Reality check: The truth behind crossings in Judea and Samaria

by IDF Blog

The crossings and IDF checkpoints in Judea and Samaria have been the source of much confusion and debate worldwide. Crossings and checkpoints, while both provide important security benefits, are different. Crossings are facilities used by Palestinians to enter from Judea and Samaria into other regions of Israel. Checkpoints, on the other hand, operate during times of heightened security risk to prevent terrorists from executing their plans to harm civilians. The international media have often portrayed these security measures as a way to restrict Palestinians’ freedom of movement and abuse civil rights. They have occasionally been referred to as ‘inhumane’. Despite attention on the region, most facts about the crossings and checkpoints are widely unknown. How many checkpoints are still active? Just how successful are they in preventing terror attacks? What type of security checks occur? Are Palestinians able to move freely? Today, the reality is far from what you may have heard.

How many crossings and checkpoints are there today?

There are some 15 crossings between Judea and Samaria and other parts of Israel. Some are used for the passage of people, others for the passage of goods. In addition to these crossings, 12 checkpoints are placed strategically throughout Israel’s Central Command region, and operate in time of need in light of security considerations.

Checkpoints – Preventing terror, saving lives

Capt. Barak Raz, spokesperson for the Judea and Samaria Division, describes the situation in Judea and Samaria as relatively stable.

“Today, we take into account incidents such as throwing stones, which can be fatal, and we also have the resources to improve road safety. Ten years ago, nobody was keeping track of all this because there was a terror attack every week.”

Last year marked the first year since 1973 in which no Israelis were killed in Judea and Samaria. Compare this to 2002, in which 47 terror attacks left 452 Israeli civilians dead.

Checkpoints have been used as a method to filter out and prevent terror attacks before would-be Palestinian attackers have a chance to enter Israel. As a result of such insidious methods as female suicide bombers hiding explosives under their clothing and the use of ambulances to conceal and transport terrorist weapons, routine checks have been intensified at all types of crossings.

The number of terror attacks has fallen drastically since the construction of the security fence in 2006.

The IDF has withdrawn the majority of its checkpoints in Judea and Samaria in a step towards beginning a positive cycle, Capt. Raz explains:

“The Palestinians have realized that the path of terror led them nowhere. We can explain this relative calm in three ways: the reduction of military presence during routine security tasks, an effective counter-terrorism strategy, and a clear economic incentive for Palestinians to maintain the calm. By reducing the number of checkpoints, we can provide much more freedom of movement, therefore improving the economic conditions and ultimately strengthening the security situation.”

From 40 to 12 checkpoints

The number of checkpoints in the Central Command went from 40 in July 2008 to just 12 in October 2012. Furthermore, these checkpoints are only used some of the time and the frequency of checks is dependent on the security threat at the time.

Barak Raz explains that the relative calm in the region has been brought about by the success of security measures which routinely prevent attempted attacks.

“Despite the calm, the willingness to carry out terror attacks is still present, but we are able to counter them better. This may seem paradoxical since there are fewer checkpoints. However, we use the 12 points as soon as we receive the warning of an imminent threat. Every vehicle at each location is then checked. In approximately thirty minutes, we stop the suspects and the situation returns to normal.”

Freedom of Movement

Separate roads are used to enter Palestinian and Israeli communities. It is important to remember that Israeli vehicles are prohibited from entering roads leading to Area “A” (the area under full civil and security control of the Palestinian Authority) just as Palestinian vehicles are not permitted to leave Judea and Samaria in order to enter into Israel.

Sign prohibiting entry to Israeli vehicles into Area “A”.

The main roads linking Palestinian cities, including Route 60, are freely accessible and free of security controls. A Palestinian civilian can travel from Jenin to Bethlehem without encountering a single military checkpoint.

Some people who have traveled the roads in Judea and Samaria and seen yellow barriers on the side of the road have mistaken them for checkpoints. Capt. Raz explains the surprising truth behind these barriers: they are used to save Palestinian lives.

“Today we face more and more problems with road safety. Many residents of Palestinian villages try to take shortcuts and enter onto main roadsfrom small dirt roads beside their homes,” Capt. Raz explains. “This is dangerous for both Israeli and Palestinian drivers. Road accidents have become the leading cause of death among Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. To counter this, we installed the yellow barriers to restrict access [to the main roads] to other vehicles.”

Crossings: 9.4 million entries in 2012

Crossings are the main points of entry between Judea and Samaria and other parts of Israel. Certain crossings – such as Bituniya – are intended for the inspection and transfer of goods.

There are also crossings intended for the passage of Palestinian civilians such as those at Kalandia and Hashmonaim. These crossings have received much criticism for alleged violations of human rights. Is this criticism justified?

Who is allowed to enter and who is not?

Every Palestinian wishing to visit relatives or work inside Israel must contact the office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

“Our role is to ensure the safety of every Palestinian civilian, that he or she has freedom of movement and economic access,” says Maj. Amos Zuaretz, Head of crossings in COGAT.

Obtaining an entry permit is a simple two-step process. Palestinians must first obtain a biometric card at any of the 31 COGAT offices in Judea and Samaria. The applicant receives the card – designed to ease waiting times at crossings – five minutes after filling out the form.

Next, one wishing to obtain permission to cross must apply to a Palestinian Authority liaison officer who makes contact with the Israeli authorities. The vast majority of applications are processed and approved within 24 hours.

There are 74 types of authorization, which vary according to the type of activity and permit duration. The two most requested permits are humanitarian permits and commercial permits.

What is the procedure at crossings once authorization is approved?

This is actually quite straightforward and would be familiar to anyone who has entered any airport in the world. Each person must first pass through a metal detector and pass their bags through a scanner, just as every Israeli citizen or tourist must at any of Israel’s train stations. At this stage, there is no physical contact with soldiers. Most Palestinians already know the procedure. Soldiers oversee everything from an isolated control room and communicate via intercom.

