Saturday, January 20, 2018

For Real 'Collusion,' Look At Obama's Dirty Dealings With Iran - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

Obama’s scheming with the Mullahs reveals a troubling pattern.

By now it should be readily apparent to all, even those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome, that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a spent force or as leftist political commentator Van Jones put it, “a big nothingburger.” Nearly a year has passed since the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller and not a scintilla of evidence demonstrating collusion has been forthcoming. Moreover, the investigation itself has been plagued by scandal and partisanship placing a cloud of taint over the entire inquiry. Nevertheless, Mueller’s Russia probe will continue to putter along and after wasting millions of taxpayer dollars (as of December 2017, the cost has reportedly reached a staggering $7 million) the former G-Man will get a trickle of indictments and plea bargains on peripheral figures for matters wholly unrelated to the original investigation. Democrats will then pat themselves on the back and Mueller will go back to obscurity.

Democrats and their allies in the establishment media have cleverly succeeded in temporarily deflecting America’s attention away from the real collusion story, one with real substance and far greater ramifications. A persuasive case can be made that former president Barack Obama colluded with a sworn enemy of the United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran. With each passing day, another disquieting facet of the Obama administration’s dealings with the Islamic Republic is revealed and when taken in totality, paints a disturbing picture of the administration’s underhanded efforts to placate and appease the mullahs and their proxies, including Hezbollah.

The Obama administration’s current dealings with Iran began with an outright fabrication to the American people. On August 5, 2015 Obama asserted that negotiations with the Iranians commenced in 2013. Obama argued that the ascent of the “moderate” Hassan Rouhani offered the United States an opportunity to engage with the Iranians. This was in fact, a bald-faced lie. Circumventing the State Department and using Sen. John Kerry (whose Iran connections are a matter of public record) as its point man, the administration began engaging with Iran in 2011 when the toxic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president. For the record, Ahmadinejad is a rabid Holocaust denier. Four years later, Obama sealed his infamous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, alternatively known as the Iran deal, which gave the Iranians $150 billion worth sanctions relief while simultaneously providing them with a legal pathway toward acquiring nuclear weapons. 

The flow of lies and deceit continued from there. The JCPOA was, to put it mildly, a flawed agreement, one in which the benefits flowed one way. Charles Krauthammer aptly described it as the worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history. But there were alarming elements of the agreement, chiefly secretive side arrangements between Iran and the IAEA, which were so patently egregious and absurd that even Obama understood that it would render the agreement a hard sell. Under these side arrangements, Iran’s highly opaque Parchin military facility was off limits to international inspectors undermining Obama’s claim that the agreement provided for anytime, anywhere intrusive inspections. Consequently, Obama tried and failed to keep this information from Congress.

Even more disturbing than the administration’s attempt to obfuscate elements of the Iran deal was the manner in which it illegally weaponized the NSA and other domestic intelligence services to spy on members of Congress and leaders of Jewish groups and then leak their identities. You read that correctly. The Obama administration adopted tactics employed by two-bit, paranoid dictators and exploited loopholes in surveillance laws to keep one step ahead of the opposition. Meetings with Israeli officials opposed to the Iran deal were monitored and the contents of those meetings as well as the identities of those who attended were scandalously leaked to sympathetic journalists, who proceeded to mouth administration talking points. The administration also employed subtle use of anti-Semitic stereotypes implying that those opposed to the Iran deal maintained dual loyalties or were agents for Israel. In a grotesque display of anti-Semitic stereotyping, the New York Times, one of the media outlets shilling for Obama, actually implied that congressional members who voted against the deal were motivated by their Jewish ethnicity or high proportion of Jews residing within their districts. Obama’s talking points, which seemed to mimic Tehran’s, were trickling down to his echo chamber in a well-orchestrated scheme.    

Bad deals are one thing and can always be attributed to amateurish negotiating skills (found in abundance in Obama’s negotiating team) but Obama’s dealings with Iran went far beyond ineptitude. In May 2016 it was revealed that Secretary of State John Kerry appealed to European banks to do business with Iran. Kerry instantly transformed himself from secretary of state to Iran lobbyist. Knowing that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps controls much of Iran’s economy, the bank heads wanted no part of what Kerry had to offer and curtly showed him the door.  

Another even more startling revelation soon followed. It has long been America’s policy not to pay ransom to tyrants and terrorists in exchange for captive hostages but that policy was shattered when Obama agreed to give the mullahs $400 million in exchange for American hostages held without cause by Iran. A further $1.3 billion was transferred later. 

The administration alleged that the money was transferred in settlement of Iranian legal claims stemming from a pre-revolution, aborted arms deal, and had no nexus to the hostages. But that argument is unconvincing. The initial $400 million transfer was initiated contemporaneous with the hostages’ release. Moreover, the transaction was an all-cash deal – untraceable the way the mullahs like it – conducted in the dead of night away from prying eyes, the way the Obama administration liked it. As I previously noted, if it walks like a ransom payment and talks like a ransom payment, it’s likely a ransom payment despite the administration’s contrary protestations. The administration did grudgingly acknowledge that the money could have ended up in the hands of the IRGC. Anyone possessing an ounce of common sense knows that the $1.7 billion almost certainly lined the coffers of the IRGC, and was probably also parsed out to Iranian proxy terror groups like Hezbollah, which receives between $700 million and $1 billion annually from Tehran.

What the administration also failed to note was that the United States maintained an $817 million counterclaim against the Islamic Republic stemming from breaches of Iranian contractual obligations. The United States also maintained subrogated claims against Iran to the tune of $3.9 billion. With the stroke of a pen, Obama relinquished these valid legal claims and allowed Iran to get off scot-free. In addition, as part of the ransom deal, Obama authorized the release of seven convicted Iranian felons and expunged warrants on 14 others. Unlike Iran’s American detainees, these individuals actually committed crimes and were afforded due process. 

