Friday, September 11, 2015

Mohammed's Cuckoos - G. Murphy Donovan

by G. Murphy Donovan

Why do the faithful go west, to the lands of infidels?

The cuckoo is one of the more interesting migrants in the animal kingdom. It spends part of the year in sunny Africa, but nests and breeds in Europe. Cuckoos appropriate the nests of other birds to lay eggs. The lark or dove in turn does not recognize the egg threat and even feeds the cuckoo chicks after they hatch. Eventually, the larger aggressive cuckoo chicks either evict or kill any host offspring.

Brood parasitism features several related behaviors; egg mimicry, egg or chick evictions, or once the cuckoo chick is established, nest fratricide. Still, no cuckoo ever becomes a chickadee.

Some critters were born to political metaphor. The hawk, the dove, the eagle, the snake, the rat, the elephant, and even the jackass are familiar. Given the Muslim migration out of Africa and the Levant, even genteel bird watchers see the social or Darwinian implications of mass migrations, avian or human.


As Theodore Dalrymple wrote:
“I must confess here that I thought of foreign Muslim clerical fanatics in England receiving social security payments even as they call for the destruction of the society that pays them. We are horrified, it is true; but all the participants in the scene are acting only according to their nature.”
Nature indeed! Is it the nature of Europeans to be passive victims? Is it the nature of Muslims to be religious/cultural predators? Bamiyan, Palmyra, and the ongoing Christian genocide within the Ummah might be probative here.

Muslim feminist

What we have, as Cool Hand Luke’s jailer might have put it, is a “failure to communicate,” two cultures with radically different political, religious, cultural, and moral values.  All the while, Europe clings to multicultural illusions even as their “union” is undone by a monoculture on the move. Islamic aliens flee Muslim lands as political “refugees” travelling, ironically, under an umbrella of enlightened Judeo/Christian indulgence.

Open border is to “union” in Europe as kefir is to ice cream.

Refugees from what? Shia theocracy? Sunni fascism?  Surely Arabs and Africans are not fleeing the Ummah or Islam, the “religion of peace.” Why do the faithful go west, to the lands of infidels?

Where is the Arab League (22 Arab states) or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (57 Muslim states) midst the greatest refugee crisis since WWII? What are Malaysia and Indonesia doing about Muslim “asylum seekers?”  In Arabia alone, more than half of residents are non-citizen guest workers. Why not replace infidel “guests” in the Emirates with besieged brothers from North Africa and the Levant? Why should there be national “quotas” for Muslim refugees in Europe or America and none for the 57 nations of the Ummah?

Why is there is no discussion, no demand, that Islam care for its own? Why is there no call for Muslim or Islamic “moral” responsibility? The absence of any significant Muslim players in the migrant crisis puts a stake through the heart of any Islamic claims to moral equivalence.

Muslim North Africa, Arabia, Malaysia, and Indonesia are the most prominent human traffickers (nee slave traders) in the modern world. If Islamic flight is necessary, why not deliver economic migrants to those world class human rights abusers as a kind of poetic justice?

Alas, the human flood tide is well beyond the gates of Vienna now. Indeed, contemporary migrant/refugee flash mobs have secured more of Europe overnight than Islam ever achieved through force of arms in previous 1400 years. Europe is now a weak consortium of barren nests, ripe for colonization.

Europe’s open borders are the best thing to happen to Islam since Saladin. 

Apologists tell us that the modern Muslim tide is no different than any other historic migration, a value added. The East, the Ummah, and the swordsmen of al Qaeda and the Islamic State know better. The “refugee” or migrant gambit is the quintessential economy of force strategy, the wisdom of crowds if you will.  If terrorists are the passenger pigeons of fear, a mobile mass movement might be the vanguard or base for a 21st Century caliphate in Europe.  

Luther, Darwin, or Marx might have argued that our natures compel us to do what we must. Alas, the specter of Mohammed now literally walks across the EU to victory -- across a Europe without borders. Western cultural tolerance is hoisted on its own petard.

Secular democracy was ever vulnerable to ethnic or religious coup.

The siege of Europe might not be directed by any central Muslim authority, but such direction is not necessary. Imperial Islam has a tailwind from Christian guilt and Liberal moral relativity -- and no restraints like tribal, religious, or national accountability.

For Washington and Brussels, Islam is an archipelago of immature cultures, like that in Lord of the Flies, child-like societies anointed with ideological, political, and moral immunity. Indulgence, alas, is the godfather of all social pathology.

Guilt, responsibility, and penance for Muslim pathologies are, unfortunately, the new “white man’s burden,” a political purgatory that Brussels and Washington wear like a hair shirt. The West does not expect the East to care for itself. And the East, for the most part, is content with culture corrupted by oil, wealth, ignorance, tribal fratricide, and theology.

The yeast in this toxic batter is Islamofascism, swordsmen the likes of Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State. The cutting edge of Islam is the ugly end of mercy for passive apostates -- as well as a harbinger of what is to come for inert or naïve European and American infidels.

The best evidence of cultural or political depravity is often anecdotal. In the same week that Austria fell, the American Press was obsessed with: rented Pandas at the National Zoo, Hillary’s email, homosexual marriage in Kentucky, deflategate in Foxboro, and an Arab invasion of the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown.

Yes, while Europe watches a Muslim migrant/refugee/asylum seeker nightmare walk across Europe, “King” Salman Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia rented the entire 222 rooms of a 5-star hotel in Washington, DC for his court over the long Labor Day weekend.

Kerry and friend

The chances that Abdulaziz or Obama would do anything “morally responsible” about the latest Muslim exodus was about as good as the Saudi entourage going to Ben’s Chili Bowl for a kosher dog. As the Muslim Right partied with the American Left in Washington, DC, Europe was smothering under a host of fakirs on foot.

Small wonder then, that both the ayatollahs of Persia and the imams of the Islamic State have the decadent, if not ripe, plutocrats of Arabia in their crosshairs too.

