Tag Archive for: al Qaeda

Has the world learned anything since Brussels?

/in , , , , /by

It has become alarmingly clear since the Brussels terror attack that the West either doesn’t understand the nature of Islamist terrorism or doesn’t want to.  President Obama denies that the Islamic State poses an existential threat, belittles those who disagree, and seems more vested in undermining allies and political opponents than fighting terror.  Whether acting out of ideology or naiveté, he refuses to admit the role of religious doctrine and instead blames terrorism on generic criminality, violent extremism, gun violence, or global warming.  He fails to address the jihad and genocide being waged against non-Muslims in the Mideast and beyond, does not speak honestly about the Islamist threat, and portrays those who do as hatemongers.

Under his administration, the U.S. has abdicated its global leadership role and left a void in which Russia seeks to reconstitute its empire, China threatens American strategic and economic interests, and Iran continues to export terror while violating a feckless nuclear deal under which it derives great benefit but makes no concessions.  The president has eschewed sound military and intelligence advice in favor of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, empowered terrorists, and caused a refugee crisis that is tearing Europe apart.

Whether the administration’s foreign policy stems from ideology or incompetence, it seems to regard Islamic radicalism as a natural response to western oppression, though European entrée into the Mideast was preceded by centuries of jihad waged in Europe by Arab-Muslim invaders.  Its knack for promoting revisionism is facilitated by the public’s lack of historical perspective, as reflected by the inability to recognize that ISIS is not historically aberrant, but rather embodies the same doctrine that mandated forceful spread of the faith starting in the eighth century.

Political correctness inhibits discussion of radical Islam and, thus, stifles the ability to combat the terrorism it spawns.  Television coverage after Brussels showed witnesses uttering platitudes, such as, “If we stop traveling, we give the terrorists what they want”; and commentators warning that terrorists will somehow win if their religious motivations are scrutinized by the security establishment.  However, such sentiments wrongly presume that terrorists merely seek to induce fear or discomfort, when in fact their goals include conquest and subjugation.  Islamists don’t want to disrupt European travel plans; they want to kill “infidels” and force them into submission.

Comments from presidential aspirants this election cycle have been no better informed.  The Democratic candidates predictably refused to utter the words “Islamic terrorism,” while some Republicans were overly deferential in their assessments.  John Kasich, for example, acknowledged the perpetrators were Islamists, yet seemed compelled to add that “…the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims…think their religion has been hijacked … [a]nd they want to stop that as much as we want to stop it.”  But on what did he base this assertion?  While moderates may well have denounced the Brussels attacks, there were no surveys indicating what the majority believed.  If there were no mass condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, the Charlie Hebdo and Paris massacres, or the San Bernardino shootings, what evidence is there to suggest majority censure of this latest outrage?

Democrats and Republicans cannot begin to address the problem when political correctness inhibits them from even identifying it.  If westerners really want to know the terrorists’ goals, they should read the language contained in their charters and manifestos.

They should consider Al-Qaeda’s constitutional charter, rules and regulations, which contain the following passages:

Al Qaeda:

An Islamic Group, its only mission is Jihad, because Jihad is one of the basic purposes for which Al Qaeda personnel come together.  In addition, they perform other Islamic duties if possible.  Jihad will take precedence over other duties in case of interference.

Goals of Al Qaeda:

The victory of the mighty religion of Allah, the establishment of an Islamic Regime and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, God willing.

Or this excerpt from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” by the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Or this passage from Article Seven of the Hamas Charter:

…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: ‘The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.’ (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).

Such language leaves no doubt about these organizations’ goals, which include conquering infidels, killing Jews, and destroying Israel.  Americans and Europeans need to learn what drives today’s terrorism if they truly wish to defeat it; but this cannot happen if they continue hiding their heads in the sand and gushing apologetic nonsense.  Neither can it happen under a president who attends a baseball game with the dictator of Cuba and dances the tango in Argentina while Brussels is reeling, or with a White House that censors comments made by visiting heads of state who dare to mention Islamist terrorism.

Mr. Obama’s recent behavior is consistent with his administration’s efforts over the last eight years to obscure the connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which efforts are echoed by progressives who romanticize terrorists as “freedom fighters” and their murderous assaults as “armed struggle.”  Perhaps more disturbing is the ease with which such perceptions go unchallenged because of progressive reluctance to use judgmental terminology to describe enemies sworn to our destruction.  It is the height of absurdity when opponents of a doctrine that preaches subjugation and genocide are accused of racism and intolerance.

Our milquetoast politicians will not acknowledge any doctrinal component of terrorism for fear of offending the Arab-Muslim world.  Ironically, progressives who engage in such doublespeak have no qualms morally equating attacks against Jewish civilians with Israel’s responses to terrorism, or falsely labeling Israel an apartheid state.  The targeting of unarmed Jewish men, women and children is irrelevant to those moral dilettantes who consider terrorism a legitimate response to so-called occupation.  Unfortunately, those who control the definitional language use it to influence public perception to the point where distortions become reality and history is meaningless.

The administration’s verbal disingenuity regarding the word “terrorism” is especially poignant in light of its bowdlerization of remarks by French President François Hollande, who in an address from the White House used the term “Islamist terrorism” when discussing the horrific attacks on French soil.  The phrase was deleted from video of the speech released by the White House.  This is troubling, but not surprising from an administration that early on forbade mentioning the word “Islamic” in conjunction with terrorism, and which referred to attacks by Islamic extremists as “man-caused disasters” – a ludicrous term conjuring images of bridge collapses or traffic fatalities, not premeditated assaults against unarmed civilians.

The obvious question raised by this verbal sleight-of-hand is, who is the administration attempting to appease?  A common dictionary definition of terrorism is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”  It is difficult to see how the term would be deemed offensive by those who traffic in terror – or why we should care about offending their sensibilities in the first place.  Indeed, referring to them as freedom fighters effectively legitimizes their attacks against civilians, even though such conduct violates the Geneva Convention III of 1949 and the international laws of war.

One could argue philosophically that true freedom fighters are justified in fighting tyranny and attacking strategic or military targets.  But while freedom fighters with a just cause may be seen as serving a higher moral purpose, nothing justifies the slaughter of school children, hospital patients, yeshiva students, or families celebrating holidays and weddings.  There is no virtue in blowing up teenagers in pizzerias or passengers on public buses, or stabbing Israelis just for being Jews.  Mainstream liberals would disagree that the administration engages in such linguistic and moral subterfuge, but they cannot deny that it manipulates language to promote a narrative in which terrorism is often rationalized by illusory contextualization.

