New York Post Archives - Dr. Rich Swier

Tag Archive for: New York Post

Bin Laden’s niece: ‘It’s very worrying that the left has aligned itself with people who share’ jihad ideology

September 7, 2020/in Elections, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Jihad Watch

The main story here is interesting enough, but there is something else going on here that is just as interesting. The New York Post says: “‘You look at all the terrorist attacks that have happened in Europe over the past 19 years. They have completely shaken us to the core … [Radical Islam] has completely infiltrated our society,’ bin Ladin continued. ‘In the US it’s very worrying that the left has aligned itself completely with the people who share that ideology.’”

What did Noor bin Ladin really say in the place where the New York Post has “Radical Islam” in brackets? It may be possible, since there is an ellipsis right before this, that Noor bin Ladin identified what she was talking about in a part that the Post didn’t quote and just said “It has completely infiltrated our society.” However, if she had said the words “Radical Islam,” with something else in between, the Jon Levine could easily have quoted her as saying “Radical Islam…has completely infiltrated our society.” So what did she say? “Jihad”? “Islam”? With Sohrab Ahmari and John Podhoretz on their staff, it’s highly likely that the New York Post is engaged in a cowardly sanitizing of Ms. bin Ladin’s language that they consider “Islamophobic.”

“Osama bin Laden’s niece says only Trump can prevent another 9/11,” by Jon Levine, New York Post, September 5, 2020:

Another 9/11-style attack may be just around the corner if Joe Biden is elected president, warns Noor bin Ladin, the niece of Sept. 11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden.

“ISIS proliferated under the Obama/Biden administration, leading to them coming to Europe. Trump has shown he protects America and us by extension from foreign threats by obliterating terrorists at the root and before they get a chance to strike,” bin Ladin, 33, told The Post in her first-ever interview.

Bin Ladin (whose branch of the family has always spelled their name differently than her infamous uncle) lives in Switzerland but said she considers herself “an American at heart.” A full size US flag hung in her childhood room at age 12 and her dream vacation is an RV trip across America.

The stunning, Swiss-born bin Ladin says she is all in for Trump in 2020, calling the election the most important in a generation.

“I have been a supporter of President Trump since he announced he was running in the early days in 2015. I have watched from afar and I admire this man’s resolve,” she said. “He must be reelected … It’s vital for the future of not only America, but western civilization as a whole.”

“You look at all the terrorist attacks that have happened in Europe over the past 19 years. They have completely shaken us to the core … [Radical Islam] has completely infiltrated our society,” bin Ladin continued. “In the US it’s very worrying that the left has aligned itself completely with the people who share that ideology.”

While Trump has long been a polarizing figure in the United States, he is even more toxic in Europe, where views of US leadership have often plummeted since he took office. A 2018 Gallup poll found just 18% of Swiss citizens approved of his job performance.

Noor, who said she regularly wears a “Make America Great Again” hat (and occasionally a Trump bedtime onesie), has had to confront many Trump-haters on her side of the Atlantic. During a recent trip to the grocery store while wearing the iconic red cap, Noor was accosted.

“I am minding my own business and this woman in her late 50s charges toward me and starts speaking very loudly and aggressively to me,” she recalled. “She’s yelling at me and saying how can I be wearing this and Trump is the worst president ever and she’s basically dumping on my beloved president … She told me three times, ‘You’re stupid.’ I kept my cool, and needless to say I kept my hat!”…

“You do have a situation now in America where you have people like Ilhan Omar who actively hate your country,” bin Ladin said, noting how Omar had urged “compassionate” sentences for 13 ISIS recruits busted in her home state of Minnesota.

“It’s an honor to be able to go and live in the United States and make the most out of all the opportunities,” bin Ladin said, choking up. “If she hates it so much why doesn’t she leave.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Assassin Who Helped Create the Deep State

UK’s ‘complete humiliation’: 416 more illegal Muslim migrants arrive in one day, 5600 so far this year

September 6, 1955: Turkey’s Kristallnacht

France: Macron defends ‘right to blaspheme,’ vows to crack down on ‘Islamic separatism’

Bibigate – The Contretemps over Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress on Iran’s Nuclear Program

February 2, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Last Saturday night a retired U.S. Navy officer said “I’ll bet you even money that Bibi will withdraw from the proposed speech before a joint session of Congress”. I joshed him and said “I wouldn’t count on it.”

Sunday, I received suggestions that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should have a Plan B given the rising contretemps in the media over US House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to talk about Iran before a Joint Session of Congress. There was a welter of criticism from the White House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and mainstream media talking heads included David Brooks of the New York Times and Chris Wallace and Shepherd Smith of FoxNews. They were admonishing Speaker Boehner and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer with terms like “dicey, wicked more for photo op” and “partisan politics” and “unwise for Israel.” It was ostensibly about the lack of courtesy shown the President by not giving prior notice to the White House of the invitation extended to Netanyahu. There was pique by certain unnamed senior officials in the White House over what some might call Bibigate.