Any further discussion of the moral responsibility for the chaos in the Ummah is probably moot. The West can’t even agree on the language to describe the threat. Words like terror, terrorist, Islamist, or Islamofascist are proscribed. The Islamic State is variously called ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh.  Washington and Brussels can’t admit to themselves that international jihad now has a home field advantage.

The Islamist “minority” shibboleth is dying too slow to save Europe. As Vienna submits, can Berlin, Paris, London, and Minneapolis be far behind? 

The exodus circus is the latest front in another skirmish the West has no intention of winning. Muslims on the move are variously described as migrants, economic refugees, or asylum seekers. If allied generals are incapable of distinguishing friend and foe on the various Muslim battlefields, any notion that rear echelon diplomats or NGO apparatchiks will be able to separate an immigrant, a refugee, or a deadbeat from a terrorist 5th column is ludicrous.

Open borders and unlimited undocumented are now euphemisms for despair. Withal, the Ummah has carte blanche to export their problems; ethnic, religious, and political pathologies to Europe and beyond. Compassion has been weaponized.  The Quisling strain of social democracy has seduced Europe again.

When all is said and done, the European Union is surrendering in slow motion.  What Hitler could not do with German panzers, Mohammed is doing with cuckoos in walking shoes and backpacks. Over time, the European Union might well change its name to the Obama Caliphate.
“It's often safer to be in chains than to be free.” – Franz Kafka
GMD sometimes writes about the politics of national insecurity.

G. Murphy Donovan


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Germany's Appeasement of Radical Islam - Vijeta Uniyal

by Vijeta Uniyal

  • German, and possibly European, demographics are being set to change forever.
  • "No one knows exactly what actually happens in Islamic classes in German primary schools." — Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, head of the Faculty for Islamic Theology and Religious Studies at the Freiburg University of Education.
  • In Ourghi's assessment, conservative Islam, the one dominant in Germany, is incapable of thinking critically about its past.
  • According to the report, the textbooks fail to "confront the problematic verses of Koran." The curriculum also fails in its most important purpose -- integrating Muslims into the German society -- as it fails to reconcile the "Islamic faith of the students with the reality of the western society" they are living in.
  • By legitimizing extremist groups such as DITIB within German Muslim society as the sole legitimate representatives of Islam, the German government has marginalized genuine voices of reform and dissent within its Muslim population.
  • These courageous dissident Muslim men and women are left to face threats and intimidation on their own, while the government is busy appeasing the self-proclaimed leaders of the faith.

As Muslim migration is being set to change German, and possibly European, demographics forever, Germany is gearing up for the new challenge -- not by integrating and assimilating young Muslims in a free and democratic Western society, but by handing over the religious education of the next generation of German Muslims to Islamist radicals.

Worse yet, German authorities see no problem in doing that.

With Germany predicted to receive 800,000 migrants -- mostly Muslims -- this year alone, and millions more waiting to cross Europe's unguarded borders, the Muslim population in Germany is seeing a historic rise from the current figure of nearly 6 million. Several German states including Bavaria, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia have introduced Islamic Studies in their public schools. The state of Hesse has become the first in Germany to offer Islamic education in public schools, with religious instruction starting as early as the first grade.

Giving young children religious and moral instruction might sound like a good idea, if not for the content of the newly written Islamic curriculum and the influence of Islamist elements over the recruitment of teachers.

The writing of textbooks is being overseen by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB). In an agreement reached between the State of Hesse and DITIB, the organization will play a key role in setting the curriculum, selecting the teachers and monitoring the Islamic religious instruction. The organization is apparently assuming a similar role in several other key German states.

DITIB is the largest Muslim organization in Germany and controls several prominent mosques. The group depends heavily on the Turkish government for its funding, and maintains close ties with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist party, the AKP.

The newly compiled Islamic curriculum for public schools in Hesse has come under great scrutiny. An independent report conducted by Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, who heads of the Faculty for Islamic Theology and Religious Studies at the Freiburg University of Education, has sharply criticized the curriculum.

According to an article in Die Welt, Ourghi, a prominent Muslim scholar, has been raising concern about the activities of DITIB and other conservative Muslim organizations operating in Germany. "No one knows exactly what actually happens in Islamic classes in German primary schools," he says. In his assessment, conservative Islam, the one dominant in Germany, is incapable of thinking critically about its past.

According to Ourghi's report, the textbooks fail to "confront the problematic verses of Koran." The report also says that the curriculum fails in its most important purpose -- integrating Muslims into the German society -- as it fails to reconcile the "Islamic faith of the students with the reality of the western society" they are living in.

Confronted with the damning report, Hesse's Minister of Education and Culture, Alexander Lorz, dismissed the allegations and called the Hesse's Islamic education a "success."

Meanwhile, despite Lorz's stance, young German Muslims from his state keep heading to Syria and Iraq to join the ranks of the Islamic State (ISIS). And despite DITIB's regular lip service to denouncing the terrorist organization, the Islamic State receives a continuous flow of fresh recruits from DITIB-run mosques.

According to a recent investigative report by the German news magazine, Focus, a DITIB-run Mosque in Cologne is a key base in Germany for Turkey's intelligence agency, the MIT. The intelligence team not only gathers information on Turkish President Erdogan's opponents in Germany, but also maintains a local "thug squad" to mete out "tough punishments" to Turkish dissidents in Germany.

The Cologne Central Mosque is used as a key base in German for Turkey's intelligence agency, where they run a local "thug squad" to mete out "tough punishments" to Turkish dissidents in Germany. (Image source: © Raimond Spekking/CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

By legitimizing extremist groups such as DITIB as the sole legitimate representatives of Islam within German Muslim society, the German government has marginalized genuine voices of reform and dissent within its Muslim population.

These courageous dissident Muslim men and women are left to face threats and intimidation on their own, while the government is busy appeasing the self-proclaimed leaders of the faith.