While many Americans simply do not understand the nature of radical Islam, the president endeavors to minimize its significance and doctrinal motivations.  He did so in the past when he misleadingly claimed victory in the war on terror and dubbed the Islamic State junior varsity, and he does so now when he calls Islamist terror “violent extremism” and says ISIS is not an existential threat.

Clearly, if Americans want to understand the nature of the threat, they’ll have to look for answers beyond the administration’s partisan dissimulation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brussels Terrorist Featured in Immigrant Integration Film

Turkish Official in Sweden: ‘Death to Armenian Dogs!’

60 Minutes Crew Attacked in ‘No-Go Zone’ in Sweden

Justin Trudeau: Changing the Face of Canada Forever?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.

Commentary on the Saudi Situation

/in , , , , /by

Since 9/11, the terms of our relationship with Saudi Arabia have been defined by the Saudis, not by the U.S.

To gain their support in the ‘War on Terror,’ one of the first post-9/11 compromises America made with the Saudis was to redact the 28 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, thus shielding and/or exonerating them from any involvement or responsibility.

A second compromise we made with our Wahabbi partners in peace was to ignore their decades-long role in the funding and support of thousands of pro-Jihad Madrassas throughout the Eastern Hemisphere.

Nor should we overlook Saudi Arabia’s ongoing support of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood family member and Globally Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization since 1997. On July 16, 2015, King Salman of Saudi Arabia met with top Hamas leaders, including Qatar resident and political leader Khaled Meshal, thus publicly revealing his willingness to work with known Islamist terrorist organizations.

According to the Saudi royal family, the meeting reflected King Salman’s determination to rally the Arab world against Iran, as Iran becomes empowered by its “deal with Western powers to lift economic sanctions in exchange for limits on its nuclear program.”

So, as a consequence of the Iran Deal, we are now seeing a revived Saudi-Sunni-Hamas alliance

The one-sided quid pro quo arrangement between America and Saudi Arabia is remarkably similar to the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between Turkey and Europe (and the West), to overlook the Armenian Genocide, for the sake of peace, and political and economic stability.

In fact, President Obama reinforced this point on April 19, 2016, when he stated: “A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States.”

To reiterate this response, Josh Earnest, Assistant to the President and Press Secretary in the White House Office of Communications, stressed that the administration’s concerns about the pending Congressional legislation (allowing U.S. citizens to sue the Saudi government for their possible part in 9/11), were not just about Saudi Arabia.

On April 15, 2016 (‘Tax Day’), he said “The concern that we have is simply this: It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

More ominously, Mr. Earnest asserted that “The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.” If we pause and explore what this revealing statement actually means, we might easily come to the conclusion that no country on earth will ever be held accountable for supporting terrorist attacks and/or regional wars, simply because one country’s terrorist is another country’s freedom fighter.

Ironically, the first reaction by the Saudis to the pending legislation and simultaneous possible release of the redacted 28 pages was to threaten the U.S. with an economic assault.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, personally informed Washington in March 2016 that “Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.”

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the administration has been aggressively lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill, which is sponsored by a bipartisan group of 16 US senators who are attempting to curtail the ability of countries to invoke sovereign immunity in lawsuits accusing them of supporting terrorism.

Specifically, this effort is move designed to clear the way for U.S. citizens seek legal remedy for  Saudi Arabia’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 terror attacks.

As cited here, on Thursday, April 14, 2016, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) reintroduced JASTA, which is the third time the bill has been submitted since 2011. The Senate passed it last December, but it stalled in the House.

There is hope that the time has finally come for Congress to approve it. The latest version is co-sponsored by 14 other senators, including Al Franken (D-MN), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Finally, the families of 9/11 victims remain infuriated by the Obama administration, which has consistently sided with the kingdom and thwarted efforts to discover the truth about the role Saudi officials may have played in the attacks 15 years ago.

“It’s stunning to think that our government would back the Saudis over its own citizens,” said Mindy Kleinberg, whose husband died in the World Trade Center, and who is part of a group of victims’ family members pushing for the legislation.

At least 14 members of the House also agree with Ms. Kleinberg. On January 13, 2016, they introduced House Resolution 588, entitled Condemning and Censuring President Barack Obama, which “Censures and condemns President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy.”

To conclude, President Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, April 20, in the midst of a swirling storm of controversy and confusing, contradictory policies and allegiances. The world will be watching, and many questions will need to be answered.

First, the Saudis will want to know: Is Obama a friend of the Sunni world, or of the Shia world? “It is a concerning factor for us if America pulls back,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, an outspoken member of the Saudi royal family, a former head of intelligence and a former ambassador to the United States. “America has changed, we have changed and definitely we need to realign and readjust our understandings of each other.”

Second, Americans will want to know: Will he put the interests of American citizens first, who deserve to know the truth about any possible Saudi involvement (enablement) in 9/11, or will he compromise for the sake of ‘peace and stability’?

And, third, analysts and members of Congress will want to know: What price will President Obama agree to pay Saudi Arabia for their help in the war against ISIS, and/or to continue harboring former Guantanamo Bay detainees?

We should all carefully note the statements Obama makes in Saudi Arabia, and the outcome(s) of the decisions he will have to make.

Will he call Saudi Arabia’s bluff (about economic consequences), or will he continue appeasing the Guardian Of The Holy Places; Islam and Muslims?

The next three days will have a major effect on the course our two countries will take (along with the rest of the world) in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Secret Cables Link Pakistan Intelligence Agency to Deadly Attack on CIA

/in , , , , /by

Recently disclosed documents suggest that Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a terror group to perpetrate a deadly attack on the CIA in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s intelligence agency paid a Taliban-affiliated terror group in Afghanistan to perpetrate one of the deadliest attacks on the CIA in the agency’s history, according to inferences made in recently-declassified U.S. government cables and documents.

On December 30, 2009, a Jordanian suicide bomber blew himself up in Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan, located near the border with Pakistan, killing seven CIA employees. The bomber, a Jordanian doctor and double agent, tricked the Americans, telling them he would lead them to Ayman al-Zawahri, now head of al-Qaeda and, at the time, second in command.

A document dated January 11, 2010 , issued less than two weeks after the bombing, reports how the head of the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied organization designed as terrorist by the U.S., met twice with senior officials of Pakistan’s intelligence agency (the Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI) the month of the bombing.

During the first meeting, funding for “operations in Khowst [Khost] province” were discussed. “Funds were later provided to tribal elders in Khowst province for their support of the Haqqani network,” according to the cable.

At the second meeting, ISI officials gave “direction to the Haqqanis to expedite attack preparations and lethality in Afghanistan.”

Although heavily redacted, a cable issued the following month specified the head of the Haqqani network as well as another individual were given $200,000 “to enable the attack on Chapman.” The cable specifically mentions a number of individuals involved in the operation, including an Afghan border commander who was given money “to enable a suicide mission by an unnamed Jordanian national.”

