Posts

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran told you all this was coming

I wrote it in 2016, but I could have written it yesterday. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran details the Islamic Republic’s militaristic aims, its support for global terrorism, its oppression of its own people, and much, much more, including exactly why Barack Obama’s late and much-lamented nuclear deal was so disastrous.

Here is the publisher’s statement about the book from 2016. This sentence jumped out at me: “The Islamic Republic is already at war with America. If we refuse to recognize that fact, we are only falling prey to the mullahs’ campaign of duplicity.”

Our Most Dangerous Enemy

Think it’s ISIS? Think again.

Iran is the terrorist powerhouse of the world—made all the more dangerous by the disastrous “nuclear deal” that restricts Iran’s nuclear ambitions hardly at all.

The Iranian government is an open enemy of the United States—and of anyone who dissents from Shia Islam.

Iran confronts U.S. Navy ships in the Persian Gulf “on a near daily basis.”

It executes more of its citizens than any other nation.

It is a country torn by hypocrisy—lectured by mullahs, and with brutally enforced Islamic religious laws, but rife with alcoholism.

Once America’s ally, Iran now claims leadership of the global jihad, and the ayatollahs’ aim is nothing less than world conquest for Islam.

In his extraordinary new book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to IranNew York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer reveals:

How the Iranian “nuclear deal” is sheer capitulation to the mullahs, allowing Iran to inspect its own facilities and pursue nuclear weapons

Iran’s long-standing support for terrorists—including shocking evidence that Iran helped plan the 9/11 attacks

Why Iran wants nuclear weapons—clue: it’s not about deterrence

American diplomatic folly—why the Obama administration has grossly underestimated the Iranian threat

A new grand strategy: how Iran’s Shi’ite terrorism might be contained and its threat to the United States reduced

The Islamic Republic is already at war with America. If we refuse to recognize that fact, we are only falling prey to the mullahs’ campaign of duplicity.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran exposes the true nature of the threat, lays out what America must do to defeat it, and gives you all the information you need about America’s least understood yet potentially most lethal foe.

“The brilliant and courageous Robert Spencer rips to shreds the claim that the Iran nuclear deal will bring peace to the world, and shows the truly shocking extent to which Iran is a threat to the stability not just of the Middle East, but of the entire world — and has been for decades while all too many American leaders have dithered, temporized and appeased it. The Islamic Revolution (enabled by Jimmy Carter), the hostage crisis, the Green Movement — it’s all here, including little-known facts about Iran’s role in 9/11 and its sponsorship of terror around the globe. Here is the one book that will put to rest forever the idea that the Islamic Republic will ever be a peaceful member of the family of nations, and shows what’s at stake if our leaders continue to pretend otherwise.” (Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (2002-2007))

“Robert Spencer has succeeded where many fail, sweeping through Iran’s history with a sure touch and an eye for the essential. He has also understood the monumental significance of Iran’s material contribution to the September 11, 2001 plot. Despite sectarian enmity, Sunnis and Shia can get along just fine when it comes to killing Jews and Americans.”  (Kenneth R. Timmerman, President, Foundation for Democracy in Iran)

“Robert Spencer is arguably the most knowledgeable, authoritative and prolific of American infidels with respect to sharia, jihad and their most dangerous state sponsor: the Islamic Republic of Iran. Naturally, his is the complete guide for what all of us — Muslim and non-Muslim alike — need to know about Iran.” (Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy)

“Simultaneously, Iran is the modern iteration of one of human history’s richest civilizations and a paranoid jihadist state bent on global conquest, the destruction of Israel, and ‘Death to America.’ It is our most immediate threat, yet one strangely remote from our understanding. In The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, Robert Spencer punctures our common misconceptions and Washington’s dangerous delusions about Iran, bringing to bear his unique blend of fearlessness, erudition, and clear-eyed analysis. All Americans, and most especially the political class, would do well to read this highly accessible book and grasp the challenge that confronts us.” (Andrew C. McCarthy, bestselling author, National Review contributing editor, and former federal prosecutor)

“Iran is the gravest threat to world peace today, and in this essential new book, Robert Spencer explains why. From all the astonishing details of just how disastrous Obama’s nuke deal is to Iran’s continuing war footing toward the U.S. and Israel and the shocking beliefs that may lead the Iranians to decide to nuke Israel, it’s all here. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran should be placed on the desk of every official in Washington — especially in the Oval Office.” (Steve Emerson, Investigative Project)

“This masterpiece illuminates the most lethal threats against America and civilization today. Iran aims at global and hegemonic control through its terror networks, which are widely dispersed over the planet. Robert Spencer’s vivid, lucid and comprehensive record of Iran’s genocidal apocalyptic nuclear program gives us an invaluable and perspicuous tool for understanding current crucial topics. Essential reading to prevent mass extermination.” (Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia : the Euro-Arab Axis)

“Eye-opening. Sobering. Informative. Gripping. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran is a comprehensive and unique look at the world’s foremost and most dangerous rogue state. It’s what every American needs to know about the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Robert Spencer makes it all clear: Iran’s magnificent history and terrible present, the full horror of the Obama/Kerry nuclear deal, Iran’s global anti-U.S. and anti-Israel adventurism, its role in 9/11, and the warped theology that makes it so eager to destroy Israel. No one who cares about America’s future and the survival of the free world should miss this book.” (Pamela Geller, President, American Freedom Defense Initiative)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: Since 1979, world has tolerated Iran’s terrorist adventurism, “Those days are over”

U.S. Out of Iraq? By All Means

CNN claims Trump’s threat to attack Iranian cultural sites could be a “war crime”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Iraq: MPs scream “Allahu akbar” after voting to expel US forces from the country

This vote was a foregone conclusion, since Iraq has had a weak Shi’ite government dominated by the Islamic Republic of Iran ever since the toppling of Saddam Hussein. And the MPs are right: we should leave Iraq and everywhere our troops are without any defined mission or goal.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iranian official offers $80,000,000 for the head of “yellow haired lunatic” Trump, crowd screams “Allahu akbar”

UK: Muslims attend community memorial at Islamic Centre in London for “honorable Islamic commander” Soleimani

Canada: Demonstrators screaming “Down with USA and Israel” build shrine to “heroes of Islam” Soleimani and al-Muhandis

“An Entire World Will Avenge You”: Pro-Soleimani rally in Molenbeek, Muslim area of Brussels

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Baghdad Embassy Siege: Did the Iranian Mullahs Think Donald Trump Would React Like Jimmy Carter?

My latest in PJ Media:

The Islamic Republic of Iran, facing demonstrations at home that threaten its very existence and more in Iraq that threaten that country’s Shi’ite proxy government, is resorting to a tested and true strategy. Fox News reports that “crowds of angry Iraqis protesting America’s recent airstrikes against an Iran-backed militia have laid siege to the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad Tuesday, chanting ‘Down, Down USA!’ and storming through a main gate, prompting troops to fire back tear gas in response.”

President Trump tweeted: “Iran killed an American contractor, wounding many. We strongly responded, and always will. Now Iran is orchestrating an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. They will be held fully responsible. In addition, we expect Iraq to use its forces to protect the Embassy, and so notified!”

Whether the pro-Iranian Shi’ite regime will take any serious steps to protect the embassy is an open question, and the Iranian mullahs may be assuming that Trump will talk tough and then let the whole thing blow over. After all, as The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran explains in detail, there is a significant precedent for this that occurred right at the time the Islamic Republic was founded.

On January 16, 1979, a tearful Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and his family left Iran after being betrayed and abandoned by Jimmy Carter. Two weeks later, on February 1, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, returned to Iran after fourteen years of exile and set out to establish the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khomeini had made abundantly clear that the Islamic Republic would consider the United States a mortal enemy when he enabled the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979. American diplomats would be held hostage for well over a year.