Obama promised the American people that the JCPOA’s had strict mechanisms for enforcement and that these would ensure Iranian compliance but that too was untrue. Twice since the signing of the JCPOA, Iran exceeded its prescribed 130 metric ton limit for heavy water, which is used as a moderator in reactors fueled by natural uranium, and is critical for the production of plutonium. But incredibly, instead of punishing the Iranians for their transgressions, the Obama administration rewarded the mullahs by issuing its consent to allow the Iranians to receive 116 metric tons of natural uranium from Russia. According to experts, the uranium could be enriched to weapons-grade sufficient for the production of at least 10 nuclear bombs. 

Ironically, in light of the Obama-era, Uranium One scandal, and Russia’s concomitant acquisition of 20 percent of America’s mining capacity, there’s a fair likelihood that at least some of the Russian uranium came from American uranium mines. This is because at least some uranium from Uranium One’s mining operations in America was exported abroad, despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the company lacked an export license and therefore, could not export uranium produced at their American facilities; yet another fabrication.

It goes from bad to worse. In his zeal to curry favor with the Islamic Republic, Obama shut down a highly successful and lengthy DEA operation – codenamed Project Cassandra – aimed at thwarting Hezbollah drug trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering schemes. As a result, Hezbollah and their IRGC patrons continued their nefarious operations virtually unmolested. That means that Hezbollah drugs continued to pour into the U.S., Hezbollah Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP) continued to make their way into the hands of anti-American insurgents and drug money, stained with the blood of Americans, continued to be laundered to the tune of billions of dollars.

We’re not done just yet. There is bipartisan agreement that the IRGC is a group that actively supports international terrorism. The overseas arm of the IRGC is the so-called Quds Force. Quds Force operatives have been fomenting unrest in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Gaza and Afghanistan. They’ve also been active in India, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central & South America, and Europe. In fact, a cell of Quds Force operatives was recently exposed executing surveillance operations against Israeli and Jewish targets in Germany. A kindergarten was on the list of surveilled targets demonstrating just how deeply depraved the IRGC truly is. The Quds Force is led by a nasty sort named Qassem Soleimani, whose activities have earned him a spot on the U.S. sanctions list.

According to recently surfaced reports, three years ago, Israel decided to rid the world of this menace and was on the verge of accomplishing this objective through a targeted liquidation in Damascus. Soleimani’s removal from the scene would have severely disrupted Quds Force operations. The operation however, never materialized because the Obama administration tipped off Tehran to Israel’s plans. Soleimani dodged a bullet and has since been working tirelessly to foment unrest and undermine America’s interests.

It’s not the first time that the Obama administration betrayed covert Israeli activities to a sworn enemy. In 2012, the Obama administration leaked damaging information that inexplicably sought to sabotage a burgeoning strategic alliance between Israel and Azerbaijan. Such an alliance would have enabled Israel to seek alternate bases in close proximity to Iran from which it could conduct military operations including surveillance and rescue missions, refueling and maintenance and even direct military strikes. The damaging disclosure severely undermined Israel’s strategic position. Some have suggested that Obama leaked the information in an effort to derail an Israeli preventative strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities while others have noted that he was motivated by pure malevolence.
So what is it called when a president …
  • Initiates secret negotiations with a Holocaust denier and then lies about it;
  • Signs an agreement with Iran that allows Iran’s most opaque nuke facility to avoid inspection and then attempts to hide this fact from Congress;
  • Weaponizes intelligence services to illegally spy on Americans to secure passage of the JCPOA;
  • Gives the Iranian government, and by extension, the IRGC, $1.7 billion in cash;
  • Relinquishes all valid legal claims against the Islamic Republic, including judgements against the regime for acts of terrorism;
  • Releases convicted Iranian felons without cause or justification and removes others from INTERPOL list;
  • Fails to call out Iran when it materially breaches the terms of the JCPOA;
  • Rewards Iran’s bad behavior by giving consent for the transfer of natural uranium to Iran;
  • Informs Iran about an ally’s intention to knock off a sworn enemy of the United States;
  • Informs Iran about an ally’s covert operations.
At best, it’s called being a mullah lackey but an equally persuasive argument can be made for collusion. The depth and breadth of Obama’s scheming with Tehran is something that cannot be ignored. The prevailing view is that in his zeal to secure a deal with Iran, Obama lost all sense of reality to the point of compromising U.S. national security interests. Others have suggested that Obama harbored a genuine soft spot for the IRGC and its overseas Quds Force component. Either way, for the sake of transparency and national security the DOJ or Congress must fully investigate this matter forthwith, and do so in expeditious fashion.  

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Unwritten Israeli-Saudi Alliance - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

Could Saudi Arabia’s Glasnost contribute to peace between Israel and moderate Arab states?

News from the Middle East is generally depressing.  In Turkey, the Erdogan dictatorship is eliminating all vestiges of free press, after it subverted the old Kemal Ataturk secular institutions including the judiciary and military.  Iran’s Islamic Republic dictatorship of the Ayatollahs is repressing its people, and the minority populations (Kurds, Baluch, and Ahwazi Arabs) in particular.  It has squandered a $150 billion gift from the Obama administration on foreign adventures (in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq) and on terror sponsorships.  Leaving Israel out of the picture, the only bright spot in the region is the positive reforms enacted by the young Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. The 32-year old prince has assumed full executive powers and is effectively running the kingdom.   

The Wall Street Journal (January 10, 2018) headlined a story with “Saudis Target Religious Extremism.” The subtitle of the story reads: “Crown Prince spearheads effort to embrace a more tolerant Islam; female drivers and music.”  Considering the past rigidity of the monarchy with its Sunni-Muslim Wahhabi-creed, the recent liberalizing actions by the crown prince are astounding.  According to the WSJ, Mohammed bin Salman’s social liberalization is “a vital part of his radical economic modernization plan, and has vowed to return his country to a more tolerant form of Islam.”