The Jordanian mentioned is assumed to be the suicide bomber, Humam al-Balawi, whom the CIA had cultivated as an al-Qaeda informant. Code-named “Wolf,” al-Balawi turned out to be a double agent, perpetrating the deadliest attack against the CIA in the 15-year history of the war in Afghanistan.

Although each document states, “This is an information report not finally evaluated intelligence,” Admiral  Mike Mullen (former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) terms the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency. The U.S. has long-documented the connection between the ISI and the Haqqani terrorist organization.

The documents were the first public disclosure connecting the attack on Camp Chapman to the Pakistani ISI. They were released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request. The U.S. had previously blamed al-Qaeda for the attack.

RELATED ARTICLES:

America Seeks to Charge Aussie With Radicalizing US Citizen

Persecuted Christians Support Brotherhood Terror Act

Austrian Police Arrest Pakistani Terrorist Now Working for ISIS

Iran Forcing Afghan Refugees to Fight for Assad in Syria

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jennifer Ehle who plays Jennifer Lynne Matthew in the film Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, head of Al Qaeda. Matthews, a mother of three was described as “one of the CIA’s top experts on al-Qaeda.” She was head of Camp Chapman and killed in the attack on the base.

Extortion 17, Obama’s Sacrificial Lamb

/in , , , /by

“We lost more Americans on Extortion 17 than at Benghazi, Fort Hood, and Chattanooga combined. No loss is acceptable because of a rules-of-engagement failure, but Extortion 17 is the Mother of all Failures, yet most Americans don’t know about it. 30 of our finest servicemen, including 17 US Navy SEALs.” -Don Brown, author Extortion 17

After the killing of bin Laden, before Benghazi, was the shoot down of Extortion 17 by Islamic jihadists. The call sign had been given to the CH-47D helicopter and the mission dubbed, “Lefty Grove”. It occurred in the early morning hours of August 6, 2011 in the Taliban stronghold along the Tangi River Valley, Wardak Province, Afghanistan.

Some say the incident was a sacrificial offering by the Obama administration to Islamic terrorists for the U.S. killing bin Laden. On board this flight were most of the members of  Seal Team 6 who were responsible for taking out the founder of al-Qaeda.

The crash that day signified the largest loss in Naval Special Warfare, as well as single day loss since the war on Islamic terrorism was declared. No matter the motive, it is clear that the mission was compromised from the start, and too many red flags have been raised concerning the details of their mission as to dismiss foul play.

Several of the concerns are the following:

  1. The elite group was placed on a sub-standard helicopter versus traveling in a MH-47, which was typical.
  2. No return fire was allowed even after the circling CH47 sees Taliban moving into the landing zone. At that time they were flanked by to Apaches, all were denied permission to take out the enemy. A stand down order was given.
  3. No suppressive fire was offered to protect Extortion 17 while flying into a region where a 3 1/2 hour operation had been underway already, even though an AC 130 gunship was  available.
  4. The flight manifest was not changed, but a last minute swap of  7 Afghan security forces and 1 Afghan translator was made, an unusual happening in itself. So, there was no way of knowing who may have compromised the flight or tipped off the Taliban as far as location of the chopper. The identities of the Afghans are still not known.

If our rules of engagement were constructed in order to protect our soldiers instead of handcuff them, our brave men would all be alive today. The “stand down” order is proving lethal to our military.

Even after the incident, a disturbing and outrageous thing happened at the memorial service of these men at the Bagram Airbase before their bodies were flown back to the U.S.  During the ramp ceremony, a Muslim Imam prayed over the bodies of the Americans, once translated it seemed to have damned their souls to hell. At a 2013 Washington D.C. press conference, Lt. General Jerry Boykin stated,

“What I’m concerned about is that we had an Imam, praying over the bodies of our soldiers, is an indicator that we don’t know who the enemy is, we don’t know the enemies’ doctrine, his theology, or what motivates him.”

See below video:

General Boykin however, is well aware of those facts of Islamic doctrine and has been a leader in educating others about the dangers of it.  Now the Islamic ideology is in our face day in and day out, but what should alarm many is that the more clear the motives of this enemy, the more the administration and leftists showcase their affinity for those practicing and adhering to it within our country.

Representative Louis Ghomert, Tx states,

“When the families were briefed, one of the father’s of one of the Seal team said, ‘Why didn’t you just send a drone if it was such a hot area.’ And the Admiral stated, ‘Because we are trying to win the hearts and minds.’ ”

Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, one of the fallen Navy Seals, emotionally stated in the same press conference,

“Aaron Vaughn did not become a Navy Seal, Team 6 Gold Squad, to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic Jihadists. He became a Navy Seal to fight for this republic and defeat the enemy. And I’ll tell you right now any American flag officer that does not want to defeat the enemy, needs to find another job.”

The families of the fallen deserve to hear answers to their questions from the government. In addition, the Rules of Engagement must be changed to free our soldiers from debilitating regulations that continue to give a conquerable enemy an unfair advantage instead of providing our warriors with support to gain a crushing victory.

A documentary is being made about Extortion 17, called Fallen Angel. The intention is to raise awareness of the faulty ROEs, and in turn put pressure on our legislators and top military leaders to change them for the better. Please watch Fallen Angel: The Shoot Down of SEAL Team 6:

RELATED VIDEO: Barack Obama Accessory to Extortion 17 Murders!

Two Palestinian refugees arrested for supporting the Islamic State

/in , , , , /by

Here is the hot news this morning.  The LA Times has a more detailed account of the story that broke overnight, than some other news outlets (maybe CA is getting a little more sensitive to the terrorists living in their midst).

The two Iraqis are actually Palestinians who had been living in Iraq.  By the way, we only bring a small number of Palestinians to the U.S. as refugees.  And, it is not clear to me if one or either of these actually became refugees by arriving here through some other means and then granted asylum.  I guess only their federal resettlement contractor knows for sure!

However, in all likelihood at least one of the two came from our special resettlement project for Palestinians when back in 2009 the US State Department agreed to bring in 1,350 Iraqi Palestinians to your neighborhoods.

It was quite big news at the time.  And, the issue was that these were Palestinians Saddam Hussein had invited to live in Iraq and once the regime fell, no one wanted them.

Because of his arrival date, at least one of the two alleged Islamic terrorists could have been in that group.  Here is what we said in 2009.

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab

Now, the LA Times:

A man who came to the U.S. as an Iraqi refugee was arrested in Sacramento on Thursday on suspicion of lying about fighting alongside terrorist organizations in Syria, federal authorities said.

On the same day, federal authorities in Houston announced that an Iraqi refugee in Texas, who had been communicating online with the man in California, was charged with attempting to provide support to the militant group Islamic State.