The fruits of liberty enjoyed by Germans today are not Germany's to squander in the first place. Every bit of this precious freedom was paid for in blood -- from the beaches of Normandy to the pavements of the Warsaw Ghetto -- often meter-by-meter with bare knuckles and bloody fists.

As if history has come full circle, in the span of less than a century, Germany's state institutions are folding again at the mere sight of an organized band of fascists.

Vijeta Uniyal is a current affairs analyst based in Germany.  Follow Vijeta Uniyal on Twitter


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The hypocrisy of Arab separatists - Mohamed Kaabiya

by Mohamed Kaabiya

The Bedouin people are crying out and fighting for their existence within Israeli society while the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee turns its back on them.
The Arab Higher Monitoring Committee in Israel is an independent political organization that was established in 1982 in an effort to coordinate the political activities of Israeli Arabs and their various organizations. The committee comprises local leaders, Knesset members from Arab parties and members of apolitical organizations. However, unfortunately, most of the committee's activities and those of the Arab political parties are tainted by hypocrisy. When it was established, the committee set a goal of promoting and developing Arab society in Israel. In reality, there are many contradictions between this goal and what is actually happening. In this piece, I will examine some of the committee's main values and goals and I will explore what is happening on a practical level on the ground. 

The action to eliminate all signs of racial discrimination:

In practice, the policies of the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee itself are discriminatory. It purports to represent the entire Arab community in the country, but the right to vote and influence decisions are given only to those approved by its members. Moreover, the Bedouin community in the north, some 100,000 people who vote in Israeli elections, have no representation in the committee, despite the fact that they voted for the Arab parties in considerable numbers during the last election. 

A committee like this does not give expression to the views of the entire spectrum of the Arab sector and completely ignores the Bedouin population in the north of Israel, a population that lives with increased conflict of identity and belonging. 

The action against the home demolition policies:
We are all aware of the issue of home demolition and the problem of housing construction permits. With every home destroyed where our Bedouin brothers in the south live, we see committee members arriving at the site, and instead of trying to find a solution, they incite in an effort to step into the media spotlight. They speak in sound bites designed to enrage the young people and get them out onto the streets to protest -- with some of these protests turning violent. In the end, our sons are arrested and must deal with legal proceedings and criminal records while the Knesset members return to their homes in their pristine suits.

It is not only in the south where we see this hypocrisy; there are also land and construction permit problems in the Bedouin villages in the Galilee region. But there, we don't see Arab public figures taking an interest in solving the problem -- not that we want them on the ground there, since that is not where solutions come from anyway. They sit in the holy of holies for decision-making -- the Knesset, and it is from there that they need to take action. But what can be done when our representatives in the Knesset are busy dealing with the problems of other people, and not those of their voters?

A solution for refugees in their national homeland:
Do you not first have the responsibility to find a solution for the Arab citizens who stayed here and did not leave their land and their homes? To deal with the growing crime in our sector? Welfare? To deal with the integration of the Arab sector into Israeli society? Or are these topics less attractive and "sexy" than the Arab-Israeli conflict on which you are piggybacking?

The committee is very good at publishing and distributing flyers and posters -- to make announcements about school strikes, when those suffering from the strikes are our children, the students, and to spread threats and lies. One thing it is not very good at is truly trying to help advance the Arab-Israeli public. 

I, as a member of the Bedouin community, see the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee and the Arab parties as my representatives in the political arena. I am not interested in an organization that tries to distance me from the country and its society. The Bedouin people are crying out and fighting for their existence within Israeli society while the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee turns its back on them. This has been especially true recently, when the Bedouin community was denied the opportunity to elect the committee head. Furthermore, as a community that has given its body and soul to the State of Israel since before its establishment, the Bedouin have particular demands, especially for their sons who have been released from the army. It is a community that cannot be represented by a committee with a foreign agenda.

The Bedouin must do some serious soul-searching. We must renounce, for once and for all, the hypocritical, unworthy and inadequate representation of the Arab Higher Monitoring Committee and the Arab parties, and follow in the footsteps of our forefathers in this land. We must continue fighting for this country's existence and for our own existence within it, and try to integrate into Israel's society and institutions, which have always recognized and respected our contributions. 

Mohamed Kaabiya is the coordinator for the Bedouin division of the "Aharai! IDF" organization, which helps encourage and prepare youth for IDF service.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Republican Fall Guys - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

How Democrats will blame the GOP for Iran becoming a nuclear power.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

The Iran nuclear deal is presented as an international agreement between the major powers and Iran. But the fact is that there are really only two parties to the agreement – President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party on the one hand, and the Iranian regime on the other.
Over the past week or so, more and more Democrats have fallen into line behind Obama. At the same time, word is getting out about what Iran is doing now that it has its deal. Together, the actions of both sides have revealed the role the nuclear pact plays in each side’s overall strategies for success.

On the Iranian side, last Wednesday the National Committee of Resistance of Iran revealed that North Korean nuclear experts are in Iran working with the Revolutionary Guards to help the Iranians prevent the UN’s nuclear inspectors from discovering the scope of their nuclear activities.

The NCRI is the same opposition group that in 2003 exposed Iran’s until then secret uranium enrichment installation in Natanz and its heavy water plutonium facility in Arak.

According to the report, the North Koreans “have expertise in ballistic missile and nuclear work areas, particularly in the field of warheads and missile guidance.”

“Over the past two years the North Korean teams have been sharing their experiences and tactics necessary for preventing access to military nuclear sites,” NCRI added.

Although, as The Washington Times reports, NCRI’s finding have yet to be verified, it is unwise to doubt them.

North Korea has been assisting Iran’s nuclear program for nearly 20 years. The US began applying sanctions on North Korea for its ballistic missile proliferation activities in Iran 15 years ago. Iran’s Shahab and Ghadr ballistic missiles are modeled on North Korea’s Nodong missiles.

The Syrian nuclear installation that Israel reportedly destroyed in 2007 was a duplicate of the Yangbyon heavy water reactor in North Korea. The Deir al-Zour reactor was reportedly built by North Korean nuclear personnel and paid for by Tehran.