Part and parcel of that liberalization is the new Saudi attitude toward the Jewish state.  An Al-Jazeera (November 21, 2017) story quoted Kobi Michael, senior research fellow at the National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, that the Trump administration figures on closer ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel in order to break the deadlock of the peace process, which President Trump has described as the “ultimate deal.”  Kobe Michael went on to say that the unwritten alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel is based on shared strategic interests with other countries in the region, which he described as the “pragmatic Arab camp.”  Michael qualified the camp as being Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states with the exception of Qatar (that along with Turkey supports the Muslim Brotherhood jihadists).  The two strategic threats faced by the pragmatic Arab camp are: Iran and the Salafi or radical Islamic terrorism. Michael added that, “Unfortunately, the U.S. left a vacuum in the region which was filled by the Russians in Syria and by the Iranians and their proxies in other parts of the Middle East.  Israel (is therefore) perceived as the most reliable ally, and the Saudis understand pretty well that it is a good time to be good friends with Israel.”

According to Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, “In May 2003, Riyadh was struck by a triple suicide bombing attack in which 18 people were killed and Saudi Arabia shifted from being on the side of those launching these terrorist attacks to those who were victims of terrorism.  Basically, Saudi Arabia from that point onward was on the same side as the U.S. and Israel.”

Dore Gold lists three things that put Israel and Saudi Arabia on the same side:
First, there are the Sunni extremist organizations.  There was al-Qaeda in the past, and in recent years there has been ISIS, and both have mounted a threat to both our countries. Second, Iran looms large in the regional problems that both Israel and Saudi Arabia face. There’s the Iranian nuclear program, which is likely to lead to an operational nuclear weapon in the not-too distant future. The third common thread tying Israel and Saudi Arabia together is that both countries are facing Iranian efforts to destabilize our strategic environment: The Iranians have been seeking to encircle Israel by supporting terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip to our south, in Lebanon to our north, and now in Syria, and possibly even in the West Bank in the period ahead.  Today, it is the Islamic Republic of Iran that is providing the bulk of funding to the Hamas budget.  For Saudi Arabia, it’s clear that Iran has entered into Yemen through the Houthis to the south, they are trying to take over Bahrain, which they regard as a province of Iran, and they have these huge Shiite militias that have been active in Iraq as well.
Both Saudi Arabia and Israel consider the Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.  Due to the crisis with Qatar, whom the Saudis accuse of supporting terrorism, the relationship between Riyadh and Gaza has been tense.  Qatar is a major supporter of Hamas financially and otherwise. Hamas has also rejected the Saudi Peace Plan of 2002, and seeks to liberate Palestine “as a whole,” meaning the destruction of Israel.  The Saudis, moreover, demanded that Doha halt its support for Hamas.

Naturally, Israeli technology and economic prowess has not been lost on the Saudis, particularly for Prince Mohammed bin Salman who seeks to modernize and revitalize the Saudi economy.  On June 17, 2017, The Times (London based) reported that, “Saudi Arabia and Israel are in talks to establish economic ties, a dramatic move that would put the Jewish state on a path to normal relations with the bastion of Sunni Islam and guardian of the two sacred Muslim cities.”

The Swiss newspaper Basler Zeitung is one of several reports over the past two years dealing with Israeli-Saudi cooperation.  It claimed that Saudi Arabia “is not only cooperating with Israel on regional developments, mainly involving Iran, but also considering purchasing defense systems," such as the Iron Dome and tanks, “which Israel claims ha[ve] proven to be effective in countering rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip."

Saudi Arabia is not exactly experiencing a revolution, but things are changing in a fast pace since the ascent to full power of Mohammed bin Salman.  Only a year ago, the religious police would have shut down ComicCon, which was held in Saudi Arabia for the first time.  This kind of entertainment would have been rejected by the Wahhabi establishment, an arch conservative and reactionary movement of Sunni-Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia.  It is an austere form of Islam that insists on literal interpretation of the Koran.  In July, 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism.

Founded by Mohammed Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), Wahhabism stresses the absolute sovereignty of God.  It rejects reliance on the intercession of the Prophet Mohammed, and it has forbidden pilgrimages to saint’s tombs and it has pursued the destruction of domes and shrines.  Wahhabism opposes innovation, and advocates the return to the “purity of the first generation of Islam,” or Salafism. Since the foundation of the Saudi kingdom, a close alliance has existed between the Wahhabi clerical elites and the royal family, who has derived its legitimacy from the Wahhabis and in return, provided its foundations with billions of dollars.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced that he wouldn’t allow either the Kingdom’s powerful religious establishment or its extremists to stand in the way of his plans for reform.  He has stripped the religious police of their power to arrest, and expanded the role of women in public life. He has also detained dozens of hardline clerics and ordered others to publicly speak respectfully about other religions.  The Crown Prince is betting on the fact that the large youth population in the Kingdom cares more about entertainment and economic opportunities than religious dogma.  Mohammed bin Salman’s success in transforming Saudi Arabia may contribute to open peace between Israel and the moderate Arab and Muslim states.

Joseph Puder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Big Palestinian Lie - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

End the “Palestinian” occupation of Israel.

Palestinian boss Mahmoud Abbas recently declared that Israel is "a colonial enterprise that has nothing to do with Jewishness." Moses, King David and thousands of years of Jewish history would disagree. Israel and the Jews are part of the story of human civilization. Over 50% of the human race has a holy book that tells of the Jewish journey to Israel. That includes Mohammed’s own copy of the Koran.

Israel isn’t a “colonial enterprise.” Palestine is.