Left: Hashmonaim Crossing entrance. Right: Tel Aviv Central Train Station entrance.

After that, each person’s card is reviewed by a COGAT official who takes a digital fingerprint scan. Lastly, a soldier verifies that the permit is in order and authorizes entry.

“In 2012, there were 9.4 million entries at all crossings combined. This figure has been rising steadily since 2010,” says Maj. Zuaretz.

Identity and permit verification at the Hashmonaim Crossing.

When that person returns home later on, he/she simply passes his/her magnetic card through a scanner and walks through a turnstile.

If all goes well, there is no actual contact between Palestinians and Israeli soldiers. The whole procedure takes five minutes once started. However, some crossings are widely used and lines can be long. An average of 15 thousand people use the Kalandia crossing each day and the majority of those people cross in the morning. In comparison, about 35 thousand individuals go through Ben Gurion International Airport every day. It is not uncommon to see relatively long lines like those at crossings in international airports.

Left: Hashmonaim Crossing exit. Right: Tel Aviv Central Train Station.

475 Attempts to Smuggle Weapons

The various crossings and checkpoints have proven to be effective barriers against weapons smuggling and the crossing of illegal workers. In 2012, the Military Police Corps recorded a total of 475 attempts to smuggle weapons into Israel and 1,147 illegal attempts to enter Israel with forged ID cards. The Military Police and officers from the Ministry of Defense responsible for crossings have thwarted many attempted attacks and arrested dozens of people in possession of explosives. Most recently, on April 30, 2013, a 31-year-old Israeli civilian was stabbed to death at Tapuah Junction – the intersection of routes 60 and 505.

Although the situation is better than in the past, the ongoing presence of these checkpoints remains necessary. The proof is in the numbers.

Two examples of explosives and weapons seized at crossings in 2011.

h/t: imra 


IDF Blog

Source: http://www.idfblog.com/2013/05/06/reality-check-the-truth-behind-crossings-in-judea-and-samaria/

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

Schools for Subversion

by Mark Tapson


 

On Monday, May 6 at the Luxe Hotel in Los Angeles, the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors are co-hosting a symposium and panel discussion entitled “Schools for Subversion: How Public Education Lays the Groundwork for University Radicalism.” The panel will feature FrontPage Magazine’s own classics professor Bruce Thornton, retired educator Larry Sand, “Dissident Prof” Mary Grabar, and Kyle Olson.

Olson is the publisher of EAGnews.org, a news service dedicated to education reform and school spending research, reporting, analysis and commentary. It is the flagship website of the Education Action Group Foundation. The author of Indoctrination: How ‘Useful Idiots’ Are Using Our Schools to Subvert American Exceptionalism, Olson has appeared on Fox News, the Fox Business Network, NPR and MSNBC, as well as scores of talk radio programs from coast to coast. His work has been cited by the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Mark Tapson: You recently appeared in a Fox & Friends segment called “The Trouble with Schools.” Briefly, what is the trouble with schools?

Kyle Olson: We have a government education system that is turning out students that are unprepared for life. It’s broken academically and financially. It is the playground for left-wing activists to push their personal political agenda in the classroom under the guise of education.

MT: The event on May 6 is entitled, “Schools for Subversion,” and the subtitle of your book refers to the subversion of American exceptionalism. FrontPage readers are well aware of the leftist indoctrination common to universities, but how are our K-12 schools contributing to that as well?

KO: The indoctrination in K-12 schools was spawned from the universities. Activists like Bill Ayers knew that to change the students, they had to change what and how they were taught. In order to do that, they moved upstream to teacher colleges. With an emphasis on things such as “social justice math” and “cultural sensitivity” teacher educators are giving young teachers the tools to use in the K-12 classroom.

Across the country, we see a hostility towards the free market system, the 2^nd Amendment and the individual. There is a huge emphasis on the “collective” at the expense of individual rights and parental control.

MT: What does your organization, EAGnews, do to combat education problems?

KO: We expose the problems in the system, as well as solutions that are working. We produce research, analysis and videos that get people thinking in a different way about exactly what is going on in the education system. We actively get our work into the media, both traditional and new, to reach a broader audience.

Our school spending research is frequently featured on local TV news broadcasts while our videos and other research is regularly on Fox News, The Blaze and other high-profile outlets.

MT: How is Big Labor impacting education in America?

KO: Big Labor implements its agenda in the classroom. Case in point: May is Labor History Month in California’s schools.

It has created a system that treats – and rewards – teachers equally, regardless of performance. It prevents rewarding good teachers. It has successfully made the focus on adult issues – pay, benefits, work rules. Look at what the fights are always about: those things, not improving education outcomes for students.

Just look at the recent strike in Chicago. In a district that has a 54% graduation rate and 20% proficiency rate in reading and math, the teachers went on strike over more pay and against a longer school day.

MT: What is Common Core and what does it mean for the future of American education?

KO: Common Core is the federal takeover of the education system. It is a national standard, and when you have one set of standards, sooner or later, you’ll have one set of curricula. That’s the problem. Oh, and why does the government need to know our students’ religion and blood type? Or when they’re picked up by the bus? That’s the type of information that will be in the Common Core database being implemented. It is federal control of education realized.

MT: You mentioned “solutions that are working.” What solutions are working? Taking back our education system from the grip of left-wing activists seems like a daunting task – are you optimistic or pessimistic that it can be done?

KO: School choice is working. It’s the ultimate reform. It’s the silver bullet. Not a single form of choice but all of them. Instead of tinkering with the jalopy by spending more, passing meager tenure reform or implementing evaluation systems that can be killed in the courts by unions, create choice in the system and let students escape all of that. School choice is the Ferrari. The education blob – made up of Democrats and Republicans – want to keep people trapped driving in the jalopy.

