Archive for September 2015

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

September 22, 2015

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander Written

by Alex Newman

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Source: U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

U.S. Military Trained Top ISIS Commander

 

One of the Islamic State’s top military commanders was actually trained by U.S. Special Forces in the nation of Georgia before taking up arms for ISIS in Syria, according to a variety of sources quoted in an explosive new report by the McClatchy news agency. Another member of the Obama administration’s supposed “anti-ISIS” coalition, the Wahhabi-Islamic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, played a key role radicalizing the jihadist leader through a hard-core Islamist mosque it funded near his village. In other words, without the direct assistance of key “anti-ISIS” governments — including Washington, D.C. — the man said to be ISIS’ most fearsome and skilled military leader would almost certainly never have arrived in Syria to wage ruthless war on infidels in the first place. But ISIS commander Tarkhan Batirashvili (shown), who now calls himself Abu Omar al Shishani, is hardly the only one.

As explosive evidence and news reports continue to emerge highlighting the trend, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell where ISIS begins and the globalist establishment ends. Among other revelations, Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at Harvard, admitted that Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition had funded and armed various terrorist groups in Syria that went on to become ISIS. Later, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey revealed in Senate testimony that Sunni Arab dictators in Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition were not just supporting ISIS — they were funding it. Next, a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report released under the Freedom of Information Act exposed the fact that Western powers and their Islamic dictator allies were supporting Islamic terrorists and wanted to see a fundamentalist Islamic State created in Eastern Syria. And finally, the former chief of DIA went on TV and spilled the beans on Obama’s “willful” support to Islamic terrorists while distancing himself from the deadly policies.

The McClatchy report, then, is only the latest shoe to drop in a long train of revelations directly linking the U.S. government and its allies to ISIS and jihad more broadly. Headlined “U.S. training helped mold top Islamic State military commander,” the September 15 article by special correspondent Mitchell Prothero contains a treasure trove of information about the U.S.-trained terrorist gathered from interviews with a wide range of sources, including many close to the ongoing Syrian war. In essence, the report paints a troubling picture of Batirashvili’s background, and offers much insight into how he became a leading ISIS commander responsible for a number of critical victories secured by the terrorist group. From his U.S. military training in Georgia to his radicalization in a Saudi-funded mosque, the piece provides still more evidence about the utter failure — or outright insanity, perhaps even criminality — surrounding what Washington, D.C., likes to characterize as “foreign policy.”

According to the McClatchy report, the 30-year-old Batirashvili (a.k.a. Abu Omar) is a “key figure” in ISIS, reportedly serving on the ISIS “governing council” in addition to being the terror group’s “supreme military leader in northern Syria and Aleppo.” The report, citing his military prowess obtained from U.S. training and a number of critical military victories he led over Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces, also refers to him as “perhaps the group’s most fearsome ground commander.” And there is a good reason for that: your tax dollars. “We trained him well, and we had lots of help from America,” an unidentified former Georgian defense official told the news agency, asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of the terrorist’s role in ISIS. “In fact, the only reason he didn’t go to Iraq to fight alongside America was that we needed his skills here in Georgia.”

Batirashvili’s former comrades in the Georgian military echoed the praise for the terrorist’s military abilities and told McClatchy that he was “immediately” recruited into Georgia’s U.S.-trained special forces upon enlistment. Again, your tax dollars — and your sons serving in the U.S. military — played a crucial role in transforming Batirashvili from an impoverished Muslim Chechen villager into a brutal and well-trained commander whose forces are now busily decapitating Christians and selling children into sex slavery to fund jihad. “He was a perfect soldier from his first days, and everyone knew he was a star,” explained a former military comrade of Batirashvili, who also requested anonymity because he was violating orders by speaking to the press about the issue. “We were well trained by American special forces units, and he was the star pupil.”

Of course, the U.S. government training for Batirashvili and other soldiers in Georgia did not take place with the explicit goal of producing future military leaders for a group of savages styling themselves the Islamic State. Instead, similar in many ways to what happened with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the U.S. government plan, supposedly at least, was to help the government of Georgia defend itself against potential aggression from the Kremlin. And indeed, according to sources interviewed for the McClatchy report, Batirashvili fought well against Russian strongman Vladimir Putin’s forces, first as a Chechen rebel, and later as a U.S.-trained Georgian Special Forces officer.