Anyone who wants to find out where the name Israel comes from can open the Book of Genesis 32:29. The story even appears in Islamic hadiths. But where does “Palestine” really come from?

Palestine isn’t a Hebrew or Arabic word. The Greeks used it to describe the area. And when the Romans and their Arab mercenaries repressed the indigenous Jewish population, they renamed it all Palestine.

Palestine, after the Philistines: but why did the Greeks and Romans name the area after the Philistines?

The Philistines were one of the Greek origin sea peoples who had originally invaded and colonized the area. The Jewish resistance to Philistine colonialism is chronicled in the histories of Samson, King Saul and King David. It was natural for the Greek and Roman colonies that the Jews of the Second Temple era clashed with to use “Palestine”, the name associated with earlier colonies, to refer to their new colonies. 

That latest phase of Greek colonialism led to an extended conflict between the Persian Empire and Greco-Roman civilization. The Romans made extended use of Arab mercenaries and rulers to secure their dominions. One such ruler was Herod, the son of an Idumean father and a Nabatean Arab mother, (according to the Greek historian Strabo they were both Arabic peoples), who repressed the Jews.

The eventual decline and fall of the Roman and Persian empires made way for the Islamic conquests of the region. But the Islamic bandit hordes had no original ideas. Their religion was a hodgepodge of Judaism, Christianity, assorted pagan beliefs and Mohammed’s violent fantasies. The rest of their culture they took wholesale from the Greeks. This game of historical Idiocracy ended with a collection of Arab colonists who call themselves “Palestinians” and claim to be descended from… somebody.

In Germany, Abbas declared that, “the nation of Palestine, throughout its long history, has been a beacon of generosity, and our people are an extension of the 3,500-year-old Canaanite civilization.” The Palestinian Authority that the unelected dictator runs was created in 1993. There was never any such independent country before that. And inquiring minds would love to know what an Islamic terrorist group and the Arab clans it oversees have in common with the Canaanite civilization. Fire, the wheel?

But then, Abbas also insisted that, "Mohammed the Prophet was a Palestinian”. According to Islamic tradition, Mohammed was an Adnanite Arab from Arabia. They claim descent from Ishmael and Abraham. That means they aren’t Canaanites. And a number of the Arab clans who make up the “Palestinians” do have their origins in Arabia. For a brief, shining moment, Abbas was telling the truth.

Previously, Abbas had also claimed that Jesus was a Palestinian. If you’re keeping track, that means the Palestinians are Canaanites, Arabs and Jews. That certainly covers a lot of historical bases.

But we’re just getting started.

“The Bible says, in these words, that the Palestinians existed before Abraham,” Abbas also insisted. The Bible doesn’t say anything in “these words”, but people took it to mean that he was claiming that the Palestinians were actually the Philistines. But then he took credit for the invention of the “Canaanite-Palestinian alphabet more than 6,000 years ago.”

There’s no such alphabet. The Palestinian Authority and Muslims in Israel use the Arabic alphabet which does have its extremely distant origins in the Phoenician Proto-Canaanite alphabet. But so does Greek, Latin and the letters you’re reading now. Like most of the “Palestinian” leader’s claims, it’s nonsense.

Within a few years, Abbas claimed that the “Palestinians” are descended from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Jews and the Arabs. Only the last one is true. The “Palestinians” were part of a wave of Arab and Islamic invaders whose incursions continued well into the modern era.

There are some 10,000 “Afro-Palestinians” in Gaza. Some are African settlers who came in the 19th century. The anti-Israel left would have you believe that a Sudanese Muslim who settled in Israel in the late 19th century is an indigenous “Palestinian”, but a Jewish refugee from Egypt is a foreign “settler”.

The Arab Muslims who live in ’48 and ’67 Israel are made up of various clans from around the region.

Abbas has referred to Jordan and Palestine as "one people living in two states.” Hamas interior minister Fathi Hammad had once asserted, "Personally, half my family is Egyptian. We are all like that. More than 30 families in the Gaza Strip are called Al-Masri (Egyptian). Brothers, half of the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis.”

The most famous Al-Masri is a billionaire who lives in a West Bank reproduction of an Italian villa named “The House of Palestine”, and was recently detained by the Saudis. Munib Masri served as a Palestinian Authority minister, holds a legislative seat and accounts for a quarter of the “Palestinian” economy. The greenhouse in his villa was a gift from Napoleon III to his mistress.

Masri, whose family name originated in Egypt, and claims to be a Palestinian, is actually a Saudi citizen who lives in an imported Italian villa. He made his money supplying the US military during Desert Storm. 

That’s what a “Palestinian” looks like.

The “Palestinians” are Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Senegalese, Sudanese and a number of other Muslim invasive colonists. They are not Philistines, Canaanites or Jews.  They’re as indigenous as Al-Masri’s “House of Palestine” made out of imported Italian marble and filled with European art.

The “Palestinians” are what they always were: a foreign Islamic Arab colony inside Israel.

The Big Lie of Palestine is that the Islamic colonists are the indigenous population of Israel and that the Jews are colonizing Palestine. But an indigenous people can never colonize their own country.

“Palestine” is a twisted colonial fiction. The name reflects Greek colonization of the region. And its use by the modern Islamic colonists shows their lack of any actual historical connection to Israel.

After all the agonized wailing about the deeply meaningful “Palestinian” connection to “Palestine”, they still haven’t come up with their own name for the place. One that they can properly pronounce. (There’s no proper “P” in Arabic.) But Abbas keeps coming up with new lies about which ancient people the “Palestinians” are descended from this week.

I can’t wait until he claims to be Cherokee.

The claim of the “Palestinian” colonists to Israel is a lie of Islamic imperialism. The Muslim powers of the region have funded the racist attacks by the PLO, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups on Jews.