The immediate pretext for the invasion of the Embassy was Jimmy Carter’s reluctant decision to allow the gravely ill Shah to enter the United States on October 23, 1979, for medical treatment. Carter asked his advisers, “What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?” Nonetheless, he had no plan when a group calling itself Muslim Students Following the Imam’s Line (that is, Khomeini’s line) entered the embassy compound and took hostage the skeleton staff of sixty-six that was still serving there after the fall of the Shah.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brooklyn: Muslim Community Patrol rejects peace agreement with Bloods gang

Australia: Muslim drug dealer forces friend to bark like dog and recite Islamic prayer, then stabs him seven times

Italy: Nigerian mafia working with jihadists, forcing girls as young as 12 into prostitution

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

NY: “Highly credible law-enforcement source” says man who stabbed Jews celebrating Chanukah is convert to Islam

If this turns out to be accurate, will investigators try to determine if his reading of the Islamic scriptures led him to carry out this attack? The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Or will this possibility be ignored, as investigating it would be “Islamophobic”?

And So It Begins: Family of Suspect Says He Is “Mentally Ill” — Latest Updates On Monsey Attack [Updated 6:35PM],” Yeshiva World, December 29, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):

REACAP [sic]: A knife-wielding man stormed into the Monsey home of the Kossoner Rebbe (Rabbi Rottenberg) and stabbed five people as they celebrated Chanukah, an ambush the governor said Sunday was an act of domestic terrorism fueled by intolerance and a “cancer” of growing hatred in America.

Police tracked a fleeing suspect to Manhattan and made an arrest within hours of the attack Saturday night in Monsey. Grafton E. Thomas had blood all over his clothing and smelled of bleach when officers stopped him, prosecutors said.

Thomas, 37, was arraigned Sunday and pleaded not guilty to five counts of attempted murder and one count of burglary. Bail was set at $5 million and he remains jailed.

UPDATE 6:35PM: The suspect sccused [sic] of going on a stabbing rampage in Monsey is “not a terrorist” – he’s just “mentally ill”. This is according to family which spoke to  the NY Post.

Grafton Thimas [sic]- is “not a violent person,” according to his pastor of 10 years, Reverend Wendy Paige of the Hudson Highlands Cooperative Parish.

“Grafton is not a terrorist, he is a man who has mental illness in America and the systems that be have not served him well,” Paige said.

“I have been his pastor for a long time and I have seen him, he is not a violent person, he is a confused person.”

–@YWN via NY PostNY Post

UPDATE 3:45PM: Authorities are investigating whether Grafton Thomas, the man charged in a machete attack in Monsey last night, is tied to the recent brutal assault and stabbing in Monsey that has been unsolved. In that stabbing, a 29-year-old Mordechai Schlesinger was stabbed as he walked to Shul early one morning….

UPDATE 1:30PM: A highly credible law-enforcement source tells YWN that the Monsey stabbing attack suspect ,Thomas E. Grafton, is a RECENT MUSLIM CONVERT….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Elle Magazine Puts White Linda Sarsour on Its List of ‘Women of Color in Politics to Watch in 2020’

NYC: Appeals court judge says 17-year sentence for Islamic State jihad terrorist is “shockingly low”

New York: Muslim prison guard wants $8,000,000 for her boss forcing her to take off her hijab

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Joe Biden, the “Two-State Solution,” and Peace Through Strength by Hugh Fitzgerald

At the recent debate among Democrats running for President, Bernie Sanders was predictably the most anti-Israel of the candidates. He said he would not, hesitate, this “proud Jewish person,” to withhold aid from Israel to force it to do American bidding, which in Sanders’ view includes removing Jewish settlements from the West Bank. After all, he has previously said that “Jewish settlements in occupied territory are illegal.” He called Netanyahu a “racist,” though he provided no examples of such “racism.” Sanders explained, in his contribution to the squaring-the-circle problem, that “the US should craft a foreign policy that is favorable to both Israel and Palestine.” Sorry, can’t be done. “Israel has the right not only to exist, but to exist in peace and security,” said Sanders, who spent time on a kibbutz in Israel as a young man.

It’s nice of big-hearted Bernie Sanders to grant Israel “the right to exist.” He even grants it the right to exist “in peace and security.” But what if Israel cannot exist in “peace and security” unless it holds onto those supposedly “illegal settlements” in the West Bank, which provide it with the necessary strategic depth against invasion from the East? What if every military man who has studied the matter, beginning with the American military men sent by the Joint Chiefs to Israel in 1967, on President Johnson’s orders, and produced a report on the territory which, as a matter of military necessity, Israel would have to retain. They included most of the West Bank, and all of the Jordan Valley and the Judean Hills. We all know that Bernie Sanders spent time on a kibbutz; too bad he didn’t spend time in the IDF. Military matters are not his strong suit.

Given the vast buildup in Arab militaries since 1967, to expect that Israel could once again pull off its victory in the Six-Day War is to ask that country to entrust its security to another such miracle. Israel could not reasonably expect to survive if it were squeezed back into something like the pre-1967 lines – that is, the 1949 Armistice Lines – which Foreign Minister Abba Eban, a famous dove, correctly defined as the “lines of Auschwitz.”

On what evidence does Sanders think that the Muslim Arabs have given up their desire to eliminate Israel? Did Hamas change its charter, or the views expressed every day by its leading members, fighters, clerics? Has Mahmoud Abbas shown a sincere willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, or has he repeatedly turned down the offer of such talks, as he does even today? Why would Sanders expect him to behave any differently in the future? Abbas is a Slow Jihadist, willing to use the salami-tactics of creating an ever-smaller Israel through “peace agreements,” but his ultimate aim is the same as that of the Fast Jihadists of Hamas: no more Israel.

If Sanders, who refers constantly to his Jewish heritage and the fact that he once spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, a transparent way to defend himself against charges of being anti-Israel, had taken the time to study the history of the Mandate, he might be surprised to learn that the entire West Bank was part of the territory assigned to the future Jewish National Home, and that Israel’s legal claim to that territory never lapsed; when Jordan managed to possess the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, it did so as the military “occupier.” When Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of the Six-Day War, this did not create Israel’s legal claim; that already existed. It merely put Israel in a position to exercise that pre-existing legal claim to the territory.

Sanders not only has little sympathy for, but also no understanding of, the plight of the Israelis who have to secure their tiny state against many would-be aggressors. There is Hamas, sending hundreds of rockets into southern Israel from Gaza, and constantly attempting to breach, with Molotov cocktails, grenades, and incendiary kites, Israel’s security fence. There are Islamic State elements that have regrouped in Sinai; for now their main target is Egypt, but at any time they might attempt to send terrorists into Israel. There is Hezbollah, with its terror tunnels snaking into the Galilee, and its 140,000 rockets stockpiled in southern Lebanon. There is Jordan, where King Abdullah has to keep the lid on his own people, who increasingly demand that the peace treaty with Israel be ended. There is Turkey, where President Erdogan has published a plan for a pan-Islamic military force capable of overwhelming the Israelis and destroying their country.

And most menacing of all is the powerful Islamic Republic of Iran, which never fails to remind Israel, and the world, that it can destroy the Jewish State. To this end, it has already supplied Hezbollah with those 140,000 rockets ready to be loosed upon Israel.

Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg have joined Sanders in leaving the door open to using US aid to Israel as a means to leverage Israel to change its policies on the Palestinians.