North Korea’s heavy involvement in Iran’s nuclear weapons program tells us everything we need to know about how Iran views the nuclear deal it signed with the Obama administration and its international partners.

For the past 22 years, the North Koreans have been playing the US and the international community for fools. Ever since February 1993, when inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency first discovered that North Korea was conducting illicit nuclear activities, Pyongyang has been using its nuclear program to blackmail the US.

The pattern repeats itself with maddening regularity.

First, the US discovers that North Korea is engaging in illicit nuclear activities. Over the years, these activities have gone from illicit development of plutonium-based nuclear bombs to expelling UN inspectors, to testing long-range ballistic missiles, to threatening nuclear war, to testing nuclear bombs and threatening to supply the bomb to terrorist groups.

Second, the US announces it is applying sanctions to North Korean entities.

Third, North Korea responds with more threats.

The sides then agree to sit down and negotiate the scaling back of North Korea’s nuclear activities. In exchange for Pyongyang’s agreement to talk, the US provides the hermit slave state with whatever it demands. US concessions run the gamut from sanctions relief, to cash payments, provision of fuel, assistance in developing “peaceful” nuclear sites at which the North Koreans expand their nuclear expertise, removal of North Korea from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, the provision of formal US commitments not to use force to block North Korea’s nuclear progress, to more cash payments and sanctions relief.

The North then formally agrees to scale back its nuclear program and everyone is happy.

Until the next time it is caught cheating and proliferating.

And then the cycle starts again.

In each go around, the US expresses surprise at the scope of North Korea’s illicit nuclear and missile activities. In every cycle, US intelligence failed to discover what North Korea was doing until after the missiles and bombs were tested and UN inspectors were thrown out of the country.

Despite North Korean brinksmanship and ballistic missile warhead development, the US prohibits its ally South Korea from developing its own nuclear deterrent or even taking steps in that direction.

For their part, while negotiating with the Americans, the North Koreans have proliferated their nuclear technologies and ballistic missiles to Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Libya.

Given North Korea’s clear strategy of using nuclear blackmail to develop its nuclear arsenal and maintain the regime’s grip on power, you don’t need to be a master spy to understand what the presence of North Korean experts in Teheran tells us about Iran’s strategy for nuclear empowerment.

The ayatollahs will ride their nuclear pact with the Great Satan all the way to a nuclear arsenal and regional hegemony, repeating the cycles of brinksmanship, extortion, respite and brinksmanship that they learned from their North Korean teachers.

Given how well the strategy has worked for the psychotic North Koreans who have no economy, no allies and no proxies, it is clear that Iran, with its gas and oil deposits, imperial aspirations, terrorist proxies and educated population believes that this is the strategy that will launch it to world-power status.

This then brings us to the Democrats.

Depending on their pro-Israel protestations, the Democratic position in support of the deal ranges from optimism to pessimistic minimalism. On the side of the optimists, we have the Obama administration.

Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and their advisors insist that the deal is fantastic. It blocks Iran’s path to the bomb. It opens the possibility of Iran becoming a positive actor on the world stage.

On the other end of the Democratic spectrum are the pessimists like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

As they see it, the deal is horrible. It empowers and enriches Iran and legitimizes its nuclear program.

But still, they claim, the deal keeps Iran’s nuclear ambitions at bay for a few years by forcing Iran to submit to the much touted UN inspections regime.

So it is a good deal and they will vote in favor of it and then vote to sustain a presidential veto of a congressional decision to oppose it.

Obviously, the presence of North Korean nuclear experts in Tehran makes a mockery of the notion that Iran has any intention of exercising good faith with UN inspectors. But that isn’t the point.

The point is that the Democrats have no intention of doing anything to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. They just don’t want to be blamed for Iran becoming a nuclear power. They want the Republicans to shoulder the blame. The purpose of the deal from their perspective to set the Republicans up to be blamed.

Obama and his Democratic followers insist that if Iran doesn’t act in good faith, the US will reimpose sanctions. Worse comes to worst, they insist, the US can just walk away from the deal.

This of course is utter nonsense.

Obama won’t walk away from his signature foreign policy. He will devote his energies in his remaining time in office to covering up for Iran. That is why he is breaking the law he signed and refusing to hand over the side deals regarding the farcical nature of UN inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites to Congress.

Moreover, after insisting that the deal is the best way to prevent a holocaust or that it is the only way a Jewish mother can protect the homeland of her people, Democratic lawmakers are not going to rush to acknowledge that they are lying. Now that they’ve signed onto the deal, they own it.

Of course, the Iranians are another story. While the Democrats will not abandon the deal no matter what, the Iranians signed the deal in order to abandon it the minute it outlives its usefulness. And that works just fine for the Democrats.

The Democrats know that the Iranians will use any step the Republicans take to try to enforce the deal’s verification regime or condition sanctions relief on Iranian abidance by the deal’s restrictions on its nuclear activities as an excuse to walk away from the deal. They also know the Iranians will remain in the deal as long as it is useful to them.

Since the Iranians intend to hide their nuclear activities, the Democrats assume Tehran will stay in until it is financially and militarily ready to escalate its nuclear activities.

The Democrats believe that timetable will extend well beyond the lifespan of the Obama administration.

Whenever the Iranians leave, they can be depended on to blame US for their decision to vacate their signature. And the Democrats in turn will blame the Republicans for pushing the Iranians over the edge.

You have to give credit to the administration and its Iranian chums. At least they are consistent. They have constructed an agreement that gives them both what they care about most. Iran, as always, wants to dominate the region and develop the means to destroy Israel and its Arab adversaries at will. The administration, as always, wants to blame the Republicans.

Israel and the Arabs understand the game that is being played. It is time for the Republicans to get wise to it.

Caroline Glick


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

US Spies 'Rebel', Claim ISIS Intelligence being Manipulated - Ari Soffer

by Ari Soffer

Senior military intelligence spies allege reports on ISIS, Nusra being 'cooked' in briefings with Obama to make it look like US is winning.