If parents and taxpayers rise up, education can be taken back. Let the radicals keep the system. Create choice to let parents and students escape it. When that happens, the system will collapse under the weight of poor results and fiscal mismanagement.


Mark Tapson

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/schools-for-subversion/

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

Benghazi Smoking Gun Exposed

by Arnold Ahlert


 

New evidence reveals the Obama administration’s version of the events that took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was based on a tissue of lies. The Weekly Standard’s Steven Hayes has obtained a timeline and a series of emails revealing the self-serving efforts made by administration officials, who heavily edited CIA talking points about the attack that cost four Americans, including ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, their lives. Also revealed is who made the changes and why they made them.

The revelations are part of a report published by the five Republican Committee chairmen that has been largely dismissed by a calculatingly indifferent media, despite the reality that it includes direct quotes from administration officials, along with footnotes indicating the times the messages were sent. Although the names of some officials have been omitted in some places, the Weekly Standard has confirmed the identity of two administration officials who authored two critical emails: one illuminating the reason for the editing itself and the other announcing a September 15 meeting of top administration officials, where the ultimate draft of the talking points would be finalized.

The two officials are State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland and White House national security official Ben Rhodes.

What they sought to obscure is the realty that while the initial attack was still taking place, the State Department Operations Center sent out two alerts, at 4:05 p.m and 6:08 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The former indicated an attack was taking place. The latter alert revealed that an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, was claiming credit for it. According to the House report, these alerts were widely circulated among administration officials, including those at the highest levels of government. Another cable sent by the CIA station chief in Libya the following day reveals that eyewitnesses confirmed that a terrorist attack involving the participation of Islamic jihadists had occurred.

It was exactly that reality the administration sought to obscure.

The Standard reveals the three versions of the edited talking points. Version 1 was distributed internally for comment at 11:15 a.m. on Friday, September 14. Key points include:

–The initial theory that the Benghazi attacks “were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo”;

–”Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida participated”;

–Members of Ansar al Sharia “were involved”;

–”Wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya contributed to the lethality of the attacks”;

–”Five other attacks against foreign interests” had taken place since April, leading to the possibility that the consulate had been “previously surveilled”;

–The U.S. is “working w/Libyan authorities and intelligence partners” to bring those responsible to justice.

After this draft’s initial distribution, the CIA amended it, adding two more points. “On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy,” and “The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al Qaeda in Benghazi and Libya.” They also changed two talking points: the reference to  “al Qa’ida” was removed, and Benghazi “attacks” became “demonstrations.”

An hour into the vetting process, the official confirmed by the Standard to be Victoria Nuland raised “serious concerns”–about the political impact, fearing that Congress would hammer the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.” Minor revisions followed, but they weren’t good enough for Nuland, who said the changes did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” further warning that State Department officials would directly contact National Security Council (NSC) officials as a result. In a matter of moments, the House report noted, that “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” It was then that Ben Rhodes notified the various groups working on the points that a meeting would take place on September 15 to resolve their issues.

Version two of the report was put together at 9:45 a.m. on Saturday. According to officials with knowledge of what occurred at this meeting of the Deputies Committee, CIA deputy director Mike Morrel heavily edited this version, removing 148 of its 248 words. The entirety of the previous report was reduced to the “spontaneous attack” theory, followed by the idea that “this assessment may change as additional information is made available,” and that the “investigation is ongoing to help bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens.”

Less than two hours later, those three points became the bullet points in Version three, which became the final version of the  administration’s talking points.

On Sunday, September 16, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent out by the administration to pitch the Muslim video canard. The following day, Nuland rose to Rice’s defense. “What I will say, though, is that Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. And this was not just her assessment, it was also an assessment you’ve heard in comments coming from the intelligence community, in comments coming from the White House.”

Yet even the redacted version of the talking points never mentioned anything about a video. Despite that reality, the administration, led by Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continued to pitch that mendacious version of the events, inaugurating the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to mislead the American public in the weeks leading up to the presidential election — weeks during which we were assured that al Qa’ida and terror were “on the run.”

At a press briefing last Friday, State Department spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declined to comment regarding Nuland’s involvement, and why critical details were edited out of the final draft. “We regularly discuss our public messaging with our interagency counterparts, that’s part of what happens in the interagency,” said Ventrell. “We’re not going to get into the details…of our internal deliberative process on these. We continue to be transparent with the congress, and have been, and shared thousands of documents. Talking points is something that they’ve looked into.”

Yet the “most transparent administration in history” provided the emails to members of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the stipulation that they would only be available for a limited time, and not turned over to the committees. That agreement was part of a political deal whereby Senate Republicans would not hold up the nomination of current CIA Director John Brennan.

As damning as these revelations are, they are far from the only problems the Obama administration faces in a scandal that can no longer be contained. Last Thursday, it was revealed that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General will be conducting an investigation of the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) report, an outrageous whitewash whose central conclusion was the idea that “the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.” According to well-placed sources, the IG wants to determine if the ARB declined to interview critical witnesses, who wanted to provide their accounts of Benghazi to the panel whose conclusions insulated top officials–including Hillary Clinton–for the “inadequate security” at the consulate.

Two of those whistleblowers, now revealed to be Gregory Hicks, Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism, are being represented by Washington attorneys Victoria Toensing and her husband Joseph DiGenova, respectively. Appearing on “Geraldo” Saturday night, Toensing told Rivera that “the things that her client will be saying will be contradictory to what the administration’s scenario was.” DiGenova promised that “what will come out of the hearing is that the Accountability Review Board conducted by General Pickering and Admiral Mullen will be proven to have been a cover-up–one of the worst jobs ever done in the history of governmental reporting…”

DiGenova further noted that nether Pickering or Mullen ever interviewed Hillary Clinton during their investigation, and that when Pickering was told he would have to deal with it, he became physically ill.