While Batirashvili came from an isolated Islamic enclave in the largely Christian nation, Batirashvili and others from his region had traditionally followed a moderate strain of Islam, so-called Sufi Islam. But Sufi Muslims are often considered heretics by their more radical coreligionists in places such as Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Eventually, thanks to generous funding from the U.S.-allied Saudi dictatorship, hardcore Wahhabi Islam would soon make its mark on the Chechen enclave in Georgia — and on Batirashvili in particular. The same phenomenon has happened around the world.

According to McClatchy, the moderate version of Islam followed by locals from Batirashvili’s region came under pressure in the year 2000, when the Saudi regime financed the construction of a new mosque for the handful of ethnic Chechen villages in the Georgian valley. A local community leader quoted in the article explained that this new mosque “preached a kind of alien Wahhabi-style Islam” — the same radical Islam that the Saudi monarchy, a key member of Obama’s “anti-ISIS” coalition, has for generations been trying to propagate around the world with lavish funding from its oil revenues. “It told our people that it was wrong to pray at graves of saints and ancestors, as our people have done for hundreds of years, and even to share our religious rites with our Christian brothers,” the community leader said. Other residents told the news agency that by the mid-2000s, the new Saudi-backed mosque had split the local Muslim community in two, with older Muslims sticking to their traditional faith while younger villagers became radicalized in the new mosque.

Then, the globalist-engineered civil war broke out in Syria after years of U.S. taxpayer funding for Syrian opposition groups exposed in official U.S. diplomatic cables. At that point, the radicalized young Muslim villagers in Georgia affiliated with the Saudi mosque — prepared for violent jihad through years of Saudi-funded radical teachings — began an exodus to go wage holy war in Syria. “They all started leaving for Syria,” the community elder told McClatchy. “Things are safer here now because all the radicals — our children — have gone to Syria.” The report also notes that the radicalized Batirashvili served as an excellent recruiting tool for ISIS, attracting jihadists from across central Asia to join the jihad on the “apostate” dictator of Syria.

It is impossible to know how many other ISIS fighters from around the world were also radicalized in mosques funded by members of the “anti-ISIS” coalition, or how many of those fighters received training from the U.S. military under various guises. But without a doubt, there are many. In fact, Obama’s alleged plan to fight ISIS — training and equipping so-called moderate jihadists to fight more radical jihadists — was exposed as a monumental failure this week. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on September 16, General Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, admitted that just “four or five” of Obama’s U.S.-trained jihadists were actually fighting against ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, as The New American and others have documented extensively, far more than that are currently fighting with ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups across Syria — often with heavy U.S. weapons. Indeed, entire brigades of U.S.-trained rebels have joined terror groups or signed agreements with them to fight Assad.

As a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s lawless so-called “foreign policy” machinations, hundreds of thousands are dying, millions are fleeing their homes, refugees are swamping Europe, Middle Eastern Christians are facing genocide, and the national security threat to the United States is growing stronger by the day. Now, all those crises are being exploited by the same globalists who created them to push more of the same insanity.

It is time for Congress to shut down this farce and hold everyone responsible for it accountable.

Photo of  Abu Omar al Shishani, taken from a video: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Related articles:

U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria

ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy

U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Willful” Aid to Al-Qaeda

Globalists Who Created Refugee Crisis Now Exploiting It

Globalists Using Muslim Terrorists as Pawns  

Globalists Exploit ISIS Threat to Empower UN

Obama and Co. Middle East Policies Aiding Genocide of Christians

Anti-ISIS Coalition Built ISIS (Video) 

Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy

ISIS Origins Traced to U.S. Prison in Iraq

U.S.-backed Syrian Opposition Linked to Bilderberg, CFR, Goldman Sachs & George Soros

Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda: U.S. Govt. Creations

Two-State Solutions and Double Standards

September 22, 2015

Two-State Solutions and Double Standards Why is it only the Jewish state, and not Iraq or Syria, that is pressured to split into parts?

September 22, 2015

Joseph Puder

Source: Two-State Solutions and Double Standards | Frontpage Mag

The Assads in Syria and the Sunni-Muslim Saddam Hussein (now deceased) are examples of minorities ruling over majority populations not of their own ethnic or religious branch. The fall of Saddam’s Iraq was like Humpty Dumpty: once broken, it cannot be put together again.  In the Syrian civil-war, the Sunni-Muslim majority is determined to end the Assad dictatorial rule through unprecedented violence and mayhem. Atrocities are perpetrated by both the Assad regime and the Islamic State. It has resulted in fracturing Syria. Millions of Iraqis and Syrians are now displaced, streaming toward European shores. It is fair to ask why the U.S. and the West in general are not openly supporting the new realities in the Levant.