US President Barack Obama
US President Barack Obama
More than 50 US military intelligence analysts have alleged their reports were "cooked", or manipulated, to make it look like the US is winning its war against the ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist groups, in briefings to President Barack Obama.

According to the Daily Beast, which broke the story, a complaint was initially submitted to the US Defense Department inspector general by two "senior analysts at CENTCOM" (US Central Command), and was then promptly backed by 50 other spies. The complaint alleged that their analyses of events on the ground in Iraq and Syria vis-a-vis ISIS and Al Qaeda's Nusra Front were being altered to portray the jihadist groups as weaker than they actually were.

Among the 50 intelligence officials who backed the report, 11 had been complaining of a similar phenomenon for several months.

The analysts who lodged the complaint are accusing senior Pentagon officials of "changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda is making progress," whereas the analysts themselves "take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going."

Sometimes "key elements" of reports were removed entirely, to completely alter the picture for the US President. Some CENTCOM officials said the problem went deeper still, with commanders attempting to force changes to reports to make them more palatable to their political superiors, in what some described as a shameless exercise in career advancement.

"The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command," one defense official told the paper.

The allegations sound eerily similar to the alleged conduct of intelligence officials in the run up to the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq, who were said to have cherry-picked intelligence reports to back up claims Saddam Hussein still had a WMD program and justify an invasion. The similarities are particularly ironic, given President Obama's recent excoriation of "warmongers" within the Bush administration leading the country astray with false information, in his last public address advocating for the nuclear deal with Iran.

Reports of what is being described as a "rebellion" among senior defense officials comes as the White House continues to claim it is "winning" the fight against ISIS, despite the vicious jihadist group's enduring control over most of the territory it seized last year in Iraq and Syria.

Ari Soffer


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Open Letter on the 'Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action' - Concerned Iranians

by Concerned Iranians

Can the Islamic regime with its feuding factions, military ambitions of the Sepah Pasdaran and history of deceit and lying to its own people and the international community be trusted?

Honorable members of the US Congress & Obama Administration,

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with its many possible interpretations has provided valid points of argument for all those in favour and against the deal. Fears of war and military action and continuing economic hardship for the Iranian people have prompted a few Iranian scholars and experts to write to you, the honourable members of the Congress, in support of the JCPOA. We, the undersigned, share these most serious and legitimate concerns and condemn any use of force against Iran. However, we do not believe that the JCPOA will realise the desired objectives either for the Iranian people or the global community.

As concerned Iranians for the future of Iran we, too, believe that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic poses a serious threat to the security and stability of Iran, the region and the greater international community. As many have pointed out and argued, there are loopholes and ambiguous sections that allow for duplicitous interpretation by the Islamic Republic. They have demonstrated this with their successful sanction busting efforts.

The JCPOA will in effect lift international embargoes on Iran's access to advanced conventional weapons and ballistic missile technology. Since the 14 July, 2015 agreement with the United States and five other countries the following are among actions taken by the Islamic Republic which have increased our concerns and make us doubt the lasting functionability of the JCPOA:
  • secret side deal with the IAEA,
  • ongoing construction at Parchin, a military site linked to nuclear weapons work, and
  • resumption of negotiations over the purchase of Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
In addition to the above, we would like to draw your attention to the following three crucial issues:

The first issue is:

The primary question before the American people and the US Congress is: who are the parties the United States and its allies are making a "Deal" with?
  • Constitutionally power is divided into the executive, legislative and judicial offices. However, as we are sure you are aware, the Office of the Absolute Supreme Leadership has the final say on all matters. Ayatollah Khamenei, the Absolute Supreme Leader (ASL), has his own inner cabinet with control over armed forces, security establishment, judicial, state media, and Sepah Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps - IRGC) who operate their own independent business enterprises, including export & import dealings without the knowledge or control of the government.
  • The members of the government who have been party to the drafting of the JCPOA are therefore powerless in its execution and enforcement without the support and authority of the ASL.
  • The members Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Parliament) who are preparing to vote on the JCPOA will not have the power of an independent vote and must vote as instructed by the ASL. Thus, the only way the will and voice of people can be heard is through protests and demonstrations which, as the world has witnessed, due to the brutal nature of the regime is not possible.
The enforcement and execution of the agreement requires political power which is lacking in the office of the President. Any agreement with the government has no jurisdiction or any value as it can be rejected by the ASL. It must not be forgotten, however, that Mr Rouhani is a major cog in the wheel that keeps the Islamic regime turning. Meanwhile, the people of Iran remain hostages to the will of Ayatollah Khamenei and the factional fighting amongst various power bases. The Iranian people's hope for any deal is to have the threat of war removed yet they remain at constant threat of military strikes and sanctions under the 'snap back' provisions in the JCPOA as flawed as they may be.

The second issue is:

While harsh economic sanctions have adversely affected the lives of ordinary Iranians, those in the circles of power have benefited greatly:
  • Billions of dollars of Iran's income has been squandered, embezzled and mismanaged;
  • The Islamic Republic is implicated in international money laundering.
As state figures indicate, today, 40% of Iranians live below the poverty line; nevertheless, since the creation of the Islamic Republic its proxies have been well funded in their terrorist activities.

It is a known fact that the Islamic Republic is an active state sponsor of terrorism and in the last thirty seven years US citizens have repeatedly fallen victim to their heinous acts. The released funds would also make it easier for the regime to continue its destabilising activities in the Middle East and increase its influence in the region.

It is worthy to note that this terrorism is also practiced at home and abroad. Iranian people have not been immune from the regime's ruthless and violent activities either with assassinations of Iranians inside and outside of Iran's borders.

As such, we are gravely concerned about the revenue that is going to be available to the regime. We are also outraged at the fact that individuals and companies listed in the JCPOA that have been active in such activities will have access to funds held outside Iran and will be free to travel once the agreement is implemented. Smart sanctions are a powerful and effective tool and should be applied here. Experience of the last thirty seven years has shown that whenever there is an international rapprochement with the regime, Iranians citizens suffer the most terrible human rights violations.