But one Democratic candidate does not think aid to Israel should be used as a weapon. Joe Biden, alone among the major candidates, has said he would not use aid as a weapon to force Israel to change its policies. Some have hailed him, not quite accurately I’m afraid, as a “pro-Israel” candidate. The bar for being “pro-Israel” has been set very low this year. He may not call Netanyahu a “racist” as Sanders does, but he has described his behavior as “outrageous.” What does he mean? Is it outrageous for Netanyahu to have the Israeli military prevent Hamas from breaching the security fence on the border with Gaza? Has it been “outrageous” for him to have those soldiers first use tear gas and rubber bullets to stop the participants in the Great March of Return, and if the fence is about to be breached, by those throwing Molotov cocktails and grenades, then to allow those soldiers to use live fire? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to allow the IDF to kill the northern leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Abu Al-Ata, as he was planning a major terrorist operation against Israel? Was it “outrageous,” after PIJ fired 450 rockets into Israel, disrupting life in southern Israel, with everyone having  repeatedly to rush to shelters, for Netanyahu to have the IDF retaliate against PIJ offices, launching pads, and weapons storehouses? What should he have done? Was it “outrageous” for Netanyahu to welcome the move of the American Embassy to Jerusalem? Is it perhaps his muscular policy of replying promptly to every Palestinian attack that Biden founds “outrageous,” though he does not explain, because he cannot, what he would have had Netanyahu do instead? It would have been good, in the face of Sanders’ absurd claim that Netanyahu is a “racist,” if Joe Biden had gone on the offensive, and said “Bernie has called Netanyahu a ‘racist.” This is a preposterous charge, and he knows it. I’ve known Bibi for a long time. We have our policy differences, but he hasn’t a racist bone in his body.”

Joe Biden did distinguish himself from Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg during the debate on the subject of aid to Israel. Unlike them, he has repeatedly said he would never use the withholding of aid as a weapon with which to force Israel to do America’s bidding. Biden has, however, repeated the phrase, the formula, the mantra, of what he and many others s call a “two-state solution.” This already assumes what needs to be proved: is there a “solution” to the Arab war on Israel? And if there isn’t, should that be cause for endless doom and gloom, or is there another way to see things?

Let’s state what those who have studied Islam already know: it is impossible for the Muslim Arabs to permanently accept the existence of Israel, whatever its borders. It is unacceptable for Unbelievers to possess land that was once possessed by Muslims; such land must forever belong to Muslims. It is especially maddening when those Unbelievers are the much-despised Jews, who have managed to stave off repeated attempts by Muslims, the “best of peoples,” to snuff out the Jewish state’s young life. And Israel exists, just as maddeningly, smack in the middle of the Arab world, separating North African Arabs from those in the Middle East. Israel is likened by the  Arabs, because of its shape, to a “dagger” thrust into their heart; another favorite metaphor is that Israel is a “cancer.” You don’t pull a dagger only part-way out of your body; you deal with cancer by removing every last cell of it.

Of course those who believe in the “two-state solution” assume that there is some giving up of territory by Israel that will sufficiently placate the Arabs so that they will beat their swords into plowshares. The reverse is true: any further withdrawal by Israel, which in returning the entire Sinai to Egypt has already given back 95% of the land it had won by force of arms in the Six-Day War, will merely whet, not sate, Palestinian and other Arab appetites. Were Israel to give up the West Bank, it would again have an eight-mile-wide waist from Qalqilya to the sea. It would have the highest length-of-border-to-enclosed-territory ratio of any country on earth – hellishly difficult to police all of that long border. The “Palestinians” see any future agreement with Israel as a way station on the path toward their final goal, which remains, for both the Fast Jihadists of Hamas and the Slow Jihadists of the Palestinian Authority, the end of the Jewish state.

And the “Palestinians” have powerful allies to help them in this task. There is Iran, whose leaders never fail to claim they are quite capable of destroying the Zionists. There is Turkey, which if President Erdogan has his way, would also participate in some kind of pan-Islamic attack on Israel. The “Palestinians” of the “moderate” PA speak among themselves about the destruction of the Zionist state; to the outside world, Saeb Erekat, Hanan Ashrawi, and Mahmoud Abbas soothingly refer to the “two-state solution.” They find it goes over quite well.

Let’s replace that word “solution” and speak, more realistically, of how this Arab war on Israel can be “managed.” The answer is that it can be managed in exactly the same way that the United States “managed” the threat from the Soviet Union: deterrence. The U.S. remained sufficiently, and obviously strong, so as to deter Soviet aggression. We – Israel, America, the entire West — cannot change the Qur’an, with its commands to wage violent Jihad against Infidels. But by helping to ensure that Israel remains overwhelmingly stronger than its enemies, America can promote a very long peace.

Three trends should be noted that will only improve Israel’s ability to deter its enemies in the future. First, Israel’s technological superiority over the Arabs will continue to widen, as it has been doing for the past several decades. Second, the most important weapon of the Arabs and Iran remains their revenues from oil. But oil demand is static, and may soon decrease: electric vehicles, and the increasing use of solar and wind power, are steadily reducing oil’s share of the energy market. This means less financial support for the Palestinians, affecting their ability to wage war. Third, demography is not, as everyone seems to assume, on the side of the Arabs. With an average of 3.1 children per woman, Israel has the highest fertility rate in the OECD by a considerable margin and much higher than the OECD average of 1.7. Over the past decade, the annual population growth among Muslims in Israel has fallen significantly, from around 3% to less than 2.2% by 2013, and continues inexorably to decrease, while the overall Jewish growth rate rose from around 1.4% to 1.7% in 2013 and continues, just as inexorably, to increase. If present trends continue, fears about a “Muslim population bomb” in Israel can be laid to rest.

Say it a dozen times a day: there is no “solution” – whether one-state, two-state, or n-state — to the Arab war on Israel. But Israel will be able to manage that conflict, while it goes from strength to strength, technologically, financially, demographically, through deterrence. “Peace Through Strength” — remember? That is good enough. That’s more than good enough. Now let’s try to get that message to Joe Biden.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former French Prime Minister: “The fate of Eastern Christians and other minorities is the prelude to our own fate”

UK: Muslims slam Muslim boxer for celebrating Christmas

Iran’s President urges Muslim nations to deepen financial and trade cooperation to fight US “bullying”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Ilhan Omar: Her Washington Week In Review by Hugh Fitzgerald

Ilhan Omar has been much in evidence this past week — Dec. 14 to 20 — in Washington. During the impeachment hearings, when Congressman Kevin McCarthy, at the podium on December 18, quoted, as an example of the level of discourse to which some of his opponents had sunk, Rashida Tlaib’s call to “impeach the motherf—–,” Omar immediately began, and continued repeatedly, to scream out from the back of the chamber, “Stop it! Stop it!,” even though McCarthy had not repeated the phrase, but gone on to other matters. Apparently Ilhan Omar didn’t think that Congressman McCarthy had a right to remind the American people of the crudity to which Rashida Tlaib routinely sinks, and to protect her BFF, tried to shout down, in the House of Representatives itself, the freedom of speech of a fellow Congressman. McCarthy, of course, was not maligning Tlaib, only quoting her verbatim – but that was enough to spur Ilhan Omar into hysterical action.