The George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama administrations have displayed double standards toward Israel with respect to the “two-state solution.” One can legitimately ask why not apply the three-state solution to Iraq and the five-state solution to Syria? Why is it that, according to Obama, the Jewish state can be split into parts (two states), while the artificial colonial creations of Iraq and Syria must remain unitary states? In the case of Israel, the territory it occupies from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean was recognized by the League of Nations as the historical homeland of the Jews.

British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill wrote in June, 1922 that the Jews are “in Palestine as of Right and not on Sufferance.” The text of the League of Nations mandate (July 24, 1922) entrusting the Mandate to Britain reads: “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine…”

Charles Krauthammer summarized in the National Post (March 20, 2015) the reasons why a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible at this time. “The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership – from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas – has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish State. And without that, no [Israeli] government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.”

Israel is being surrounded by jihadist forces in Gaza (Hamas) and in Lebanon (Hezbollah). In the Sinai Islamic state affiliates are attempting to destabilize the government of President al-Sisi of Egypt, and King Abdullah’s Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. In Syria, both the Islamic State and the Assad regime with its Iranian allies threaten Israel. Should Israel vacate the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) to satisfy the Two-State solution, it will likely fall into Hamas’ hands. Israel’s population centers and industrial infrastructure will then be within range of Hamas’ rockets. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority ruled by Mahmoud Abbas is tottering and with little legitimacy. The two-state solution can only work if the Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state, take off the table Palestinian “right of return,” and only when the Middle East finds a modicum of regional stability that might allow Israel to take risks.

It is a different story in Iraq and Syria. Following the bloodbath in Syria that killed 250,000, few, if any, would want to live under the Assad dictatorial regime or the murderous and intolerant Caliphate of the Islamic State. The Kurds, after Kobane, want independence and perhaps a merger with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in Erbil (Northern Iraq). The Alawis (10-15% of the population of Syria) whose base is in northwestern Syria, expect the Sunni majority to exact revenge for the deadly attacks the Bashar Assad’s regime perpetrated against them. They too, would like an independent state or some form of loose federalism. The Sunni-Arab majority wants to rule Syria again, but that Syria would have to be without approximately 1.8 million Christians, or 10% of the population who would rather join their co-religionists in an expanded Christian Lebanon. The Kurds, Alawis, and Druze (the smallest group) would likewise not want to live in a fundamentalist Sunni-Arab dominated state.

One can easily envision five states (or statelets) in Syria: a large Sunni-Arab state in central-eastern Syria, bordering Iraq’s Anbar province (which contains some of the same tribes); a Kurdish state in the Northeastern corner of Syria bordering the KRG in northeastern Iraq; an Alawi state in northwestern Syria along the Mediterranean Sea; a new Christian state that would bring together the diminished Christians of Lebanon (who at one time led Lebanon and for whom the state was created in 1943 by the French) and the suffering Syrian Christians, in a territorially expanded region that would stretch from Beirut northeastward, including the Mount Lebanon area. Also, the Druze would prefer a small independent state around Jabal Druze in southwestern Syria.

Salman Shaikh, Director of the Brookings Doha Center, had this to say about Syria (January 6, 2015): “We have to recognize that Syria is now a broken, fragmented, divided state.” A regime change in Damascus and the demise of the Assad regime will inevitably bring an end to a unitary Syria.

Jeffrey Goldberg (January/February 2008) writing in The Atlantic pointed out that

[i]t was Winston Churchill who, in the aftermath of World War I, roped together three provinces of the defeated and dissolved Ottoman Empire, adopted the name Iraq, and bequeathed it to the luckless branch of the Hashemite tribe of West Arabia. Churchill would eventually call the forced inclusion of the Kurds in Iraq one of his worst mistakes ­­- but by then, there was nothing he could do about it. The British, together with the French, gave the world the modern Middle East. In addition to manufacturing the country now called Iraq, the grand Middle East settlement shrank Turkey by the middle of the 1920’s to the size of the Anatolian peninsula; granted what are now Syria and Lebanon to the French; and kept Egypt under British control.

The situation in Iraq has been clear since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Only a brutal dictator could keep Iraq together. Appearing on PBS News Hour, David Brooks of the New York Times (May 30, 2015) opined, “I give Joe Biden credit. He’ll renounce it, but years and years ago, probably 2006, 2007, he had an idea for a loose federal Iraq. And that, in retrospect – that looks to me like a smarter and smarter idea. We have tried to keep this country together, but the Shias are not really sharing power with the Sunnis. They’re not willing to give the Sunni forces the weapons and other things they need to defeat ISIS. The political system is still fractured. The soldiers clearly do not believe in that country[.]”