The third witness expected to testify is Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya. Nordstrom, who was based in Tripoli until two months before the attack, is the security officer who twice requested additional security in Benghazi before the attack. Nordstrom cited a chronology that included 200 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, including 48 that occurred in Benghazi.

An equally explosive revelation emerged a week ago, when an anonymous U.S. special operator told Fox News the administration’s contention that no forces were available to get to Benghazi in time was also a lie. “I know for a fact that C 110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise, not in the region of northern Africa, but in Europe. And they had the ability to react and respond,” he contended. The C 110 is a 40-man special ops force reportedly capable of conducting rapid response and deployment. They were located only three-and-a-half hours away in Croatia on Sept. 11.

The operator revealed there were other members of special ops and other officials aware and involved, but that they would be “decapitated if they came forward with information that could affect high-level commanders.” The Fox source added that members of the special ops community feel betrayed, and believe that betrayal goes to the highest levels of the administration.

The administration apparently couldn’t care less. Last Tuesday at his press conference, President Obama claimed he was “unaware” of any effort to prevent whistleblowers from testifying. On the same day, Secretary of State John Kerry contended that there is “an enormous amount of misinformation out there.” ”We have to demythologize this issue and certainly depoliticize it,” Kerry told reporters at the State Department. “The American people deserve answers. I’m determined that this will be an accountable and open State Department as it has been in the past, and we will continue to do that, and we will provide answers.”

Kerry had previously expressed frustration with Republicans for refusing to accept the conclusions of the ARB. “Let’s get this done with, folks,” Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee in testimony last month. “Let’s figure out what it is that’s missing, if it’s legitimate or isn’t. I don’t think anybody lied to anybody. And let’s find out exactly, together, what happened, because we got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.”

Last Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney echoed Kerry’s indifference. “Let’s be clear,” he said. “Benghazi happened a long time ago. We are unaware of any agency blocking an employee who would like to appear before Congress to provide information related to Benghazi.”

On Saturday, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, praised the State Department officials who have agreed to testify at the hearings. “They have critical information about what occurred before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks that differs on key points [from the administration,]” Issa said in a statement. “Our committee has been contacted by numerous other individuals who have direct knowledge of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but are not yet prepared to testify,” he added. “In many cases their principal reticence of appearing in public is their concern of retaliation at the hands of their respective employers,” Issa said.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell took issue with that characterization. “The State Department would never tolerate or sanction retaliation against whistleblowers on any issue, including this one,” Ventrell contended. “That’s an obligation we take very seriously, full stop.”

The country will find out exactly how seriously beginning Wednesday, when the House Oversight Committee resumes its hearings. It remains to be seen how mainstream media outlets, many of which have been more than willing to dismiss the investigation into the deaths of four Americans as a Republican conspiracy theory, will handle what is likely to be some of the most explosive testimony on the attack to date history. Benghazi may have happened “a long time ago,” but it is not going away anytime soon.


Arnold Ahlert

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/benghazi-smoking-gun-exposed/

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

The Fourth Great War: No Good Options, No Good Allies

by Shoshana Bryen

The clear implication is that regardless of what members of the Syrian opposition say to the U.S. to win our support, their long-term aims may be incompatible with ours.

The announcement by Secretary of Defense Hagel that the United States will "rethink all options" including arming Syrian rebel groups, was carefully hedged. "It doesn't mean… you will" (choose any particular path). The statement however moves the U.S. closer to picking sides in a war with no good options and no good allies, and which American public opinion has thus far eschewed. It is important to understand in the broadest sense how we got here.

In two of the three global conflicts of the 20^th Century, the United States took sides; in the third, it WAS a side. In World War I, we were less against Germany than with our long-time cultural and political allies, Britain and France. The cordial reception given to Americans in Germany between the wars, and the American affinity for parts of German society made some Americans reluctant to criticize the rise of Hitler. (See Hitlerland, by Andrew Nagorski.) In the Cold War, the United States faced off against Russia. The Cuban Missile Crisis was not about Cuba; the Central American wars of the 1980s were not about Central America. It was a war to the death between communism and democracy.

The end of the Cold War had two generally overlooked consequences. First, non-communist Russia retained its historic imperial nature, characterized by deep concern for and violent repression of threats to its "near abroad." Second, countries and groups in the Middle East were no longer bound to choose between Soviets and Americans as patrons. This was particularly important because neither democracy nor communism is compatible with Islamist thinking. (Obligatory disclaimer: This in no way implies that Muslim people cannot live in democracies or be democrats; or live in communist countries or be communists, for that matter.)

The fourth Great War is less "Islam against the West" (although that surely is there) than it is Sunni expansionists vs. Shiite expansionists. Neither is an appealing partner for the United States in the region, and neither has a natural claim on our politics or our interests. For reasons having to do with Iran itself, the U.S. will not choose to support Iranian-backed Shiites. However, Sunni expansionists are simply no better; Saudi and Qatari-supported Islamists run from the unacceptable Muslim Brotherhood to the even more unacceptable Wahabis, al Qaeda or Jabhat al Nusra – it is like a choice between cancer and a heart attack. (Second obligatory disclaimer: That is NOT to say the U.S. has no interests in the Middle East/North Africa/Southwest Asia, or that there is no humanitarian impulse due. It is to say both Sunni and Shiite expansionists have views and values inimical to Western liberal democracies, and neither is better than secular despots.)