In another example of Omar’s making her indelible mark in Washington, she joined 16 other Congressmen in a letter deploring the Trump Administration’s sanctions on Iran as “economic warfare.” But why is that wrong? That’s exactly what those sanctions are meant to be – “economic warfare” – in order to persuade the Iranians to modify their aggressive behavior, across the Middle East (in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon), and to slow down their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Why should the Trump Administration not be heartened by the effectiveness of those sanctions rather than, as Ilhan Omar and her 16 colleagues seem to think, be apologetic for their effect? The Administration’s reimposition of sanctions have reduced Iranian oil sales by 90%, from 2.46 mbd to .26 mbd. This has made it harder for the mullahcracy to continue to support the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hezbollah has had to greatly reduce salaries for its members as a result of Iran’s cutting of aid. Nor can Iran offer its previous level of financial support to the Shi’a militias in Iraq. The Iranian rial has sunk in value; Iran’s GDP has actually decreased, the price of gas has had to be increased to raise government revenues; Iran’s people have suffered – that’s exactly what economic sanctions are intended to do.The letter Ilhan signed claims that the sanctions have increased anti-American feeling in Iran. There is no evidence for this; the popular protests in Iran have been directed solely at the Iranian government itself, for its mismanagement, choice of spending priorities, and corruption. Ilhan Omar and her colleagues apparently want those sanctions, that are working so well, to be dramatically reduced, but they offer nothing to take their place. What alternative way to modify the Islamic Republic’s behavior would Ilhan Omar suggest? How would she prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons? Or keep Iran from its foreign aggression?

The report on the letter Ilhan Omar signed is here:

In a letter issued on Tuesday to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the lawmakers wrote that the hefty sanctions the US has imposed on the country was tantamount to “economic warfare.”

The sanctions put in place by this Administration against Iran are nothing less than economic warfare. After years of improving relations between the United States and Iran, the sanctions have devastated that country’s middle class, increased hostility toward the United States, and led to a humanitarian catastrophe. One dire effect has been an entirely preventable shortage of lifesaving medicine.

“This Administration must answer for their attacks on Iranians’ basic human right to affordable medicine,” Rep. Omar said in a statement.

The letter explains that while Iran manufactures 97% of its medicine domestically, the country relies on obtaining the rest through foreign imports.

First, Iran itself makes 97% of all the medicine it needs. That hardly suggests that there is a “humanitarian catastrophe” because of a lack of medicine, unless the remaining 3%, that must be imported, includes medicines that are absolutely critical to the survival of patients, and can be obtained nowhere else. We are not told what those medicines are that need to be imported. Nor is there evidence presented that those imports cannot be obtained from countries other than the U.S., including the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China. Ilhan Omar’s letter does not address these other potential sources for these imports. But finally, the main point of the letter – that there is a supposed “humanitarian catastrophe” because of that 3% of Iran’s medicines that the U.S. withholds – is fatally vitiated by the fact that the Department of the Treasury on October 25, 2019 announced a new “humanitarian mechanism” to allow medicine imports into Iran. That didn’t stop Ilhan Omar and her colleagues, nearly two months later, to send their letter to Secretary Mnuchin, ignoring the Treasury’s October 25 announcement. The signatories  didn’t want anyone to be confused with facts. Their minds were made up, that “economic warfare” against Iran is a Bad Thing, and they were willing to continue to complain about the withholding of medicine that, if it had ever occurred, now occurred no longer.

The third event of Ilhan Omar’s Washington week in review didn’t require her presence, but she was indispensable to the story. I am thinking of the proceedings in the divorce court, where Dr. Beth Jordan, the wife of her political consultant and lover Tim Mynett, obtained her final decree. The story is here:

It took all of fifteen minutes, but Rep. Ilhan Omar was slammed as an adulteress in a Washington, DC, divorce court on Dec. 19 as her political consultant/alleged lover formally split from his wife, a report said.

Dr. Beth Jordan accused the Minnesota Democrat of having an affair with her now-ex-husband, political consultant Tim Mynett, during a 16-minute hearing before a judge cut her off, the Daily Mail reported.

“I have a statement to make,” Jordan, 55, said, adding that Mynett “had an affair with Ilhan Omar.”

The allegation was first reported by The Post in August, when Jordan claimed in a divorce filing that Mynett confessed to the affair in a “shocking declaration of love” for Omar in April before ditching his wife.

Mynett, 38, a DC-based political consultant who has worked for Omar’s campaign, laughed and clapped his hands with glee as his left the court on Thursday but was tight-lipped when confronted by media.

So her lover “laughed and clapped his hands with glee.” He left his wife and his child for Ilhan Omar, the outspokenly anti-Israel antisemitic Congresswoman, who famously described 9/11 as a place where “some people did something,” who is in all kinds of trouble with the law for failing to correctly report her campaign contributions, and may or may not have married her brother in order to ensure that he could enter the U.S. and receive student loans.

As for Tim Mynett, his relationship with Omar has been disturbing in every sense. She has paid him, as a political consultant, between January and mid-October of 2019, a “consulting fee” of $310,000. That’s $34,444 a month. He must be a very good consultant. The unusually large amounts he has received from her campaign have raised questions, given Omar’s extramarital affair with him, that remain to be answered.

When Beth Jordan charged Ilhan Omar for being an “adulteress,” it seems not to have fazed Omar. Has she, the great Defender of Islam, forgotten what would happen were she living in a Muslim country such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the Sharia is fully enforced, and convicted of adultery? One hundred lashes, then death by lapidation. Does she approve? It would be nice if some reporter were to ask her that very question. Consistency is not her strong suit.

There has always been so much going on in Omar’s  busy life.

There’s still the question of her brother, as mentioned above.  Omar is credibly accused of marrying her brother, Nur Said Elmi, in order to commit immigration and student-loan fraud, and even filed fraudulent tax returns. While married to Elmi, she filed a joint return with another man, Ahmed Hirsi, to whom she was not married at the time.

She is also accused of using campaign money not for political purposes, but on personal travel with Tim Mynett. This is still being investigated by the FEC.

She has already been required by the Minnesota Campaign Board to reimburse her own campaign for money she spent on personal matters, including travel and lawyer’s fees, and to pay a fine as well.

There’s much for an intrepid investigative team to look into.

But just now, let’s limit ourselves to summing up Ilhan Omar’s Washington Week in Review.

She’s been accused of being an adulteress by the wife of her lover and “political consultant” Tim Mynett, to whom she has given unusually large sums from her campaign funds. On the floor of the House, she tried to drown out, by shouting “Stop It! Stop It!,” a Congressman trying to be heard – there is no “free speech” as far as Ilhan Omar is concerned — all because he did nothing more than repeat verbatim a crude remark by her ally and fellow Muslim, Rashida Tlaib. Finally, she signed a letter denouncing the Administration for its “economic warfare” against Iran, deploring the very thing that most of us agree has been a smashing success both in curbing Iranian aggression through proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah, Shi’a militias), and in weakening popular support in Iran for the monstrous regime in Tehran. She thus joined in deploring a supposed “humanitarian catastrophe” in Iran because, although that country produces domestically 97% of all the medicines it needs, that remaining 3% was, the letter falsely implied, cannot be obtained except from the U.S. But even if that were true, two months before Omar’s letter was sent, the Treasury had already announced that it was ending all sanctions on medicine for Iran. It was no longer an issue. But what do facts matter when it’s such fun to bash the Administration?

That was Ilhan Omar’s Washington Week In Review. Let’s hope there are not too many more such weeks featuring the deplorable Omar and her cast of characters – those two Somali husbands, one a possible brother, the consultant/ lover who may yet become her third husband – all part of her scandalous entourage. We can’t take too much more of this. Minnesotans, next November, you will be able to right this wrong. Don’t miss the chance. Do your stuff.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim public school student takes off hijab, teacher says she will notify her parents “because it’s your culture”

New Jersey: Muslim makes video series boasting of wanting to murder Christians, soldiers, and blacks

Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “No one has upset the Islamophobia cabal more than Robert Spencer. He will not be cowed.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Florida: Muslim who wrote about taking revenge on non-Muslims not charged with terrorism for sabotaging plane

“Prosecutors said at his detention hearing in September that FBI investigators learned Alani lied about taking a trip to Iraq in March to visit his brother. They also found out he told a fellow American Airlines employee in June that his brother had been kidnapped and was a member of the extremist Islamic group known as ISIS. Prosecutors said Alani allowed the FBI to search his smartphone and agents found a ‘disturbing’ ISIS video in which a person was being shot in the head, and that he sent the video to someone with an Arabic message asking ‘Allah’ to take revenge against non-Muslims.”