Recent U.S. administrations have pressured Israel to negotiate for an impractical two-state solution. They have, at the same time, insisted on maintaining Iraq and Syria as unitary states when it is clear that these artificial states created by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement are collapsing and are ungovernable. The time has come for the U.S. to support the hopes of the Kurds and others for independence, while supporting Israel’s historical rights to Judea and Samaria and its genuine security needs.

British Army ‘could stage mutiny under Corbyn’, says senior serving general

September 22, 2015

British Army ‘could stage mutiny under Corbyn’, says senior serving general

 Sunday 20 September 2015

Source: British Army ‘could stage mutiny under Corbyn’, says senior serving general – UK Politics – UK – The Independent

Generals would not ‘allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of the UK’

A senior serving general has reportedly warned that a Jeremy Corbyn government could face “a mutiny” from the Army if it tried to downgrade them.

The unnamed general said members of the armed forces would begin directly and publicly challenging the labour leader if he tried to scrap Trident, pull out of Nato or announce “any plans to emasculate and shrink the size of the armed forces.”

He told the Sunday Times: “The Army just wouldn’t stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can’t put a maverick in charge of a country’s security.

“There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.”

According to the unnamed general, the army could rebel over plans to scrap Trident or pull out of Nato

The army could rebel over plans to scrap Trident or pull out of Nato

The general, who served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, said he and many soldiers were sickened by Mr Corbyn’s refusal to condemn the IRA, which killed 730 troops and injured 7,000 more during the conflict.

His shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was forced to apologise when it was revealed he had called for IRA members, including hunger striker Bobby Sands, to be honoured by the British government.

The general said: “Many soldiers are disgusted by the comments of Corbyn and John McDonnell [about] the IRA — men who have not only murdered British soldiers but also hundreds of members of their own community.”

Read More:
Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn on scrapping Trident and leaving Nato: ‘I don’t think that is going to happen’
Labour leadership: Jeremy Corbyn calls for nuclear disarmament at a CND event
‘Corbyn’s plan to UK from Nato would be disastrous’

Responding to the general’s suggestion of a potential mutiny among members of the Armed Forces, a senior Labour source told The Independent: “It does seem like quite an extraordinary statement”.

A spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn said he would not comment on remarks made anonymously.

Labour’s newly appointed shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, has said he does not believe Labour would back either nuclear disarmament or a withdrawal from the military alliance.

Mr Corbyn had earlier announced he would be pulling out of the Stop The War Coalition’s annual conference due to his busy schedule.

And it comes after senior members of the Shadow Cabinet said they were planning to rebel if Mr Corbyn attempted to block another vote for air strikes against Syria.

The Sunday Times reported that half of Mr Corbyn’s Cabinet have approached David Cameron to say they are prepared to defy the whip and vote with the government so long as Mr Cameron comes up with a coherent plan.

‘Israel, Russia to coordinate in air, sea, and electromagnetic arena’

September 22, 2015

‘Israel, Russia to coordinate in air, sea, and electromagnetic arena’

Source: ‘Israel, Russia to coordinate in air, sea, and electromagnetic arena’ – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

The IDF and Russian military will set up a joint working group to coordinate their Syria-related activities in the aerial, naval, and electromagnetic arenas, a senior defense source said Monday. The source spoke soon after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot returned from a one-day visit to Moscow, following intensive meetings on Russia’s newly expanded military role in Syria.

According to foreign reports, the Israel Air Force has launched multiple air strikes in recent years to intercept Iranian and Syrian weapons that were on the way to Hezbollah storage facilities in Lebanon.

Israel has shared concerns with Russia that it’s interceptions could be compromised if military coordination is not put into place soon.

In Russia, Eisenkot met with his Russian counterpart, General Valery Vasilevich Gerasimov – the first time chiefs of staff from Russia and Israel held a direct meeting. Eisenkot also participated in part of the meeting held between Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Afterward, the two sides agreed to set up a joint working group led by the deputy chiefs of staff from each country. The first meeting will occur in two weeks, and the location will be decided in the coming days.

“It will coordinate air, naval, and the electromagnetic arenas,” the source said. The full composition of the working group has not yet been determined, he added.

“Everything will be raised there. The meetings in Russia were held in a good atmosphere,” the senior source said.