The allegations against two men residing in the U.S. with links to foreign terrorist groups comes as the nation reels from the Dec. 2 shooting in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead. That is considered the deadliest terrorist act on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And the arrests of two refugees from Iraq, part of a wave of about 103,000*** Iraqi refugees admitted from 2006 to 2014, is likely to add fuel to the debate over whether the U.S. should welcome refugees from Syria, and if so, whether the screening process is adequate.

The man living in Sacramento, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, had reported in private messages on social media that he fought alongside various groups in Syria, including Ansar al-Islam, a Sunni terrorist group and an affiliate of Al Qaeda, according to a federal complaint filed Wednesday and unsealed Thursday.

There is much more here…..

Because of the ages at which these two must have arrived in the US (as teenagers), it shows how ludicrous the discussion about vetting refugees can be when they are obviously becoming more devout after they get here (I refuse to use the word radicalized!).

And, these two are not the first, remember there is another pair of Iraqi refugee terrorists in federal prison.  See our complete archive on the Kentucky terrorists by clicking here.

The only way to make sure we are completely safe is to stop the migration from terror-producing Islamic countries! I’ve been meaning to check out the numbers for Iraq for some time.  

Using the State Department’s data base I went back to 2007 and grabbed a map from then until December 31, 2015.  The Bush Administration was slow to admit Iraqi refugees, but opened the door in its last year in office.  The Obama Administration has made Iraqis the largest group of refugees we admit each year since then.

Here is where 127,906 Iraqis have been resettled since 2007 (remember though that this does not mean they stayed where the contractors originally seeded them).

Iraqis to US map

Top five states:

  1. California (26,343)
  2. Michigan (19,186)
  3. Texas (12,314)
  4. Illinois (7,336)
  5. Massachusetts (4,322)

And, because it isn’t far behind (for my VA friends), Virginia (4,158)

For ambitious readers, our Iraqi refugee category has 675 previous posts archived there!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islam Set To Become Second-Largest Religion in America by 2040

Another 41 (Muslim) Immigrants Snagged On Terror Charges

Alabama files suit to rein-in refugee program, but…..

Al-Qaeda recruitment video features ‘Minnesota martyrs’

/in , , , , /by

What is being done to prevent more Muslims in Minnesota from joining the jihad? Why, nothing. To take any such action would be “Islamophobic.”

Minnesota ISIS recruits

“Terror Recruitment Video Highlights ‘Minnesota Martyrs,’” by Nina Moini, WCCO, January 3, 2016:

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) A new video, aimed at recruiting jihad fighters, highlights Minnesotans who have left to fight with terrorists.

Al-Shabaab released the 50-minute video Friday which was similar to past propaganda videos, featuring high-quality graphics and video editing to glorify fighting overseas.

It also attempts to use American history to justify the terror group’s actions, arguing the country’s history of racism will lead to more discrimination in the near future.

Less than 15 minutes in, the video highlights local men nicknamed the “Minnesota Martyrs,” who died while fighting overseas.

“In the face of the global crusade against Islam, these young men could not afford to sit and watch as the American crusaders perpetrated the most hideous atrocities across the globe,” the video’s narrator said.

The FBI says more than two dozen young Somali-Americans from the Twin Cities have already been lured to training camps overseas, mostly in Somalia….

RELATED ARTICLE: Kenya: Muslims murder bus driver who couldn’t recite Islamic profession of faith

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Minnesotan Muslim students planting Islamic crescents on the lawn of a public school.

New Al-Qaeda recruitment video features Hillary, Black Lives Matter… and BTW Trump

/in , , , , , /by

This establishes once again that the jihad is not provoked by what we say and do — because if anyone has indefatigably pursued a course of not saying or doing anything that could possibly anger Islamic jihadis or Muslims in general, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Hillary in Shabaab video

“Media gleefully reporting al-Shabab video with Trump, IGNORES Hillary and ‘Black Lives Matter’ are in it TOO!!,” Right Scoop, January 2, 2016:

El Trumpo is finally being used in a terrorist training video and the media couldn’t be more happy.

Here’s TIME magazine:

An al-Qaeda affiliate released a recruitment video Friday that includes an excerpt of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announcing his call to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.

AND:

The video, apparently the first to include footage of Trump, juxtaposed clips of the presidential candidate and al-Awlaki saying “the West will eventually turn against its Muslims citizens,” according to the Times, while also including footage of al-Awlaki calling for attacks similar to that of the Fort Hood shooting in 2009, in which Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured more than 30 in Killeen, Texas.

But, as NRO columnist Stephen Miller points out, they’re completely ignoring some details:

Hillary al shabaab

Image from Twitter.

Here’s how TIME is vaguely reporting the Black Lives Matter appearance:

According to the New York Times, al-Shabab—the Islamic militant branch of al-Qaeda in Somalia—included the clip of Trump along with footage of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American imam and recruiter for al-Qaeda who was killed in 2011, as well as clips of white supremacists and protests over police use of force in the U.S.

Funny how they don’t mention their name, isn’t it?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran: Protestors firebomb, ransack Saudi Embassy after execution of Shia cleric

Iran says Saudi Arabia will ‘pay a high price’ for execution of Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr

VIDEO: GOP Candidates Completely Wrong on Origin of the Islamic State

/in , , , , /by

The name ISIS [Islamic State] was said over 100 times during the last GOP debate and yet so many factually incorrect statements were made. Truth in the Media’s Ben Swann gives those candidates a Reality Check about where ISIS really came from.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn More at Truth In Media.

Congressional Democrats Visit Radical Mosque in “Anti-Islamophobia” Act

/in , , , , /by

In the wake of the California Islamist terrorist attack, a group of congresspeople visited the extremist Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia in an ‘show of solidarity’ with ordinary, non-extremist Muslims in America.

The idea for the visit was conceived before the California Islamist terror shooting but after the Paris attack. “We just thought it was really important to continue to reiterate to the many, many peace-loving Muslim Americans that they were still a welcome part of our community,” Representative Don Beyer (D-Virgina), one of the organizers of the visit, told The New York Times.

Speaking the day after the California attack and just one day before the visit, Beyer said, “Yesterday does make it a little harder. It’s just another unfortunate data point. So, I think it’s more necessary than ever to go talk to the people who have nothing to do with that [editor’s emphasis].”

Either Beyer and his group of lawmakers failed to research the history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, or they are incredibly naïve. Both are enormous problems and speak volumes about the inadequate strategy currently in place in the United States government for weeding out radical Islamists before they wreak more havoc on an already traumatized country.