The third issue is:

Regardless of the JCPOA and the sanctions relief, the volatile and unstable political situation in Iran will go on to threaten any foreign investment. Without a doubt, Iran remains a profitable consumer market and foreign investors can take full advantage of the regime's desperate need for finance and investment. It concerns us that, anxious for quick profits, the irresponsible regime will enter into deals which will not be in the best national interest of Iran and its future.


The alternative to JCPOA is not war – it is support for the establishment of a secular and democratic rule in Iran. It is investing in the will of a nation tired of living under a religious tyranny as demonstrated during summer of 2009, after the disputed presidential elections and before it was brutally beaten into silence. It is thinking strategically and long term. For Iranians the road to democracy, respect for the rule of law, justice and human rights is full of obstacles not least because of deals with the regime such as JCPOA with its bountiful rewards. A secular and democratic Iran will prosper, benefit its people and will be an effective positive ally in regional peace and security.

Can the Islamic regime with its feuding factions, military ambitions of the Sepah Pasdaran and history of deceit and lying to its own people and the international community be trusted? Due to the deceitful, untrustworthy and adventurous nature of the Islamic regime, as Iranians working towards a better future for Iran, our unequivocal and expressed concern remains that even with the implementation of JCPOA the threat of war, military action and sanctions will not been removed. To reiterate, we do not believe that the JCPOA will realise the desired objectives either for the Iranian people or the global community.

During the US hostage crisis President Carter made the mistake of negotiating with the government. Thirty seven years later let us not make the same mistake.

Afshin jam, Afshin, Human Rights and political activist, Canada
Nazanin Afshin Jam- Mackay, Human Rights activist, Canada
Maryam Akbari, Civil Rights, UK
Mahvash Alasavandi, Mother against Execution, Canada
Dr. Roya Araghi, Human Rights activist, Canada
Shabnam Assadollahi, Human Rights activist, Freelance Journalist, Canada
Dr. Bahram Bahramian, Political Activist, Professor at University of Maryland, USA
Anni Cyrus Human Rights activist, USA
Soheyla Drostkar Human Rights activist, Canada
Dr. Steven Ebbin, Bethesda, MD
Roozbeh Farahanipour, President of West LA Chamber of Commerce, Founder of Marze Por Gohar, USA
Bijan Fathi, Mother against Execution, Canada
Shahla Ghafouri, Teacher, Canada
Akhtar Ghasemi, photo Journalist, Germany
Maziar Ghavidel, Political Activist, Researcher, Iran's culture and History, Sweden
Parviz Haddadzadeh, Political Activist, USA
Mahboobeh Hosseinpour, Human Rights activist, University Instructor, Turkey
Dr. Javid Javan, former Associate Dean at National University of Iran, USA
Sheema Kalbasi, Human Rights activist, USA
Farahmand Mahmoud Kalayeh, Political Activist, USA
Marjan Keypour, Human Rights activist, USA
Dr. Hooshang Lahooti, Senior Scientist, University of Sydney- Australia
Dr. Hossein Lajevardi, Economist, France
Ahmad Mazahery, Political Activist, VA, USA
Reza Mehrabian, Political Activist, VA, USA
Dr. Ahmad Mostafalou, Political Activist, Canada
Dr. Avideh Motmaen Far, Political Activist, Canada
Shahram Namvarazad, Human Rights activist, Canada
Partow Nooriala, Poet, Writer, USA
Shadi Paveh, Human Rights activist, Canada
Guiti Pourfazel, Lawyer, Human Rights activist, Iran
Banafsheh Pourzand, Zand Foundation, USA
Koroush Radmanesh, Senior Economy Specialist, EU
Kaveh Taheri, Human Rights activist, journalist, Turkey
Dr. Reza Taghizadeh , Lecturer, Political Activist, EU
Hamed Tehrani, Cologne - Germany
Dr. Borzumehr Toloui Semnani, Professor of Physics, Canada
Elham Yaghoubian, Political Activist, Co-founder of Marze Por Gohar, USA
Mandana Zand-Ervin, Zand Foundation, USA

Office in the US:
5576A Norbeck Rd, # 140,
Rockville, MD 29853

Concerned Iranians


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Russian troops join combat in Syria, fueling US concerns - Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

by Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov confirms Russia has experts on the ground in Syria • White House says closely monitoring the situation, Russia calls intensified military activity "routine" • Iran lets Russia use its airspace for Syria-bound aircraft.
Election poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and photo of Russian President Vladimir Putin
Photo credit: Reuters

Reuters and Israel Hayom Staff


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hillary Goes All In on Iran Nuke Deal - Joseph Klein

by Joseph Klein

A profile in cowardice.

Demonstrating her profile in cowardice, Hillary Clinton waited to explain in detail her support for President Obama's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran until it no longer mattered politically what she said. She held back until Obama had secured enough support from Democrats to sustain a veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal and possibly enough votes in the Senate to filibuster the resolution to death. "By now, the outcome of the deal in Congress is no longer in much doubt," Hillary declared in her remarks at the Brookings Institution on September 9th.  

A real leader aspiring to be president and commander-in-chief should have weighed in with her opinion while "the outcome of the deal" was still up in the air. But that’s not the way the presumed front runner for her party's presidential nomination operates. Everything she does is calculated to enhance her own image. To make up for her procrastination in explaining why she endorsed the deal and how she would implement it as president, Hillary used her speech to pose as a tough commander-in-chief should Iran dare to test her.

“I support this deal. I support it as part of a larger strategy towards Iran," Clinton said. "We have to say 'Yes – and.' 'Yes, and we will enforce it with vigor and vigilance.'"

Vigilance? Clinton as Secretary of State lacked even a modicum of vigilance needed to ensure that top secret classified information would not find its way on to her insecure homegrown private server. With her track record, Iran’s leaders will know her plans almost as soon as she transmits them.