Yet despite all that, “Alani was not charged with a terrorism-related offense.”

Apparently to have charged him with terrorism would have been “Islamophobic.”

“American Airlines mechanic pleads guilty to sabotaging plane at Miami International,” by Jay Weaver, Miami Herald, December 18, 2019:

An American Airlines mechanic accused of sabotaging a navigation system on a Miami flight with 150 passengers aboard pleaded guilty Wednesday to attempting to destroy the aircraft in a plea agreement designed to avoid a maximum sentence up to 20 years in prison.

“I do admit the guilt,” Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, 60, said through an Arabic interpreter in Miami federal court.

Alani, a veteran AA employee who had lived in California and commuted to his job at Miami International Airport, now faces up to three years in prison under a joint recommendation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and his defense lawyer. His sentencing is set for March 4.

At his detention hearing in September after his arrest, federal prosecutors suggested that Alani may have possible links to a Middle East terrorist group, but that allegation never came up at his plea hearing before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke.

His defense attorney, Jonathan Meltz, made that point outside the courtroom when asked by reporters about the allegation. “This case is only about what you heard in court,” said Meltz, who added that his client “has been leading a law-abiding life for 30 years.”

After his arrest, Alani told federal investigators that he disabled the aircraft’s navigation system on the morning of July 17 because he was upset over stalled union contract negotiations with the airline. He said he wanted to generate some overtime for maintenance on the plane.

Alani also said that he meant no harm to anyone.

The Miami-Nassau flight was aborted before takeoff at Miami International Airport after an error alert appeared on the navigation system.

At Wednesday’s hearing, prosecutor Randy Hummel summarized the evidence against Alani, stressing that the AA flight’s navigation system was “deliberately obstructed” with foam by Alani and that the “aircraft was deemed not airworthy.”

Alani was accused of tampering with the plane’s so-called air data module, a system that reports aircraft speed, pitch and other critical flight data to pilots.

Alani was not charged with a terrorism-related offense. However, prosecutors said at his detention hearing in September that FBI investigators learned Alani lied about taking a trip to Iraq in March to visit his brother. They also found out he told a fellow American Airlines employee in June that his brother had been kidnapped and was a member of the extremist Islamic group known as ISIS.

Prosecutors said Alani allowed the FBI to search his smartphone and agents found a “disturbing” ISIS video in which a person was being shot in the head, and that he sent the video to someone with an Arabic message asking “Allah” to take revenge against non-Muslims. In addition, they said Alani sent $700 to someone in Iraq, where he was born and has family….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Australia: Muslim Uber driver refuses couple because they had a Christmas ham, Uber charges them cancellation fee

Minnesota: Muslim woman awarded $120,000 for having to remove her hijab for jailhouse mugshot

Pentagon screens Saudi military trainees after Pensacola jihad massacre, finds no “current threat”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Amazon nixes positive review of ‘The Palestinian Delusion’, claims it violates its guidelines

Click here to see the Amazon review rejection.

The fix is in. What in that review conceivably violates Amazon guidelines? This is clear evidence that Amazon is not a bookstore, but part of the Left-fascist cabal that is working so hard today to crush all dissent from the Leftist agenda.

Amazon is trying to ensure that as few people as possible see and read The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. Meanwhile, it remains by far the nation’s largest source for books, which makes its bias all the more insidious.

Strike a blow against the sinister Leftist establishment: if you have read The Palestinian Delusion and like it, please leave a favorable review at Amazon. If you haven’t read it, please buy a copy now. You could even buy it from Amazon, even as it is clearly trying to suppress this book: buying it from elsewhere is not going to dent this elephantine corporation’s earnings, while buying it from Amazon will show that their attempts to deep-six this book aren’t working.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Massachusetts: Muslim illegally retains classified national defense information regarding U.S. military programs

The Palestinian Delusion Demonstrates Conclusively That the Term “Palestinian” Has Been Invented

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Leftist Jews Ally with Suit-Wearing Jihadists in New Group [Part One] by Andrew Harrod

Anwar Khan “has been doing outreach to the Jewish community on behalf of the Muslim community for decades,” stated former American Jewish Committee (AJC) official Robert Silverman at Washington, DC’s Newseum on December 3. His praise for Khan, the director of the Hamas ally Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), typified the unsettling leftist Jewish ignorance of jihadist threats at this launch event for the Inter Jewish Muslim Alliance (IJMA).

Silverman addressed an audience that ultimately grew during the daylong conference to about 50. This included his fellow IJMA organizer, Microsoft External Affairs Director Suhail Khan, a “conservative” political operative with deep, longstanding personal Muslim Brotherhood (MB) ties. Other faces familiar to this author included the Gülenist Rumi Forum’s public relations director, Jena Luedtke, and the Iraqi-American co-founder of the American Islamic Congress, Zainab al-Suwaij.

Silverman’s association with the dubious Khan replicated Silverman’s experience as the first director of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, previously rightly mocked as the “Wolf-Sheep Advisory Council.” Therein the left-leaning American Jewish Committee (AJC) had joined with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a nefarious MB-legacy organization, supposedly to combat hate crimes and other manifestations of bigotry. An IJMA statement distributed among the conference handouts and now available at IJMA’s new website proclaimed that IJMA members wanted, “as a Muslim-Jewish alliance, to counter voices of hatred and bigotry within our own communities.”

Yet the day’s proceedings demonstrated a decidedly one-sided view of prejudice among Jews and Muslims, as indicated by the seminar’s first presentation by Elana Hain from the Shalom Hartman Institute (SHI) of North America. “Antisemitism is converging on Jews from both the right and the left,” she correctly noted, but while “everybody in this room knows about antisemitism on the right,” leftist antisemitism “is much harder to talk about.” Today “what we are seeing on the progressive left is a type of conversionist antisemitism that says, ‘Jew, we will accept you if you disavow your commitment to the state of Israel.’” She noted particularly that “my spouse works on a college campus, and I have seen how Jewish students are increasingly unwelcome in progressive spaces.”

However true, Hain’s remarks surprisingly contained not a single reference to antisemitism involving Muslims or Islam. Excerpts from three publications (see herehere, and here) in her handout included several dubious allegations of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy and administration inciting antisemitism. By contrast, “Muslims” appeared only once in a Tablet article’s reference to hate crimes, even though the American Interest article she quoted briefly discussed “Islamic antisemitism” in an uncited paragraph. Meanwhile, internet searches of the Tablet for “Islamic antisemitism” find numerous articles (e.g. here).

Hain’s blind spot seemed particularly disturbing given the annual conference in Chicago of the viciously anti-Semitic American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) just days before (November 28-30). The conference featured inflammatory condemnations of Israel’s right to exist from prominent American Muslims. This included former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad, and CAIR San Francisco chapter leader Zahra Billoo.

This author accordingly presented to Hain an audience question noting the AMP conference and that AJC CEO David Harris has previously called for “trifocal lenses” to confront antisemitism from the “far left, the far right, and the jihadists.” She responded that she was “including in progressive antisemitism” the “antisemitism that comes from the Muslim community around Israel.” She added that she had not devoted particular study to Islamic antisemitism and suggested that Muslim conference attendees might be better qualified to discuss this topic.

Just as Hain only circuitously referenced Islamic antisemitism, she similarly indulged questionable tropes commonplace among many Muslims. For example, without any indication of whether Jews or others had any valid objections to Islamic beliefs and/or behaviors she used the Orwellian phrase “Islamophobia.” Conflicts between Israel and Palestinians should not “lead to antisemitism or ‘Islamophobia,’” she said, as if irrational Jew-hatred were the same as critical inquiry into Islam.