Dar al-Hijrah is one of the most radical Islamic centers in America. Its history of extremism dates back decades to one of its founders, Ismail Elbarasse, who was an assistant to a senior Hamas official. In 2002, a government document written by the Customs and Border Protection stated Dar al-Hijrah was “operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.” A December 2007 document says it “has been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing.”

Click here for a complete history of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center.

Other salient points about Dar al-Hijrah include:

  • Dar al-Hijrah’s imam from 2001 to 2002 was Anwar al-Awlaki, who later became a senior al-Qaeda operative. His sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers and Nidal Hassan, who carried out a terror shooting at Fort Hood in 2009.
  • It’s imam from 2003 to 2005, Mohammed Adam El-Sheikh justified Palestinian suicide bombings and  was a member of the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood. He was previously the regional director of the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Terrorist organization because of its links to Osama Bin Laden and Hamas.
  • The current imam of Dar al Hijrah, Shaker Elsayed, said the teachings of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, are the “closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life.” He has also called for Muslims to arm themsleves for jihad (see video below).
  • In 2010 and 2013, radical texts teaching that Muslims are to wage violent jihad in order to resurrect the caliphate, destroy Israel and implement sharia governance were found at the mosque.

​Watch Dar al-Hijrah Imam Shaker Elsayed call for armed jihad:

All congresspersons are equipped with numerous staff members who are specifically hired to do research for their employer. A simple Google search by one of them would have yielded the above information.

Perhaps for Rep. Beyer and his fellow Dar al-Hijrah visitors, these facts were just more “unfortunate data points.”

But for the majority of the population, including “peace-loving Muslim Americans,” who are concerned about the radicalized Islamists in our midst, these are data points that are too deadly to ignore.

To check if there is an extremist mosque near you, click here for Clarion Project’s Islamist Organizations in America project

ABOUT MEIRA SVIRSKY 

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

Are We Defeating ISIS?

Trump Asks Us to Choose: The Boot or the Feather

Obama’s Take on Terror: The Good and the Bad

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link

CNBC’s GOP Debate Mute About National Security by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , , /by

Foreign policy and national security was disappointingly absent from last night’s Republican presidential debate. The event focused on financial issues because it was hosted by the CNBC business news channel, but the economy is intertwined with important debates about foreign policy, energy independence and global instability.  At one point, an incredulous Gov. Chris Christie mocked how more time was spent discussing fantasy football than the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) threat.

The following is a summary of the statements related to national security that were made by the candidates.

George Pataki

The most impressive national answers in my judgment were given by George Pataki during the first debate amongst the four lowest polling candidates.  He pointed out that his two sons served in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The impact of cyber attacks on the economy were discussed in the undercard debate but were shockingly left out of the main event, even though Iran and North Korea (and others) have waged cyber warfare on the U.S.

Pataki said that the U.S. should sanction any company that engages in hacking and bar them from trade with the American market, including those of Chinese origin. He said that the U.S. should follow Israel’s example in establishing a single federal agency dedicated to cyber defense. He then linked the issue to the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s unsecured email server at her home and the likelihood that its contents was hacked by Iran, Russia, China and others.

Pataki is currently in 15th place among the 16 Republican contenders with an average of less than 1% nationally and less than 1% for the New Hampshire primary that is the focus of his campaign. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump’s answers related to national security earned the most applause. He said that the U.S. is too predictable and shouldn’t be constantly talking about how it will handle enemies like the Islamic State. The audience roared when he said that servicemen at military installations should be trusted to be armed, referring to the Islamist shooting at two sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee in July that killed five people.

Trump is the frontrunner nationally with 27%; is in second place with 21% in Iowa (behind Ben Carson); first place in New Hampshire with 30% and first place in South Carolina with 33%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Chris Christie

Chris Christie was also received very positively when he talked about national security, particularly when he lambasted the extremely condescending CNBC moderators (as other candidates did) and pointed out how fantasy football was talked about more than the Islamic State.

Christie warned of foreign policy isolationists that would leave behind fewer democracies around the world and criticized the Obama Administration’s record on promoting freedom. He also cited the FBI director’s statement that the stigmatizing of law enforcement is increasing crime and decreasing safety.

Christie is currently in 10th place nationally with 2% and 9th place in New Hampshire with 3%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham emphasized national security during the undercard debate and was met with thunderous applause when he said that he’d let dictators know that the “party is over” and “this crap stops” if he becomes president.

He warned of the danger of cuts to the defense budget and claimed that the Army will shrink to its smallest size since 1940. On the issue of cyber warfare, he said he’d tell China and others involved in hacking that the U.S. has a clenched fist and an open hand and their behavior will decide which one is used.

Graham is currently in 11th place nationally with 1%, 12th in New Hampshire with 1% and 7th in South Carolina with 3%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio’s only comments related to national security were about the hearings regarding the Islamist terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 and Hillary Clinton’s testimony. He said that Clinton privately wrote emails stating that the violence was a terrorist attack linked to Al-Qaeda but that she and the administration blamed it on an out-of-control protest against a video criticizing Islam.

Rubio is currently in third place nationally with 9%; third in Iowa with 10%; fourth in New Hampshire with 8% and third in South Carolina with 8%. You can read out factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

Clinton Releases 5-Point Plan on Iran

Hollywood: Director’s Son Converts to Islam — Stars in al-Qaeda Videos

/in , , , , /by

When Lucas Kinney converted to Islam and became Abu Basir al-Britani, it is likely that his parents didn’t raise the slightest objection, as they were almost certainly sure that Islam was a religion of peace and that to object to the conversion would have violated all multicultural pieties.

While the Islamic State and al-Qaeda make concerted efforts to convert and recruit young Westerners, Western governments, Christian leaders, and parents do absolutely nothing to counter those efforts — to do anything would be “Islamophobic.” And so we will see many more Abu Basir al-Britanis.

Also: here we see yet another convert to Islam joining the jihad that Muslims in the West ostensibly reject and oppose. Who converted him to Islam? Did he learn his understanding of Islam from that person, or was he “radicalized on the Internet”? Are authorities checking into this, or would that, too, be “Islamophobic”?

“EXCLUSIVE: British son of Hollywood movie director, 26, is revealed as bloodthirsty star of al-Qaeda propaganda videos after converting from Catholicism and smuggling himself to Syria,” by Tom Wyke and Neil Sears, Daily Mail, October 18, 2015 (thanks to Michael):

The white British son of a film director has converted from Catholicism to Islam and become an al-Qaeda fighter in Syria, the MailOnline can reveal.

Lucas Kinney, 26, has become a figurehead for the jihadis – appearing in online propaganda videos designed to encourage new recruits to sign up.

The first white British convert to emerge in Syria, as a Home Counties schoolboy he took holy communion at a Roman Catholic church and attended Catholic primary and secondary schools. As a teenager, he even spoke of being a priest.