In a twist on Ronald Reagan’s famous “trust but verify” remark, Clinton said her policy towards Iran will be "distrust and verify.” She claimed that the deal already “gives us better tools for verification and inspection, and to compel rigorous compliance.” However, she played down the deal’s gaping holes with regard to the inspection mechanisms. These holes included allowing Iran to self-inspect its military site at Parchin and to delay international inspections of undeclared suspect sites for at least 24 days. Will Hillary do anything to fill in those holes? She didn’t say.    

Hillary addressed Iran directly with a threat to take military action if Iran tries to move ahead with obtaining a nuclear bomb. "The United States will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon," she declared, adding that she "will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon."

Hillary’s tough talk is belied by the poseur’s repetition of Obama’s assurance that the deal “blocks every pathway for Iran to get a bomb.” To the contrary, the deal at best delays, for a little more than a dozen years, Iran’s capacity to develop enough material to immediately produce a nuclear weapon and will allow Iran to obtain or develop the missiles to deliver a nuclear weapon in 8 years. Hillary admitted that Iran will likely cheat or just try and “wait us out.” Her warning of a military response is not very reassuring. It sounds like the kind of red line set and then forgotten by the current president.

Clinton called for new restrictions on conventional arms to Iran. She ignored the last-minute concession that the Obama administration made to allow the lifting of the UN embargo on Iran’s purchase or sale of conventional arms in 5 years and on missile sales and purchases in 8 years.

Hillary also said that she will stand by Israel if elected, promising to provide it with advanced weapons. Missing in her remarks intended to assure Israel, however, was any mention of the United States’ most powerful bunker-busting bomb capable of reaching Iran’s nuclear facilities far underground. She also neglected to mention a stipulation in Obama’s deal that could put the United States on Iran’s side against Israel. Buried in an appendix is a pledge by the United States and its negotiating parties to provide “cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.” 

How does this pledge of cooperation with Iran in the deal that Hillary endorses square with her stated intention to “confront” Iran at every turn? How does helping Iran to respond to sabotage, which Israel may want to use in the future to protect itself, square with her promise to “always stand by Israel’s right to defend itself as I always have”? Either the former Secretary of State has not thoroughly read the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), including the appendices, or she was simply grandstanding when she declared that “I don’t see Iran as our partner in implementing the agreement. I see Iran as our subject in implementing the agreement.” 

In her speech, Clinton predicted that Iran will “test the next president” and “see how far they can bend the rules” of the JCPA agreement. If there is one thing Hillary knows all about, it is how far one can go to the bend the rules.

Clinton laid out a five point plan in an effort to prove that Iran will not get away with anything “if I am in the White House.” In addition to offering strong military support for Israel, Clinton’s plan included elements already put forward by Obama such as increased security aid for our Gulf State allies. She called for increased sanctions against Hezbollah and for taking a tougher stance with respect to Turkey and Qatar’s financial support for Hamas. And Hillary displayed her hawkish pose by suggesting an expanded U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to help counter Iranian aggression and its spread of terrorism.

Finally, Hillary claimed that, if elected, she would impose penalties on Iran for even minor violations of the nuclear deal. "We will take seriously every aspect of this agreement and we will expect them [Iran] to comply," she added.

With all of her tough talk, Hillary Clinton said nothing about what should be done today in the face of Iran’s current violations of the deal. These include Iran’s arms shipments to terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, which Hillary acknowledged is happening today. Moreover, she had no answer to Ayatollah Khamenei’s recent threat that Iran would not honor the terms of the deal unless the sanctions were permanently lifted, not just suspended as the negotiators had agreed:

“The fact that we sat down and held talks and made concessions on certain issues was mainly in order to have the sanctions lifted. If the sanctions are not going to be lifted, there will be no agreement…” (MEMRI, Special Dispatch | 6151 | September 8, 2015)

Hillary is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she talks tough with stern warnings to Iran, in an effort to distinguish herself from Obama’s obliging stance towards Iran. On the other hand, she supports Obama’s fatally flawed deal. Even worse, she remains silent while the Iranian regime already flouts key terms such as the arms embargo, and while Iran’s Supreme Leader threatens to cancel the deal if he does not get his way on the immediate lifting of all sanctions.

Hillary Clinton undoubtedly hoped that her belated speech on the Iran deal at the Brookings Institution would divert some attention away from her e-mail troubles. But it only served to remind us of her failure as Secretary of State. Of course, she will be remembered first and foremost for her reckless handling of classified e-mails on her private server. But that is not all. Her so-called reset button with Russia was a failure. Russia has since annexed Crimea, infiltrated eastern Ukraine in support of the separatists and is now reportedly involved in combat in Syria. Hillary’s disastrous push for forcible regime change in Libya created the vacuum filled by jihadist terrorists. She also failed with Iran. 

During her last months as Secretary of State, Hillary reinforced Obama’s willingness to pivot away from the long-standing no-uranium enrichment policy. She supported the idea that Tehran could maintain at least some capacity to produce enriched nuclear materials, even though such materials could eventually be used to produce a nuclear bomb. The trajectory from that major concession led both to a likely shortening of Iran’s break-out time to develop a nuclear weapon and to the flawed deal Clinton now supports. Clinton can only be expected to compound her failures if elected as president of the United States.

Joseph Klein


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Life in the Shadow of Islam - Dr. Mordechai Kedar

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

In Islamic State, rule is ensured by the sword, knife, rope, pole, pistol and rifle.

The second Muslim Caliph, Umar bin Khattab, conquered Jerusalem in 638 C.E. without shedding a drop of blood. The city simply surrendered to him. Omar announced a list of conditions to be fulfilled by those Christians who desired to live in peace and security under Islamic rule. The document, known as the Pact of Umar, appears on the web here (Hebrew) and here (English).