The “Palestinians” are not the victims of colonialism. They are its perpetrators.

The fighting between Israel and Islamic terrorists is a struggle between imperialism and colonialism. The imperialists are not the oppressed Jewish minority that has been forced out of nearly everywhere else in the region. It’s the Arab Islamic majority that represses minorities across the region.

“Palestine” is a pathetic attempt to launder one imperial identity with another followed by shameless efforts to appropriate the identities of nearly every ancient people in the region. Including the Jews.

The only way to end the conflict is to end the lies.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Canada: "Islamophobia Day"? Are You Kidding? - Tom Quiggin

by Tom Quiggin

Hate crimes against Muslims actually have dropped, even as the overall number of hate crimes increased, according to the last Statistics Canada reporting.

  • In fact, in Canada, "Islamophobia" comes in only fourth behind crimes against Blacks, Gays and Jews. Hate crimes against Muslims actually have dropped, even as the overall number of hate crimes increased, according to the last Statistics Canada reporting.
  • The National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM, formerly CAIR CAN) was founded with the mission of supporting its American parent organization, CAIR USA, which in turn was formed to support Hamas. According to the Hamas Covenant, the group is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is listed as terrorist group by the US and Canada. CAIR USA was also listed as a terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates in 2014.
  • The current Executive Director of CAIR CAN/NCCM, Ihsaan Gardee, has tried to claim that CAIR USA and its Canadian chapter CAIR CAN/NCCM have no relationship. This view is misleading. Most tellingly, CAIR CAN/NCCM made the following statement on its own website in 2003 referring to CAIR USA: "This Washington-based organization is CAIR CAN's parent organization."
  • With respect to the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada, newspapers such as the Toronto Star have printed that there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada or the US. A 2015 piece by Haroon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus, stated that: "Muslim Brotherhood is not a registered entity in Canada or the USA, nor does it have any branch in North America." For this assessment, Siddiqui was quoting Jamal Badawi. What Siddiqui did not mention was that Badawi is a member of the North American Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council, according to the Muslim Brotherhood itself.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is being asked by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM, formerly known as CAIR CAN) to designate January 29 as a "National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia." If he does, it is an indicator that the Islamists in Canada have succeeded in their program of political expansion and influence to the point of now being able publicly to manipulate the Prime Minister's Office. In fact, in Canada, "Islamophobia" comes in only fourth behind crimes against Blacks, Gays and Jews. Hate crimes against Muslims have dropped, even as the overall number of hate crimes increase, according to the last Statistics Canada reporting.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being asked by the National Council of Canadian Muslims to designate January 29 as "National Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia." If he does, it is an indicator that the Islamists in Canada have succeeded in their program of political expansion and influence. (Image source: European Parliament)

The event behind this request is the violent attack on the Quebec City mosque of January 29, 2017, in which six people were murdered.

CAIR CAN/NCCM claims in its letter to the Prime Minister that the attack occurred "solely because the victims were Muslim." This statement is doubtful: the mosque has a complicated history, a recent rash of traumatic events, and was initially founded by adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood.


CAIR CAN/NCCM was founded with the mission of supporting its American parent organization, CAIR USA, which in turn was formed to support Hamas. According to the Hamas Covenant, the group is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is listed as terrorist group by the United States and Canada. CAIR USA was also listed as a terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates in 2014. They described the listing of these groups as including Muslim Brotherhood front groups, proxies and fund raisers.

The current Executive Director of CAIR CAN/NCCM, Ihsaan Gardee, has tried to claim that CAIR USA and its Canadian chapter CAIR CAN/NCCM have no relationship. He has made this claim in media interviews to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and while testifying to the Parliament of Canada. This view is misleading. The US State Department has identified CAIR CAN/NCCM as the Canadian chapter of CAIR USA. CAIR USA has repeatedly claimed that CAIR CAN/NCCM is its "Canadian office." Most tellingly, CAIR CAN/NCCM made the following statement on its own website in 2003 referring to CAIR USA: "This Washington-based organization is CAIR CAN's parent organization." That statement was published as part of its "A Journalist's Guide to Islam."

The Senate of Canada also heard from internationally known Muslim Brotherhood expert Dr. Lorenzo Vidino in May of 2015. In his testimony , Vidino stated that the Muslim Brotherhood has a series of eight to ten front organizations in Canada. Among those he noted were CAIR CAN/NCCM.


The Quebec City Mosque, also referred to as the Centre culturel islamique de Québec or CCIQ, was attacked on 29 January 2017. The alleged attacker, Alexandre Bissonnette, murdered six people and wounded eight when he opened fire with a rifle on a Sunday evening.

Not just one attack occurred. The mosque has suffered a series of five events, which appear connected. In June of 2016 a pig's head was placed at the front door of the mosque. Three weeks later a pamphlet was distributed around the mosque's neighborhood, which claimed that the mosque was run by the Muslim Brotherhood. The pamphlet also said that the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Quebec was the Quebec City Mosque. Following that, a blog also stated that the mosque was a Muslim Brotherhood organization. This blog posting was dated July 8, 2016 and it has similar text to what was in the pamphlet distributed around the mosque. The title of the blog was "What is the most serious: a pig's head or a genocide?" The question suggests that the first three incidents are connected. The blog was still active as of January 19, 2018.

The blog also appears to have made an indirect threat to the mosque. The posting stated that:
"If the Grand Mosque of Quebec does not provide formal and verifiable evidence that it repudiated any organizational, financial and ideological ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and its organizations such as the Muslim Association of Canada or others, and if it does not clearly condemn all that these organizations represent, the informed citizens will have to consider the Great Mosque of Quebec, aka Mosque of the capital, aka the Cultural Centre of Quebec, as a home propagating a radical concepts and political Islam."
While this statement of July 2016 does not make a direct violent threat to the mosque, one could believe, especially with the benefit of hindsight, that this posting identifies a threat to the mosque. It does not, of course, say that a violent action will occur if the mosque did not repudiate its Muslim Brotherhood links. The threat, however, is implied; given the two violent events that followed, it seems prescient.

