican front-runner’s speech in December calling for the “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the country.

Preceding the Trump clip, a bite from the now-deceased al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen in 2011, warns “Muslims of the West” to be cautious and “learn from the lessons of history.”

“There are ominous clouds gathering in your horizon,” al-Awlaki says in English. “Yesterday, America was a land of slavery, segregation, lynching, and Ku Klux Klan. And tomorrow it will be a land of religious discrimination and concentration camps. ”

The video then cuts to a clip from Trump’s South Carolina rally, where the GOP contender’s comments are met with loud applause: “And so remember this. So listen. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the — is going on.”

Trump’s expletive is bleeped out.

The video returns to Al-Awlaki, who adds, “The West will eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.”

And while the recruiters are at it…

Also posted to the website of SITE Intelligence Group, the 51-minute, 44-second video is a larger call to black youths in the U.S. to convert to Islam. The video also cites other examples of perceived racial injustice, including recent police shootings, including the cases of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Walter Scott in South Carolina

And with American politics being what it is, mostly about unverified charges coupled with emotion — you just KNEW without looking at one of those plentiful psychic prediction sites that someone would immediately charge that the terrorist video was Hillary Clinton’s idea.

Well, why not? How could jihadist groups possibly figure out the kind of rhetoric Trump was using or read one of the countless articles or posts with writers warning that Trump’s lets-stop-Muslims-from-entering-the-US call was playing right into terrorists’ hands or somehow discover the many news stories indexed on Google web and Google News about mosque burning were going on? Everyone knows jihadist groups don’t have computers and don’t know a thing about exploiting social media.

Given the fact that polls show that most Republicans support Trump’s proposed Muslim ban — and the fact that 2016 is obviously extremely young and there are likely to be some high profile terrorist acts between now and the primaries and election day — American political rhetoric seeking to trigger the fight or flight mechanism among ideologists and/or partisans will be on high speed. Providing lots of potential material for jihadists who work overtime to provoke the physical fight mechanism in Muslims who see, read or hear their many recruitment pitches.

SOME TWEETS (some of them confuse the terrorist group but make the larger point about Trump’s rhetoric):

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The Moderate Voice
  • JSpencer

    I wonder how Trump will respond to this? Of course the problem doesn’t begin and end with him, since he is only echoing the sentiments of those republicans who view an entire religion as the enemy. That goes to a greater problem, namely how some of the reactions to terrorism in this country have played directly into the hands of ISIS. If we mere mortals at TMV are aware of this, then why aren’t certain presidential hopefuls?

  • “Clinton’s claim seemed logical when she made it”

    The claim was false when Clinton made it and the fact that ISIS subsequently did make such a video does not change the fact that Clinton made a blatantly false statement.

    Clinton might have been right if she made a prediction that ISIS would use Trump in a video, (and they didn’t need her to think of it), but her statement that they had already made such a video was false.

    • She was absolutely right about it, and maybe it will make a few Trump supporters think twice about the world-wide effects of his over-blown egotistical rants. I’m sure as a former Sec State she could see the handwriting on the wall, so Kudos to her for having the guts to call him out. That is the kind of leadership we need in this country.

      • “She was absolutely right about it,”

        Only right in the Clinton version of right, where facts and the truth don’t matter.

        Otherwise she was totally wrong. At the time she claimed that ISIS was using Trump in the video there was no evidence that he was used in the video at that time. If she made a prediction, it would be a different matter, but she was saying that such a video already existed.

        Calling Trump out would be fine, but there was enough to call him out on honestly and no need to include something which was not true at the time.

    • Slamfu

      What is with candidates quoting non existent videos this primary? Jesus. Like this stuff can’t be fact checked in a heartbeat.

  • Borowitz Nails It – Again:

    Trump Calls His Al Qaeda Recruitment Video Highest-Rated Terror Video Ever

    Donald Trump took to Twitter to crow about his inclusion in a terror video, and tweaked his G.O.P. rivals for failing to be chosen.

    … the Republican Presidential front-runner boasted that the video would be the highest-rated terror video of all time.


    “Shabaab would never put Jeb in video,” Trump tweeted. “Knows he is loser!”

    However, there are problems ahead in the Trump-Shabaab joint business venture:

    In a cascade of tweets directed at the terror group, Trump insisted that he be paid two million dollars for every subsequent video and that he retain editorial control over the final cut.

    In a terse official statement, a Shabaab spokesman said that the terror group was “discontinuing our relationship with Donald J. Trump.”

    “He’s just too hard to work with,” the spokesman said.

    Read more here

  • dduck

    Jeez, so HC was a little early and definitely prescient in her Trump recruiting remark. Well, don’t we want a president who can look ahead, the better to be prepared? Why even a while back when she said she was ducking bullets, she was just imagining all the invectives the Reps would be throwing at her. After all this time what’s the difference, bullets, shoes, insults and smart guesses, it’s all the same. While she is looking ahead, BS is stuck in the present repeating his inequality speech over and over (snores).
    HC is planning ahead for when she is in the WH. No more small time renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, now we woo whole countries that will trip over themselves to contribute to the Foundation and you don’t have to change the towels either. She is already prepping GCM (Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky) so she can start giving speeches ASAP. Yes, Hillary looks ahead, we need her.

