'Iran building permanent military base 30 miles from Israel border' - Erez Linn, Yoni Hersch, Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti and News Agencies

by Erez Linn, Yoni Hersch, Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti and News Agencies 

BBC obtains satellite images showing significant construction at military base some 9 miles south of Damascus

A satellite image showing the alleged Iranian military base in January Photo: BBC

 

Amid rising tensions over Iran's growing influence in the Middle East, Western intelligence sources told the BBC last week that Iran was building a military base in Syria some 30 miles from the border with Israel.

The report appears to confirm Israeli fears that the ayatollahs intend to establish a permanent military base in Syria under the cover of the civil war that has been raging in the country since 2011.

The compound, reportedly already partly built, is located at the site of a Syrian military base outside of Al-Kiswah, some 9 miles from Damascus, an intelligence official told the BBC.

Satellite images obtained by the British broadcasting network show extensive construction on the site between January and October this year. The images show construction or renovation of more than 20 buildings comprising multiple stories. It is believed that the buildings are meant to house soldiers or military vehicles.

Another Western source cited in the report said senior Iranian officials had visited the compound in recent weeks. The network said there was no clear-cut indication of Iranian military presence at the site at the moment, adding that the purpose of the complex was still uncertain.

However, another Western source that spoke to the network said that the construction was consistent with Iran's strategic goals – to strengthen the Shiite crescent from Iran to Lebanon, expanding not only Iran's political power, but also its logistic supply lines.

The BBC reported that Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, had been seen in Syria a number of times.

"With a significant number of IRGC [soldiers] fighting – and in some cases dying – in Syria, there has already been a significant presence in the country, but the question is now whether they are preparing to remain in the long term," the BBC said.

Even though it is unclear who is currently there, the network reported that Shiite "fighters from other countries – including Pakistan and Afghanistan – are also alleged to be operating in Syria under the control of the IRGC and it is possible the base could be used by them. Analysts estimate up to 500 troops could be based at the site."

U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, both of whom attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam Saturday, issued a joint statement saying that they "agreed that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria. They confirmed that the ultimate political solution to the conflict must be forged through the Geneva process pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254."

In addition, "The presidents agreed to maintain open military channels of communication between military professionals to help ensure the safety of both U.S. and Russian forces and de-confliction of partnered forces engaged in the fight against ISIS. They confirmed these efforts will be continued until the final defeat of ISIS is achieved."

The leaders were seen together three times at the summit, displaying warm relations. According to the White House, they spent some five minutes together, in what the White House called "a good meeting."

Trump even said he asked his Russian counterpart about accusations that Moscow intervened in the last U.S. election, and that Putin categorically denied them.

"He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election," Trump said.

"Every time he sees me he says, 'I didn't do that,' and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, 'I didn't do that.' I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country," Trump said.

Erez Linn, Yoni Hersch, Lilach Shoval, Daniel Siryoti and News Agencies

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/2017/11/12/report-iran-building-military-base-30-miles-from-israel-border/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Israel draws a veil over perils building up around Gaza – the third Iranian-Hizballah front - debkaFile

by debkaFile

The war of words is being accompanied by military movements.

Israel and the Palestinian terrorist groups Jihad Islami and Hamas are conducting a heated war of words over the Gaza Strip. But both keep mum on the real situation on the ground.

In the two weeks since the IDF blew up a Jihad Islami tunnel running up to the Israeli village of Kissufim, killing a dozen Jihad operatives, significant security-related events have taken place. Neither side is shouting information about these events from the rooftops, so as not to force the Iranian-backed Jihad’s hand into a response.

The IDF has meanwhile cordoned off the area around the Gaza border and declared it off limits to civilians. On Saturday, Nov. 11, IDF Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordecai, Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, cautioned terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip in the strongest terms:  “We know that the Palestinian Jihad Islami is spinning a conspiracy against Israel at the expense of the citizens of the Gaza Strip,” in revenge for the destruction of their tunnel and the deaths of their operatives.  “Israel will not hesitate to hit back forcefully also against Hamas,” he said, and addressed a special warning to “Jihad leaders in Damascus” – meaning that Israel had no qualms about striking back at them in the Syrian capital, as well as the Gaza Strip, even if this meant expanding the conflict further.

The general delivered his warning in the Arabic language by video.

The next day, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu opened the Sunday cabinet meeting with this statement: “At the present time, some party is toying with an attempt to renew attacks on Israel. We shall mete out harsh treatment to whoever those parties may be and wherever they are.” Netanyahu vowed. He went on to elaborate: “I mean any party – factions, rogues or organizations. We hold Hamas responsible for any attack on us that comes from the Gaza Strip.”