In broad terms, the current fighting in the region is Sunni-Shiite: Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, and rumblings in Kuwait all have a Sunni-Shiite component. Turkey thinks of the Ottoman Empire, particularly after the freeing of the "Stans" from Russian control. Iran revisits the Persian Empire. The Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jabhat al Nusra, and others all find patrons in the region rather than in the U.S. or Russia. Oil money, particularly Saudi, Iranian and Qatari, greases various paths.

As both Sunnis and Shiites try to expand both deeper into their own societies and move farther afield, they run headlong into other regional, tribal, ethnic, religious, and familial interests. Christians, particularly in Iraq, Egypt, and Nigeria, have been hard hit as intolerance increases; it is estimated that half of Iraq's Christians have left the country. As a corollary, the minority communities of Syria backed the secular Assad regime for fear of an Islamist takeover. The U.S. has been attacked and vilified, and Europe is being subverted through "no go" zones for police, the installation of elements of Sharia law, and rising Muslim anti-Semitism. Venezuela and Argentina are Iran's hoped-for proxies, and Hezbollah operates freely in several South American countries.

Long involved in the repression of Sunni Caucasian nationalists, although the Chechen war only took on religious overtones in its second incarnation (2002-2007), Russia has chosen the Shiite side of the larger war. Even the idea of a nuclear Iran does not disturb Russia as much as the idea of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of Sunni terrorists. Russia preferred secular despots in the Middle East as well -- Saddam, Assad father and son, Nasser -- who would repress the Muslim Brotherhood and other internationalist Sunnis. The despots obliged. Nasser outlawed the Brotherhood, Assad killed tens of thousands in Hama, and Saddam ran a savagely secular state to ensure that his minority Sunnis could remain in power. Russia's commitment to Bashar Assad should not be underestimated.

And with shades of the Cold War, as Russia supports the Syrian regime, the U.S. has moved closer and closer to military involvement. Our first choice was to outsource the funding, arms and training of rebels to Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia who chose, naturally enough, expansionist Sunni groups hoping to push Iranian-supported Shiites out of power. American arms are intended to end up with the Free Syrian Army, but according to David Ignatius "Islamist fighters…have formed the backbone of the Free Syrian Army for nearly two years. The Syrian opposition is almost entirely Sunni Muslim, and the Islamists (especially al-Nusra's recruits) have been among the best fighters."

The clear implication is that regardless of what they say to the U.S. to win our support, their long-term aims may be incompatible with ours. The possibility remains for direct U.S. military involvement, although hard on the heels of Hagel's statement about arming rebels, U.S. Special Operations Commander Admiral William McRaven strongly warned against considering the use of U.S. troops.

If American policy in Syria seems feckless, it is because it is feckless.

The President initially tried to "win" Assad to the West by sending envoys and lifting parts of the embargo. But Assad was not "won," and when he turned his army on his people, the President, apparently trying to satisfy American sensibilities with rhetoric, demanded that he step down. But Assad did not step down and rebel bands struck back, which did not displease the President, who was perhaps hoping that the rebels could do what his words alone could not do -- get rid of Assad quickly and without American involvement. The discovery that some rebels have serious jihadist tendencies offended American sensibilities, so the U.S. declined to "arm the rebels." That refusal apparently satisfied American public opinion, which leans heavily against any involvement in Syria; but the grossness of the slaughter, particularly the use of chemicals, did offend American sensibilities. The President's sliding "red line" on the use of chemical weapons offended some parties and satisfied others. Claiming to find "moderate, secular rebels" will satisfy some, but the admitted interconnectedness of the rebels -- and the fact that the Islamists are far and away the best fighters -- will continue to worry others.

The administration's policy on Syria has been a series of visceral reactions to graphic events and horrific casualties, offset by a gigantic distaste for confrontation. Without a definition of America's strategic interests, such as a defeat for both Iran and the Sunni jihadists, the chance remains that America might be dragged into another front in the Fourth Great War. A war in which neither side is our friend.


Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3703/fourth-great-war

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

Jihadymous

by Abe Greenwald


The Washington Times reports on a possible hacker-jihad alliance. The anarchist group Anonymous is launching new cyberattacks against the U.S. government. But “the attacks are being promoted by the moderators of websites and discussion forums that host al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist material, in addition to calls through more conventional hacker channels like the bulletin board Pastebin.” According to the Department of Homeland Security, “This collaboration may signal an emerging trend of Middle East- and North Africa-based criminally motivated hackers collaborating with others regardless of their motivation.”

It would only be shocking if this didn’t prove to be the start of an emerging trend. But it’s not that hackers and jihadists would collaborate “regardless of motivation.” Rather, they share a motivation. Back in March 2011, I wrote about the affinity between anarchist hackers and jihadists:

Of the two types of present-day anarchism, the cyber variety is clearly the greater threat. Cyberanarchists are a well-adapted parasitic complication of modern times, whereas the European bomb throwers, for their rising numbers, are almost symbolically retro. Some among the latter have even taken to warning their targets in advance. Moreover, as the world economy finds its footing, disgruntled leftists of all stripes are sure to fade away. But the cyberanarchists, in addition to having the effective means, will also have their cause so long as their “new home of social consciousness” needs defending.

“That we are Utopians is well known,” wrote Peter Kropotkin of his ideological tribe. Whether they are indulging in a violent retro pastime or disruptive futuristic one, today’s anarchists remain utopians, believing, like yesterday’s, that they own the future. And the delusional claim on the world to come will always foster nihilism in the here and now. “We are not the least afraid of ruin,” said the Spanish anarchist Buenaventura Durutti. Why? “We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that. . . . The bourgeoisie may blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history.” That indifference to the destructive acts of others functions as a dispensation they grant themselves. In this, the anarchists are like the jihadists, who value only the eventuality of the global caliphate and care not at all for the world that actually exists.