Audience member Imam Abdullah Antepli, a leader of SHI’s Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI), reflected Hain’s remarks with questions about “Islamophobic elements within the Jewish community.” “Within this organized anti-Muslim campaign in the United States, there are so many visible Jews,” he stated. Jews have a “fear of losing the state of Israel” and “when many Jews meet Muslims, that fear is all that they see,” she responded while again not explaining why such perceptions are meritless (consider Israel, Muslims, and Britain’s Labour Party).

Hain also equated Jewish national liberation in Israel with baseless claims that “Palestinians” represent a unique, historical nation and not merely a local collection of Levantine Arab communities. The statement “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” is equally false as “Jews don’t have a history in that region” of Israel, she said. This is “mutual denial of peoples’ actual historical experiences,” notwithstanding numerous modern “Palestinian” fictions.

A veiled female Muslim audience member from the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a group obsessed with all real and imagined “white supremacy,” prompted more historical revisionism from Hain. The Muslim claimed that historically the term “antisemitism” encompassed prejudice against both Jews and Muslims, and Hain suggested that antisemitism could include both “Judeophobia” and “Islamophobia.” In reality, the German publicist Wilhelm Marr invented the word “antisemitism” in 1879 in order to impart a scientific veneer to his rabid Jew-hatred.

The appeasing Hain, who called the leftist American rabbi Jill Jacobs a “colleague and a friend,” paralleled the reaction to Islamic antisemitism of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an IJMA sponsor. As Islamic antisemitism scholar Andrew Bostom has documented, ADL global surveys of antisemitism in recent years have identified Muslims as world leaders in prejudice against Jews. Yet the ADL has minimized such facts.

While Hain acted conciliatory towards Muslims, they often show little reciprocity, as a following article will analyze. Conference speakers after her like the radical “Islamophobia” expert Wajahat Ali were far more direct in their accusations of bigotry against various Jews while exhibiting little interest in the anti-Semitic milieus of conference participants like ISNA members.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CAIR attacks Trump’s defense of Jews on campus on grounds of “free speech”

True Tales from the Annals of Adult-Onset Islam

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. The views are those solely of the author.

Bronx: Muslim migrant plotted to behead people with chainsaw, amassed large stash of weapons

“Defense attorney Susan Kellman said Alimehmeti had struggled to fit in after moving to the US aged six from Albania.”

Yeah, that explains it. Doesn’t everyone who struggles to fit in as a child stockpile weapons and try to join a terrorist group?

“ISIS fanatic dubbed ‘The Dentist’ who hoped to behead people and stockpiled knives and a pocket chainsaw in his Bronx apartment is jailed for 22 years as judge brands him a ‘ticking time bomb,’” by Isabella Nikolic, Mailonline, December 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

An ISIS fanatic who was dubbed ‘The Dentist’ and hoped to behead people with a pocket chainsaw has been jailed for 22 years after a judge branded him a ‘ticking time bomb’.

Sajmir Alimehmeti, 26, who lived in an apartment in the Bronx, was sentenced by US district judge Paul Englemayer, who listed the terrifying stash of weapons he amassed.

They included a military-grade survival knife with a five-inch blade, three tactical knives with four-inch blades, two credit-card-sized folding knives, a commando wire pocket saw, a 24-inch pocket chainsaw, a rucksack designed for tactical combat, a tactical ski mask and handcuffs.

Judge Englemayer said it was impossible to conceive of a ‘benign reason’ for Alimehmeti to ‘stockpile weapons that would be used to restrain, gut, or decapitate a human body’, according to the New York Post.

Alimehmeti reportedly used coded language when referring to places he wanted to travel to ‘brush his teeth’.

Prosecutors also said that he claimed he watched ISIS beheading videos to keep himself motivated while exercising.

He allegedly initially tried to travel to the Middle East to join ISIS twice in 2014 but was stopped by British authorities both times.

He is accused of being stopped at Manchester Airport in October 2014 when security found nunchucks and camouflage clothing in his luggage.

And he is accused of trying to get to the Middle East again in December that year but was stopped by security at Heathrow Airport in London when they found images of ISIS fighters and improvised explosive devices on his cellphone….

Defense attorney Susan Kellman said Alimehmeti had struggled to fit in after moving to the US aged six from Albania.

She claimed he was radicalized as a teenager during a stint for robbery in the Fishkill Correctional Facility by Mohamed Mamdouh, one of the masterminds behind a foiled plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue in 2011.

In addition to 22 years in prison, Alimehmeti also was sentenced to five years supervised release.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rep. Ilhan Omar defended Nation of Islam-influenced group behind kosher market attack in Jersey City

Neighbor says couple that murdered Jews in Jersey City kosher market was inspired by Nation of Islam’s Farrakhan

300 Rounds of Ammo, 3 Pipe Bombs Found in Van at Jewish Market Shooting

‘Jews are Dead? That’s Great’: Bystanders Spew Anti-Semitic Hate After NJ Attack

Texas: Muslim cleric whines that when Muslims preach about Muslims killing Jews, “Pamela Geller jumps on him”

Pensacola jihad murderer was “infuriated,” filed complaint when instructor teased him about his mustache

Pensacola jihad murderer became more religious after trip home to Saudi Arabia in February

Muslim cleric: “Allah permitted the Prophet Muhammad to marry Aisha when she was 9 years old”

Terror Attack At Naval Air Station Highlights Immigration Catastrophe

ANTIFA disrupts memorial for German fireman murdered by mostly Turkish gang outside Christmas market

RELATED VIDEO: Shooting near NJ kosher market leaves 6 dead, several injured.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Six Saudi Muslims arrested near Naval Air Station after jihad attack, three of them filmed the massacre

UPDATE:

There needs to be a thorough and realistic reevaluation of this training program of foreign nationals. But that probably will not happen; it would be “Islamophobic.”

“Six Saudis are arrested over Pensacola naval base shooting including three who FILMED the attack by countryman who killed three and wounded eight before being shot dead – as FBI probes terror link,” by Andrew Court and Snejana Farberov, Dailymail.com, December 6, 2019:

The Air Force trainee who killed three and injured eight when he opened fire at a naval base in Florida assailed the United States as ‘a nation of evil’ before he went on his shooting rampage, AFP reports.

The man, first identified by NBC News as Saudi national Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, opened fire inside a classroom at Naval Air Station in Pensacola early Friday morning. Police quickly responded to the scene and he was shot dead.

US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said the suspect was a second lieutenant attending the aviation school at the base.

Meanwhile six other Saudi nationals were arrested near the base shortly after the attack, as investigators began to probe a terror link.

Three of the six were seen filming the entire incident as it unfolded, a source told The New York Times on Friday evening….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Military bases across the U.S are put on high alert as FBI hunts missing Saudi servicemen linked to Pensacola shooting and probes shooter’s trip to New York two days before as terror investigators are called in

Pensacola jihad murderer tweeted that US was committing “crimes against Muslims,” including support of Israel

Florida: Naval Air Station jihad murderer was 2nd Lieutenant in Saudi Air Force

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump to Macron: ‘Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? You can take everyone you want’

In saying this, Trump appears to be aware that taking Islamic State jihadis back is a suicidally stupid move, one that all to many European countries are willing to make. As is clear from the context of this exchange, the establishment media is eager for Western countries to play Russian roulette in this way.

“Macron says time for Turkey to clarify ambiguous stance on Islamic State,” by Michel Rose, Reuters, December 3, 2019:

…In an at times awkward news conference with Trump, Macron appeared exasperated when the U.S. president said he would pass the question to Macron on whether France should do more to bring French ISIS fighters home.