The prime minister, by referring to “any party, anywhere,” fully backed Mordecai’s threat to reach terrorists operating out of Damascus” – or even Beirut, if it comes to that.

An answer came back Sunday from the Jihad Islamic leader in the Gaza Strip, Khaled Al-Batshi: “Israel killed 12 Palestinians in Gaza and one more on the West Bank in the last two weeks, and has reason to be scared, because that’s what is preoccupying us.” He went on to say, “When our sons, resistance fighters are killed – especially members of the Islamic Jihad, we have no option but to punish the occupier and continue to build up our strength in preparation for a confrontation.”

The war of words is being accompanied by military movements.

On the Israeli side, the IDF Sunday launched a military exercise around the Gaza Strip to continue at least until Wednesday. It doesn’t take a military genius to grasp that the military is out on guard for the moment that rhetoric is translated into operational terms. While not privy to exactly what is going on in the Gaza region, many Israelis sense something is afoot and are on edge.

They have further reason for disquiet because the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad’s decision on when and how to start shooting is no longer in the hands of local leaders in Gaza, else they would have let loose on Oct. 30 after the tunnel explosion. Both are committed to working hand in glove with the Lebanese Shiite Hizballah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s commander of Mid East wars, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who has just ended a period of mourning for the death of his 95-year old father.

While waiting for a green light from Tehran or Beirut to go into action, they are filling the air waves with rhetoric. But Nasrallah and Soleimani too are figures on a larger chessboard and are also standing by for instructions dependent on events playing out in other parts of the region and beyond.

debkaFile

Source: https://www.debka.com/159853-2/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Now Revealed: Millions of Foundation Dollars Flowing to Islamist Groups - Sam Westrop

by Sam Westrop

Many foundations failed to respond or refused to stop their donations.

Make sure to read the Daily Caller's lead feature piece from Friday about an MEF campaign to identify and challenge millions of dollars of donations from major American corporate, community and independent foundations to prominent Islamist groups with long histories of links to terror and extremism.

Daily Caller: "Investigation: Foundations Gave Millions To Groups Accused Of Terror Ties"

In a nutshell: since 2000, 51 corporate foundations, 8 community foundations, 1 donor-advised fund, and 9 private foundations have given an astounding $5.6 million to seven Islamist groups: Islamic Relief USA, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), ICNA Relief (the latter's charitable wing), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

[See here for information about these Islamist groups]

MEF sent the foundations evidence of these Islamist groups' extremism, which included examples of anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-Western and pro-terror hate preachers given platforms by the seven organizations.

But as the featured article notes, many foundations failed to respond or refused to stop their donations. In fact, most of the foundations that did reply told us that recipients need only possess an active 501c3 status to qualify for a donation.

As Islamist Watch coordinator David Swindle explains: "The side effect of this is that foundations end up funding all sorts of racist and anti-Semitic hate groups. Under these foundations' standards, for example, an eligible 501c3 would be the New Century Foundation, a notorious white supremacist group. Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Relief fall into this same category of utilizing charitable status to obscure long histories of promoting and funding extremism and hate."

By funding these seven Islamist groups, some of America's most important companies are helping extremists cement their grip over American Islam, to the detriment of moderate Muslims everywhere.

We're continuing to campaign against funding for these Islamist groups. You can help us by also reaching out to these foundations and urging them to stop funding hate. And please sign our petition against the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which, since 2008, has given $330,524 to CAIR and Islamic Relief.

Sam Westrop

Source: http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2017/11/now-revealed-millions-of-foundation-dollars

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

UK backs Israel and Jordan solution - David Singer

by David Singer

The Foreign Secretary stated that the only viable solution is something akin to the Peel Solution, which talks of Jews and Arabs, and does not use the word Palestinian.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has acknowledged that Jordan and Israel represent the only viable “two state solution” that can end the Arab-Jewish conflict.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on 29 October – ahead of the centenary of the Balfour Declaration on 2 November – the Foreign Secretary stated:

“I have no doubt that the only viable solution to the conflict resembles the one first set down on paper by another Briton, Lord Peel, in the report of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1937, and that is the vision of two states for two peoples.”

The Royal Commission had been authorised by Royal Warrant dated 7 August 1936:

“… to enquire into the manner in which the Mandate for Palestine is being implemented in relation to Our obligations as Mandatory towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively; and to ascertain whether, upon a proper construction of the terms of the Mandate, either the Arabs or the Jews have any legitimate grievances upon account of the way in which the Mandate has been, or is being implemented;”

Significantly the Royal Warrant did not mention or identify the “Palestinians” as being a party to the dispute. There were only two parties – the “Arabs” and the “Jews” – not three.