His father Patrick, 59, worked closely with Steven Spielberg on films including Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade and was assistant director on a long series of blockbusters.

Mother Deborah Phipps, 53, who was divorced from Lucas’s father when he was still at primary school, told yesterday of her dread that her son will be the next Briton killed by a RAF drone strike or in a Russian bombardment, and her fears that he might become a suicide bomber.

Mrs Phipps, who receives occasional emails from her son, is at a loss to explain how he went from a bright, normal teenager to a Muslim fanatic.

After leaving school he attended Leeds University but dropped out after a year. He played in a series of rock bands then went to live with his father in Vienna. It was there that he is believed to have been radicalised.

He is now a figurehead of the Syrian al-Qaeda-linked group Jabhat al-Nusra, and has starred in two propaganda videos posted online under the nom de guerre Abu Basir al-Britani….

Mrs Phipps said: ‘Lucas is a target. I’m glad he’s associated with al-Qaeda rather than IS, but obviously I worry.

‘On Mother’s Day last year I spoke to his father and he told me he thought our son was dead because there was a picture of him on the internet lying on a bed in Syria and you couldn’t tell if he was alive.

‘Later that day we found out he wasn’t dead but was seriously injured. He’d been struck by a mortar so his arm basically was hanging off. He had to have a big operation and he said he wouldn’t be able to fight for about 18 months.

‘I last heard from him recently. I don’t get anything for months and months and then all of a sudden I get an email and every time I think, ‘Well, at least he’s still alive’. That’s the relief.

‘He’s married out there. I don’t know anything about her. They don’t have any children as far as I know, but this is recent, the last few months.

‘We just want him to come home. If he’s done something wrong I’d like him to accept the consequences. He’s still young – and at least he’s still alive.’

Most British jihadis in Syria are born Muslims of overseas descent – but the existence of a white convert only emerged online several months ago in the two Jabhat al-Nusra videos presented by ‘Abu Basir al-Britani’. Not until today has he been exposed as Lucas Kinney.

Bespectacled, calm and well-spoken, he sounds very much England-born as he talks about the atrocities being carried out by Jabhat al-Nusra’s rivals ISIS. Both films are journalistic in style in contrast to the crude attempts at visual terror in IS videos.

One of Kinney’s professionally produced videos is entitled ‘So the Way of the Criminals Will Become Clear’.

In it, he visits the scene of an IS attack on a mosque in a Jabhat al-Nusra area of Syria, but adds with the faith of a fervent convert that the ‘good thing’ for his murdered ‘brothers’ is that ‘Allah chose to take them in a very good time. He gave them an honourable death’.

Referring to Islamic State, Kinney says the group ‘is not deserving of that name’.

His broadcasts are designed to encourage other Britons to join his al-Qaeda group in Syria, a criminal offence in Britain.

Some observers mocked him, with ‘Don’t forget your toothbrush’ jibes after they noted that in one video, while Kinney had an AK-47 over his shoulder, there was a green and white toothbrush tucked in amid the ammo in his military webbing.

Kinney, who has a younger brother and sister, was born in Hammersmith, West London, in 1989 to his CofE British mother and his British/American Roman Catholic father.

His father Patrick, son of a United Nations diplomat, started his movie career as an assistant director on the film 1984, and progressed through one of the Rambo films, Out Of Africa and Cry Freedom to working alongside Spielberg on Empire Of The Sun and Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade.

In addition to working on numerous other films and ITV police drama series The Bill, he was second assistant director on Braveheart and Chaplin.

The family settled initially in a modern detached house in the Home Counties. Kinney followed his father to the local church and, said his mother, attended both the linked primary school and nearby Catholic secondary.

After a few years his parents divorced, his father moved to Florida alone, and his mother remarried, to an airline manager.

When Kinney’s stepfather got a three-year posting to Saudi Arabia the whole family moved there.

They feared evacuation because they arrived only days before September 11, 2001 – the moment when al-Qaeda launched itself on the world by bringing down the World Trade Centre.

When fears calmed they stayed, and after private English schooling in Saudi Arabia, the family went on to Egypt. Kinney was placed at the elite private Modern English School in Cairo, and performed in numerous school plays.

He grew his hair long, dyeing it red, and formed and played electric guitar in a series of rock bands, one called Hannah’s Got Herpes. He also posted pictures of scantily clad girls on Facebook. In Cairo he gained International GCSEs and then three A-levels including music and art.

He then lived briefly with his father in a Vienna flat during a gap year before beginning a Middle Eastern Studies with Arabic course at Leeds University in 2009.

After a year he dropped out, and returned to live with his father in Vienna. It is there he is thought to have become a Muslim convert.

Mrs Phipps said: ‘Lucas’s father Patrick is a Catholic and Lucas is Catholic – he did Holy Communion and everything. At one stage, when he was 12 or 13, he wanted to be a priest.

‘He’s very bright, very talented, very musical, very artistic, good at anything creative. But he was always still looking for something, some sort of direction.

‘In Cairo he was very social, had lots of friends, and was very easy going. He was in bands and behaved like a typical teenager. I wasn’t particularly worried about him.

‘He didn’t become a Muslim then. He liked pop music, all the school productions he was in, a performer basically. He used to do battle of the bands as well because he played guitar a lot.’

She added that while Kinney was in Vienna with his father, she and her husband moved to Islamabad, Pakistan, leaving her two youngest in UK boarding schools, for her second husband’s job with BA – but again were rocked by terror just after arriving.

al-Qaeda was blamed for killing 56 with a bomb at the Marriott hotel in Islamabad in September 2008. It led to BA suspending flights there, and the family coming straight back to Britain.

Speaking of his year at Leeds, his mother said: ‘I don’t think he became involved in Islam there. He liked drinking and smoking and girls, all the things that basically they can’t do.

‘When Lucas went to Vienna – that was where everything changed. Lucas did not say he was becoming a Muslim, but we used to talk on Skype so we could see him, and obviously you could see he had become a Muslim.

‘His father said, ‘His religion is very important to him’. He had a beard and the robes, it was quite obvious. After a while he moved out to live with friends. We didn’t even really discuss it.’

She was not in touch with him for some time, but then came the sudden Mother’s Day discovery that he was a jihadi in Syria.

Mrs Phipps said: ‘When I found out he was in Syria I said, ‘If I could get on a plane and come out there and bring you back, I would’. But he said, ‘No, that’s not what I want’. They have to want to come back, then maybe you can take steps.

‘A long time ago he said to me, ‘They’re killing Muslims’. He was talking about Assad, the Syrian president. He said, ‘They’re raping women, killing children as well’. I think it’s Assad’s regime, fighting that, that’s taken him there.