However, let us remember there was increasing bi-partisan support for new Iran nuclear sanctions legislation despite the President’s warning that he would veto it if it was passed. New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez was particularly incensed at the President for his questioning his motivations. Menendez said: “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with the original sin.” Lest, we forget, the President had threatened a veto if increased Iran legislation passed. It was abundantly clear in the January 16th Joint Press Conference at the White House when the President Obama agreed with UK PM David Cameron’s remarks, urging Senators on Capitol Hill not to take up new sanctions legislation at a “sensitive time”. Thus, one could speculate that Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu on January 21st to speak to a Joint Session of Congress in early March was a rebuttal to the President.

The rancor over Bibigate was visible in the final week of January into February. Wednesday, January 28th, CNN released a clip of Fareed Zakaria’s February 1st GPS interview with President Obama. Obama suggested that a visit with Netanyahu was “inappropriate,” as it was too close to the upcoming March Knesset elections. The President said, “I’m declining to meet with him simply because our general policy is, we don’t meet with any world leader two weeks before their election, [I] think that’s inappropriate. And that’s true with some of our closest allies.” Those comments engendered another rebuttal that the White House may have been giving tacit support to the involvement of Presidential Campaign aide Jim Byrd in advising the Labor-Hanuat opposition to Netanyahu in the Knesset general elections.

Friday, January 30th, Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview in The Atlantic with Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, a former US Republican strategist and member of the Netanyahu’s inner circle. Dermer discussed the background for Boehner’s issuance of the invitation to Netanyahu to speak to Congress on Iran. Dermer suggested that while the Prime Minister “meant no disrespect towards President Obama … Netanyahu must speak up while there is still time to speak up”.

That led Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson on the blog Legal Insurrection to opine that Obama’s not offended; he just wants Bibi out of office.

The Hill round up on the Sunday Talk shows had comments from Rep. Paul Ryan on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Arizona Senator John McCain on CNN’s “State of The Union.” Over the issue of Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu Ryan said,” The Invitation to Israeli prime minister was ‘absolutely’ appropriate. I don’t know if I would say it’s antagonizing”. McCain drew attention to the new low in U.S. – Israel relations under Obama saying, “It’s the worst that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.”

Virtually out of nowhere, Sunday, February 1st, commentary from an “Insight” blog post of the Israeli Institute for National Security Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University shed light on a bizarre theory of what was behind Bibigate. The author of the INSS post, Zaki Shalom, suggested:

The backdrop for the Administration’s expressed dissatisfaction with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s intention to present his position on negotiations with Iran to Congress, creating a rather transparent linkage between Israel’s positions on negotiations with Iran and sanctions, and U.S. willingness to assist in combating the Palestinian attempt to exert international legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel.

On Thursday, January 30, 2015, the Senate Banking Committee voted out a ‘softer’ version of the Kirk –Menendez Sanctions legislation by a vote of 18 to 4, including six Democrats. As reported by The Hill, the legislation:

… Would impose sanctions on Iran if a comprehensive agreement to roll back its nuclear program is not reached by June 30 and would allow the president to waive sanctions indefinitely for 30 days at a time.

However, the bill would be shelved until March 24th for a possible floor vote. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said, “All of us understand it’s not going to be voted on before March 24”. While the measure may portend a possible override vote should President Obama veto it that still requires Senator Menendez to keep the group of 17 Democratic Senators who support this version of sanctions legislation in the bi-partisan alliance.

Israeli concern over a weak final agreement by March 24th is reflected in a Times of Israel report published Sunday, February 1st,” US sources deride Israeli ‘nonsense’ on Obama giving in to Iran.” Israeli sources contend that Iran is likely to get 80 % of what it is seeking- the ability to continue enrichment with upwards of 9,000 centrifuges, especially the advanced IR-2s. The Israelis believe that would give Iran nuclear breakout within weeks. Add to that mix Iran flaunting pictures in a ToA report of a Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) capable of covering all of Europe. That is to be followed in 2015 to 2016 by one cap ICBM range. Of course there a number of us who believe that Iran may already have purchased nuclear weapons from rogue regimes, but may lack nuclear warheads, which are likely to be supplied by North Korea to be mounted on those ICBMs.

Especially as the President observed, there is less than a 50/50 chance of reaching an agreement. Then assuming the current polls are correct and Bibi retains the ability to form a new Knesset coalition after the March 17th election, he may speak with both authority and strength.

As a usual astute observer of Israel from Europe, Imre Herzog, opined when I wrote him on my side bet “you might win the bet”.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. Washington Times File Photo 5-24-2011.