The “two-state solution”  - one Jewish, one Arab – first envisioned in article 25 of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine (Mandate) – had restricted Jewish rights to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in just 22% of the territory covered by the Mandate. The Jews had accepted that proposal but the Arabs had rejected it.

The Peel Commission after a lengthy and detailed Inquiry confirmed that the “two-state solution” contemplated by the Mandate – one Jewish, one Arab – remained the only solution to end the grievances between Arabs and Jews – concluding that:

“two sovereign independent States would be established-the one an Arab State, consisting of Trans-Jordan united with that part of Palestine which lies to the east and south of a frontier such as we suggest in Section 3 below; the other a Jewish State consisting of that part of Palestine which lies to the north and west of that frontier.”

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that: ·    the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel."

 Transjordan – renamed Jordan in 1950 - comprised the remaining 78% of the territory contained in the Mandate for Palestine closed to Jewish settlement under the Mandate. Britain still retained full responsibility for Transjordan as Mandatory Power until Transjordan was finally granted independence by Britain in 1946.

The Royal Warrant map and that of the Peel Commission’s “two-state solution” are shown here.

The Arabs rejected partition and the creation of any Jewish State. The Jews accepted the principle of partition - but not the borders designated on the map.

Boris Johnson has advanced the resolution of the Arab-Jewish conflict by highlighting that:
·    the only viable “two-state solution” is the partition proposed by the Peel Commission with newly-negotiated borders agreed between Jordan and Israel

·    Jordan remains the Arab key to resolving the Arab-Jewish conflict - which a naïve and gullible world continues to ignore.

Trying to create two Arab States and one Jewish State in an area where only one Arab state and one Jewish state is warranted by history, geography and demography has been a diplomatic disaster with horrendous consequences for Arabs and Jews.

Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate - currently exercising sovereignty in 95% of former Palestine - need to sit down and resolve Jewish and Arab claims to the remaining 5%.

Britain’s reaffirmation of Peel’s proposed “two-state solution” is long overdue. 

The “two-state solution” posited in 1922 and 1937 – Jordan and Israel – still remains the only viable solution to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict in 2017.


David Singer is an Australian lawyer who is active in Zionist community organizations in that country. He founded the "Jordan is Palestine" Committee in 1979.

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21249

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

War between intelligence agencies’ deep state and Trump surfaces over DNC server - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

The deep state plays for keeps.

In his customary extemporaneous broad-brush fashion, President Trump took on the purported consensus of 17 intelligence agencies that Russia hacked the DNC server. Speaking to reporters while flying from DaNang to Hanoi, the president said that Vladimir Putin had denied interfering in our elections, and:

TRUMP: I think that he is very, very strong in the fact that he didn’t do it. And then you look, and you look at what’s going on with Podesta, and you look at what’s going on with the server from the D.N.C. and why didn’t the F.B.I. take it, why did they leave it, why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI — if you look at all of this stuff, and you say, what’s going on here?
And then you hear it’s 17 agencies. Well, it’s three. And one is Brennan and one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They’re political hacks.
So you look at it — I mean, you have Brennan, you have Clapper, and you have Comey. Comey is proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker.
So you look at that, and you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you’re not going to get into an argument. You’re going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

As he and faithful readers of AT know, that “conclusion” was based on analysis supplied by a private investigator working for the DNC, CrowdStrike. No intelligence or police agency ever examined the server. And according to the analysis of Conservative Treehouse, the FBI report itself (read it here) has been exaggerated and distorted by the media:

The “Russian Malicious Cyber Activity – Joint Analysis Report” is pure nonsense. It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.
This report might as well be blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers. Just because your grandma didn’t actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn’t mean the Nigerian government, or representative of the Nigerian government were targeting grandma.
This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure nonsense, that’s why NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers refused to endorse it.

But back in Langley, Virginia, at CIA Headquarters, this over challenge from the commander in chief did not go down well. The name of Trump’s own appointee as CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, was invoked, as Mallory Osbourne reported in The Hill:

The CIA on Saturday said its director, Mike Pompeo, "stands by" the intelligence community’s declassified report that concluded Russia ran an influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump win the White House in 2016.
"The director stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment entitled: 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.' The intelligence assessment with regard to Russian election meddling has not changed,” a spokesperson for the agency said when contacted by The Hill.

So far, Pompeo has not faced any cameras and said anything. As Director, failing to “stand by” the work output of his agency would require formal proceedings, I suspect, a move that woukd be highly premature. And Pompeo has to deal with professionals who control the information flow to his desk. 