    • Haha – Duck- usually I think you are quackers, but this comment nailed it!
      Happy New Year!
      Clinton/Castro ’16

      • “this comment nailed it”

        Yes it did. It is a shame you don’t understand the degree to which the comment questions Clinton’s credibility and ethics.

    • Not to mention that she managed to have virtually every fact check site and news organization criticize her for being dishonest on this one, and I bet her supporters will fall for the prescient line (failing to see the sarcasm).

      As a Republican you must love this. The Republicans who still swear that Bush was right on WMD in Iraq, and everything else he lied on, receive a certain sort of vindication with Clinton. Her supporters are no different in their denial of the facts. So much for being the reality-based community.

      I still don’t know what to make of her claim of dodging imaginary bullets. I can see getting some facts wrong when you travel as much as she did, but I would think most people would know the difference between dodging real bullets and fantasy.

      While they have moved on to much bigger things than renting out the Lincoln Bedroom with her influence peddling as Secretary of State, I’m not sure we can say that she is also beyond her older, more petty “fund raising” activates. We might see both.

      While I still lean towards preferring Clinton over a Republican if she gets the nomination due to the Supreme Court, those who argue that it would be better for a Republican to win than Clinton due to the damage she would do the Democratic brand have a strong argument–and could turn out to be right.

      • dduck

        To be serious for a moment, I am worried that the Reps are getting too much power at the state and House level. I don’t like that and prefer more of a balance of power, or at least a semblance of same. Even if it would create constant gridlock, I would love to see more balance in the Federal government and that includes the Supremes. However, I do understand not wanting to risk getting more righties there (they have made a couple of bad decisions). Once either party gets too big, that’s when I want the other guys. Long way of saying, we may have to worry about a future Constitutional Convention. Get out your votes for better local candidates, support Michael Bloomberg (did he make that stupid Most Admired List?), or learn to love guns.

    • Slamfu

      But she said they’d already made a video before it had been made. I’d be happier if she had put the comment in the future tense which would have made it prescient, but she didn’t, so it’s just a false statement.

  • JSpencer

    I understand people have strong opinions about Hillary, but the arguments here are getting far afield of the greater point.

    • It is hard not to respond in kind when a certain person who will not be named takes every single opportunity to bash Mrs. Clinton to the maximum extent humanly possible. I believe he is sitting in his basement combing through these comments 24/7, just in case one of us happens to give her a smidgen of credit for foresight, toughness, experience, etc
      It is getting just a tad bit old.

      • You miss the point here that Clinton was exposed for lying on this matter–and exposing Clinton for lying is quite common.

        Foresight–she was wrong on virtually every major decision of her career.

        Experience–She totally botched health care reform as First Lady, making us have to wait for a generation to see it passed. She was a terrible Senator, who often aligned herself with the religious right on social issues and neocons on foreign policy. She was a failed Secretary of State, whose advice was overridden by other advisers on virtually every matter, and the one time her her advice was taken, in Libya, it turned into a disaster–not to mention the culture of corruption she created with her influence peddling.

        Yes, elect a pathological liar and a war monger to be president. What could possibly go wrong?

      • Bob Munck

        person who will not be named

        Use the name “Gollum.” The trick is to read his polemics as if voiced by Sméagol/Gollum: “We hates her! We hates horrible Clintons!! My… preciousssss!”

    • dduck

      Which is?

      • JSpencer

        Which is?”

        The greater point has to do with how some reactions to terrorism can make it worse. The Trump vs. Hillary stuff is just a sideshow.

  • I am of the opinion that we should not change our speech because of what a death cult may choose to use in their propaganda campaign. Trump’s statements are hideous and hateful on their own. Don’t allow the death cult to believe they can manipulate our speech and our way of life.

    • JSpencer

      Too late.

    • Bob Munck

      Don’t allow the death cult to believe they can manipulate our speech and our way of life.

      They already know they can do that. 9/11 has had more of a disastrous effect on us than the entire Republican Party for its entire history. Trillions of dollars, many thousands of lives (both those they killed on that date and the ones we sent to die in useless wars, plus the tens of thousands that we killed), the trashing of our air travel systems, widespread paranoia, increased racial and religious bigotry, torture of POWs, etc. etc.

      • dduck

        BM, you got it.
        I have hesitated to say what an amazingly effective attack 9/11 was, so as not to appear to agree with the bastards. But OBL and his people, with mostly Saudi foot soldiers, BTW, did a fantastic job.
        And, I think 9/11 is, in a way, comparable to December 7th, 1941“A Date Which Will Live in Infamy”, because of its shock value. At least it seemed that way in NYC.

      • I think that response to these types of tragic events should be modeled after Boston’s. They let the terrorists know that the city was unified and staunchly unshaken with their “Boston Strong” campaign. When we panic, they win. Though I will admit that as a resident of the DC suburbs, I was pretty rattled by the time we went through 9/11, the DC Sniper and the anthrax scare!

  • Although not a Trump fan, I do think we need to be cautious in arguing against opinions on the basis that it will encourage terrorists. I see the point in presidential candidates, but am still a little concerned. It seems more legitimate to argue on the basis that what he says and proposes are religious discrimination and against our values and constitution. I’m sure there are lots of things used to recruit. Women strutting around uncovered. Drones bombing villages. Economic injustices. Whatever…

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :