Posts

Saudi Oil Field Crisis

The conflict in the Middle East, among Shiites and Sunnis goes back to the time of prophet Muhammad himself.

When prophet Muhammad died, the infighting started in earnest among the various factions. Each demanding Bay’a (pledge of allegiance) with another clan. People jockeyed for power and did their Muslim-best to destroy their competition. Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law was elbowed out of the way by the more powerful disciples of the prophet and had to wait his turn to head the already fractured and feuding Ummah. Several of the faithful resented the fact that Ali was not allowed to take over the leadership. Some felt victimized by Umar and his powerful conspirators and hated Ali for not standing and fighting like a man. Some real stand-and-fight Muslims decided that Ali should be punished and he was knifed to death on his way to the mosque

The death of Ali was the real stirring of the hornet’s nest, so to speak. All kinds of power struggle, infighting and bloodletting started among the followers of the religion of peace. To cut to the chase, the conflict in the Middle East has been ongoing and has not been settled. Most likely, it will never be settled.

To fully comprehend the scope of this new development in the Middle East and point fingers as to who is responsible for the Saudi oil field attacks, we need to understand their involvement and invasion against the Shiite Houthi insurgency in Yemen. In March 2015 when a Saudi Arabia-led alliance of ten mostly Arab states launched an operation of air strikes against the Houthis, this clash began. Saudi Arabia, considers the Houthis rebels as an Iranian proxy, therefore, they are doing everything within their power to counter the Islamic Republic’s influence.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), titled, Yemen: Civil War and Regional Intervention has shed some light on a very convoluted issue. This report offers information and data about the continuing dilemma in Yamen.

According to this report:

“Overall, after five years of military operations against the Yemeni government and Saudi-led coalition, it would appear that the Houthis are better equipped with sophisticated weaponry than in previous conflicts against its rivals. According to one observer, “We have witnessed a massive increase in capability on the side of the Houthis in recent years, particularly relating to ballistic missiles and drone technology…. The current capability is far more advanced than anything the Yemeni armed forces had before the civil war.” In July 2019, the Houthis publicly displayed cruise missiles and UAVs in their arsenal and, according to one analysis, the Houthis are “revealing capabilities that Iran has been developing secretly for years.”

In May 2019, the Houthi faction declared they would target both the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s vulnerable facilities. Because the Houthis are supported by the Islamic regime in Iran, all the fingers are pointed at the Iranian regime.

According to Thomas Juneau of International Affairs:

“The Houthis, however, are not Iranian proxies; Tehran’s influence in Yemen is marginal. The civil war in Yemen is driven first and foremost by local and political factors, and is neither an international proxy war nor a sectarian confrontation. It is primarily a domestic conflict, driven by local grievances and local competition for power and resources.”

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism worldwide. There is no doubt that the Islamic regime supports and finances many proxies in the region. There is also no question that the Iranian people have been experiencing Islamic justice by being arrested, raped, maimed and murdered for the crimes they have never committed. The wanton Islamic Republic of Iran has been at a murder and mayhem path for decades encouraged by an appeasing world.

Just a few reminders: The murderous villains took the life of several thousand Americans during the Iraq conflict without being punished for it. More recently they downed an American drone in the international air space without even getting a slap on their long blood-stained wrist. Then, they started piracy in the Persian Gulf. Nothing happened.

That said, yet, there are some diehard (MEK) Mujahidin Khalgh supporters who are pushing the US to go to war with Iran on behalf of the Saudis. Saudi Arabia started a war in Yemen that they cannot win. The Islamic Republic is facing serious setbacks with sanctions. It is just a matter of time for the regime to fall. The situation inside Iran is dire indeed.

Saudi Arabia is not our friend. In fact, they are America’s greatest nightmare. They are involved in all aspects of American life in the US and “Estimates are that the Saudis fund up to 80% of American mosques.” Let that sink in.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Hints at New Iran Sanctions, Prefers to Avoid ‘Ultimate Option’ of War

Vice President Pence demands U.S. ally Saudi Arabia release Raif Badawi, imprisoned for insulting Islam

Vice President Mike Pence has called on U.S. ally Saudi Arabia to “release Raif Badawi, a blogger imprisoned for reportedly insulting Islam.”

In the midst of Saudi Arabia telling the world that it is modernizing, Raif Badawi remains in jail, and in August of last year, Raif Badawi’s sister Samar — among other women’s rights activists — were rounded up and arrested for criticizing officials in Saudi Arabia. Samar was only heard from last month, when she appeared in court along with other human rights defenders. “Under Saudi Arabia’s terrorism law, the activists face 20 years in prison. Amnesty International’s Philippe Nassif said he was concerned the activists would not have a fair trial or due process, and urged the United States to take action for their release.”

Pence also stated of other jailed human rights defenders:

“The United States calls upon the governments of Eritrea, Mauritania, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to respect the freedom of conscience and let these men go.”

These countries have no conscience to begin with, nor freedoms. Mauritania is still holding black slaves, Pakistan is globally infamous for its cruel Islamic blasphemy laws, and Saudi Arabia is exporting its Wahhabi ideology to madrassas and mosques globally.  No one can expect any response to Pence’s call for religious freedom in such countries. However, it will be interesting to see how Wahhabi Saudi Arabia decides to respond to Pence’s demand to release Badawi, given the Saudi-US alliance and Saudi Arabia’s boasting about becoming modernized.

US demands Saudi Arabia release ‘critic of Islam,’” Al Jazeera, July 18, 2019:

US Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday called out ally Saudi Arabia for the suppression of religious liberties and urged it to release Raif Badawi, a blogger imprisoned for reportedly insulting Islam.

Pence’s highlighting of Badawi’s ill-treatment comes in light of US legislators accusing the Trump administration of failing to act against the kingdom’s leaders for the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In an address to the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom conference at the State Department, Pence noted the detention of religious dissidents in Eritrea, Mauritania, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

“All four of these men have stood strong in defence of religious liberty despite unimaginable pressure, and the American people stand with them,” Pence said.

“The United States calls upon the governments of Eritrea, Mauritania, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to respect the freedom of conscience and let these men go.”

Republican and Democratic legislators – citing evidence of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s role in the Khashoggi case, and incensed over the civilian death toll from the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen that has killed thousands – have ramped up efforts to block President Donald Trump’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

The CIA has determined with “medium to high confidence” the Saudi crown prince, considered the de facto ruler of the kingdom, ordered the grisly killing of Khashoggi at its Istanbul consulate last year.

1,000 lashes
Badawi, who set up the Free Saudi Liberals website, was arrested in June 2012 for offences that included cybercrime and disobeying his father – an act considered an offence in Saudi Arabia.

The prosecution had demanded he be tried for apostasy, which carries the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, but a judge dismissed that charge……

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump steps in to save Christians and Yazidis from extinction by jihadists

Top Norwegian politician says on Facebook that Norway should give Tommy Robinson asylum, Facebook removes post

Boris Johnson Wrote Something Unflattering About Islam 12 Years Ago — Was He Right?

Islamic State jihadis engaged in “temporary marriage” with non-Muslim sex slaves

Nursing Assistant Nshimiyiana O. Hamzat Arrested for Raping Disabled Woman in Care Facility

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

Why the Secret Plan of the Bashir Regime Demands Reinstating Sanctions Against Sudan

President Bashir of Sudan, African Union Summit, South Africa 2015. Source (AFP)

On January 13, 2017 former President Obama signed Executive Order No. 13761 temporarily lifting  20 year old sanctions against Sudan led by International Criminal Court indicted war criminal President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. The Executive Order had a look back period of 180 days which ends on July 12th, whereupon the Trump Administration might permanently lift sanctions.  This comes at a time when new evidence surfaced that a strategic policy group of the Bashir regime in Khartoum continued genocide against the indigenous black African people in Darfur, Nuba Mountains, South Kordofan  and the Blue Nile region.

The rancorous dispute between Qatar and four Arab nations, over alleged support for Islamic terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood, has placed Bashir in a difficult position, as he has been asked by Saudi Arabia to take sides.  The government of neighboring Chad issued a statement cutting diplomatic relations with Qatar. Chadian President Idriss Deby Itno has long been waiting for this moment. Qatar has hosted and supported Chadian Islamist groups who have been recruited for Sudan President Omar al-Bashir’s Rapid Support Force (RSF)/Janjaweed militias.

In one embarrassing episode in mid-June 2017 General Taha Osman al Hussein, State Minister in the Presidency and  Director General of the Presidential Palace in Khartoum, allegedly had been arrested in an failed attempted coup to overthrow President Bashir of Sudan.  General al Hussein is a dual Sudan and Saudi Arabia citizen. Subsequent news reports said that General al Hussein and his wife had left the Sudan for Saudi Arabia after he had volunteered to allegedly lead an overthrow of Qatar.

Sudan had initiated an influence campaign in Washington retaining the services of the lobbying firm of Squire Paton Boggs at $40,000 per month to roll back the sanctions permanently. The objective was to make a convincing case that Sudan, despite its terrible human rights record, had nevertheless co-operated in providing useful counterterrorism intelligence on the whereabouts of the notorious Joseph Kony of the Lord’s Resistance Army.  In fact one of the co-authors, General Abdallah of the Sudan United Movement (SUM), had provided information on Kony’s whereabouts to US AFRICOM.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee rebuts recommendation of former US Sudan Envoys

The controversy over lifting Sudan Sanctions rose to a peak in late June 2017, when a noted US Sudan human rights activist Eric Reeves issued a scathing rebuttal letter.  It challenged a letter sent to the US House Foreign Affairs Committee by former Special Envoys to Sudan Princeton Lyman and Donald Booth, along with former U.S. Charge d’Affaires in Khartoum, Jerry Lanier, suggesting there was evidence to lift sanctions.

Reeves wrote:

In this almost three decades of brutal, tyrannical, and serially genocidal rule, this regime has not changed in any significant way. It has certainly not changed in ways claimed as possible by Lyman in December 2011:

We [the Obama administration] do not want to see the ouster of the [Khartoum] regime, nor regime change. We want to see the regime carrying out reform via constitutional democratic measures.” (Interview with Asharq al-Awsat, December 3, 2011).

One hardly knows where to begin in parsing the absurdity of this statement, justifying the Obama administration’s opposition to regime change. [Regime change] overwhelmingly favored by the vast majority of Sudanese and indeed now the linchpin of political and military opposition to the regime throughout Sudan.

Reeves then proceeded to document the escalation of genocidal ethnic cleansing against the indigenous black African people in Darfur, Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile region since the Obama Executive Order went into effect.

On June 30, 2017,  members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee responded by sending a signed letter to President Trump. It recommended that any decision to lift Sudan sanctions be deferred for at least a year past the July 12th. That would allow a new Special Envoy and team to be appointed and conduct investigations. The letter clearly stated the reasons for their recommendation to the President:

There has been substantial fighting [by] Sudan in Darfur in recent months, including evidence of targeting civilians by Sudanese armed forces and their affiliated militias.  As expected, no humanitarian access has been granted to South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, and only limited access to Darfur.

While the Sudanese government may seem cooperative on counterterrorism efforts, we believe they continue regularly scheduled support for violent non-state armed groups, like the former combatants of the Islamist group, Seleka, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Other similar violent actors [are] operating in northern and central Africa, the Middle East and neighboring countries.

As the look back date of July 12th looms there were further troubling disclosures.

The Top Secret Minutes of the Sudan Security Intelligence and Political Committee

Amidst the swirl of events concerning the lifting of sanctions against the Sudan regime of President al-Bashir were stunning revelations contained in the “Top Secret” minutes of The Security Intelligence and Political Committee of Crisis Management held in the Office of the Director of the Sudan National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) on June 18, 2017.  The secret document had been obtained by a reliable informed source and was translated.

Attending the Khartoum meeting were the power elite of the reigning National Congress Party (NCP) regime: President Bashir, Vice President Backri Hassan Salih, Foreign Minister Ibrahim Gandur, Minister of Defense Awad bn Ouf, Hamid Momtaz Secretary of NCP political affairs, and  State Minister in the Ministry of foreign affairs, General Mohamed Atta al Mola Director of NISS, General Ibrahim Mohamed al Hassan, Commander of Military Intelligence,  Ibrahim Mhamud Vice President of NCP and Professor Ibrahim Ahmed Omer President of Parliament.

The minutes of this Crisis Management Committee revealed the broad sweep of plans for assassination of a major Sudan resistance commander in the Nuba Mountains and senior Officers supporting him. It also addressed sponsorship of international ISIS terrorist activities in the Sahel region of Africa, especially in Libya, and the global Muslim Brotherhood Organization.  It elucidated web of deception in the Bashir regime’s influence campaign in Washington, DC to lift sanctions by the Trump Administration.

These top secret minutes also reflect the Bashir regime’s position in the current dispute between Qatar and four Arab Countries: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirate, Bahrain and Egypt. It reveals that relations with Iran secretly continue despite the public cutoff in 2015.

The revelations in this NISS document further the case of the letter signed by Members of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee sent to President Trump. The following is a digest of key recommendations of the Sudan NISS Crisis Management Committee at the June 18, 2017 meeting.

Elimination of Nuba Mountains Resistance SPLA/N Commander General Abdalaziz Adam Alhilu

The Committee sought to isolate and eliminate Nuba Mountains SPLA/N Commander General Abdulaziz Adam Alhilu, through use of all government institutions, political, military, intelligence and propaganda. They also will promote Malik Agar, Governor of the Blue Nile State and a leader of the SPLM/N, through an extensive media campaign  focusing the African Union’s position supporting his legitimacy as SPLM/N head. Allegedly, the Committee minutes contend the South Sudan government does not support AbdulazizThey would create internal problems for Abdulaziz through tribal conflicts using Nuba people opposing him to foment conflicts inside SPLA/N to weaken and totally destroy it. They indicated that Churches are the main places where communities are gathering in Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile; so they want to use highly trained people to infiltrate into Christian religious communities and create problems for Abdulaziz and SPLM/N. They plan to assassinate officers supporting Abdulaziz using military force through the support of the Agar faction and tribes of Angassana to remove him from the Nuba Mountains.

Recruitment and Infiltration of ISIS fighters to support African and Global Islamic Terrorism

They will continue support for the Global jihad objectives of the Islamic State and the Muslim Brotherhood. To that end they indicated that ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria were defeated and the desert terrain is not suitable for continued warfare.  They would relocate ISIS fighters from Iraq and Syria and infiltrate them into the areas of Bahr al Gazal and Equatorial regions in the South Sudan. The areas of Bahr al Gazal and Equatorial regions would allow ISIS fighters to establish linkage with Boko Haram in Nigeria in the West through  the Central African Republic and  with Al Shebaab of Somalia in the East.  They would infiltrate ISIS fighters into neighboring Libya to reinforce ISIS affiliate groups there seeking to defeat the Libyan National Army regime of General Khalifa Haftar to prevent him from attaining power, as they view him as a threat to their regime. They believe that South Sudan President Salva Kiir supports the overthrow of the Khartoum regime, thus they want to overthrow the regime of President Kiir. To that end they would train Southern Sudanese youth, people from West Africa and Nigerian students supporting Boko Haram as they resemble the South Sudanese Africa tribal people in the capital of Juba.  They would infiltrate them into South Sudan as secret agent provocateurs to raise resentment against the regime of President Kiir, seeking its overthrow.

Support for Qatar and Renewal of Iran relations

The Committee minutes indicated that Saudi Arabia is trying to force them to leave Qatar.  However, they are not going to leave Qatar because it has been supporting the regime both ideologically and financially.  They contend, without the support of Qatar they would have been overthrown and imprisoned. They would reestablish their relations with Iran because of shared Islamic Jihad goals. Qatar, Iran and Turkey have established a relationship which has become a main point of contention raised by the Saudi Arabia and the three other Arab states. As we have written previously, Qatar has provided $200 million under the guise of education reform to Sudan that was diverted to funding the recruitment, training and equipping of more than 24,000 Rapid Support Forces (RSF)/Janjaweed militia.  They are under the control of the NISS in 16 camps in the region around Khartoum. These RSF forces were immediately deployed to Darfur and the Nuba Mountains to accelerate the ethnic cleansing of native black African peoples in those conflict zones.

Campaign to influence the Trump Administration’s lifting of Sanctions

Prior to the July 12th review by the Trump Administration they allegedly could stop two planned terrorist attacks on American interests in the world to convince Americans of Sudan’s seriousness of helping the US in combating global terrorism to justify lifting the sanctions.

They want to prevail on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to put pressure on the US to lift sanctions. Saudi Arabia had urged President Obama to sign the temporary lifting of Sudan sanctions with his Executive Order. They also think  they have co-opted the US Intelligence Community because they understood the way the US intelligence Community think and operate.  They contend they have given counterterrorism intelligence information that no other country in the world had given them.  In return the US Intelligence Community has very little information about what is happening in Sudan.

Conclusion

This secret document reinforces our earlier contentions based on the captured Arab Coalition Plan. The Bashir regime’s objective is to recruit a jihad army of upwards of 150,000 from across the African Sahel region, ISIS Middle East and foreign fighters. The objective is to create a Caliphate ruled under Islamic Sharia law from Khartoum sponsoring global Islamic terrorism in consort with Muslim Brotherhood sponsoring regimes like Qatar and in renewed relations with Shiite Iran.  That is reflected in the Libyan National Army discovery of documents attesting to the collusion of Sudan, Qatar and Iran in fostering ISIS terrorists seeking to dismantle the Libyan National Army led by General Haftar.  Given these secret document revelations, President Trump would be well advised to accept the recommendation in the letter from the  US House Foreign Affairs Committee. That would entail  deferring  consideration of lifting sanctions for at least a year until a new Special Envoy of Sudan and South Sudan is appointed and team  assigned to obtain facts  that might verify the revelations of the secret June 2017 Sudan Crisis Management Committee minutes. A vital first step would be the appointment of a knowledgeable Special Envoy with plenipotentiary powers to investigate and expose the Bashir regime genocidal jihad objectives.  Another would be promoting regime change.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah Lt. Gen. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan Unity Movement (SUM). He is a native of North Darfur who joined the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in 1984 and became active in the Nuba Hills and Darfurian resistance movements. In 1989 he joined the Patriotic Salvation Movement in neighboring Chad based in Darfur. He served as an officer in the Chadian army for 23 years. He held senior intelligence and counterterrorism posts including as Coordinator of the Multi-National Joint Task Force of Nigeria, Chad and Niger. He was Coordinator of Pan-Sahel Initiative (PSI) Anti-Terrorism Unit of Chad and Commander of PSI Anti-Terrorism Battalion of Chad 2004. He is a December 2002 graduate of the Intelligence Officers’ Advanced and Combating Terrorism Courses, US Army Intelligence Center and Schools, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was a Counter Terrorism Fellow and a Graduate of the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2005. He was an International Fellow and Graduate of the US Army War College, Class of 2008.

Jerry Gordon is a Senior Editor at the New English Review.

Deborah Martin is a 35 year veteran Sudan linguistic and cultural affairs consultant

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Qatar – the end of the road?

Analysis: The Saudis and their Arab allies have had enough of Qatar and its media proxy al Jazeera’s behavior. They intend to win this fight.

The Emirate of Qatar is a peninsula that juts out from Saudi Arabia into the Persian Gulf. The only overland route out of Qatar is by way of Saudi Arabia and if that route is blocked, the only way to reach Qatar or leave it is by air or sea. However, flights to and from Qatar pass over Saudi air space part of the time and ships from or to Qatar have to pass through Saudi territorial waters. This means that Saudi Arabia can in effect declare a total blockade on Qatar if it so desires. It has never done so before, but it began the process on June 5th.

In addition to a blockade, the Saudis, joined by the United Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, the Philippines and the Maldives, cut off diplomatic and consular relations with Qatar.  Egypt, Libya and the Emirates declared that they would ban Qatari plans and ships from their air space and territorial waters. In 2014, these countries took much milder steps in order to punish Qatar, cancelling them once Qatar agreed to accept the dictates of the Umma and signed the Riyadh agreement along with the rest of the Arab nations.

The reasons provided by the countries involved for the unprecedented severity of the current steps against Qatar included: “Qatar aids the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS and Jebhat al-Nusrah” and “The Emir of  Qatar has declared that Iran is a good nation” as well as “Qatar destabilizes our regime,” as well  as ” Qatar provides hiding places and shelter to Muslim Brotherhood leaders who fled there from Egypt,” and “Qatar is giving aid to  the Houthi rebels (read Shiites) in Yemen.”

Another and most subtle reason, whose source is a Kuwaiti commentator, appears on al Jazeera‘s site: “Qatar refused to meet Trump’s financial demands.” This odd remark relates to a rumor on Facebook and other social network sites claiming that before Trump agreed to come to the Riyadh Arab League Conference, he demanded the Gulf Emirates purchase US arms in the legendary sum of one and a half trillion dollars, to be divided among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Emirates. The three agreed, but Qatar pulled out at the last minute, causing the Emirates to follow suit, and leaving the Saudis holding the bill demanded by Trump.   The falling through of this deal, the largest in history, may have been the reason for Trump’s noticeably grim face in Riyadh.

Claiming that Qatar causes the destabilization of regimes is a veiled hint referring to al Jazeera which broadcasts from Qatar. Every since it began broadcasting in 1996 from the capital city of Qatar, Doha, al Jazeera has infuriated Arab rulers because it constantly carries out a media Jihad against them also aimed at others such as  Israel, the US, the West and Western culture. The channel also promotes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Hamas, al Qaeda and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel headed by Sheikh Raad Salah. Al Jazeera‘s media strategy is determined by Qatar’s Emir and is carried out down to the last detail by its very professional leading broadcaster and editorial policy setter, Jamal Rian, a Palestinian born in Tul Karem in 1953, who moved to Jordan where he was active in the Muslim Brotherhood until expelled by King Hussein.

Every so often other Arab regimes, chief among them Egypt under Mubarak, attempted to close down al Jazeera‘s offices in their countries after overly harsh criticism was aimed at the ruling government, only to reopen them when al Jazeera simply stepped up its attacks

The general feeling is that any government official – or anyone at all – who opposes a ruling regime (and there is no shortage of these people in any Arab country) leaks embarrassing information to  al Jazeera all the time, so that the channel is always poised to expose the information when the time is ripe and especially if the now-cornered victim has been unfriendly to it and to Islamists. The thought of this happening is enough to paralyze every Arab leader who would like to clamp down on al Jazeera in his country.

Every time a conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas, al Jazeera comes out in favor of the terrorist organization because of Qatar’s support of it. Hamas leader Haled Mashaal, makes his home in Qatar and the Qatari Emir is the only Arab leader so far to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Emir has give billions to Hamas, enabling the organization to develop its  terror infrastructure.

Qatar has budgeted half a billion dollars to “buy” organizations such as UNESCO (whose next head will, unsurprisingly, be from Qatar), as well as media, academic and government figures to advance the goal of removing Jerusalem from Israeli hands. Al Jazeera runs a well publicized and organized campaign in order to ensure this outcome. This is the face of media jihad.

Saudi Arabia has never allowed al Jazeera‘s reporters to work from within the country, but does allow them to cover special events once in a while, mainly the Hajj. The Saudis know exactly what the Emir had up his sleeve when he founded a media network that would rule over Arab monarchs by means of recording their slip-ups, taking advantage of the Arab obsession with avoiding public humiliation by broadcasting from a satellite that can reach every house in the Arab world with no way of blocking it.

The last reports are that the Saudis blocked access to the al Jazeera internet site from their territory.  It is harder to block al Jazeera‘s satellite channel reception legally and it can still be accessed throughout the monarchy. Arab media attribute the blockage to declarations supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah made by the Emir of Qatar after Trump’s speech in Riyadh in which the US president included Hamas and Hezbollah in his list of terror organization, equating them with al Qaeda and ISIS.

Sorry, but I do not buy that story. Declarations about third parties (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) are ordinarily not the reason a public dispute erupts between Iranian monarchs. In my opinion, the reason for blocking the al Jazeera site in Saudi Arabia is a photograph posted on the al Jazeera site while Trump was in Riyadh.

This photo shows King Suleiman of Saudi Arabia awarding the Gold Decoration, the highest honor of the Saudi monarchy, to Donald Trump, but that is not the reason it was posted on al Jazeera. The reason has to do with the woman appearing in it and standing between Suleiman and Trump. I do not know what her name is, but she accompanied Trump during his entire stay in Riyadh standing just behind him and carrying a briefcase. Perhaps she is an interpreter. She is carrying a briefcase filled with important documents that have to be with Trump all the time in one picture as he, of course, would not be seen carrying a briefcase and standing be

What is interesting about this woman is that she spent the entire time in the royal palace with her hair uncovered, like Melania Trump, the First Lady, did, even though women with uncovered hair are not to be seen in Saudi Arabia. In the palace, women are also not allowed to b e seen in the company of men. Al Jazeera posted this photo intentionally, in order to embarrass the king who granted Trump an award even though he was accompanied by women who, like those in the picture, who do not cover their hair. That photo of the king was the last straw and the Saudis blocked al Jazeera.

Qatar is now under great pressure. The nations that broke off relations with Qatar have stopped recognizing the Qatari Rial as a viable currency and have confiscated all the Qatari Rials in their banks. As a result, Qatar cannot purchase goods with its own currency and must use its foreign currency reserves. The supermarket shelves in Qatar have been emptied by residents hoarding food for fear that the blockade will not allow food to be imported. Long lines of cars can be seen trying to leave for Saudi Arabia to escape being shut up in the besieged, wayward country.

Qatar is trying to get the US to help improve the situation. The largest American air force base in the Gulf is located in  Qatar and it is from there that the attacks on ISIS are generated. Qatar also hosts the US Navy Fifth Fleet as well as the Central Command and Control of US forces in that part of the world. Qatari media stress the US concern about the siege that the Saudis have put on Qatar.

As part of its efforts to enlist US aid, Qatar has begun a counterattack: Qatar media have publicized that the U.A.E. ambassador, Yousef Al Otaiba , said on US election eve: “What star could make Donald Trump the president?” This is intended to cause a rift between the US and the Gulf Emirates, but will certainly not improve Qatar’s own relations with the Emirates.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the Emirates have ejected Qatar from the coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen, and there are rumors that they will also remove Qatar from the Council for Cooperation in the Gulf. The Saudis could suspend Qatar’s membership in the Arab League and other organizations if this dispute continues, raising the pressure on the Emir’s al-Thani clan.

The next few days will decide Qatar’s future. There  is a distinct possibility that the foreign ministers of Qatar and the Arab nations taking part in the boycott against it will meet in some neutral spot, perhaps Kuwait, Qatar will give in and new rules will be set by Arab leaders, that is by King Suleiman, to keep Qatar in line. They would include: toning down al Jazeera and perhaps even switching its managerial staff, ending the support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations, ending cooperation with Iran and above all, listening to what the Saudi “Big Brother” says about issues, especially those having to do with financial dealings with the US. Once the conditions for Qatari surrender are agreed upon, we can expect the ministers to meet the press, publicize a declaration on the end of the intra-family dispute, shake hands before the cameras and smile – until the next crisis.

There is, however, another scenario: Qatar does not give in, the Saudis and its allies invade, their armies eject the Emir and Mufti of Qatar, and also Jamal Rian, the guiding brain behind Al Jazeera’s  policies. They would then appoint a new Emir from the ruling family, one who knows how to behave, one who listens to the Saudis.  No one except for Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would oppose this solution, and the soft-spoken condemnations will not succeed in hiding the world’s joy and sighs of relief if the Saudis actually carry out that plan.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed editor and senior consultant Israelnationalnews.com.

Gen. McMaster squanders tremendous capital Trump earns in Saudi Arabia

President Trump did not shy away from calling an Islamist terrorist by his real name when he addressed the heads of state of some fifty Muslim countries over the weekend in Riyadh.

His language and his message were clear: the United States needs the leaders of Arab Islamic nations as partners. As non-Muslims, we can not eradicate the scourge of a terrorism that draws its source from authentic Islamic texts, nor can we cast out terrorist leaders who model themselves on Mohammad, the prophet of Islam.

Indeed, that is what the Manchester bomber did, blowing himself up in order to kill the children of the Unbelievers. (Quran 3:151: “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”)

ISIS proudly draws on the Quran, and the Sura – the Life of the Prophet Mohammad – to justify its actions and its manner of imposing Sharia law over territory it controls.

In its training manuals and propaganda videos, ISIS regularly calls on young Muslims to join the ranks of the jihad, because it is their duty as good Muslims. How can they say this? Because Mohammad himself told them.

Indeed, there are 164 well-known versus in the Quran where Mohammad calls on Muslims to fight the Unbelievers and carry out jihad.

“I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam – of course it has. They are not preaching Judaism,” says Aaqil Ahmed, a Muslim who is the religion and ethics editor at the BBC.

“It might be wrong, but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine. They are Muslims. That is a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things,” Mr. Ahmed went on.

King Salman of Saudi Arabia knows this. Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq knows this. Egyptian president al-Sissi knows this. So does King Abdallah II of Jordan and all the other leaders President Trump met at the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh.

None of them blushed when the President spoke these “very uncomfortable things” in his speech on Sunday. They know that it is up to them to lead the fight against the jihadis and “drive them out,” as the President said – not because the jihadis represent the true face of Islam, but because they are the forces of Evil in today’s Muslim world, whose first victims tend to be Muslims.

Enter Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

In a five minute interview with FoxNews host Bret Beier in Riyadh, Gen. McMaster swept away all the gains the President had just made.

He acknowledged that the President had used the term “Islamic terrorism” in his speech, then immediately tried to back away from it.

“These are not Islamic people. These are not religious people. These are people who use a perverted interpretation of religion to advance their criminality. It’s a political agenda,” McMaster said of ISIS. “And you saw great agreement on that in all the speeches yesterday. King Salman used almost the same language.”

But King Salman did not use almost the same language. Instead, he acknowledged that ISIS terrorists “consider themselves as Muslims” and that they drew their inspiration from periods of Islamic history outside the “bright eras… of mercy, tolerance and coexistence.”

Gen. McMaster returned to the Obama-era white-washing of Islam and denial of Islamic doctrine, bending over backwards out of fear of offending Muslim leaders whose support we need to fight ISIS.

While one can hope that the damage he did to the budding anti-jihadi alliance will be transitory, and that wiser officials with a more sophisticated knowledge of Islamic doctrine will be put in the forefront of our cooperation with potential Muslim allies, ISIS leaders must be laughing at the foolishness of McMaster’s words.

Of course their allure draws its source from Islam’s earliest days, when Mohammad and his armies put their enemies to the sword, pillaged their cities, raped their wives, enslaved any survivors, and plundered their crops.

ISIS has already claimed responsibility for the Manchester bombing. We will learn soon enough whether Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who murdered so many innocents, acted alone or was part of a larger cell.

But what we know for sure is that the ideology motivating him to mayhem wasn’t Judaisim or Christianity or some “perverted interpretation” of them. That ideology was Islam as practiced by Mohammad and his followers.

Sugar-coating Islam’s blood-soaked history will not end terrorism. It will not convince young wannabe jihadis to put down the sword of Islam.

Instead, we need serious, effective programs that attack the causes of radicalization, programs devised by Muslims that speak to Muslims, programs that convincingly reject the jihadi doctrines on which ISIS is based.

The newly-created Center for Combating Extremism established by the Saudi government may be a step in the right direction. But as the President said, we also need the Saudis and other Arab Muslim leaders to drive the jihadis and the preachers who inspire them “out of the mosques” and out of the public square.

We cannot succeed in this monumental task when the National Security Advisor turns the President’s steely injunctions against Islamist terrorism into mush.

We are fighting an ideological enemy. We will never defeat him if we refuse to name the ideology that inspires him.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The cost of lifting U.S. Sanctions on Sudan: GENOCIDE by Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah

Sudan’s volatile security situation and human right abuses have worsened despite the partial lifting of sanctions by former President Obama, just days before the onset of the Trump Administration in January 2017. Under the terms of that partial sanctions lifting, there is a six months ‘look back’ period which could be reversed if evidence of ethnic cleansing, genocide or support for Jihad terrorism persisted. This report graphically presents evidence that genocide, war crimes and human right abuses have not ended in Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile regions of the Sudan. Random killings, torturing, rape and extra-judicial executions continue unabated in all parts of these regions. There is evidence of aerial bombing attacks and the alleged use of banned chemical weapons.  Syria is not the only Muslim country in the Middle East and Africa where indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction have been used against civilian populations. This has been delivered through by bombing attacks of the Sudan Air force.  Both China and Russia are supplying weapons and equipment in support of Sudan’s genocidal Jihad funded by Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia.  Time for the Trump Administration to re-impose Sudan sanctions and to consider establishing no-fly safe zones in Sudan conflict areas.

Sudan peace force Massacres of Kababiish and Hamar Tribes in South Kordofan

Over 119 people were killed in South Kordofan in early April 2017 and the fighting continues. This is another tragedy wrought by President Bashir with funding support from the Arab cabal of Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The massacre of 119 Harmar and Kababiish tribal people comes in the wake of a $200,000,000 gift from Her Royal Highness Sheikha Mozah Bint Naser of Qatar donated while on a recent trip to Sudan for the purpose of helping children in the Kordofan region. As we have written previously, the actual use of those funds was to support recruitment and arm more Janjaweed Arab “peace force” militias.

The Sudan Tribune reported Kababiish tribesmen shot and killed 36 people of the Hamar tribe. These people had their hands tied, were shot, slaughtered and their bodies burned and buried.  According to Ambassador Hassan Ibrahim Jadkerim those involved in the massacre were wearing Sudan regime’s military uniforms and were armed with heavy weapons provided by the government.

According to the eye witness report the fighting erupted between the two tribes of Hamar and Kababiish because of alleged stolen camels, despite both tribes using government supplied weapons and trucks killing each other. Both tribes are trained and armed by the government and they are part of the Janjaweed peace forces militias. The current governor of South Kordofan, Ahmed Harun, an indicted war criminal wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court ICC), has been organizing, training and arming these militias to attack the people of Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan. He is directly responsible for these government trained militias, financially sponsored by the State of Qatar. Fighting has been going on between these two tribes since the beginning of April, 2017. Instead of providing security protection, the Sudan regime National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) is supporting both conflicting groups with both weapons and logistic supplies.

Mass killing of Hamar-Kababiish by Sudan regime’s tribal militias clashes April 6, 2017 Sodori, North Kordofan, Sudan

The Sudan regime NISS security apparatus recruits, organizes, trains and arms these tribes with heavy weapons. The regime also provides them with trucks and logistic supplies. Moreover, the Bashir regime has granted them with full authority to kill anyone who opposes the implementation of the Arab Coalition plan directed at establishing a virtual Caliphate making demographic changes in Darfur and in the entire African Sahel region.

The Janjaweed peace forces Arab militias were established to enable the survival of the Bashir regime, fomenting international Jihad terrorism; the end state of the Muslim Brotherhood organization of the Islamic movement. The Bashir regime duplicitously arms these Arab militias.  However, when they committed heinous crimes, such as the massacring innocent civilians, the regime will deny that it had connections with them calling them outlawed groups. It is the regime’s strategy arming such groups and denying them when they committed crimes, so that they did not have to reveal that to the public and the international community. Effectively, the regime would eliminate any Arab militia group that refused to recruit its militants to fight for the regime. The fighting between Kababiish and Hamar is not the first instance of Arab militias fighting among themselves. It is an example of the internecine war to eliminate those opposing the Bashir regime to implement the strategy of the Arab Coalition.

Arab tribal militias armed by Sudan regime Sodori, North Kordofan, Sudan March 6, 2017

Arson and Killing in Darfur

The Sudan NISS and its armed Janjaweed peace force militias continue executing innocent civilians. They are massacring people, robbing, seizing of properties, committing arson and raping women. This is in furtherance of its strategy to dismantle Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps.  The regime intelligence apparatus recruited and trained individuals unleashing them to conduct arson of homes in IDP camps and markets.  Since late March 2017 several IDP camp homes and shops were burned in Nertiti, Zalengi, Central Darfur and Greida in South Darfur, and Garsila, in the Western Darfur region. These fires destroyed homes, food supplies, clothes and belongings of the IDP residents.   Losses from this arson in Greida alone were estimated at approximately $3 million US dollars. The government’s intention is to force the IDP camp residents into cities or move elsewhere so their land and wells are left to Arab Janjaweed peace force new settlers.

Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (reorganized Janjaweed militias. Formerly riding horses and camels but currently equipped with Toyota Pickup trucks and heavy weapons). Sodori, North Kordofan, March 6, 2017

The National Congress Party Sudan regime is surviving only through crisis. The regime’s security apparatus instigate such crises just to create confusion among Arab Janjaweed peace force militia and Darfur people alike and keep them busy fighting among themselves. The tribal clashes in Darfur and Kordofan regions are using government provided arms killing hundreds of people. These clashes are fomented, logistically supported and controlled by the NISS.

On March 31, 2017 nine Janjaweed militia fighters riding camels attacked a group of villagers driving their livestock to Tawal Shala water wells in eastern Jebel Marra. The militias opened fire and killed 3 people on the spot while others being pursued escaped for their lives. They seized all the possessions of those people killed including cows, donkeys and goats.

On April 3, 2017 Janjaweed militias shut and killed two brothers, Ali Ismael and Hamad Ismael. They were caught with their motor-cycle in the Kasab IDP camp, Kutum, North Darfur.

On April 6, 2017 another group of Janjaweed militias riding camels intercepted a vehicle between Buram and Greida killed one man and wounded two others then robbed the passengers.

Human violations in Darfur have continued for more than fifteen years. In addition to Janjaweed militias’ attacks, the Sudan government planes continue air bombardment on Jebel Marra and elsewhere. On April 6, 2017 Sudanese war planes dropped bombs in the area west of Dereibat.

These attacks demonstrate that the Sudan regime and its militias target innocent civilians and their property.

Muslim prayers for two Brothers: Ali Ismael and Hamadi Ismael Janjaweed Militias shut and Killed and taken their motor cycle in Kasab IDP camp, Kutum North Darfur April, 3, 2017

Why Obama Lifted Sanctions on Sudan

Why did the former Obama Administration lift sanctions on Sudan if its militias continued to kill innocent people? Over 3 million people of Darfur are now living in IDP and refugee camps and their land is occupied by Janjaweed militias.

By lifting partial economic sanctions President Obama ignored long-standing US commitments to put an end to Sudan’s years of internal conflicts and security instability caused by the National Islamic Front/Muslim Brotherhood regime. Former US President Obama’s  cooperation with the Islamic regime in Khartoum undermined United States engagement that might have  prevented  human right violations and protected  indigenous populations targeted  for ethnic cleansing by the Sudan regime. Instead the Obama Administration’s inaction in the face of these humanitarian violations by President Bashir was pursued in the vain hope of obtaining of counterterrorism intelligence information. Effectively the Bashir regime provided little useful information and cooperation with US in the global war on terrorism.  The National Islamic/Muslim Brotherhood regime continued to recruit, harbor and support terrorist organizations including fighters from the Islamic State.  Obama’s cooperation with the Sudan’s indicted President Bashir compounded the problem by opening a door for other Western governments, such as Great Britain, Italy and Germany, to establish various types of bilateral and multilateral economic and security cooperation agreements despite the Bashir regime’s worsening human rights record.

Sudan’s NISS burning of IDP camps and markets, March 2017 in Greida, South Darfur, Sudan

Failure of African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur

The African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) deployed in Darfur since 2007 with the mandate to protect civilians has unfortunately has become a puppet of the National Congress Party regime of President Bashir. Since its inception in Darfur none of the UNAMID Secretaries have reported human right violations in Darfur. None of the UNAMID forces have protected any civilian that has his or her life threatened by the Janjaweed militias. Most of the killing, rape, torture, and other human right abuses committed by the Janjaweed occur close to or in the vicinity of UNAMID camps. The Janjaweed militias commit these crimes because they know UNAMID’s movement is strictly controlled by the regime’s security forces who are mainly Janjaweed militias themselves. That is the reason UNAMID forces could not investigate incidents or protect innocent civilians even one kilometer outside their camp. The UNAMID forces cannot move without obtaining permission from the Sudan regime. Effectively they cannot file a report or conduct an independent investigation without consulting the Sudan regime’s officials and its security forces.

Sudan NISS burning of IDP camps to dismantle Otach IDP camp, Nyala South Darfur, Sudan March 7, 2017

 Failure of UNAMID to investigate incidents and write independent reports is probably the main reason that the international community distanced itself from Darfur. Darfurian people were internationally neglected and abandoned because UNAMID forces deployed to protect them had no capability to freely conduct operations.

The organization abandoned its primary role of protecting the innocent civilians and monitoring of human right violations instead policing the behavior of the Sudan government.  Witness the newly appointed Secretary of UNAMID openly demanding UN pressure Darfur resistance movements to cease armed struggle and sign false peace deals with the Bashir regime. Peace deals that bring no benefit to our people but instead more suffering.

How could the international community appoint a South African as head of the UNAMID mission in Darfur since South African President Jacob Zuma refused to arrest President Bashir in his country even announcing they were resigning membership in the International Criminal Court? The Darfur people have not healed from the wounds of Thabon Mbeki who became the right hand man of Bashir establishing false roadmaps and calling upon the international community to rally behind the genocidal regime.

The former South African President Thabon Mbeki who worked in the Darfur crisis for over 9 years said he brought peace in Darfur because he had been working closely with the African Union to help maintain Bashir in power and undermine the ICC.

The newly appointed Chief of UNAMID is another South African who has already begun ignoring human right violations that the regime is continually committing against the people of Darfur. Addressing the UNSC on April 4, 2017, the South African diplomat failed to mention Janjaweed militias committing daily atrocities on innocent civilians on Darfur. He also failed to mention the mission’s inability to provide security to the very people that they were mandated to protect. He called the Janjaweed, a well known government militia, just bandits.

The United Nations Security Council must appoint qualified officials who are impartial and empowered with the capacity to speak truthfully and act against the menace of genocide.  Peace and justice for the Darfurian people must prevail.

The UNSC has no capability to force Sudan’s regime to stop human right violations. Moreover, the Bashir regime has the power to dismiss any UN employee working in Sudan. The UNSC cannot protect them. Ivo Freijsen the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan was expelled. Over the last two years the Bashir regime expelled four UN officials from Sudan while the UNSC did nothing. Sudan simply did not recognize any of the UNSC resolutions. The UNSC issued over 18 resolutions on Darfur but none of these resolutions were implemented.

Indicted President Bashir has not been committing genocide alone without aid from Arab countries.  China and Russia supply arms.  Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, European Union and some European states provide financial assistances that ends up recruiting and training Janjaweed Militias, Rapid Support Forces or what President Bashir calls ‘peace forces.’ African Union and many Arab League member states collectively provide protection for Bashir to avoid arrest and prosecution by the ICC.

Conclusion

The Chinese and Russians are providing weapons that Sudan President Bashir uses to kill our people.  Arab countries and the European Union provide funds that are funneled to finance the recruitment of Janjaweed peace force militias that commit genocide against indigenous people of Sudan. We seek US and international assistance to stop the genocidal Jihad regime of President Bashir by seeking his arrest and establishing no-fly zones in Darfur, Kordofan and the Blue Nile region to save the lives of the country’s indigenous people.

ABOUT LIEUTENANT GENERAL ABAKAR M. ABDALLAH

Lt. Gen. Abakar M. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan United Movement (SUM). He is a native of North Darfur who joined the Sudan Liberation People’s Army (SPLA) in 1984 and became active in the Nuba Hills and Darfurian resistance. In 1989 he joined the Patriotic Salvation Movement in neighboring Chad based in Darfur. He served as an officer in the Chadian army for 23 years. He held senior intelligence and counterterrorism posts including as Coordinator of the Multi-National Joint Task Force of Nigeria, Chad and Niger. He is a December 2002 graduate of the Intelligence Officers’ Advanced and Combating Terrorism Courses, US Army Intelligence Center and Schools, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was a Graduate Terrorism Fellow and is a Graduate of the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2005. He was an International Fellow and Graduate of the US Army War College, Class of 2008.

EDITORS NOTE: Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review assisted in the preparation of this article. This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Views on Radical Islam: An interview with Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President

The Trump Administration spearhead of the ideological war against Radical Islamic Jihadism is Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to President Trump and member of the White House Strategic Initiatives Group. He has recently surfaced as spokesperson for the Administration on this and related issues and been the subject of a number of media reports. We had prior knowledge of his views on Radical Islamic jihadism from our New English Review book review and interviews prior to his involvement in the Trump transition team.  Subsequently, following the President’s election he was selected to serve in the Executive Office of the President.  We were afforded an opportunity to interview him on a wide range of current issues on Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio 1330 AMWEBY.  The program aired February 28, 2017.

Among the following national security and foreign policy issues addressed in the 1330amWEBY interview with Dr. Gorka were:

  1. Why the Trump Administration is concerned about the threat from radical Islamic Jihadism?
  2. Who are the ‘self-styled’ counterterrorism experts criticizing the Administration for exposing the ideology behind Radical Islamic Jihadism?
  3. The dangerous threat of Iran’s nuclear and missile development, state support for global terrorism and hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East.
  4. Importance of Israel, Jordan, Egypt as allies in support of US national security interests in the Middle East.
  5. Possible formation of a NATO-type regional military alliance composed of Sunni Arab Monarchies, Emirates and states with possible links to Israel.
  6. Administration views on Turkey and the Kurds in the war to defeat ISIS.
  7. Global spread of Radical Islamic Jihad especially in Sudan, Nigeria, Niger and Mali in Africa.

What follows is the interview with Dr. Gorka:

Mike Bates: Good afternoon welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. With me in the studio Jerry Gordon is the Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog The Iconoclast and joining us by telephone Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President in the strategic initiatives group. Dr. Gorka, welcome.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka: Thank you for having me.

Bates: Dr. Gorka, you have been criticized significantly by so-called counter-terrorism experts for concentrating on addressing the ideology behind radical Islamic terrorism. Is there any merit to that criticism at all?

Gorka: It’s quite ironic that the individuals that have written these recent critiques are in many cases the people who are responsible for the last eight years of Obama administration policies. That completely ignored the ideological component of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda and simply resulted in the atrocious situation we have today with ISIS declaring a caliphate of remarkable affiliates across the globe and with attack after attack occurring not only in America but especially in Europe. So the fact is denying the reality of what your enemy believes makes it very difficult to stop them recruiting new terrorists in the future. That’s my bottom line.

Bates: So how are you advising the Trump administration concerning the threat from radical Islamic terrorism?

Gorka: The President, even before he became the Commander in Chief, was very clear on these issues so we are just continuing the work of the presidential campaign. If your listeners look at a very important speech that wasn’t paid adequate attention to it, the Presidents’ Youngstown speech which was very clear on the ideological components of this war. Then we have the inauguration which was very specific, his fifteen minute speech that talked about the radical Islamic terrorist threat the phrase of your former President denied and refused to use.  Then we had  last Friday his address to CPAC which was just as strenuous and talked about obliterating the threat and wiping them from the face of the earth.  Our belief is that this is a war against individual organizations like ISIS. However, in the long term it is really a counter-ideological fight that has to resolve finally in the delegtimization of the religious ideology that drives groups like ISIS.

Jerry Gorda: Dr. Gorka, speaking about obliterating ISIS what changes might we expect in administration policies towards the Kurds in the war to defeat ISIS and the resolution to the conflict in Syria?

Gorka: Unlike previous administrations we don’t give our playbook away in advance. We don’t talk about the specifics of our war plan. However, the President has been clear that whether it’s the Kurds or whether it’s others in the region America is not interested in invading other peoples’ countries; that’s un-American. Our nation was born in a rejection of imperialism not the colonization or occupation of other countries.  Whether it is the Kurds or local Sunnis or the forces of Iraq, we are interested in helping our partners in the region win their wars for themselves. It’s not about American troops being deployed in large numbers, it’s about helping those Muslim nations and forces in the Middle East who want to be our friends help them win their battles for themselves.

Bates: Well speaking about them winning the battles for themselves there have been some news reports about some administration discussions about the possible formation of a NATO type regional military alliance in the Middle East. Is there anything developing there?

Gorka: Again we are going to keep our powder dry and we are not going to give away our game plans in advance. The bottom line is not the labels or not what we wish to package things into. The issue is the local actors stepping up to the plate with our assistance to fight their backyard war.  I mean it’s not, Christians who have been decimated, Yazidis have been decimated but by far the largest number of victims of the jihadist groups are their fellow Muslims. They are not just the Shia who they deem to be heretics but in many parts of Iraq and Syria and elsewhere the ISIS forces, the related groups are killing other Sunnis that they disagree with.  Whatever the coalition it will be very different from the smoke and mirrors coalition that was created under the Obama years which really wasn’t a serious force.

Gordon: Dr. Gorka, how dangerous is the threat of Iran’s nuclear and missile development, state support for global terrorism and hegemonic aspirations in the Middle East?

 Gorka: That’s a question that could have a PhD dissertation level response. Let’s just talk about the facts. We know Iran according to the U.S. Government is a state-sponsored terrorism, the largest state-sponsor of terrorism. It is not doing this recently it has been doing this since 1979 whether it is from the Iranian hostage siege crisis all the way down.  This is a nation that I like to depict as an anti-status quo actor. This is a nation that doesn’t share basic interests with the normal values of the international community. They are not interested. If you are a theocratic regime that wishes to forcibly and subversively export  your theocratic vision around the world what is the common interest you could have with America or with any of our allies? That’s the false premise upon which U.S. Iran relations were based in the last eight years and the idea that a nation that has that destabilizing ideology wishes to acquire weapons of mass destruction including nuclear capability means that they do represent a threat to all nations that believe in a global stability.

Gordon: Dr. Gorka, how important is Israel as an ally in support of U.S. National Security interests in the Middle East versus resolution of the impasse with the Palestinians?

Gorka: There is no greater partner of the United States in the Middle East. We are very close and we help the Jordanians, Egypt, UAE  redressing and improving the very  negative relationship that was established between the White House under the Obama administration and Egyptian President Sisi’s government. Israel, as a beacon of democracy and stability in the Middle East, is our closest friend in the region and the President has been explicit in that again and again So it would be difficult  to overestimate just how important Israel is not only to America’s interest in the region but also to the broader stability of the Middle East.

Bates: And what kind of role do you foresee for Turkey?

Gorka: I think that is in many ways up to Ankara. Historically, after it’s accession to NATO, Turkey became one of the most important nations in the alliance. It had the largest army in Europe. As a result of its location it was highly important during the Cold War geo-strategically. Recent events with an emphasis to rising fundamentalist attitudes have questioned the future trajectory of Turkey. The administration and the President is clear that it wishes to be a friend to those who wish to be our friends.  I think you know any good relationship depends upon both parties willingness to work together. We would like to continue a fruitful relationship with Turkey but that depends upon the government in Ankara itself.

Gordon: Dr. Gorka, the Obama administration lifted sanctions against the Islamic Republic of the Sudan on the cusp of leaving office. This despite evidence that the regime of President Bashir is raising a terrorist army literally to foment jihad in the Sahel region of Africa. What remedies might the administration consider to combat this?

Gorka: Again you are trying to tease out very concrete policy prescriptions from us and I’m really not prepared to do that at this point. Remember we are in week six of the administration.  However, we do recognize and we are very serious about the fact that of what I call the global jihadi movement isn’t just an issue in the Middle East. We like to focus on the so-called five meter target. It was Al Qaeda for a decade then it morphed into the Islamic state or ISIS.  There are large swaths of territory in Africa that are unstable, are not sovereign in the sense that the local government exercises full control over them. The mere fact alone if you look at Nigeria, the Boko Haram, the black African jihadi group has sworn allegiance to ISIS and Ab? Bakr al-Baghdadi and has been incorporated into the Islamic state, changed its name to the West African Province of the Islamic state. That shows you just how serious the situation is.  Jihadism truly spreads from whether it’s Aleppo, whether it’s Raqqa, whether it’s Africa, Mali, Nigeria or to the streets of Brussels or San Bernardino. We fully appreciate just how global the threat is and that includes Africa as well.

Bates: Dr. Gorka, it obviously includes the United States as well.  One of President Trump’s very first executive orders had to do with the restriction of entry into the United States from people from seven countries. The administration was criticized by the Democrats and the media, my apologies for being redundant there.  However, if you look at the numbers of those seven affected countries, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen,  have a combined population of  220 million people and there is a global Muslim population of 1.6 billion.  That means that 86 percent of Muslims in the world are not prevented from entering the United States and yet it was portrayed as a Muslim ban. How does the administration intend to come out with a revised plan that can avoid that criticism or do you think the criticism will come no matter what?

Gorka: The criticism will come no matter what because there is a fundamental disjuncture between the mainstream media, a perception of the world and the actual reality of how serious the threat is. These are the countries that either are state sponsors of terrorism or are the hotbeds of jihadist activity today be it Islamic State or Al Qaeda. This is a threat analysis we inherited from the Obama administration.  The idea that it is controversial is asinine and secondly you’re absolutely right. If this had been an Islamaphobically generated executive order then how is it the most populous Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia, was left off of the list? How is it the most populous Arab Muslim nation in the world  Egypt was left off the list? The challenge that was politically brought was that there was some ulterior motive behind the listing of these seven countries.  The fact is it is an unemotional cold analysis of the threat to America that was the reason for the drawing up of that moratorium of that list of seven nations.  But if you have a political agenda then of course you will spin things politically.

Bates: Another nation that’s not on that list is Saudi Arabia. Can you address the cooperation we are getting from the House of Saud regarding the overall global war on Islamic terrorism?

 Gorka: Again, it’s getting a little too specific.  However,  I will talk about some good things that have occurred. We know that there were issues with certain elements of Saudi society propagating or supporting the propagation of radical ideologies around the world. That attitude changed quite drastically in about ’05, ’06 when Al Qaeda started targeting Saudi officials on Saudi soil.  A nation that may have been problematic for several years has recently been reassessing its attitude to these international actors.  We expect to see even more positive things coming out of Saudi Arabia as we in the White House, especially the President and Secretary Tillerson start to rebuild the relationships with all our allies in the region that were so detrimentally affected by the treatment they received at the hands of the Obama White House.

Bates: Well if I may editorialize for just a moment, it is a relief to see an administration that is taking the threats seriously and is dealing with the world as it is and not as it wishes the world were. Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President in the strategic initiatives group, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon on Your Turn on 1330 AM WEBY.

LISTEN to the 1330 AM WEBY interview with Dr. Gorka.

RELATED ARTICLE: Swede Democrat leaders pen WSJ op-ed imploring Americans to avoid the mistakes Sweden made 

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are no joke

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.
This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

DeceptionEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill. The featured image is of Huma Abedin is by Greg Nash.

Mr. Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Clinton, Bush Implicated in Covering Up Saudi Terror in U.S.

The recently-declassified pages of the 9/11 report implicated both administrations, saying they ignored the Saudi network in the U.S.

The 28 pages of the recently-declassified report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack not only implicated the Saudi government and its network on U.S. soil, it implicates the Clinton and Bush Administrations in covering up that network and stopping the FBI from protecting America from it.

Page 11 states:

“Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative [censored]…Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’…A representative of the FBI’s [censored] testified in closed hearings that, prior to September 11th, the FBI received ‘no reporting from any member of the Intelligence Community’ that there is a [censored] presence in the United States.”

The censoring of the documents leaves us to wonder what specific terror-related presence the documents are referring to, but it is very clear that it is a network linked to the Saudi government and insufficient investigative resources were allotted for it because of those linkages.

Repeat: A terrorist network threatening Americans was “apparently” not properly addressed because it wasn’t worth offending the government of Saudi Arabia, even though the documents say the Saudi government was, as one veteran FBI agent was quoted as saying, “useless and obstructionist” on counter-terrorism.

The scandalous revelations could impact the presidential campaign because the Clinton Administration had eight years to address this Saudi network in America.

The Bush Administration was in office for only 9 months, but cannot be absolved of blame. The files do not indicate that any change in direction was ordered before the attacks and it chose to classify the pages exposing the Saudis in the 2002 report.

The Bush Administration also opted not to blacklist two terror-tied organizations with strong Saudi ties: Muslim World League and International Islamic Relief Organization. The former also has strong links to Huma Abedin and her family, one of the closest advisers to Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps that decision has something to do with the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. at the time, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was so close to the Bush family that he was nicknamed “Bandar Bush.”

It turns out “Bandar Bush” and his wife were up to their ears in terrorist activity. This includes the FBI finding copies of checks from February 1999 to May 2002 showing payments of $74,000 from his wife to the wife of one of the Saudi intelligence officers linked to the 9/11 hijackers for “nursing services.”

As you probably assumed, the FBI found no evidence that these services were actually rendered.

An unlisted phone number to the Colorado-based company that handled the affairs of “Bandar Bush” was found in the possession of Abu Zubaydah, one of the most senior Al-Qaeda leaders at the time. The documents contain much more than that to show that this “moderate” was intricately involved in the Saudi-backed jihadist network.

Documents obtained by the Clarion Project show that President Bush was actually scheduled to meet with representatives from the Saudi-linked Muslim Brotherhood network on the very day of the attacks, September 11, 2001. This was the fruition of the Republican Party and Bush presidential campaign’s embrace of Islamists, many of whom belonged to the Saudi-backed Brotherhood network.

The relationship continued after the 9/11 attacks, but frayed as some of those same Islamists faced investigations and prosecutions.

The Saudi regime is known as one of the most prolific influence-peddlers. Former CIA case officer Robert Baer, wrote in his bookSleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold its Soul for Saudi Crude:

“Saudi money also seeped into the bureaucracy. Any Washington bureaucrat with a room-temperature IQ knows that if he stays on the right side of the kingdom, one way or another, he’ll be able to finagle his way to feed at the Saudi trough. A consulting contract with Aramco, a chair at American University, a job with Lockheed—it doesn’t matter.

There’s hardly a living former assistant secretary of state for the Near East, CIA director, White House staffer, or member of Congress who hasn’t ended up on the Saudi payroll in one way or another, or so it sometimes seems. With this kind of money waiting out there, of course Washington’s bureaucrats don’t have the backbone to take on Saudi Arabia.”

A search of the Foreign Agents Registration Act website shows 14 active foreign agents of Saudi Arabia, including the Podesta Group. It is led by a major Democratic Party financier who is the brother of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager. The group is paid $140,00 per month by the Saudis.

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington repeatedly urged Americans to be on guard against this type of activity, saying “foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”

The “spirit of party,” Washington warned, “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

Every American should be reminded of his words in light of the newly-released documents.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Baton Rouge Cop-Killer Linked to Nation of Islam

Headlines Misleading Describing Declassified Pages of 9/11 Report

Declassified Pages Link Muslim Brotherhood to 9/11 Network

CAIR Objects to Billboards by Muslims to Report Suspicions

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of former presidents Bill Clinton (L) and George W. Bush. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Confirmed: Top Saudi Officials Aided the 9/11 Jihad Plot

The 28-page section of the 9/11 report detailing Saudi involvement in the September 11, 2001 jihad attacks have finally been released (albeit with substantial portions still redacted), and it is now clear why one President who held hands with the Saudi King and another who bowed to him worked so hard all these years to keep these pages secret: they confirm that the 9/11 jihad murderers received significant help from people at the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Obama-Bows

President Obama bowing to Saudi royalty.

The report states that Omar al-Bayoumi, who “may be a Saudi intelligence officer,” gave “substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mindhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the hijackers at a public place shortly after his meeting with an individual at the Saudi consulate.” Around the same time, al-Bayoumi “had extensive contact with Saudi Government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense.” That company “reportedly had ties to Usama bin Ladin and al-Qa’ida.”

Another possible Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, who “has many ties to the Saudi government” and was also a supporter of Osama bin Laden, boasted that he did more for al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi than al-Bayoumi did. He also “reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi government officials.” The report says that at one point, “a member of the Saudi Royal Family provided Bassnan with a significant amount of cash,” and that “he and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi ambassador to the United States and his wife.” That ambassador was Prince Bandar, about whom the New York Times later noted: “No foreign diplomat has been closer or had more access to President Bush, his family and his administration than the magnetic and fabulously wealthy Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia.”

Then there was Shaykh al-Thumairy, “an accredited diplomat at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles and one of the ‘imams’ at the King Fahad mosque in Culver City, California,” who also “may have been in contact” with al-Mindhar and al-Hamzi.

bush-holds-hands-saudi-ap-gerald-herbert

President Bush holding hands with Saudi royalty. Photo: AP

Saleh al-Hussayen, “reportedly a Saudi Interior Ministry official, stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Virginia where al-Hazmi was staying. While al-Hussayen claimed after September 11 not to know the hijackers, FBI agents believed he was being deceptive. He was able to depart the United States despite FBI efforts to locate and re-interview him.” Who got him out of the country?

There is much more. The report redacts the name of “another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family,” but notes that he “is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations and reportedly was checking security at the United States’ southwest border in 1999 and discussing the possibility of infiltrating individuals into the United States.” There is no telling who this could have been, but Prince Bandar’s unlisted phone number turned up in a phone book of Abu Zubaida, “a senior al-Qa’ida operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002.” Abu Zubaida also had the number of “a bodyguard at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC.”

The report also mentions a CIA memorandum that “discusses alleged financial connections between the September 11 hijackers, Saudi Government officials, and members of the Saudi Royal Family. This memorandum was passed on to an FBI investigator; yet “despite the clear national implications of the CIA memorandum, the FBI agent included the memorandum in an individual case file and did not forward it to FBI Headquarters.” Why?

There is still more, and with this much smoke, there is almost certainly fire: the Saudi connection to 9/11 goes to the highest levels of the Saudi government. And as I detail in my new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran, a U.S. District Judge ruled in 2011 that the Islamic Republic of Iran was liable for damages to 9/11 families because of Iran’s role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The judge found that Iran and its proxy Hizballah had cooperated and collaborated with al-Qaeda before 9/11 in planning the attacks, and continued that cooperation after the attacks.

After 9/11, the U.S. declared war on terror and entered Iraq and Afghanistan. But if Bush had really been serious about attacking jihad terror at its root, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Iran instead. Under Obama, the betrayal has gotten exponentially worse. There needs to be a full Congressional investigation now into why these 28 pages were kept secret for so long, with those responsible punished accordingly. And above all, the next American administration must make a searching reevaluation of our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and stop treating enemies as allies.

Hillary’s Saudi Solution: They’re funding 20% of Clinton’s presidential campaign

The U.S. imam Warith Deen Mohammed said in 1999:

“In Saudi Arabia it’s the Wahabi school of thought…and they say, ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to…prefer our school of thought.’ That’s in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached.”

“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” —Hillary Clinton

“The Clinton Foundation…disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US $25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year. Other foreign governments who have donated money to the Clintons include…Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman…”

Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for.

Hillary Clinton Middle East donors

Clinton Saudis

“Saudis Fund 20% of Clinton Presidential Campaign: Top Prince,” teleSUR, June 13, 2016:

…Saudi Arabia has paid more than 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidential elections, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was quoted as saying Sunday in a news report by the Jordanian Petra News Agency.

According to the Middle East Eye news website, the report was later deleted from the agency’s website. However, a snapshot of the original Arabic version was later republished by the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs.

“Saudi Arabia has always sponsored both Republican and Democratic Parties of America and… the kingdom also provides with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the U.S. presidential elections despite the fact that some influential forces within the country don’t have a positive look toward supporting the candidate because she is a woman,” the agency’s report quoted Prince Mohammed as saying….

The Clinton Foundation, which is chaired by both Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton, disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US$25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year.

Other foreign governments who have donated money to the Clintons include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica, which together donated around US$20 million….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islam’s Violence is Rooted in Instability

Jihad Attack in Orlando

Iranian Cleric: ‘Improperly’ Dressed Iranian Women Cause Climate Change

Canadian Imam on Orlando massacre: “This system (democracy) does not represent us”

Arkansas: FBI hunts for Muslim couple arrested for terror threats — fled upon release, had weapons & ammo

Facebook bans gay magazine critical of Islam

Commentary on the Saudi Situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia threatens the United States — America’s Response Should Be: “Go to Hell”

The Thomas More Law Center’s Richard Thompson posted the following on The President’s Blog:

Saudi Arabia has threatened the United States that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars worth of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow families of the 9/11 victims to hold Saudi Arabia legally  responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks.

The Saudi threat is economic extortion.

Our response should be swift and clear — “Go to Hell.”

Instead, the Obama administration is lobbying Congress to block passage of the bill.

It’s time that the American people know the full story of Saudi Arabia’s complicity in the 9/ 11 attacks – the most horrendous surprise attack in American history.

It’s time that the American people know exactly what our government did to protect Saudi officials residing in America from FBI investigations.  The families of the 9/11 victims have a right to know.  See New York Times article here.

It’s time the American people know how our own government intentionally covered up Saudi Arabia’s role in the 9/11 attack.  See New York Post article.

Joint Terrorism Task forces say virtually every road leads back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet, time and again terrorism investigators were called off.

As a first step the American government should declassify the 28 pages of the 838-page congressional report on the 9/11 attacks.

According to recent news articles, some leaked information reveals:

  • A flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy.
  • The transfer of $130,000 from Prince Bandar, the then Saudi ambassador’s, family checking account to another hijacker’s Saudi handlers in San Diego.
  • Days after 9/11, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one of Osama bin Laden’s family members who was on the terror watch list.
  • According to FBI agent Mark Rossini, “The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

National security expert: Saudis no U.S. ally

How U.S. covered up Saudi role in 9/11

Saudi Arabia Wars of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

Saudi Arabia Panic About 9/11 Lawsuit

Saudi involvement in 9/11 ‘deliberately covered up at highest levels’ of U.S. government

What has the U.S. gained by doing the Saudis’ bidding all these years? Has global jihad terrorism abated? Have the Saudis stopped spreading their violent and virulent Wahhabi ideology around the world? Have the Saudis stopped the rise of the Islamic State? In fact, the whole “alliance” has been a disaster that has severely weakened the United States.

“How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11,” by Paul Sperry, New York Post, April 17, 2016:

In its report on the still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.

That’s quite an understatement.

Actually, the kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the coverup goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Investigations were throttled. Co-conspirators were let off the hook.

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego.

An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.

The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.

Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.

“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”

But Bandar held sway over the FBI.

After he met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

“The FBI was thwarted from interviewing the Saudis we wanted to interview by the White House,” said former FBI agent Mark Rossini, who was involved in the investigation of al Qaeda and the hijackers. The White House “let them off the hook.”

What’s more, Rossini said the bureau was told no subpoenas could be served to produce evidence tying departing Saudi suspects to 9/11. The FBI, in turn, iced local investigations that led back to the Saudis….

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Palestinian” tried to stab Israelis so he could “marry virgins in Paradise”

UK: Muslim “anti-radicalization expert” says murdered Ahmadi “not real Muslim”

How many American politicians do the Saudis own?

his explains a great deal about U.S. foreign — and domestic — policy. In also wonder the same thing about mainstream media outlets, with their determination to ignore or downplay the jihad threat, and their fixation on “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim backlash.” Not to mention their unstinting habit of tarring foes of jihad terror as “anti-Muslim.”

“How Many American Politicians Do the Saudis Own?,” by Michael Walsh, PJ Media, March 31, 2016:

If, since 9/11, you’ve begun to think that all American politicians are corrupt, that our national anger was deliberately misdirected to places where it could be expended with absolutely no result, and that our military has been exhausted in a series of pointless, unwinnable wars against third-rate Islamic nations… you’re absolutely correct.  Everywhere you look, from George W. Bush holding hands with various members of the Saudi “royal” family on down, the real enemy of civilization wraps its tentacles more tightly around us. Case in point: the sham GOP candidate, widely despised former Naval officer and second-most-loathed man in the U.S. Senate, the ineffable John McCain:

A nonprofit with ties to Senator John McCain received a $1 million donation from the government of Saudi Arabia in 2014, according to documents filed with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.The Arizona Republican has strictly honorary roles with the McCain Institute for International Leadership, a program at Arizona State University, and its fundraising arm, the McCain Institute Foundation, according to his office. But McCain has appeared at fundraising events for the institute and his Senate campaign’s fundraiser is listed in its tax returns as the contact person for the foundation.

Though federal law strictly bans foreign contributions to electoral campaigns, the restriction doesn’t apply to nonprofits engaged in policy, even those connected to a sitting lawmaker.

Groups critical of the current ethics laws say that McCain’s nonprofit effectively gives Saudi Arabia — or any other well-heeled interests — a means of making large donations to politicians it hopes to influence. “Foreign governments are prohibited from financing candidate campaigns and political parties,” Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist for ethics watchdog Public Citizen, said. “Funding the lawmakers’ nonprofit organizations is the next best thing.”…

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Another fake “Islamophobia” claim: Muslima admits she lied about being slashed and called “terrorist” in NYC

“The notion that Moroccan-Belgians suffer from widespread exclusion, discrimination, and suppression is ridiculous”