Qatar Supplying U.S. Stinger missiles to the Taliban

June 9, 2014/in Must Read, National Security, News, Policy/by Jerry Gordon

Yesterday, on The Lisa Benson Show, that I hosted, we heard from two guests, about the extraordinary influence that tiny energy rich Gulf Emirate of Qatar has in the Obama Administration . That was reflected in their role facilitating the transfer of the five top Taliban Commanders to Qatar from Guantanamo in a swap for freeing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. A swap fraught with real dangers to American forces still in Afghanistan according to comments from Maj. Gen Paul Vallely, renowned Fox News senior military analyst and Dr. David Weinberg, senior fellow in the Washington, DC-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

President Obama’s hoped for euphoria with the announcement of Bergdahl’s release with his parents in the White House Rose Garden on Saturday, May 31, 2014 were dashed in the firestorm of adverse Congressional and public criticism. That according to Gen. Vallely has brought into question the legality and wisdom of the President’s decision to exchange high risk Taliban commanders for Bergdahl. As we noted in recent Iconoclast posts many of Bergdahl’s platoon comrades considered him a deserter from their forward operating base in Eastern Afghanistan in late June 2009. On the Lisa Benson Radio Show Gen. Vallely gave the stunning news that two Afghan police has left the 25^th Infantry brigade operating base at virtually the same time as Bergdahl.

Yesterday, veteran investigative journalist and author Kenneth Timmerman brought into serious question the duplicity of the Qataris in excerpt published in the New York Post of a forthcoming new book by him, Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi” (Broadside Books), How the Taliban got their hands on modern US missiles. This adds one more clear demonstration of the myopia by the Obama West Wing demonstrating the blow-back from Qatar where we have invested over a half billion to build the Al Uedid Combat Air Command and Central Command logistical supply complex to support our troops in Afghanistan. It is no wonder that Dr. Weinberg’s colleague at FDD, Dr. Jonathan Schanzer has called in the Qatari, in a Politco article both a “Frenemy” and an “ATM for the Muslim Brotherhood” in the Middle East and North Africa. With the Timmerman excerpt on how US stingers supplied the Qataris found their way to Afghanistan for the Taliban to shoot down a Chinook CH-47 helicopter in 2012, we have further evidence of why the release of those five top Taliban commanders and war criminals, by President Obama may further embolden Congressional investigative oversight of these dangerous Administration national security policies.

New York Post, June 8, 2014

How the Taliban got their hands on modern US missiles

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

http://www.quintonreport.com/2014/01/28/ken-timmerman-to-run-for-house-of-delegates/

Kenneth R. Timmerman

In his new book, “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi” (Broadside Books), writer Kenneth R. Timmerman explains how the US government’s efforts to arm the Libyan rebels backfired, flooding weapons into Syria, and as he reveals here, Afghanistan:

The Obama administration isn’t only giving the Taliban back its commanders — it’s giving them weapons.

Military records and sources reveal that on July 25, 2012, Taliban fighters in Kunar province successfully targeted a US Army CH-47 helicopter with a new generation Stinger missile.

They thought they had a surefire kill. But instead of bursting into flames, the Chinook just disappeared into the darkness as the American pilot recovered control of the aircraft and brought it to the ground in a hard landing.

The assault team jumped out the open doors and ran clear in case it exploded. Less than 30 seconds later, the Taliban gunner and his comrade erupted into flames as an American gunship overhead locked onto their position and opened fire.

The Taliban took out a US Chinook helicopter in 2012 with a Stinger missile signed out by the CIA around the time of the attack. Photo: Reuters

The next day, an explosive ordnance disposal team arrived to pick through the wreckage and found unexploded pieces of a missile casing that could only belong to a Stinger missile.

Lodged in the right nacelle, they found one fragment that contained an entire serial number.

The investigation took time. Arms were twisted, noses put out of joint. But when the results came back, they were stunning: The Stinger tracked back to a lot that had been signed out by the CIA recently, not during the anti-Soviet jihad.

Reports of the Stinger reached the highest echelons of the US command in Afghanistan and became a source of intense speculation, but no action.

Everyone knew the war was winding down. Revealing that the Taliban had US-made Stingers risked demoralizing coalition troops. Because there were no coalition casualties, government officials made no public announcement of the attack.

My sources in the US Special Operations community believe the Stinger fired against the Chinook was part of the same lot the CIA turned over to the Qataris in early 2011, weapons Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department intended for anti-Khadafy forces in Libya.

They believe the Qataris delivered between 50 and 60 of those same Stingers to the Taliban in early 2012, and an additional 200 SA-24 Igla-S surface-to-air missiles.

Qatar now is expected to hold five Taliban commanders released from Guantanamo for a year before allowing them to go to Afghanistan.

But if we can’t trust the Qataris not to give our weapons to the Taliban, how can we trust them with this?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.