The statement also suggests that the first thee incidents and the shooting, are connected.
As noted, the mosque was then violently attacked in January of 2017, which resulted in the deaths and injuries. On the August 6, 2017, a fifth event occurred in which a car belonging to Mohamed Labidi, the President of the mosque, was burned in a deliberately arson according to police.

Pictured: The Canadian flag flies at half-mast in front of the British Columbia Parliament Buildings in Victoria on January 31, 2017, following a deadly shooting attack on a mosque in Quebec City, in which six people were murdered. (Image source: Province of British Columbia)


The Quebec City mosque was originally formed by Muslim Student Association, according to its own history. The Muslim Student Association was founded by adherents of the Muslim Brotherhood. The mosque donated money on a yearly basis (2001 to 2010) to the Canadian charity known as the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN). This funding occurred through IRFAN, which the Canada Revenue Agency has stated was set up deliberately to circumvent Canadian law to fund Hamas. This "charity" has since been listed as a terrorist entity in Canada, as it sent tens of millions of dollars of cash and services to Hamas.

One of the leading figures at the mosque is Abdullah Assafiri. He was listed as the "directeur de la formation et de l'animation religieuse au Centre culturel islamique de Québec" (Director of training and religious activity at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre). He also represented the mosque when it interacted with the provincial government.

Mr. Assafiri is also a major leadership figure in the Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Muslim Brotherhood itself. He was listed as the "Masul" or "leader" for Eastern Canada in the North American Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council organizational list. The list became public as a court document during the Holy Land Relief Foundation terrorism funding trials in the USA.

Mr. Assafiri told the press he normally would have been at the mosque on the Sunday night of the attack, but he did not attend when the shooting occurred because his son had borrowed his car (c'est parce que son fils avait emprunté sa voiture).

With respect to the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada, newspapers such as the Toronto Star, have printed that there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood in Canada or the USA. A 2015 piece by Haroon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star's editorial page editor emeritus, actually reported that:
"Muslim Brotherhood is not a registered entity in Canada or the USA, nor does it have any branch in North America."
For this assessment, Mr. Siddiqui was quoting Dr. Jamal Badawi. What Siddiqui did not mention was that Dr. Badawi is a member of the North American Muslim Brotherhood's Shura Council, according to the Muslim Brotherhood itself. Further, the Muslim Brotherhood has held up Dr. Badawi as a leading and exemplary figure in its education field. Dr. Badawi has also served on the board of directors of both the Muslim Association of Canada and CAIR CAN/NCCM. The Muslim Association of Canada (MAC) was also noted as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in Dr. Vidino's 2015 testimony to the Canadian Senate. The MAC website states that the "Muslim Brotherhood remains the truest reflection of Islamic practice in the modern era."

Dr. Badawi was also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in American based Holy Land Relief terrorism funding trial that had its roots in Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Convictions for this trial were obtained in 2008.


In the case of the Quebec City mosque attack, while it is possible that the victims were attacked solely because they were Muslim, the connected incidents – both before the attack and the online implied threat -- suggests that the motivation for the attack might be somewhat more complicated.

If the "Islamophobia Memorial Day" is declared by the prime minster, it is a clear "indicator and warning" on how far an Islamist mentality has been developed within the corridors of government. It also will further confirm how deeply Prime Minster Trudeau has has continued in his support the Islamist cause on every occasion since his election as a Member of Parliament in 2008.

Tom Quiggin is a former military intelligence officer, a former intelligence contractor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a court appointed expert on jihadist terrorism in both the Federal and criminal courts of Canada. Much of the material for this article comes from the recently published book, "SUBMISSION: The Danger of Political Islam to Canada – With a Warning to America", written with co-authors Tahir Gora, Saied Shoaaib, Jonathon Cotler, and Rick Gill with a foreword by Raheel Raza.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Defense Department-Amazon Deal Risks Chinese Espionage - Andrew E. Harrod

by Andrew E. Harrod

The United States cannot allow Chinese espionage to extend its tentacles from American business to national defense.

Recent Department of Defense (DoD) actions indicate that the DoD is considering making Amazon the DoD's sole online cloud provider, the Washington Examiner notes. Such a deal entails numerous disadvantages, not least of which is threats of espionage arising from Amazon's compromising relationship with China.

On October 30, the DoD made a "Request for Information" (RFI) soliciting private-sector advice about modernizing DoD cloud services. The RFI specifications suggest that the DoD is seeking a single global cloud-provider. Amazon would most likely be the contract recipient, given several past multimillion-dollar cloud contracts with multiple national security agencies.

I.T. contractors and several trade groups have made "stern warnings about the potential effects of choosing just one cloud provider." The "[DoD]'s diverse needs and mission requirements" argue against an "approach that could eliminate the potential for multiple cloud services providers." As one trade group analogizes, "almost all Fortune 500 counterparts have established multi-cloud architectures because no singular cloud solution meets all of their mission and business application requirements."