Paris has about 400 nationals, including around 60 fighters, held in northern Syria. It has refused to bring adults home saying they must face trial where their crimes were committed.

“Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? You can take everyone you want,” Trump said in a light-hearted tone.

Visibly irritated, Macron responded, saying “let’s be serious” and argued that number of foreign fighters from European countries was small, and that it would be unhelpful to focus on them rather than on the broader problem.

“It is true you have fighters coming from Europe but this is a tiny minority and I think the number one priority, because it’s not finished, is to get rid of ISIS and terrorist groups. This is our number one priority and it’s not yet done,” he said.

Trump suggested Macron had not answered the question.

“This is why he is a great politician because that was one of the greatest non-answers I have ever heard, and that’s OK,” Trump said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Philadelphia: Authorities cave to Muslim group over Muslim kids dancing to chopping heads jihad song, take no action

UK: Muslim rape gang “passed around” 12-year-old girl “like meat,” sold her for sex with men

RELATED VIDEO: Katie Hopkins Video: They Plotted to Behead Me

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge jihad massacre

There is no reason why this couldn’t be so; the Islamic State has many times called upon Muslims to murder random civilians in Western countries. If they didn’t do this one, they’ll keep trying.

“Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge attack,” Reuters, November 30, 2019:

Islamic State said the London Bridge attack on Friday was carried out by one of its fighters, the group’s Amaq news agency reported on Saturday. The group did not provide any evidence.

It added that the attack was made in response to Islamic State calls to target countries that have been part of a coalition fighting the jihadist group.

British police on Friday shot dead a man wearing a fake suicide vest who stabbed two people to death in London and wounded three more before being wrestled to the ground by bystanders, in what the authorities called a terrorist attack.

The attacker went on the rampage just before 2 p.m., attacking people at a premises near London Bridge in the heart of the city’s financial district – the scene of a deadly attack by Islamist militants two years ago.
Half a dozen bystanders tackled the suspect to the ground and grabbed his knife. A video posted on Twitter showed police dragging one man off the suspect before an officer took careful aim. Two shots rang out. The man stopped moving….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two more muslim murderous terror attacks that we know of today

UK: London Bridge jihad murderer belonged to Muslim group that admired Hitler

UK: Schoolmate of London Bridge jihadi says he turned to the Islamic State after being bullied at school

UK: London Bridge jihad murderer was son of Muslim migrants, wanted to bomb London Stock Exchange

UK: London jihadi stabbed man at deradicalization event, victim’s father hopes killing won’t be used as a “pretext”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Iran on the Brink

Introduction

Uprisings in Iran have become routine occurrences, albeit without much success. Why? Because Iran is ruled by a totalitarian Islamic ideology like Nazism and communism. In Iran, there is no sovereignty of the people. Instead, there is a perception of the Ummah in Shia theology “rule of Mahdi”, guardianship over the people. In other words, Iran belongs to “Imam Zaman” (the Hidden Imam) and in his absence, a supreme leader is in charge. In this case, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Any revolt against the State is considered a direct attack against the upcoming “Lord of the Age “Mahdi.”

Hence, the moment people start protesting, the regime unleashes its wild dogs (soldiers of Mahdi) on a killing spree.  Iranians partook in many protests across the country amidst a failing economic situation, systematic government corruption, and widespread frustration over the lack of political and social freedoms. As always, the regime’s security apparatus reacted to these protests with mass arrests and severe due process abuses. Pundits and experts believe “Khamenei’s tough response could just invite more anger.”

Since the Islamic invasion of 1979, the Mullahs have ruled over the unarmed Iranian people with an iron fist and absolute power while draining the nation’s treasury. As a result, millions of Iranians had no choice but to flee their homes to the four corners of the globe. In these recent protests, Iran’s rulers once again revealed their real identity to the world that they don’t value human life. They are simply vicious killers.

US Sanctions

After the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal on May 18, 2018, the US almost immediately imposed several new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI).

Following up with another sanction on the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his office and those who were closely tied to him with access to major financial resources. In July 2019, the United States placed sanctions on the regime’s Foreign Minister Mohammad, Javad Zarif.

The US also placed sanctions on eight senior commanders of the navy, aerospace and ground forces components of the IRGC. In April of 2019, President Donald Trump declared that the United States designated Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a foreign “terrorist” organization.

Results

Within a few months, Iran’s crude oil exports were slashed by almost 80%. Despite massive propaganda from President Rouhani’s office claiming these sanctions did not phase them and they had gotten used to them. However, this dosage of reality hit them hard. The regime is out of money and unable to pay the salaries of their military apparatus as well as its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Bashar al-Assad of Syria and other hired thugs. By November 2019, the regime was completely financially broke and needed to come up with a solution to save itself.

Out of desperation, the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei took a gamble and raised the price of gasoline by 50% (some say by 300%) in order to consolidate the budget deficit. And that was precisely what prompted protests in at least five cities almost simultaneously and brought millions of people into the streets. Almost all the slogans were against the Ayatollah Khamenei himself.

Death Toll

On November 15, 2019, over 100 protesters were killed and over a 1000 arrested in just one day. The exact total of casualties since the protests began are unknown, but unofficial reports from inside Iran say around 1000 people died and close to 10,000 were injured or arrested. Out of fear, the regime immediately cut off all communication devices including the Internet to the outside world. They feared of the watchful eyes of the people around the world to witness yet again the Mullahs’ atrocities against the Iranian people who are barely surviving in a country that spends 80% of its oil revenue on terrorism worldwide.

Business as Usual

Without any question, the civilized world is aware that the Islamic Republic is immensely despised by its people, yet, they ignore this and continue doing business as usual. Political analysts and pundits know it is a fact that neither the mullahs nor the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are going away peacefully. They have no intention of handing over the country to the people anytime soon. Why? Three reasons. First, Iran is a rich country and the Mullahs are naturally greedy thieves. They cannot reconcile with themselves for letting it slip away. Second, they know that Shia Islam would most likely cease to exist. Third, they are mortally afraid that if they let Iran become free, the Iranian people would take their revenge without any mercy upon them. After all, for the past forty years they have committed every crime and atrocity known to man against the Iranian people. Something the late Ayatollah Khomeini had warned them about before his death.

Now What?

The regime is aware that they neither can go back nor forward. They are stuck between a rock and hard place. The only reason they are still in power is because there are greedy and money hungry politicians who will do anything for cheap oil and bribery. I remember the Ayatollah Khamenei’s words on his Friday sermons during the Green Revolution in 2009. He directly ordered his Bassij, plain clothes thugs and IRGC forces to shoot and kill indiscriminately anyone who challenged his Ummah (community of Shia Islam).

In another speech, he openly mentioned that he had learned a valuable lesson from the late Shah of Iran. He said, “He would never relinquish power as easily as the Shah did.” In 1978, I was still in Iran and I know the Shah never personally ordered soldiers to kill people at point-blank range. In fact, he never ordered anyone to be killed.

The Shah was a very kind and sensitive man, despite all the allegations the leftist media have conjured up about him. That is precisely why he departed his beloved country rather than stay and face a bloodbath.

Forty Years of Islamic Terror

For the past forty-years, thousands of dissidents, students, intellectuals and journalists have been systematically arrested, imprisoned and tortured for the sole crime of speaking up against the oppressive rule of the mullahs. Many are still languishing in prisons, some have died, and some have simply vanished with no trace. Not only has the regime terrorized its own people, they have also demonstrated a high priority for supporting global terrorism.

Many Iranians are following the events in Iran carefully. Despite an unprecedented internet shutdown by the regime, the Iranian people have succeeded in providing the world with video evidence of the Mullahs’ brutality. “We see you, we hear you, & as Secretary of State Michael Pompeo stated, the U.S. is with you.”