‘There are pictures of him on Facebook with guns. I think he possibly would martyr himself – I think he’s mentioned it once a long time ago. And this is another one of our fears, that he would do that.’

Mrs Phipps said her son had never talked of attacking the West, but added: ‘In emails from Syria he kept using koranic phrases and wants everyone to convert.’…

Kinney’s last contact with his mother was short. It featured koranic references and asked after his father’s health….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer speaks at Reagan Ranch Center on Obama, Putin and the Islamic State

Trump boasts he would have prevented 9/11, but dodges Sharia question

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.

Winners

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5th place in Iowa (5%); 8th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11th place nationally (2%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (2%), 9th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12th place in South Carolina (2%).

Losers

Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1st place nationally (31%). He is in 1st place in Iowa (28%), 1st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1st place in South Carolina (34%).

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson did not display an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs and national security. Serious damage may have been done when the moderator asked about his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Carson explained that he told President Bush to focus instead on energy independence, which Christie politely took him to task for.

Carson also made sure to point out that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He is currently in 2nd place nationally (20%). He is in 2nd place in Iowa (23%), 2nd place in New Hampshire (15%) and 2nd place in South Carolina (19%).

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

Paul repeatedly stated his anti-interventionist view and said that U.S. military operations often backfire. A new poll shows that 69% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents favor having America active abroad.

Paul boasted that he “made a career” out of opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and argued that the U.S. should not topple secular dictators because they are replaced by radical Islamic forces. Paul and Trump were the only candidates to express opposition to a policy of overthrowing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. He also said that U.S. backing of Syrian rebels would mean arming enemies of America.

He said it is “absurd” to immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran unless the regime violates it. He spoke in favor of continued diplomacy with Iran and Russia, pointing out that President Reagan met with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Paul also said he opposes using U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State, but supports continued airstrikes and arming Kurds.

He is currently in 7th place nationally (3%). He is in 9th place in Iowa (4%), 7th place in New Hampshire (5%) and 11th place in South Carolina (2%).

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich damaged his chances by refusing to say that he’d scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the U.S. should move in coordination with allies and not withdraw from the agreement unilaterally. He said that the U.S. should sanction Iran if they violate the deal or sponsor terrorism. Rand Paul likewise said maintenance of the agreement would depend upon Iranian compliance.

He was also twice criticized by Graham during the undercard debate for supporting the closure of some U.S. military bases. Graham countered that he’d increase the number of bases.

He is currently in 10th place nationally (3%). He is in 10th place in Iowa (3%), 3rd place in New Hampshire (10%) and 8th place in South Carolina (4%).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

Bush criticized rivals who focused on their pledges to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He would not commit to doing so and said that the discussion needs to be about an Iran strategy rather than a strategy to tear up the deal.

Bush encouraged viewers to review his 9-point plan for fighting the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

He is currently in 3rd place nationally (8%). He is in 4th place in Iowa (5%), 5th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 3rd place in South Carolina (7%).

Other Candidates

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz’s standout moment was when he promised to “rip to shreds” the “catastrophic” nuclear deal with Iran.

Cruz said that he opposed giving President Obama authority for airstrikes on the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical weapons because vital national security interests were not at stake. He said that the administration could not answer his questions about how Syrian weapons of mass destruction would be prevented from falling into the hands of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

He is currently in 4th place nationally (7%). He is in 3rd place in Iowa (8%), 6th place in New Hampshire (6%) and 4th place in South Carolina (6%).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Huckabee spoke passionately against the nuclear deal with Iran and said every candidate should announce that, if elected, he or she will not honor it and, as president, will “destroy” it.

He is currently in 6th place nationally (5%). He is in 8th place in Iowa (4%), 11th place in New Hampshire (1%) and 10th place in South Carolina (3%).

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s standout moment was when he said that Muslim leaders must move beyond generic condemnations of terrorism and condemn terrorists by name. He called on Muslim leaders to preach that these terrorists do not qualify as “martyrs” and are destined for hell.

Jindal said that U.S. policy should be to force Syrian dictator Bashar Assad out of power.

He is currently in 13th place nationally (1%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (3%), 14th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and 13th place in South Carolina (1%).

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki said he would immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and provide Israel with Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs). However, he may have damaged himself by refusing to endorse Santorum’s call to target Iranian nuclear scientists. He also gave a vague answer about how he’d fight the Islamic State and expressed disagreement with Graham’s plan for a ground offensive with U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

He is currently in 15th place nationally with less than a single percent of support. He is in 15th place in Iowa with less than one percent, 13th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and in 15th place in South Carolina with less than one percent.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum

Santorum boasted that he authored legislation to sanction Iran and Syria when he was in the Senate. The moderator mentioned his past declaration that the U.S. should target Iranian nuclear scientists, which George Pataki refused to endorse.

He described the Iranian regime as an “apocalyptic death cult” and claimed that two-thirds of Iraqi and Iranian Shiites believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime. Santorum was making the point that the Iranian regime exports its radical ideology.

Santorum said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 10,000 to fight against the Islamic State and that he’d support Lindsey Graham’s proposal for 20,000 troops if necessary. He stated that the legitimacy of the caliphate is based on its holding of territory.

He is currently in 12th place nationally (1%). He is in 12th place in Iowa (2%) and in 15th place in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with less than one percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Walker’s comments on foreign policy focused on criticizing the nuclear deal with Iran, which he promised to scrap during his first day in office.

He is currently in 9th place nationally (3%). He is in 7th place in Iowa (4%), 10th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 9th place in South Carolina (3%).

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore

Gilmore failed to make the cut for the debate because he scores less than 1% in national polls. He registers less than a single percent in each of the three early states.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scientist, Activist, Beauty Queen – Meet Fabiola al-Ibrahim

Getting Personal: The Ayatollah’s Agitprop Video Against the US

Danish Teen Murders Own Mother After ISIS Radicalization

Keep the Beard or Lose Your Head: New Draconian ISIS Rules

Al-Qaeda hit list: Gates, Bloomberg, Buffett, Adelson, Koch brothers

/in , , , /by

Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, the Koch brothers, Larry Ellison, Sheldon Adelson: none of them have done a thing to “provoke” this. They are not part of the U.S. government or military. They did not draw cartoons of Muhammad. Yet all too many people in the U.S. still believe that if they just do nothing to offend the Muslims, they will be spared. In reality, the jihadis are targeting everyone, without exception, and it is never justified to live on one’s knees.

assassination-jihad-al-qaeda

“Al Qaeda Mag Urges Attack on Koch Brothers, Buffett, Bloomberg,” by Robert Windrem and Tracy Connor, NBC News, September 9, 2015:

A notorious al Qaeda magazine is encouraging lone-wolf terrorist attacks on U.S. economic leaders, including Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and Warren Buffett.