Jihadists’ global caliphate is physical, cyberanarchists’ is digital. But it’s the destruction of the U.S.-led international order that motivates both. 
 

Abe Greenwald

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/06/jihadymous/

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

The 2012 Election Is Over; the Benghazi Scandal Is Not

by Peter Wehner


I have a somewhat different take than that of Seth Mandel, who says that Stephen Hayes’s scoop on Benghazi “is probably more significant than it may have seemed at first glance, even though he didn’t provide much in the way of new information.”

My first reaction–which I spoke about on Friday during my appearance on the panel discussion on Fox News’s Special Report with Bret Baier–was that the story is explosive, largely because Hayes’s story provides much in the way of new information.

It provides fresh evidence that, in the words of Hayes, “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults [on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi on September 11, 2012].” (Emphasis added).

We now know, for example, that the early talking points were accurate–and it was only after the State Department and the White House, among others, got done revising the talking points that the truth was transformed into a false account.

To be specific: early (accurate) references to “Islamic extremists” were removed. Early (accurate) references to “attacks” were changed to “demonstrations.” And there was no mention of any YouTube video in any of the many drafts of the talking points–even though everyone from the president of the United States to the secretary of state to the U.N. ambassador blamed the video for the attacks.

The Benghazi scandal has always been multi-layered. There was the near-criminal negligence before and during the assault on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, when pleas for more security prior to the attacks and assistance during the attacks were denied. And then there were the misleading accounts after the attacks.

It now seems clear, based on the reporting by Steve Hayes and the accounts of those who were key actors during the attacks, that the accounts of the attacks by the Obama administration were not simply wrong; they were knowingly and willfully wrong. Which turns a mistake into a lie.

For the president and his team, there was probably both ideology and self-interest at play. To take them in order: This is the latest example of the Obama administration living in a fantasy world of its own making, in which Islamic extremism barely exists and poses no real threat to America. We saw it in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood massacre, where a jihadist attack (by Major Nidal Hasan) was said to be an example of “workplace violence.” They refuse to call evil by its name. 

But it’s also obvious that the president and his administration wanted to advance a storyline that al-Qaeda was in retreat. The Benghazi attacks eviscerated that claim–and so the president and his team decided to disfigure the facts, to mislead the American people, to fit their story and advance their political interests. Barack Obama had an election to win–and so he had a scandal to hide.

That has worked until now, when the House will hold hearings later this week featuring whistleblowers who will, by all accounts, tell a story fundamentally at odds with the version the Obama administration has been peddling.

On Friday I referred to the Benghazi scandal as a time-release capsule, where a delay takes place before the full effects are felt. The Obama administration lied about an Islamic attack on an American outpost that killed an American ambassador and three others. They have been caught in the lie. We’re now in the process of seeing how deep, and how high, the corruption goes.

The election is over. This scandal is not.
  

Peter Wehner

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/06/the-2012-election-is-over-the-benghazi-scandal-is-not/

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

Assad and the Arab Spring's Pincer

by Eyal Zisser

The foreign media, which has devoted extensive coverage to the alleged Israeli attack on multiple Syrian installations over the weekend, has focused on Jerusalem's determination to prevent the transfer of game-changing weapon systems from Syria to Hezbollah. 

But the truth is that this has nothing to do with game-changers and everything to do with rewriting the rules of the game that have governed Israel's interaction with Syria and Hezbollah over the past two decades. Those rules have effectively rendered Israel's two northern adversaries immune to attacks over their massive efforts to transfer advanced weaponry to the Shiite terrorist organization. Until recently, Israel has opted to avoid preemptive attacks on weapons convoys lest such a move trigger a painful Syrian retaliation. All it could do was watch with resignation as the weapons were delivered before its very eyes. 

The new approach Israel has subscribed to is not just a consequence of impending deliveries of advanced weapon systems; it was motivated by the new window of opportunity presented by the Arab Spring, or in its latest manifestation, the Syrian revolution. 

Much has been said about Israel's strategic losses as a result of the Arab Spring, which toppled friendly regimes and unleashed destabilizing chaos along Israel's borders. Terrorists, some of them inspired by al-Qaida, thrive in such fragile and turbulent conditions. And so, the calm that has characterized the Syrian front in the wake of the Yom Kippur War has been supplanted by skirmishes between the Syrian rebels and the Assad regime, which have repeatedly spilled over into Israeli territory. 

But the Arab Spring, which has left the Syrian regime mired in a bloody civil war the past two years, has also increased Israel's freedom of operation to levels not seen in years. After all, the Syrian military is in decline and has lost some of its firepower. What's more, it is now singularly focused on the survival of the Assad regime as it counters the rebels. Thus, its ability to retaliate in the face of an Israeli strike has been severely compromised. 

* * * 

And so, Assad needs every soldier, tank or missile he has in this life-or-death match-up with the rebels. Israel, for its part, has signaled through its alleged actions that so long as he is combating his own people (even if that involves the use of chemical weapons), it will not target his regime directly and will only hurt him if he tries to facilitate arm shipments to Hezbollah.

Assad knows full well that a country that can hit targets with such precision in the Damascus area can also inflict substantial damage on the military infrastructure he so desperately needs as he fights the rebels. In fact, Assad has made enormous strides in the fighting in recent weeks, to the point that he has regained control over several areas. The scenario in which he comes out on top and stays in power can no longer be ruled out. 

It appears it is actually Hezbollah that faces a dilemma. By introducing new rules, Israel hopes to disconnect it from the Syrian oxygen tank that Hassan Nasrallah has relied on for so many years. 

Hezbollah is gradually becoming entangled in the Syrian quagmire; this is clearly evident by the almost daily funerals it holds for some of its best fighters. The organization certainly does not want to open another front with Israel. By the same token, it won't hold its fire forever in the face of Israel's efforts to impose tougher rules on its arm shipments. 