Innovation and cost-cutting also favor multiple suppliers, the trade groups and contractors note. "A Department cloud [comprising] multiple interoperable offerings would ensure that the Department obtains the benefits of competition to achieve best value." The "diversified solutions from the commercial market will facilitate a culture of experimentation, adaption, and risk-taking and increase the speed of technology development and procurement." By contrast, "selecting only one cloud[-]provider drastically impairs competition in the future, effectively leaving [DoD] captive to one provider."
"Failing to diversify," the Washington Examiner notes with particular concern for national security:
... puts any investor, especially the government, at a greater risk. The stakes are high here, as a breach by a cloud services provider could lead to the leak of military secrets to China and other U.S. competitors that do business with Amazon.
One trade group sees particular concerns in the RFI's terms. The RFI "appears to raise in priority the needs of the supplier above the needs of the customer for issues, like national security." The RFI specifically states that "DoD is prepared to pursue the revision of existing policies and federal regulations to remove barriers to success."
The Amazon-DoD deal's inadequacies are especially glaring, given the extensive history of Chinese espionage against the United States. National Security Agency director General Keith Alexander once called the economic fruit of this spying the "greatest transfer of wealth in history." Sophisticated Chinese government hackers have breached the computer security of American media firms like the New York Times and Washington Post as well as major corporations like Alcoa, U.S. Steel, and Westinghouse. Some commentators worry that "businesses are now unlikely to keep valuable information secure online."
The Trump administration's recently revealed new national security strategy only emphasizes China concerns, noting:
China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence[.] ... China gathers and exploits data on an unrivaled scale and spreads features of its authoritarian system, including corruption and the use of surveillance.
As one CIA analyst noted, companies like Amazon that invest in China are particularly susceptible to China's pressures. For example, "Beijing encourages multinational corporations to conduct R&D in China as a means to promote domestic technological innovation. Increasingly, key firms are complying for their own self-interest." Chinese laws have already forced Amazon's Chinese operations to run Amazon's Chinese cloud businesses through a Chinese partner in which Amazon may have only a minority share as well as to accede to Chinese online censorship.

The extent of Amazon's business relationships with China makes the firm particularly vulnerable to Chinese pressure. Some estimate that 25 percent of Amazon's retailers are from China. Predicted coming trade fights between China and the Trump administration will only place Amazon's China investments in a more precarious position and incentivize Amazon officials to stay on China's good side.

Under these circumstances, making Amazon a sole-source DoD provider for the very type of cloud technology Amazon has sold to China is fraught with hazards. The United States cannot allow Chinese espionage to extend its tentacles from American business to national defense. Rather, the United States should draw upon the best in its free-market economy of numerous private producers to protect vital national interests.

Andrew E. Harrod


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Turkish air strikes against Afrin Kurds. Assad opens roads to Kurdish reinforcements - debkaFile

by debkaFile

President Tayyip Erdogan’s assault on Afrin was the subject of an urgent phone call from Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov to the Chairman of the US Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Turkish air strikes against Afrin Kurds. Assad opens roads to Kurdish reinforcements

Russian and American army chiefs conferred urgently Saturday, Jan. 20, about Turkey’s escalating assault on Kurdish Afrin in N. Syria. For the first time in the Syrian civil war, Bashar Assad told his army to let Kurdish reinforcements pass through the main highway from Hasakah and the Aleppo region to come to the aid of the beleaguered Kurdish YPG militia in the northern enclave of Afrin against a threatened Turkish invasion. Turkish attacks escalated to air strikes on Saturday from cross-border shelling Friday. President Tayyip Erdogan’s assault on Afrin was the subject of an urgent phone call from Russian Chief of Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov to the Chairman of the US Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford. DEBKAfile reports that they discussed coordinating US and Russian air force conduct over northern Syria after Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim ratcheted up the crisis by report the air strikes and saying, “The destruction of the YPG and PKK has begun.”

Read DEBKAfile’s earlier analysis of how the Afrin confrontation began.

Turkish artillery shelling Friday, Jan. 19 kicked off a major offensive against the Kurdish Afrin enclave of N. Syria, shortly after the Turkish C-of-S and intelligence chief left Moscow. No statement followed the visit as to whether Gen. Hulusi Akar had succeeded in his mission of winning Moscow’s cooperation. What happened next was word that the Russian troops positioned in Afrin were to be moved out of the targeted region for safety.

Three days earlier, on Jan. 16, Gen. Akar, who leads one of NATO’s largest armies, visited Brussels and asked the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford, not to counter the planned Turkish invasion for “clearing YPG [Kurdish militia] fighters from Afrin.” But he was cautioned by the American general against going forward with this offensive. In Ankara, President Tayyip Erdogan shot back by informing parliament in Ankara that the Turkish military operation against the Kurds of Afrin was “imminent.” For Erdogan, relations with Washington, which supports the Syrian Kurds, had reached breaking point.

Moscow’s decision to move the Russian contingent at the airport of Afrin out of the way of crossfire, 10 months after its deployment there, was a sign that the Kremlin is taking seriously Erdogan’s threat to crush the Kurds of Afrin. The Turkish ruler has stepped up his anti-Kurd rhetoric even more since US plans were revealed for creating a 30,000-strong border army, predominantly made up of Kurdish militias, in northern Syria. The Kurdish YPG has meanwhile warned the Turks and the Syrian rebel force they support: “If they dare to attack, we are ready to bury them one by one in Afrin.”

But Turkish Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli left no room for doubt that the die has been cast, when he said Friday in Ankara: “The assault has begun, the operation has actually started de facto with cross-border shelling. I don’t want it to be misunderstood. All terror networks and elements in northern Syria will be eliminated.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the Turkish army must overcome four obstacles before its tanks and troops can roll across the border into Afrin.