I don’t think this battle is over, mainly because it defies common sense to have allowed the DNC server to go unexamined. But taking on that conclusion requires a lot more spadework.
Remember that the deep state plays for keeps.

Thomas Lifson

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/war_between_intelligence_agencies_deep_state_and_trump_surfaces_over_dnc_server.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance - Drieu Godefridi

by Drieu Godefridi

Central Europe, on the other hand has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of taking its part in the extreme policies and grotesque failure of "open borders" and forced multiculturalism of Western Europe.

• Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized that multiculturalism has failed. All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young European Muslims went to Syria to join ISIS. And yet, it is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path.
• The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a "refugee" after his asylum request has been rejected.
• The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC. Yet, in the name of this "science", European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in every sphere of human activity.

On immigration, on sustainable development and on many other subjects, the convergence between the United States and Central Europe is now as evident as the new divide between Western Europe and Central Europe.

The European mindset is shifting. Twenty-three of the 28 governments of the European Union now have parliamentarian majorities on the center-right of the political spectrum. Everywhere in Europe, the "left" is on the run.

This is particularly true in Central Europe. The soon-to-be Austrian Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz won the election on an anti-immigration platform and is on the verge of forming a government with the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) which owes its own success to the same topic.

In the Czech Republic, political parties on the right now hold 157 of the 200 seats in the Parliament and tycoon Andrej Babis­ ­— "the Czech Trump" — is set to be the next prime minister.

All in all, the "Visegrad Group" peoples — Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks — plus the Austrians, have voted in the most conservative governments we have seen in Europe for almost 30 years, since the fall of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.

Pictured: The Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group countries meet in Prague on December 3, 2015. From left to right: Slovakia's Robert Fico, Poland's Beata Szydło, Czech Republic's Bohuslav Sobotka and Hungary's Viktor Orbán. (Image source: Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland)

These people and parties have much more in common — in terms of values, priorities, Weltanschauung — with the American Right than with the milder Western-European right. To state, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has repeatedly, that people in Central Europe do not want Muslim refugees because they do not want their cities to look like Brussels, Paris or London, is Trumpian, and in no way EU-compatible.

If we go to the bones of the contention, we see that these differing perspectives between Western Europe and Central Europe are no mere trifles, temporary divergences in wait of the next synthesis. They are existential. The world view of Central Europe looks increasingly irreconcilable with that of Western Europe and the EU. Let us focus on just two matters: immigration and environmentalism.
The political elites of Western Europe have not only fully embraced the concept of "no borders"; they would also dub any form of dissent as ignorance, discrimination or racism. Merkel herself has recognized that multiculturalism has failed . All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young Muslim Europeans have departed for Syria to join ISIS. And yet, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin.

Bearing in mind that under EU law — the Dublin Regulation — these countries have a legal obligation to welcome their "quota" of refugees, who are overwhelmingly Muslims coming via Greece and Italy, you can understand that Europe, that is the EU, has a real problem. It is also worthwhile to note that the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee has just adopted a draft EU regulation to augment this obligation, providing that the refugees should be distributed throughout the whole of the EU immediately following their arrival on EU soil.

The more "moderate" European Commission has proposed to streamline and supplement the current rules with a corrective allocation mechanism:

"This mechanism would be triggered automatically were a Member State to be faced with disproportionate numbers of asylum-seekers. If a Member State decided not to accept the allocation of asylum-seekers from a Member State under pressure, a 'solidarity contribution' of €250 000 per applicant would have to be made instead."

€250 000 per applicant! Let us say should Poland refuse a mere 1000 refugees, the penalty would be a staggering 250 million euros (which may come as a surprise since the official ideology prevalent in the EU is that refugees are of benefit to the economy).

Of course, everybody agrees that "asylum applications should be processed much quicker so those in need of protection get it sooner, while those with no right to asylum can be returned to their home country swifter," in the words of MEP Cecilia Wikström. The plan is unfortunately of little consequence as the EU is living under the law of the infernal twins: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. They have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a "refugee" after his asylum request has been rejected: no collective deportation, no deportation if the country of origin does not want its national back, no deportation if the country of origin is not a nice democracy, no deportation pending the appeal, no deportation if there is a medical condition, etc. All of these exceptions are reliant upon the "refugee" not seeing fit to destroy his or her own documents, as in that case he cannot be expelled at all.

If the US system of justice regarding immigration is, in Trump's words, "a joke," then the EU system is a monumental joke. "Deportation of quarter of a million failed asylum seekers is almost impossible," said Horst Seehofer, Minister President of Bavaria of Bavaria and reluctant ally of Merkel in her last coalition.