The Arab Spring has thus provided Israel with an opportunity to change the rules of the game in Syria and Lebanon. 

Israel exploited this new reality rather belatedly, after Hezbollah had already acquired tens of thousands of advanced missiles. But better late than never. 

In any event, even after things quiet down on the Syrian front, this calm will only last until the next Hezbollah-bound shipment of advanced weaponry or until the organization and its Iranian patron decide they can no longer abide by Israel's new rules.

Eyal Zisser

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=4229

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

Egypt's New Anti-Muslim-Brotherhood Militia

by Ashraf Ramelah

Egypt's Black Bloc grew out of their struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system, only after non-violent civil efforts had failed. Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt's Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – one, in the U.S., a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood, and fighting for democracy and legitimate government.

Clad in black, faceless in black ski masks, the nameless Black Bloc soldiers lock arms to create a human shield in defense of pro-freedom protesters -- the Black Bloc's number-one priority -- in the streets and squares of Egypt. Expert in martial arts and ostensibly military-trained, Black Bloc warriors only recently surfaced in Egypt to safeguard fellow freedom-fighters from their arch-enemies, the foes of democracy: President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas militia.

Originating out of a plan to protect women protesters from sexual assault, this huge band of men and women numbering in the thousands (the exact number is not known) form a dedicated and determined corps of combatants divided into local groups of 30-50 individuals in Egypt's communities. Self-described as "anti-Muslim-Brotherhood," and generated out of disgust toward years of police and military brutality, the Black Bloc is, for modern Egypt, a completely new phenomenon.

As participants in this well-organized system for safety and preservation, the secret members of the "elite" Black Bloc guard first appeared in the streets of Cairo this January, when revolutionaries commemorated their two-year anniversary with protests in Tahrir Square. Now everywhere the Egyptian opposition stages protests, the rank-and-file Black Bloc, whose leaders remain unknown to them, dutifully move in to police the area on behalf of fellow protesters.

Deemed "terrorists" and "outlaws" by the Morsi regime, the shadowy Zorro-like heroes refer to their network as the "United Ghosts Revolution" and represent a just cause in the ongoing rebellion against Egypt's Islamist government. The Black Bloc mission is to ensure that no more assaults, kidnappings, and torture occur from Morsi's security forces [the Muslim Brotherhood militia] and so-called law enforcement, and that a "camel gazwa," [invading crowds on galloping camels] as in the early days of the revolt, never takes place again. Many Black Bloc members carry firearms, most likely acquired through the illegal networks smuggling weapons from Libya and Gaza.

If the best defense is a good offense, the forceful Black Bloc has aggressively expanded its scope beyond the scene of gathered protesters and their protection. With a physical presence in more than eight cities across Egypt, the anonymous soldiers have claimed responsibility for ransacking at least eight separate Muslim Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party offices.

At first, the shrouded Black Bloc raised the fears; the public saw them as terrorists. This wrong impression, however, was soon dispelled as their image as guardians took shape. Appearing first in the social media, the Black Bloc now has the moral support of more than 57,000 Facebook members for the purpose of countering Islamic supremacy and brutality.

Their core concern is to facilitate the pursuit of Western-style democracy. Its members claim no affiliation with existing political parties, as the group states that it "aims only to stand against the Muslim Brotherhood and any group exploiting religion to achieve political goals." As pro-democracy secularists using slogans such as, "Our mess prevents chaos" and, "We are confusion that prevents confusion," their challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood has prompted a new crackdown by President Morsi and his Prime Minister, Hasham Kandil. The state now targets opposition protesters who wear black, tracking those who do and conducting investigations. By mid-February, Morsi began arresting members of Black Bloc and its sympathizers.

Running under the banner of "Allah, Country, Revolution," the "outlaws" have been accused by Islamists of having Israeli backing and connections to Western funding. Further, rumors charge them with burning the rear building of the scientific complex in Cairo, and of involvement in attacks upon city infrastructure, including damaging government buildings, paralyzing traffic, and obstructing subway transportation. The Black Bloc flatly denies participation in these crimes and blames the Muslim Brotherhood for tarnishing their image and credibility.

The group does fully admit, however, to targeting Brotherhood locations in the following Cairo incidents: burning the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in the Sixth October area, storming the media offices of "Brothers Online," torching the Freedom and Justice Party newspaper headquarters and targeting more than one Moomen [Believer] Brotherhood-owned restaurant.

In keeping with their mission statement, Egypt's Black Bloc members claim they have nothing against state institutions per se, "but against control by a particular system, the supremacy of a certain group." They further contend that "the best thing is to hit the existing system and its economy by sabotaging the system's institutions and not ones belonging to the public." Despite this, a U.S. "Black Bloc" attempts to connect its mission against America and governmental power structures to the cause of Egypt's Black Bloc.

Egypt's Black Bloc grew out of the chaos of President Morsi's actions, which necessitated a course correction – such as the use of security, weaponry and attacks -- for freedom-fighters in their struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system. Although tactics similar to the U.S. Black Bloc anarchists are used, Egypt's fighters do not seek anarchism. Furthermore, the Shariah religious state is contrary to the western democratic state, and the roles of their respective revolts find their meaning and identity by way of the system they fight, not the tactics and strategies they use.

U.S. Black Bloc vandalism is class-warfare, a staple of the progressive political agenda of some in America who opportunistically seem to have intertwined themselves with Muslim Brotherhood goals. While actions by the U.S. Black Bloc ultimately favor the short-term goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's Black Bloc interrupts the Muslim Brotherhood's power structure with material and moral losses. Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt's Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – the one in the U.S. a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood.