On September 10, a senior defense source said that an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp force, comprised of hundreds of soldiers, recently entered Syria to assist the embattled Assad regime. In a coordinated Iranian-Russian maneuver, Russian logistics military forces began to arrive to Syria’s coastal region to set up a base for Russian fighter jets and combat helicopters.

Tehran dispatched its force “in light of Assad’s” ongoing distress, the source stated, adding that the deployment is part of a wider Russian-Iranian coordinated effort to prevent what remains of the Assad regime from collapsing.

According to Israeli assessments, the Assad regime currently controls 25 to 30 percent of Syria, consisting of Damascus and the Syrian coastline, where the regime’s minority Alawite support base is centered.

Throughout September, Russian military forces have been entering Syria to set up air strike capabilities aimed at protecting the Assad regime.

“I can’t see the Russian presence as changing the balance of power. It will apparently prolong the fighting. ISIS will never negotiate,” the source said. “Combat will continue in the coming year, along with the human tragedy in Syria.”

“The Russian interest is to save the regime, and its goal is to take part in combat against ISIS,” he said.

Islamic State is making gains in Palmyra, northeast of Damascus, and is now better positioned to mount an assault on Damascus, according to the source.

Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer

September 21, 2015

Saudi Arabia: World’s Human Rights Sewer, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, September 21, 2015

(This must be a premature April Fools Day joke. There have been several others recently, including criticisms of Donald Trump for not rebuking, correcting and silencing someone who claimed that Obama is a Muslim and of Dr. Ben Carson for saying he would not support a Muslim for President. Yeah, they must all be just sick jokes. I wish. — DM)

Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues.

**********************

  • Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, sentenced to be crucified, was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge, and he was denied access to lawyers. Al-Nimr is also alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody.
  • Not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession; they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest.
  • Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers.
  • Crucifixion is a punishment which, it would appear, is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva is an organization that may be easy to critique, but it is very hard to satirize. Ordinarily, if you told anyone that there was a place in Switzerland where Sudan, Iran and others of the world’s worst dictatorships and human rights abusers have their views on human rights treated with respect and deference, you would assume the script was written by Monty Python. Idi Amin would make an appearance at some point to share his views on how to improve equal conditions for women in the workplace. Pol Pot would crop up in order to castigate those countries where living standards had not been sufficiently raised in accordance with global averages.

Everything that happens in Geneva is beyond satire. But last week provides a demonstration, outrageous even by the standards of the UN. For this week, it came out – thanks to the excellent organization UN Watch — that Saudi Arabia has been appointed as the head of a key UNHRC panel. This panel selects the top officials who shape international standards in human rights; it is intended to report on human rights violations around the world. The five-member group of ambassadors, which Saudi Arabia will now head, is known as the Consultative Group and has the power to select applicants to fill more than 77 positions worldwide that deal with human rights issues. It appears that the appointment of Saudi Arabia’s envoy to the UNHRC, Faisal Trad, was made before the summer, but that diplomats in Geneva have kept silent on the matter since then.

That this appointment had to leak out months after the event raises the possibility that the UNHRC, contrary to popular perception, actually does have some sense of shame. Otherwise, why not shout from the rooftops that Saudi Arabia has won this prestigious position? Why not distribute a press release? After all, Saudi Arabia — and by extension the UNHRC — have nothing to be ashamed of, do they?

Alas not a week goes by without Saudi Arabia demonstrating to the world why they retain their reputation as one of the world’s foremost human rights sewers. Saudi Arabia may have beheaded more people in the last year than ISIS, but only rarely do any of these cases get more than a flicker of international attention. Occasionally a case breaks above the waves of public opinion. One such case is that of the jailed blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced last year to 10 years in jail and 1000 lashes for “insulting Islam.” The plight of Raif Badawi, who has already been served the first 50 lashes, and is being held in prison while awaiting the rest, has garnered international attention and condemnations of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom’s response has been strongly to denounce “the media campaign around the case.”

But the glare of international opinion clearly disturbs the Saudi authorities — a fact well worth keeping in mind. And it is not as though they have nothing to hide. This week brings a case that should get at least as much attention as that of Raif Badawi.

Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was just 17 when he was arrested by the Saudi authorities in 2012, during a crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shia province of Qatif. He was accused of participating in banned protests and firearms offenses — despite a complete lack of evidence on the latter charge. Denied access to lawyers, al-Nimr is alleged by human rights groups to have been tortured and then forced into signing a confession while in custody. Campaigners say that it seems he has been targeted by authorities because of his family association with Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the 53-year-old critic of the Saudi regime who is his uncle. The Sheikh has also been convicted and sentenced to death. After the confession and “trial,” his nephew was convicted at Saudi’s Specialized Criminal Court and sentenced to death. The trial itself failed to meet any international standards. Al-Nimr appealed against his sentence, but this week that appeal was dismissed. It now seems likely that he and his uncle will now be executed. Because charges include crimes involving the Saudi King and the state itself, it seems likely that the method of death will be crucifixion.

1255Imprisoned Saudi dissidents Raif Badawi (left) and Ali Mohammed al-Nimr (right).

If this were in any way to cause a flicker of concern among other participants in the UNHRC farce going on Geneva, they have at least some consolation. For in Saudi Arabia crucifixion is not what it used to be. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia crucifixion begins with the beheading of the victim and only then the mounting of the beheaded body onto a crucifix, to make it available for public viewing. This is a punishment which it would appear is not only Sharia-compliant but also — we must assume — Geneva-compliant.

Of course, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr counts as having been a juvenile at the time of his arrest, so not only are the Saudi authorities preparing to crucify someone — in 2015 — whom they tortured into making a confession – they are preparing to crucify someone who was a minor at the time of arrest. Perhaps the authorities at the UNHRC in Geneva do indeed blush when they appoint Saudi officials to head their human rights panels. But it does not seem to affect their behaviour. Just as Saudi authorities think it is “international attention” rather than flogging people to death or crucifying them after beheading that is the problem, so the UNHRC in Geneva seems to think it is public awareness of their grotesque appointments rather than the appointments themselves that are the problem.

The international attention paid to the case of Raif Badawi has not yet seen him released, but it seems to have delayed the next rounds of lashes. Which suggests the Saudi authorities have the capacity to feel some shame. This should in turn be a cause for some hope among everyone who cares about human rights. It should also provide a reminder to everyone to increase global attention on the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and the many others like him who suffer under a government and judicial system that should utterly shame the world outside Geneva, even if it cannot shame the UN.

U.S. soldiers ordered to ignore Afghan allies’ abuse of boys

September 21, 2015

U.S. soldiers ordered to ignore Afghan allies’ abuse of boys, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, September 20, 2015

(“It’s their culture, so it’s cool. Don’t get involved.” The (non-Islamic) Islamic State is also a manifestation of Islamic culture. Should our we be required to ignore it as well? — DM)

 

What are we in Afghanistan for, if not to stand for our own values and the principles of human rights? Instead, U.S. officials are aiding and abetting the destruction of these boys’ lives — and in the case of Lance Corporal Buckley, sacrificing our own troops. This is beyond shameful.

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

Gregory-Buckley

“U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys,” by Joseph Goldstein, New York Times, September 20, 2015:

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militia to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.
Gregory Buckley Sr. believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore pedophilia by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander….

The American policy of nonintervention was intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflected a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.

Some soldiers believed that the policy made sense, even if they were personally distressed at the sexual predation they witnessed or heard about.

“The bigger picture was fighting the Taliban,” a former Marine lance corporal reflected. “It wasn’t to stop molestation.”

Still, the former lance corporal, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid offending fellow Marines, recalled feeling sickened the day he entered a room on a base and saw three or four men lying on the floor with children between them. “I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,” he said.

But the American policy of treating pedophilia as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children were being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.

By the summer of 2011, Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland, both Green Berets on their second tour in northern Kunduz Province, began to receive dire complaints about the Afghan Local Police units they were training and supporting.

First, one of the militia commanders raped a 14- or 15-year-old girl whom he had spotted working in the fields. Captain Quinn informed the provincial police chief, who soon levied punishment. “He got one day in jail, and then she was forced to marry him,” Mr. Quinn said.

When he asked a superior officer what more he could do, he was told that he had done well to bring it up with local officials but that there was nothing else to be done. “We’re being praised for doing the right thing, and a guy just got away with raping a 14-year-old girl,” Mr. Quinn said.

Village elders grew more upset at the predatory behavior of American-backed commanders. After each incident, Captain Quinn would gather the Afghan commanders and lecture them on human rights.

Soon another commander absconded with his men’s wages. Mr. Quinn said he later heard the commander had spent the money on dancing boys. Another commander murdered his 12-year-old daughter in a so-called “honor killing” for having kissed a boy.“There were no repercussions,” Mr. Quinn recalled.

In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again she told the Americans on the base.