With the recent Iranian uprising across Iran, the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is now under serious question. The protests that began two weeks ago in Iran were different from most previous protests. It roiled the country since the onset of its 1979 revolution. These protesters have covered more land, overwhelming small and midsize cities across the country. But they also have reportedly drawn more than 16 million participants in over 100 cities than did the 2009 Green Revolution protests in Tehran.

Conclusion

Are we finally witnessing the end of the Islamic Republic? Yes, but not immediately. It is only a matter of time and not a very long one either.

© All rights reserved.

Elizabeth Warren: Those Settlements ‘Violate International Law and Make Peace Harder to Achieve’ by Hugh Fitzgerald

Elizabeth Warren reacted to Secretary Pompeo’s statement that in the view of the Administration, Israel’s settlements did not violate international law with characteristic swift certainty:

Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region. Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve. As president, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said.

Was Pompeo’s announcement merely a cynical attempt to “distract” the public “from its failures in the region”? Surely such an announcement was certain to have exactly the opposite effect – it would focus the media’s attention on the Israelis and Palestinians as it had not been so focussed since the Great March of Return began on March 30, 2018. Every major media outlet – CNN, AP, BBC, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post – covered Pompeo’s remarks in detail. Those remarks were hardly designed to “distract” from supposed “failures in the region.” And as for those “failures,” what does Warren have in mind? Was the defeat, by the Americans and the Kurds, of ISIS in Syria a “failure”? Was the collapse of ISIS in Iraq, to which American military assistance contributed, a “failure”? Was the body-blow to Iran’s economy, that the Administration brought about by reimposing sanctions, that in turn led to the streets of Iran now being filled with Iranians shouting against the regime, a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the massively corrupt UNRWA a “failure”? Was cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority, because of its Pay-for-Slay program, a “failure”?

Warren then blithely noted that the settlements “violate international law.” This was not always her understanding. At a Town Hall in August 2014, Warren called into question the notion that future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Clearly she did not then regard the settlements as being “illegal.”

And two years later, in September 2016, ahead of a U.N vote on a resolution condemning Israeli settlements, Warren was one of 88 senators who signed a letter to President Obama sponsored by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, urging him to “veto any one-sided UNSC resolution that may be offered in the coming months”: the resolution was approved by the Security Council 14-1-0, with the United States shamefully abstaining.

Again, Warren was still willing to urge the government to veto a Security Council resolution that treated the West Bank settlements as “illegal.”

What changed her mind? Perhaps, after Bernie Sanders’s claim that he would take some aid money away from Israel and give it to the Palestinians in Gaza, Warren felt she needed to establish her bona-fides among the “progressives” in the Democratic Party, who have become increasingly anti-Israel. And what better way to do it than to instantly attack Pompeo on the “legality” of Israel’s West Bank settlements?

A law professor for many years, Warren is well-versed in reading statutes and codes. As a professor of bankruptcy law, she can comprehend the Bankruptcy Code, so he Mandate for Palestine ought to be child’s play. If she reads that Mandate, she will understand that the League of Nations established, on a sliver of land that had been identified with the Jewish people for two thousand years, and that had formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire, the Mandate for Palestine. That Palestine Mandate was entrusted to Great Britain, whose task it was to prepare that territory for independence as the Jewish National Home. There were other Mandates that were intended to create Arab states – Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – but the Mandate for Palestine was intended solely for the Jews. Warren would then want to know, as the thorough policy wonk she is, precisely what territory was to be included in that Mandate. Upon investigation, she would discover that the Mandate for Palestine applied to all the territory from Dan in the north to Beersheva in the south, and from the river Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the West. In other words, all of what is present day Israel, and the entire West Bank, was included in the Mandate. Israel cannot be called the “occupier” of land that was assigned by the League of Nations to be part of the Jewish National Home, which would then become the State of Israel. When the League of Nations shut down, its successor organization, the United Nations, implicitly recognized in Article 80 of its Charter (the so-called Jewish People’s article) the continuing in force of the Mandate for Palestine. The only thing that prevented the West Bank from becoming, as it legally should have, part of the state of Israel in 1949, was that Jordan managed to hold onto the West Bank, and remained its “occupier” until 1967.

Elizabeth Warren never mentions the Mandate for Palestine, which is the indispensable document in judging the legality of the Israeli settlements. Nor does she mention, in any of her statements online, U.N. Resolution 242 and its significance in giving Israel the right to “secure and recognizable boundaries.” She has a duty to study both the Mandate, and Resolution 242, before making her self-assured and dismissive pronouncements about how those settlements “violate international law.” And she might also explain why those same settlements did not “violate international law” back in 2014, when she opposed making aid to Israel contingent on its halting of settlement building. Did she know something in 2014 about the settlements’ legality that she then forgot, or did she learn something since about their supposed illegality?

Then there is Warren’s remark that the settlements are not only “illegal,” but that they “make peace harder to achieve.” How does she, and the many others who mindlessly repeat this mantra – “settlements make peace harder to achieve” – know this? Because the Arabs – the Palestinians – keep telling them so.

What kind of “peace” is possible between Israel and the Palestinians? Some may insist that by squeezing itself back within the 1949 armistice lines, what Ambassador Abba Eban called “the lines of Auschwitz,” Israel makes peace more likely. But those who recognize that the war being waged, by all possible means, including terrorism, combat (qitaal), economic and diplomatic warfare, and demographic jihad, against Israel has no end, for Muslims, until the complete disappearance of the Jewish state, will not be so quick to put their trust in treaties. That is especially true because the Muslim model for all treaty-making with non-Muslims is the agreement that Muhammad reached with the Meccans at al-Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., a treaty that was to last for ten years, but which he broke after 18 months, attacking the Meccans as soon as he felt his forces were strong enough to win. Given that Muhammad is the Model of Conduct for all Muslims, Israel cannot rely on a peace treaty with Muslim Arabs to be kept indefinitely.

Instead, there is another and better way to maintain the peace between Israel and its neighbors. That is deterrence: the enemy’s understanding that if Israel is attacked, it will respond, and much more devastatingly. Egypt and Syria now know what they did not know in October 1973, when they launched a surprise attack on Israel. Despite early losses, Israel delivered punishing blows in response. No Arab state since has tried to attack Israel; terror groups are a different matter, for their members are ready to be “martyrs.” For rational actors – fanatic Muslim groups and groupuscules are not among them – deterrence works. It kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for more than four decades after World War II. Israel must remain overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger than its enemies for deterrence to be effective.

That is where the West Bank settlements come in. The 400,000 Jews who live in the West Bank, with all of the adults having undergone military training when fulfilling their mandatory service in the IDF, are an indispensable part of that deterrence. Those settlements throughout the West Bank, especially those strategically placed on the Judean hills, and overlooking, the Jordan Valley, are a powerful obstacle to invasion from the east. The settlements significantly improve Israel’s deterrence, and a credible deterrence is the only guarantee that peace between Israel and the Arabs will be kept.

Warren claims the settlements will make peace “harder to achieve.” She has things backwards. The settlements may make a “peace treaty” harder to achieve, but they will make the only peace that really matters, a peace based on deterrence, easier to achieve.

In addition to the Mandate for Palestine (especially the Preamble and Articles 4 and 6), and U.N. Resolution 242, Elizabeth Warren should read about the treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya and its continuing significance, in Majid Khadduri’s magisterial War and Peace in the Law of Islam. That’s all the studying she need devote to the matter for now. The exam will be take-home. We’re all hoping that Professor Warren earns an A.

COLUMN BY

Hugh Fitzgerald

RELATED ARTICLES:

Chicago: University students honor Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader

Accusers of Ilhan Omar refuse to provide details on her alleged work for Qatar

Raymond Buckley and the Democrats’ Craven Lust for Power

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.