Nonetheless, the U.S. Black Bloc has appealed to Egypt's Black Bloc in a Feb 9th open letter to initiate intercontinental dialogue. The naive U.S. Black Bloc views tactics and strategies on YouTube and mistakes them for "consensus" – then seeks the thrill of joining hands with Egyptians, and using these tactics as a more "generalized revolt." They are hardly, as the letter suggests, fighting the same "stable power structure." Egypt's revolt reached the point of violence only after non-violent civil efforts failed and were no longer an option for achieving democracy.

The U.S. Black Bloc members, in advancing their "project of revolt," are doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters, and probably see their dream being "enacted spontaneously" in a full-fledged, high-stakes revolt on the brink of civil war in Egypt. The Egyptian freedom-fighters, on the contrary, aim unequivocally for democracy and legitimate government. "We want to take the struggle out of the hands of political parties entirely," states the U.S. Black Bloc; but Egypt's Black Bloc struggles with the hope of the rise of new political leadership and a real democratic party.

The U.S. Black Bloc, according to its letter to Egypt, wishes to have the Muslim Brotherhood in governments around the world, to "clarify" the global power structure and then assert Black Bloc tactics uniformly worldwide to defeat the state. Egypt's revolutionaries, fighting for freedom within the heart of political Islam, would not take any chance with such a sinister plan.


Ashraf Ramelah is on the Advisory Board of SION (Stop Islamization of Nations) and president of Voice of the Copts, a human rights organization. In 2010, VOTC sued the Mubarak regime, which refused to change the religious ID card of a Muslim convert to Christianity.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3701/egypt-black-bloc

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

Everywhere an Iranian Embassy Exists, they Plan Terror on Jews, Israelis

by Ilan Gattegno, Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Shlomo Cesana

Nitzan Nuriel, former head of the Counter Terrorism Bureau, says Iran and Hezbollah could retaliate for Israel's reported strikes in Syria by targeting Israeli and Jewish institutions abroad. • Israeli embassies around the world raise levels of alert.

Haifa-Eilat flights were cancelled due to the closure of Israel's northern airspace to civilian air traffic on Sunday | Photo credit: Moshe Shai

Israeli embassies and major Jewish institutions around the world raised their levels of alert on Sunday over fears of terror attacks related to recent events in Syria. This step was also taken during prior periods of tension along the country's northern borders. 

Brig. Gen. (Res.) Nitzan Nuriel, Former Head of the Counter Terrorism Bureau, on Sunday told Army Radio that Iran and Hezbollah could retaliate for Israel's reported strikes in Syria by targeting Israeli and Jewish institutions abroad. "Everywhere there is an Iranian embassy, there is usually one person, and probably more, directly involved in planning terrorist activity against Jewish and Israeli targets. Sometimes it's under the cover of a cultural attache or even just a normal staffer, but these people are tasked with perpetrating terror against Israel and Jews," Nuriel said. "The larger the Iranian embassy, the bigger the terror threat is," Nuriel added.

Nuriel said that Jewish institutions across the world were in touch with Israeli security organizations to get updates on security assessments from time to time, but that their immediate contacts were with the local police forces in their countries. 

Due to tension in the wake of the reported Israeli airstrikes in Syria in recent days, the Israel Defense Forces decided on Sunday to close off the airspace over northern Israel to civilian flights. The airspace was reopened on Monday.

As a result of the closure on Sunday, Arkia and Israir flights on the Haifa-Eilat route were cancelled. Instead of flying from the Haifa Airport, passengers were bused to Ben-Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv to board flights to Eilat. 

Also, owners of light aircraft were ordered to not take off from Haifa Airport on Sunday.

The IDF said that civilian airspace in northern Israel is jointly managed by the Israel Air Force and civilian authorities, in accordance with the latest situational assessments.

Taking part in a run with Golani Brigade soldiers on Monday, GOC Northern Command Maj. Gen. Yair Golan said, "Together with the readiness and alertness in the north, we must always prepare and train, but there are no winds of war."　

Ilan Gattegno, Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Shlomo Cesana

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9093

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

Was it the Syrian Rebels who used Sarin Gas on their own People?

by Rick Moran


That's a determination from the UN human rights commission looking into war crimes in Syria. They should not be confused with the UN commission set up by Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to specifically investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria.


Is this a difference without a distinction? It may not be. 


Reuters:

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.
President Bashar al-Assad's government and the rebels accuse each another of carrying out three chemical weapon attacks, one near Aleppo and another near Damascus, both in March, and another in Homs in December.
The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.
Del Ponte, a former Swiss attorney-general who also served as prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, gave no details as to when or where sarin may have been used.
The Geneva-based inquiry into war crimes and other human rights violations is separate from an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria instigated by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which has since stalled.

In order to prove the rebels used gas, you have to make a convincing case that they were able to acquire some. It puts the whole thesis in question and raises the possibility that the "independent commission" based in Geneva is being choosy about who they interview about the attacks.


There are many reasons to deflect blame from the Assad regime for chemical weapons attacks, not the least of which is the probability that if the commission were to blame the Syrian government, it would force the west to take military action. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the overwhelming majority of diplomats at the UN much prefer peace at any price to going to war. Deliberately obfuscating the facts to prevent a wider war is not beyond the realm of the possible.


Then there is the solidarity factor with many states supporting Assad or, more likely, opposing the increasingly jihadist nature of the rebels. Blaming them for the attack suits many political agendas.


I'm not saying it's impossible for the rebels to have gotten their hands on some Sarin gas, and a delivery system for them - special artillery shells the most likely - except the rebels have very few heavy artillery pieces. It just strikes me as unlikely.


How and when they acquired the gas, how it was deployed, and which witnesses are accusing the rebels of using it all have to be answered before a definitive judgment can be made.

Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/was_it_the_syrian_rebels_who_used_sarin_gas_on_their_own_people.html

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