"The question of deportation is a great illusion in Germany. It is almost impossible to send back the migrants once they are in the country. There are mass complaints against courts for deportation. In most cases, papers are missing and without papers, the country of origin does not take people back. In other cases, there are health certificates missing."

Central Europe, on the other hand has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of taking its part in the extreme policies and grotesque failure of "open borders" and forced multiculturalism of Western Europe.

And that was before there was "sustainable development". Self-anointed moral leader, Europe, has decided to become the global poster boy for green policy. The past belongs to Fossil fuels; the future belongs to renewable energy -- from the wind and sun ("our sisters", as Pope Francis wrote in his encyclic Laudato si'). Energy transformation — essentially electric energy — has taken on gigantic proportions in Europe. Thanks to the Energiewende, in Germany the average family is now paying more than twice as much for its electricity (per kW/h) as in the US. France, the happy owner of an extraordinary nuclear production capacity, which for decades was its only substantial competitive advantage has decided to reduce the role of nuclear energy in its production of electricity from 75% to 50%, under the guidance of Minister Nicolas Hulot (by education photographer and beach guardian).

There is also the exemplary instance of Belgium. Belgium's federal government has just decided to close all its seven nuclear reactors by 2025. Eight years! The beauty of it is that nobody knows, at this stage, how Belgium is going to replace its nuclear reactors. There seem to be two options: building gas plants or blotting Belgium's land and sea with wind turbines. The first option is anathema to the Greens and the Left in general, as Belgium would then be emitting more CO₂ than now. Or, second, the wind option, which would mean that in ten years Belgian electricity will be at least twice as expensive as now. Millions would be condemned to energy poverty, meaning they would have to live partly in cold and darkness, as is already the situation in Germany.

The whole concept of "energy transition" is based on the science of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states in report after report that the Earth is warming because of the human emission of CO₂. European politicians regard the IPCC as a scientific body, and the IPCC defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC.

Yet, when the IPCC publishes a report, it is in Europe as if Science had spoken. In the name of this "science", European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in each and every sphere of human activity. Moreover, they stipulated in the 2015 the Paris Accord, that from then on, the West would also finance the "energy transition" of the rest of the world, via the "Green Fund": intending to donate $100 billion per year, from the Western taxpayer to whole world (including China).

US President Donald Trump said on June 1st that enough was enough. Europeans want to build International Socialism in the name of Science? Very well, but no thank you, we are not interested. In Europe, this decision caused the vilification of Trump as archvillian (until then he had been regarded by the glitterati of the EU as nothing more than a buffoon). It is now common in the highest spheres of European politics publicly to insult the US president: "He is a climate terrorist. Millions of people will die because of such behavior", wrote the Belgian expert Damien Ernst on October 31, after President Trump welcomed the increase in US coal production.

The US president may be an arch-villain in Western Europe, but in Central Europe, he is a superhero. For years, Central European countries have respectfully disagreed with the Green millenarianism of the EU. Still catching up after 50 years of communism, they do not have the financial means for the "energy transition". They see no rational reason to exchange their cheap electricity for the most expensive electricity on Earth, with no measurable impact whatsoever on "climate". Before Trump, they felt alone, and weak in front of the economic (and moral) supremacy of Germany. Now, they know they are not alone.

Of course, the European press still considers Trump to be a cosmic anomaly. They hope that a post-Trump America will come back to the greatest embezzlement in the history of mankind — the Paris Accord, in which Western countries transfer vast amounts of their taxpayers' wealth to poorer countries in exchange for promises that they will supposedly address their carbon-emission problems in 25 years. This is wishful thinking. Climate and energy are probably the only subjects on which Trump and the Republicans agreed from the beginning. The exit of the Paris Accord is not the isolated act of an unbalanced person, it is only one of the many closely aligned rulings, nominations and deregulation making a moderate energy policy which does not demonize fossil fuels and is open to "renewable" (intermittent) energies as long as they are economical. If the trend persists, in 10 years' time the electricity in countries such as Germany and Belgium will be at least four times as expensive as in the US. And all, ironically, in the name of "sustainable development". No ideologically-based "science" could survive such realities; it is only a question of time.

On mass-migration, environmentalism as on many other subjects — such as gender or family values — the divide between Western and Central Europe has deepened into an abyss, aggravated by the arrogance of EU bureaucrats convinced of their own moral superiority. The European Union is a "Union" no more, and the convergence between Central Europe and the US is a new and massive geopolitical fact.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l'Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11337/central-europe-us-alliance

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

One Week in Sweden - Fjordman

by Fjordman

In Sweden, car-burnings are not major news anymore; they have become a part of daily life. Cars are torched in Swedish towns on a regular basis.