She explained that because “her son was such a good-looking kid, he was a status symbol” local commanders coveted, recalled Mr. Quinn, who did not speak to the woman directly but was told about her visit when he returned to the base from a mission later that day.

So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.

“I picked him up and threw him onto the ground,” Mr. Quinn said. Sergeant Martland joined in, he said. “I did this to make sure the message was understood that if he went back to the boy, that it was not going to be tolerated,” Mr. Quinn recalled….

Sergeant Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our A.L.P. to commit atrocities,” referring to the Afghan Local Police.

The father of Lance Corporal Buckley believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death, and he has filed a lawsuit to press the Marine Corps for more information about it.

Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.

Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.

Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.

Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.

The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.

Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”

The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.

PM: Israel, Russia establish ‘mechanism’ to prevent ‘misunderstandings’ in Syria

September 21, 2015

PM: Israel, Russia establish ‘mechanism’ to prevent ‘misunderstandings’ in Syria

Source: PM: Israel, Russia establish ‘mechanism’ to prevent ‘misunderstandings’ in Syria – Israel News – Jerusalem Post

Israel and Russia agreed to a create mechanism to prevent accidental confrontation between their forces in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following a meeting on the outskirts of Moscow Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Netanyahu, in a phone briefing with Israeli diplomatic reporters, said that the meeting was devoted to the complicated situation on Israel’s northern border.

“I made clear our policy to try to prevent through various means the transfer of lethal weapons from Syria to Hezbollah, which is actually done at the direction of Iran,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu said that the purpose of the meeting was to prevent “misunderstandings” between IDF and Russian forces. “We established a mechanism to prevent those misunderstandings,” he said, without elaborating. “This is something very important for Israel’s security.

The premier said he also told Putin “in an unequivocal manner” that Israel would not tolerate Iran’s arming its proxies on Israel’s borders, and that Israel will take all actions it needs to prevent this.

“This is our right and obligation,” Netanyahu said, adding that there was no disagreement on that point from the Russians. Netanyahu also said that it was made clear that regardless of Russia’s intentions in Syria, it will not be involved in Iran’s “extreme action against us.”

Netanyahu said that his trip was in no way intended as any kind of signal to the US, and that he coordinated the visit with the US and briefed Washington on its purpose — to prevent any accidental incidents with Russia in Syria.

Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin

September 21, 2015

Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin PM in Moscow to ‘clarify’ Israeli policy amid Russian buildup; Kremlin leader says Damascus too busy to bother with fighting Israel as both By Times of Israel staff September 21, 2015, 4:39 pm

Source: Syrian army bolstering Iranian terrorism, Netanyahu tells Putin | The Times of Israel

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, Pool)

Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, during their meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015. (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, Pool)

The Syrian army is aiding Iran and Hezbollah in building an anti-Israel terror network on the Golan Heights, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday, with the Kremlin strongman responding that Damascus has no time to worry about fighting Israel.

Netanyahu’s three-hour meeting with Putin during a lightning trip to the Kremlin Monday came amid reports that Moscow is building up militarily in Syria, and Israeli concerns of a possible clash with Russian forces, which are bolstering embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“Israel and Russia have a shared interest to ensure stability in the Middle East,” Netanyahu told Putin at the start of the meeting, according to an account from the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. “And I am here because of the security situation, which is becoming more complex on our northern border. As you know, in recent years, and increasingly in recent months, Iran and Syria are arming the extremist Muslim terror group Hezbollah with advanced weaponry, which is pointed at us and has already been fired at us over the years — thousands of missiles and rockets on our cities.”

Syria’s military, Netanyahu added, was giving cover to Iranian efforts to open a new front against Israel.

The West has been concerned over Russia’s military buildup in Syria, which Moscow has said is aimed to help the Syrian government fight the Islamic State group. Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally, has denied that it helps Syria militarily to support the Assad regime.

Earlier this week, new satellite imagery showed the recent arrival of Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military equipment at an air base in Syria’s coastal Latakia province, confirming reports by US, Israeli and other officials of a Russian military buildup.

Israel has long expressed concerns that Iranian and Hezbollah agents have used the fighting in Syria as cover to build up forces along the Golan heights to carry out attacks against Israel. A number of airstrikes over the last several years, reportedly targeting Iranian backed cells and weapons shipments, have been assigned to Israel.