Although the Pact of Umar was written over 1300 years ago, it was recently used as the basis of a document issued by Islamic State for the Christians living in the Syrian town of al-Kareten  This should not come as a surprise, since Islamic State has made no secret of its plans to reinstate ancient Islam and take us all back to the seventh century, the century during which Islamic conquests succeeded in overpowering empires and subjugating a large number of nations.
A short while ago, Islamic State gained control over the Syrian Christian town al-Kareten..The residents did not flee and instead, asked to live under Islamic State's protection. How did the wise men of Islamic State respond? They produced a document that spells out the conditions that would allow the Christians to remain in their town under the rule of Islamic State.

The entire contents of this document are brought below:

Islamic State, Ministry of Justice and Complaints:

In the name of Allah the Merciful and Compassionate
The Agreement Affording Protection [to Christians]:
Praise be to Allah, Cherisher and Sustainer of the world, who humbles heresy with his strength and says in the Qur'an:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizya willingly while they are humbled.(Qur'an: Repentance, Chapter 9, verse 29, Sahih International translation).

"We bear witness that there is no god except for Allah, who keeps his promise, gives strength to his armies, defeats dissenters; there is no god other than Allah and we serve only him, are faithful to him and his religion even though the infidels abhor it.

"We bear witness that Mohammed is his servant and messenger, may Allah pray for him and grant him peace, he [Mohammed] who scoffs at [fears of] battle, whose lord sent him between the hands of the clock and the sword to serve the lord alone, and sent down to him  the [Qur'anic] chapters of "War", "Default in Duty" and "Ranks".

"We bear witness that Jesus son of Mary is Allah's servant and messenger, and that Allah sent his word to Mary with his own spirit because Allah said in the Qur'an: "Never would the Messiah disdain to be a servant of Allah , nor would the angels near [to Him]. And whoever disdains His worship and is arrogant - He will gather them to Himself all together. (Qur'an: Women, Chapter 4, verse 172)."
Praise be to Allah for the power of Islam, for the joy of the strength [that Allah granted the Muslims], thanks flow to him up until the Day of Judgment.

Before you is the security granted by Allah's servant, Abu Bakr el Baghdadi, Emir of the believers, to the Christians of the Damascus region, in the al-Kareten district: He secures their persons and possessions, assures them that they will not have to do anything against their religion and that none of them will be harmed.

The conditions for the above are as follows:

1. Christians may not erect a monastery or church nor designate an area where priests hold solitary vigils anywhere in or near their towns.

2. They must not display a crucifix in public nor any of their books in any of the places traversed by Muslims, or in their marketplaces, they may not use amplifiers in their prayers and ceremonies.

3. They must not read their books aloud or ring bells where Muslims can hear them. They may ring their bells in church.

4. They must refrain from any acts of aggression against Islamic State, such as harboring spies and men wanted by Islamic State's laws, and if they know of any plots against Muslims they must immediately report them.

5. They must obligate themselves to refrain from public religious ceremonies.

6. They must respect Islam and Muslims and are forbidden to say anything against their [Muslim] religion.

7. (this part is missing)

8. Christians must be sure to pay the jizya (head tax) for each male adult among them, in the sum of four golden dinars. This refers to the dinar used in business, whose weight, 4.25 gram of pure gold, is fixed. This levy is for the rich, while those in the middle class pay half that, and the poor pay a quarter. They are forbidden to hide their possessions and are allowed two payments over a single year.

9. Christians are forbidden to own firearms.

10. They are forbidden to trade in pigs and wine with Muslims or in the marketplace. They may not drink alcohol in public, or in public places.

11.They will be allowed their own cemeteries, as is the custom.

12. They must be careful to keep the [general] rules laid down by Islamic State, such as [wearing] modest clothing, laws of buying and selling etc.

If they live up to these conditions, they will be privileged to live in the shade of Allah under the protection of Mohammed, may Allah pray for him and grant him peace,  [this protection] including their persons, property and possessions. They will not have to pay tithes on their possessions unless they bring funds for business from outside the borders of Islamic State. They are forbidden to cheat and they must not be cheated. No one of them will be punished for the misdeeds of another.

They may dwell in the shade of Allah who will pray for their protector and grant him peace until the day that Allah brings his word [at the end of time], as long as they adhere carefully to the conditions in this document.

If they do not keep any part of what is written in this document they will have no more protection and the Islamic State can do to them what it is allowed to do to militants and objectors.

Signed: Sunday 15/11/1436 Hijri, 30/8/2015 Gregorian
Seal of the Islamic State
Ministry of Justice and Complaints

This document is identical in spirit and in part of its wording, to the conditions in the Pact of Umar written in the seventh century, the early and holy days of a young, powerful and all-conquering Islam that became weakened and old as the generations passed. Now Islamic State has appeared to bring Islam back to the days of its youth, to the power of its adherents, the faith of its fighters and the glory of its conquests.

This document reflects the way a significant number of Muslims aspire to have Islam rule over Christian and Jewish culture, consolidating this control by various means, the choice of which depends on the conditions prevailing in each area. 

In Islamic State, obedience is ensured by the sword, knife, rope, pole, pistol and rifle. Note that Saudi Arabia has similar laws for any Christians that live in the country or arrive there for business purposes.

In Europe, Muslim immigrants force their religious agenda on their surroundings by means of the majority that they have attained in some municipal authorities. That is the situation in several western European cities where Muslims are a majority, and where demands were raised to end the selling of alcoholic drinks and pork in supermarkets.

In the USA, there are Muslims who demand an end to the ringing of church bells and in some areas, Muslims have demanded that crosses be moved to where they cannot see them because they find them offensive..

The recent, massive Muslim migration to Europe will, without doubt, increase these demands; if not now, then in a few short years.

And although the coercive methods of Islamic State are not acceptable to most Muslims, the group's religious demands, especially on the treatment of  Christians, are acceptable to Muslims in many different countries.

Every country that allows Muslims to migrate to it must take into account that at some point these demands will be brought up, and if it turns out that the migrants do not get what they want from the host country, they will turn that country into what they want it to be.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor

Dr. Mordechai Kedar


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.