• In Sweden, car-burnings are not major news anymore; they have become a part of daily life. Cars are torched in Swedish towns on a regular basis.
• Between January and September 2017, Sweden experienced 6000 car-burnings. That equals roughly 22 car fires per day. Schools and other buildings are sometimes targeted by arsonists as well.
• Meanwhile, a report claims that Swedish students and other citizens have been pushed to the back of the public-housing queue. The authorities thus sometimes prioritize recently-arrived asylum seekers and immigrants over the country's native population.

If you search for crime, you can find it in any society. Sadly, in Sweden today, you do not have to search very hard. A casual look at newspapers on any random day will be filled with stories about armed robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, public gang shootings and perhaps explosives in restaurants. This crime wave is no longer merely confined to the major cities. Many smaller towns and some rural communities are now affected as well.

In some Swedish municipalities, harassment and violent threats have become major issues even at public libraries. In the town of Trelleborg, in the autumn of 2017, a gang of 30-50 youths effectively occupied the local library. One mother, who asked that her name not be used, explained that she is now scared to visit the library with her children. The last time she went, visitors were harassed by a loud, aggressive youth gang. When a guard asked the gang-members to leave, they surrounded him. The local police say that they are aware of this problem, but that they do not have sufficient staff to patrol the library every day.

In October 2017, an 81-year-old Swedish woman in the town of Mölndal was harassed and threatened by some youths while walking her dog. A few boys around the age of 12 walked in front of her and blew cigarette smoke in her face; one of them threatened to attack her dog and her. Then he spat her in her face. The woman now says that she is afraid to go out. The local police confirm that elderly people are harassed in similar ways. In a separate incident, some youths stole a loaf of bread from another woman in her 80s.

On the evening of October 29, 2017, a car was torched in the Muslim-dominated district of Rosengård in Malmö. On October 30, another car was torched in the same area. The local daily Sydsvenskan mentioned these incidents with just a couple of sentences. Why? Because car-burnings have become a part of daily life. They are not major news anymore. Cars are torched in Swedish towns on a regular basis.

Between January and September 2017, Sweden experienced 6000 car-burnings. That equals roughly 22 car-burnings per day. (Insurance companies estimate that about half of these incidents are attempts at insurance fraud.) Schools and other buildings have been targeted by arsonists, as well.

Cars burn in the Stockholm suburb of Husby during a riot on May 20, 2013. (Image source: Telefonkiosk/Wikimedia Commons)

The police in parts of Sweden have also experienced, in recent years, a rising number of violent attacks. Police vehicles and stations have been targeted; sometimes even policemen in the privacy of their homes.

On October 29, 2017, a stone was thrown through the front door of the police station in the small town of Kinna. A police station in Dalbo, Växjö had several windows smashed with stones and was shot at with fireworks. The local police chief commented that the police earlier experienced vandalism against their cars, too. A police station at Vännäs in northern Sweden was hit by a rock a day earlier.

On October 29, a police patrol in the town of Linköping was ambushed by people throwing rocks at them. One policeman was injured, struck in the face by a stone.

On October 18, a police station in the southern city of Helsingborg was hit by an explosion. No one was injured, but a large part of the building, as well as the windows on the building opposite, were damaged by the blast. "This is very serious. An attack on the police is not just an attack against society, but on everyone's safety," said Sweden's National Police Commissioner, Dan Eliasson.

On October 28, in the middle of the night, someone fired roughly 20 bullets into the private home of a police officer in Västerås. The policeman and his family were asleep at the time. The shots went straight through the house and into the neighbor's house. According to the regional police chief Carin Götblad, only luck prevented anyone from being hit.

Despite many such incidents, Johanna Skinnari, a researcher at the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, claims that it is not possible to determine whether or not attacks on the police are becoming more common. She did add, however, that "ordinary threats and harassment" are on the rise. Her research, she explained, found that these attacks tend to reinforce the "intimidation capital" of the perpetrators, "to show they're tough and not afraid of the police."

A Swedish policewoman described how criminals have published photographs of her, her husband and her 2-year-old son, whom they threatened to murder. She said that similar stories about police officers in Sweden are now common. Some policemen have begun checking for bombs under their cars before starting them. As one violent criminal told the Swedish police: "You are no longer hunting us. We are hunting you. We will hunt you and your families."

Swedes pay some of the world's highest taxes. Despite this burden, parts of the country suffer from a chronic lack of police resources. Many crimes go unsolved. Witnesses are sometimes afraid of talking to the police. At other times, the police lack the capacity to investigate even serious crimes such as murder or rape.