  1. The US forces based in northern Syria. The Trump administration did not immediately respond to the Turkish shelling and threats, but the American outpost in Manbij is no more than 120km from Afrin. Erdogan has included Manbij in his threat to capture Afrin. On Jan. 16, our sources reported that the US had supplied the YPG for the first time with portable anti-air missiles to defend themselves in the event of potential Turkish air strikes. But at this early stage, the Kurds are believed capable of standing up to the Turkish offensive.
  2. Syria has warned Turkey against an incursion of its territory would be deemed an act of aggression and threatened its air defenses would shoot down Turkish jets overflying Syria. Our military sources note that, in any case, Russia controls the airspace over Afrin, a fact that may well deter Ankara from using its air force.
  3. An ingathering of all the Kurdish forces from their northern Syrian bastions in the defense of the YPG, would confront the Turkish army with between 20,000 and 30,000 trained Kurdish fighters well-armed with American weapons, whose motivation for defending their land would be more powerful than any invading force. In past engagements with the Islamic State, the Turkish army’s performance was middling.
  4. ISIS and Syrian rebel groups may well take advantage of a major Turkish-Kurdish clash to recover territory which they lost to Kurdish fighters in northern and eastern Syria. It is hard to see the United States letting that happen.



Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Turkey begins military operation against US-backed Syrian border force - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

Ankara looking to destroy Kurdish "terrorists" on its border.

The Turkish defense minister announced that the army has begun bombarding Kurdish-held regions along the Syrian border as Ankara looks to destroy a U.S.-backed border force made up largely of Kurdish militias.
The border force was created by the U.S. and the Kurds to prevent ISIS from concentrating its forces and threatening Iraq and Syria. But the Kurds also see the force as protecting the autonomous area they've carved out independent of the Syrian government.

This has angered President Erdoğan, who has vowed to destroy the "terrorists" on the border.
Direct military action against territory held by Kurdish militia would open a new front in Syria's civil war and would see Ankara confronting Kurds allied to the United States at a time when Turkey's relations with Washington are reaching breaking point.
"The operation has actually de facto started with cross-border shelling," Turkish [defense m]inister Nurettin Canikli said, adding that no troops had crossed into Afrin.
A U.S. State Department official said such moves would undermine regional stability and would not help protect Turkey's border security.
"We do not believe that a military operation serves the cause of regional stability, Syrian stability[,] or indeed Turkish concerns about the security of their border," the official told reporters, stressing he had limited information about Turkey's reported military moves.
"The kind of threats or activities [that] these initial reports may be referring to, we don't think advance any of these issues. They are destabili[z]ing."
The United States has instead called on Turkey to focus on the fight against Islamic State militants and not take military action in Afrin.
As Turkey slips farther away from the west and Erdoğan continues to aggregate power and transform the country into an Islamic state, the U.S. and NATO have been powerless to stop him. But Erdoğan has a stubborn Kurdish problem made worse by a terrorist militia living within Turkey, the PPK. The U.S. recognizes the PPK as a terrorist outfit, but the militias in Afrin are associated with the YPG – an entirely different organization that has fought side by side with the U.S. in battling both ISIS and insurgents in Iraq.

But Erdoğan has chosen to lump all Kurdish militias together and refer to them as "terrorists." He knows better but finds it politically convenient to demonize all the Kurds. Besides, the prospect of an independent enclave of Kurds on his border makes Erdoğan uncomfortable. 

The U.S. can do nothing to help the YPG, as the bombardment probably presages a ground action against that group. We have supplied the Kurds with mostly small arms, while to repel an armed invasion, they would need artillery and anti-tank weapons. This, they are not going to get from Washington, or anywhere else. But the Kurds are used to being on their own and, given their prowess on the battlefield, will give the Turkish army all it can handle.

Rick Moran


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Russia's Strategic Advantage in the Baltics: A Challenge to NATO? - Dr. Jiri and Leni Valenta

by Dr. Jiri and Leni Valenta

Recognizing that Russia does have a military and strategic advantage in the Baltics comparative to NATO, the present inquiry focuses primarily on divining aspects of strategic importance to NATO.

Executive Summary:

At a time when news reports often have as much Shakespearean drama as fiction, General Sir Richard Shirreff, a former NATO deputy supreme commander of Europe, has created fiction he believes could become news. In his novel, 2017 War with Russia, he anticipates a 2017 Russian invasion of the Baltics through Latvia. Much like Georgian provinces South Ossetia and Abkhazia, invaded by Russia in 2008, Latvia is a state with a high minority of Russian speakers – 34%. The Crimea Russia also invaded in 2014, also have large Russian minorities. Shirreff posits the Russian president then tries to blackmail NATO by threatening a nuclear response to any defense. A Russo-NATO war follows which assumes a nuclear face.

However, in another scenario, retired U.S. general, Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army posits the Russians would invade not Latvia, but Lithuania, a state with only a 9% Russian population from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

Yet a third case for war in the Baltics, was provided in 2013 by a Russian analyst, Mikhail Aleksandrov, of the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] Institute in Moscow. He linked it to the conflict in Syria. On August 27, 2013, President Barack Obama was seriously contemplating a missile strike on Syria to punish its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, for using sarin gas on civilians during the country’s civil war. His “red line” against chemical WMD having been crossed, Obama sent four destroyers to the Syrian shores ready to carry out an attack.

With Russian help, the strike was ultimately forestalled by diplomatic measures. But on August 26, 2013, as Russia and Iran were preparing to defend Assad, Aleksandrov offered some advice to Putin. “In the case of a NATO attack on Syria, Russia should deploy its forces where we have clear strategic advantage, that [is] in the Baltics.”

Recognizing that Russia does have a military and strategic advantage in the Baltics comparative to NATO, the present inquiry focuses primarily on divining aspects of strategic importance to NATO. We also look at Putin’s possible intentions in the Baltics. Because nations have complex histories that mold or mar them, what geopolitical lessons and historical lessons can we draw from Russia’s previous military interventions? Has the historical relationship of Russia with the Baltic states been conditioned by a clash of civilizations as claimed by some Baltic thinkers? If so, how does this factor into the present tensions? What role does the sizable minority of Russians in the Baltic states play in the Kremlin’s policy-making? How can strategic military savvy and diplomacy aid in preventing the escalation of present tensions in the Baltics into full-scale war?

Dr. Jiri and Leni Valenta


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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