The list in Inspire magazine also included industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, internet entrepreneur Larry Ellison, and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. A prominent economist was also on the list but asked that his name be withheld. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke was named, though not Janet Yellen, who succeeded him.

Also pictured was Jim Walton, one of the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, although he was misidentified in the caption as his late father, Sam Walton. Several other names on the list were misspelled.

The slickly produced magazine article begins with a photo illustration showing blood-spattered pictures of several of the leaders next to a dripping gun. Its stated goal is to derail the “revival of the America Economy.”

The article says the “economic personalities” and “wealthy entrepreneurs” can get off the list by withdrawing their money from U.S. banks, investing their wealth outside American soil, and denouncing support for Israel….

Inspire magazine is published online by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and was once edited by American-raised jihadi Samir Khan, who was killed in 2011 drone attack along with cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

It’s best known for an article titled, “How To Make A Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” which provided a recipe for explosives….

RELATED ARTICLE: Canada teen jihadi: “I understand Islam better than you”

Former DIA Director: Obama made “willful decision” to support al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

/in , , /by

Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State. And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that?

In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

“Rise of Islamic State was ‘a willful decision’: Former DIA Chief Michal [sic] Flynn,” by Brad Hoff, Foreign Policy Journal, August 7, 2015 (thanks to Joshua):

In Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was “a willful decision.” [Lengthy discussion of the DIA memo begins at the 8:50 mark.]

Amazingly, Flynn actually took issue with the way interviewer Mehdi Hasan posed the question—Flynn seemed to want to make it clear that the policies that led to the rise of ISIL were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Hasan himself expresses surprise at Flynn’s frankness during this portion of the interview. While holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan reads aloud key passages such as, “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn does the opposite: he confirms that while acting DIA chief he “paid very close attention” to this report in particular and later adds that “the intelligence was very clear.”

Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you’re worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it’s not my job…but that…my job was to…was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be….

As Michael Flynn also previously served as director of intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda, his honest admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature….

RELATED ARTICLE: Iraqi Christian: Islamic State jihadis blinded me after I refused to convert to Islam

Anthrax Released: Should we be concerned?

/in , , , , , /by

US Army Dugway Proving Ground Main GateThe abrupt news that live anthrax samples  had been shipped from the U.S. Army Dugway proving ground to laboratories in the U.S., an air base in South Korea and possibly Australia came as a reminder to Americans and the world that biological warfare  training exercises might lead to troubling inadvertent releases. Fortunately, 22 military personnel exposed at the south Korean  airbase are being treated with the antibiotic Cipro. However, this latest release of a BW agent has caused both the U.S. Army bio-warfare directorate and the CDC to review safety precautions, packaging and procedures for the transmission of possible live anthrax spores and why samples had not been made inert?

The BBC reported that the U.S. military has ordered a review of how it handles anthrax after discovering more cases of live samples being accidentally sent to labs:

Live anthrax samples were believed to have been sent to a total of 24 labs, in 11 U.S. states as well as South Korea and Australia, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon says that there is no known risk to the general public.

Experts in bio-safety have heavily criticized the lapse and called for improved precautions.

Symptoms of anthrax exposure include skin ulcers, nausea, vomiting and fever, and can cause death if untreated.

News of the live shipments first emerged on Wednesday, as the U.S. said it had accidentally shipped live anthrax spores from Utah to labs in Texas, Maryland, Wisconsin, Delaware, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, California and Virginia, as well as an air base in South Korea.

Those shipments took place between March 2014 and April 2015, a U.S. official said, according to Reuters.

On Friday, the Department of Defense said it had identified “additional inadvertent live anthrax shipments”, including a suspect sample sent to Australia from a batch of anthrax from 2008.

It is not clear when that sample was shipped to Australia.

The military has ordered all of its labs that have previously received inactive anthrax samples to test them. In addition it is advising all labs to cease working with these samples until told otherwise.

Shortly after 9/11, the American public concern over bio-terrorism was raised  by the release of Anthrax in powdered form in letters sent to members of Congress and randomly to private persons. 22 persons were sickened, 5 died, the U.S. Senate building was shut down and inspected.  Anthrax exists naturally, but more powerful variants have been developed synthetically by dual use laboratories in rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Assad’s Syria.  Bio-warfare laboratories have been established by Al Qaeda and ISIS has been rumored to have obtained access to materials in Syria, as well. Remember the arrest in Afghanistan, prosecution and conviction in the U.S. of Brandeis University and MIT trained scientist, “Lady Al Qaeda”, Aafia Siddiqui .  There is also evidence that Iran’s terrorist proxy, Hezbollah may have been transferred BW capabilities and agents  by Syria that could be deployed against America’s ally , Israel and globally through major transportation nodes in Europe.

Jill Bellamy van Aalst(3)

Dr. Jill Bellamy

We asked Dr. Jill Bellamy, noted expert on biological warfare and threat reduction about this latest incident.  We have published articles by Dr. Bellamy on Syrian, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Iranian BW programs in both the NER and our blog the Iconoclast.

She commented:

Clearly from a bio-safety perspective this is a very serious breach of protocol and demands a full and transparent investigation. As anyone who works with inactivated anthrax would be routinely vaccinated with AVA, exposure from a clinical perspective is probably not as much of a concern as the general public may believe. Of course if anyone outside military labs the live anthrax was sent to and persons who have not been routinely vaccinated were exposed, this would be concerning. I would worry about the time frame from exposure. It appears from the reports that we are talking about several weeks or months during which the anthrax was shipped. It is probably a good sign that none of the labs has reported a laboratory acquired disease or LAD. If exposure is known Cipro (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride) is given for inhalation anthrax and usually a 60 day course is advised. The lab workers in these labs  would surely  have all been vaccinated, so how much of a health risk it poses is debatable.

The bio-safety side is more worrying. CDC and a number of other labs have previously had exposures from the accidental handling of live anthrax. There are very stringent regulations in place for the shipping and transport of live agents. It is doubtful there was any risk to public health during the transport as this would be handled by the military. What is more problematic is that the research done  at US Army labs and Dugway proving ground  are critical to national security.  Incidents like this feed an uninformed section in non-proliferation circles who then call for the closing of these labs or hype the danger they pose to the general public. It makes it more difficult to assure the public that such labs are a vital aspect to protecting citizens from BW attacks and ensuring vaccines and therapeutic countermeasures are available and stockpiled in the event of a deliberate attack. Hopefully this is an incident we will learn a great deal from in terms of bio-safety training, protocols and bio-security.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of  microscopic anthrax spores. Source: Reuters.