Being a policeman is not an attractive job in Sweden today. The risks are high; the salary is low. The majority of Swedish police officers -- an alarming 58% -- are considering finding a different profession.

The police warn that foreign criminals view Sweden as a most attractive country. If you steal something, the chances of being caught are almost zero. If you should be sentenced for a crime, you might spend only a short time in a comfortable prison. A lot of weapons are illegally circulating among criminal gangs, from pistols to hand grenades.

A journalist, Ivar Arpi, commented that parts of the country are no longer under the control of the state. At many train stations, libraries and hospitals, threatening and harassing the staff have become a daily routine. In troubled areas, shops are forced to close: thanks to rampant crime, they can no longer buy insurance. Throwing stones at the police or rescue service personnel is now "normal." The use of hand grenades in attacks in Sweden is now comparable to regions of Mexico in which drug cartels operate.

The Gothenburg regional daily Göteborgs-Posten argues that a "low-intensity war" is currently being waged against the Swedish police. This situation exists, the newspaper notes, although the Swedish economy is still strong. What happens to these tensions if the economy suffers a downturn?

PO Hellqvist, who has worked for 30 years at the Swedish Security Service (Säpo), sounded an alarm on a "power struggle" between Swedish authorities and criminal gangs in certain areas. He says he is concerned about the growth of parallel societies, complete with their own "morality police," partly cut off from, and often hostile to, the rest of society. Such communities have historically been a breeding ground for terrorism. Hellqvist adds he is even more worried about people who become radicalized locally than about ISIS jihadists returning from the Middle East. The local radicals, he notes, are more numerous.

Three employees of Sweden's public broadcasting station SVT were convicted of human trafficking after they smuggled a Syrian migrant into Sweden in 2014. They will not, however, lose their jobs because of this. At the same time, another Syrian Muslim migrant was being arrested in Germany; he is suspected of plotting a mass-murder terrorist attack.

Kjell-Olof Feldt, who served as a powerful Minister of Finance during most of the 1980s, was widely respected as an honest and competent minister (even though some of his fellow Social Democrats thought his economic policies too "right-wing"). In October 2017, the now-retired Feldt gave an interview to a Swedish newspaper in which he expressed concerns about the future of his own party, as well as about the future of Sweden. Feldt says that the way the established political parties have handled immigration has weakened trust in politicians. He described the current immigration policies in Sweden as a "ticking bomb". When asked what politicians can do to solve these problems, Feldt replied: "I do not know. I think hardly anyone knows." Current political leaders, in his view, are simply trying to keep a lid on the situation and stifle debate.

Meanwhile, a report claims that Swedish students and other citizens have been pushed to the back of the public-housing queue. Municipalities across Sweden suffer from a housing shortage. The authorities, it seems, have sometimes been prioritizing recently-arrived asylum seekers and immigrants over the country's native population. The Swedish government is looking to house 100,000 more immigrants in 2018.

Fjordman, a Norwegian historian, is an expert on Europe, Islam and multiculturalism.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11352/one-week-in-sweden

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Diversity Visa Lottery: A Game Of “Russian Roulette” - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

American sovereignty and security dismantled under the guise of “diversity.”

On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 New York City suffered a deadly terror attack on a well-known and heavily used bike path in lower Manhattan, just blocks from what, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11, had come to be known as “Ground Zero.”

The perpetrator of this heinous savage attack is a 29-year-old citizen of Uzbekistan, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, who reportedly legally immigrated to the United States in 2010 subsequent to winning the Diversity Visa Lottery.

Consequently, attention immediately turned to the Diversity Visa Program that annually enables approximately 50,000 aliens annually to enter the United States as lawful immigrants.

Aliens who participate in this visa lottery are citizens of countries that send the United States the smallest number of lawful immigrants.  These aliens do not need to possess any special skills or abilities and do not need to have any family ties to the United States.

There is no application fee for this category of immigrant visa. Under this program apparently being “diverse” is all that matters. This does absolutely nothing to benefit America or Americans and therefore must be terminated.

The State Department provides a table for Fiscal Years 2007-2016 for “Immigrant Number Use for Visa Issuances and Adjustments of Status in the Diversity Immigrant Category.”

Clearly, more than 16 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the “All Clear” has not sounded and the “War on Terror” continues on as more innocent victims are slaughtered.  Nevertheless, there are members of Congress who have recently questioned the legal authority known as AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists) being used by President Trump to deploy members of the U.S. Armed Forces to wage war against ISIS, Al Qaeda and related deadly terrorist organizations. AUMF was passed by Congress just days after the attacks of 9/11.

Ironically, the latest deadly terror attack in New York City was carried out even as some members of Congress were publicly questioning AUMF, incredibly complaining that it gives President Trump too much discretion to deploy our armed forces to fight terrorist organizations that seek to kill as many Americans as possible, especially within our own borders.

Those politicians must not have gotten the memo that wars and armed conflicts do not end because leaders unilaterally wish that the wars or conflicts would end.  Wars only end when both sides agree to a cease-fire or a more permanent solution is reached.  Peace can only be achieved when the aggressors are forced to cease hostile actions.  Invariably, this requires the demonstration of unwavering resolve.  This requires the use, or threat of use, of overwhelming force.

The United States has no alternative.

Under the leadership of the Trump administration Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban and other related terror organizations are facing military pressure that is forcing them out of their strongholds in Syria, but they are not laying down their arms.  Instead they are dispersing around the world determined to use terrorism as a means of continuing the battles within the borders of other countries. 

The United States is the country that terrorists are most determined to attack. The borders of the United States are our first line of defense and last line of defense against these savage terrorists.

It is therefore more than a little ironic that, while the administration’s plans to construct a secure wall also the U.S./Mexican border are denounced by many political “leaders,” just two days after this latest deadly terror attack in Manhattan NBC News reported that New York City is installing barrier walls along the west side highway bike path.

That wall to protect the bike path is, however, largely cosmetic. It will do nothing to stop terrorists from ramming vehicles into pedestrians crossing intersections or walking on sidewalks throughout New York City

A wall on the border, however, would constitute a significant element of what needs to be a cohesive and coordinated strategy to prevent the entry of terrorists, criminals and contraband into the United States.

In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel detailed numerous instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud to enter the United States also to embed themselves in the United States.

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Intensifying efforts to maintain so-called "sanctuary cities" hobble efforts to enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and thus are Ignoring the 9/11 Commission warnings.

Additionally, President Trump’s executive order to prevent terrorists from entering the United States which has come to be referred to as the “Travel Ban” is actually known as the Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, has block the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order which parallels existing federal law, Section (f) of 8 U.S. Code § 1182, and has been invoked by prior Presidents including Carter, Bush (43) and Obama.

The war on terror has multiple fronts. To win we must fight the war on terror here, there and everywhere.

Furthermore, where the entry of international terrorists into the United States is concerned, since the attacks of 9/11 other terrorists have also entered with a variety of visas.

To mention just two of many such instances, consider the San Bernardino terror attack perpetrated by Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Farook was an native-born American whose parents came to the United States from Pakistan.  Malik was born in Saudi Arabia, moved to Pakistan and then was granted a K-1 fiancé visa pursuant an application filed by Farook.

On December 2, 2015 they carried out a savage terror attack which resulted in the slaughter of 14 innocent victims and the wounding of 22 more victims.  It is theorized that she may have radicalized her husband.

The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, had entered the United States with their family and were subsequently granted political asylum which then enabled them to acquire lawful immigrant status. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving younger of the two brothers has been convicted for his crimes and has been sentenced to be executed.  He became a naturalized citizen shortly before the attacks.  Applicants for naturalization are supposed to undergo a Good Moral Character investigation. Clearly this vetting process failed.

Indeed, there are numerous failures of the immigration system that, although were identified by the 9/11 Commission, have yet to be effectively addressed.

Ironically, just a couple of weeks before the latest attack, my article Homeland Security Uncovers Massive Immigration Failures that focused on two DHS Inspector General reports that detailed dire immigration failures.

Clearly it can be stated that DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operations.

In the weeks and months after the attacks of 9/11 our leaders constantly reminded us that for the terrorists to succeed, they (the terrorists) need only “get it right” once.  On the other hand, in order to protect Americans from terror attacks, our officials needed to be right 100% of the time.

Every time an alien gains entry into the United States, either legally or illegally, terror groups are provided with an opportunity to infiltrate the United States. 

In this perilous age, this is the equivalent of the deadly game of “Russian Roulette.” 

Hope is not a strategy, the President must be given the resources to defend our nation and our citizens and those resources must extend well beyond our borders.

ICE agents need to have the cooperation of local and state police in enforcing our laws and to cultivate informants and cooperators within ethnic immigrant communities.  This is not a new concept, but an old one.  It was how my colleagues and I routinely operated back when I first became an INS special agent decades ago.  It not only helped to keep America and Americans safe, but especially helped to keep the immigrants in every ethnic immigrant community safe.

Michael Cutler

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268347/diversity-visa-lottery-game-russian-roulette-michael-cutler

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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