“Iran, under the auspices of the Syrian army, is trying to build a second terror front against us from the Golan. Our policy is to prevent these weapons transfers, and to prevent the formation of a terror front and attacks against us from the territory of the Golan. In these circumstances, I thought it was very important that I come here, both to clarify our policy and to make sure there are no misunderstandings between our forces,” Netanyahu told Putin.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is welcomed by representatives of the Israeli Embassy in Russia, as well as Russian delegates, as he arrives on an official visit to Moscow, Russia, September 21, 2015. (Israeli Embassy in Russia/Flash90)

Putin welcomed Netanyahu’s visit, but expressed skepticism over the latter’s Syria warnings.

“All Russia’s actions in the region were always very responsible. We are aware of the issue of bombardments of Israel [with rockets] and reject all such bombardments. To my knowledge, these bombardments are carried out by homemade systems,” he said.

“As for Syria, We know that the Syrian army and Syria as a whole are in such a state that they have no time for a second front. They need to save their own state. Our main goal is to defend the Syrian state. With that, I understand your concern, and I’m very happy you came here so we could discuss all these issues in detail.”

The visit to Moscow comes a week before Netanyahu is scheduled to fly to the US to speak at the United Nations and meet with American officials, ahead of a White House visit in November.

Jerusalem has tried to maintain friendly ties with Russia, shying away from taking a position on fighting in Ukraine or other issues that the Kremlin and Washington have clashed over recently.

Putin also praised Israel, which is home to some million Russian-speakers.

“We never forget that a great many expats from the former Soviet Union live in the State of Israel, and that has a special impact on relations between the countries.”

Cartoons of the day

September 21, 2015

H/t Hope and Change Cartoons

Iranian Science Fair 2

H/t The Jewish Press

death-to-america-respect

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs

September 21, 2015

Ben Carson in CAIR’s crosshairs, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, September 21, 2015

(Isn’t it shameful that Dr. Carson is a politically incorrect “Islamophobe?” What is that, anyway?

Don’t we want another a Muslim in the White House? Then Obama could be truly proud of America. What could possibly go wrong? — DM)

ben-carson

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.

****************************

If Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has any say in the matter, whoever the next President is, it won’t be Ben Carson. “He is not qualified to be president of the United States,” fumed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, no doubt an unimpeachable authority on who is and is not qualified to be President, on Sunday. “You cannot hold these kinds of views and at the same time say you will represent all Americans, of all faiths and backgrounds.” What views? Carson said: “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” He said that this was because Islam contradicted important Constitutional principles.

CAIR, designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, sent out an email Sunday saying it would hold a news conference demanding that Carson withdraw from the presidential race for daring to say these things. “Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR top dog Nihad Awad. “We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

But the problems with a Muslim being President aren’t religious, they’re political. Islamic law infringes upon the freedom of speech, forbidding criticism of Islam. Islamic law denies equality of rights to women. Islamic law denies equality of rights to non-Muslims. If a Muslim renounced all this, he or she could be an effective Constitutional ruler, but in today’s politically correct climate, no one is even likely to ask for such a renunciation. Instead, no one even acknowledges that these really are elements of Islamic law.

No one, that is, except the Muslim clerics who agree with Carson. Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar said in March 2009: “Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues….In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ” — because in Islamic thought, only Allah legislates.

Abd Al-Karim Bakkar was reflecting a common view. Pakistan Muslim leader Sufi Muhammad said in May 2009: “I would not offer prayer behind anyone who would seek to justify democracy.” Mesbah Yazdi, leader of the Shia Taliban in Iran, said in September 2010 that “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place” — in Islam, that is. Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Saddiq Conlan said in June 2011: “Democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”

In January 2013, the Saudi Islamic scholar Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak declared: “Electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam as it has been introduced by the enemies of Moslems.” The idea of popular elections, he said, “has been brought by the anti-Islam parties who have occupied Moslem land.”

Some Muslims in the West hold these views as well. In April 2015, Muslims in Wales plastered Cardiff with posters reading: “Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires. This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm. Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK. It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.”

And two Muslim groups in Denmark last June called on Muslims to boycott the elections that were held that month. One explained: “We are committed to being active participants in our society, but it has to be on Islam’s terms, without compromising our own principles and values. Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and it is a sinking ship.” The Grimshøj mosque in Aarhus agreed, issuing a statement saying that “people should stay clear of the voting booths. We have concluded that only Allah can pass laws, as he says himself in the Koran that this is so.”

Tunisian author Salem Ben Ammar wrote last month: “‘To hell with democracy! Long live Islam!’ One hundred percent of Muslims agree with that. To say anything else is apostasy from Islam. These two competing political systems are antithetical to each other. You can’t be democratic and be a Muslim or a Muslim and be a democrat. A Jew can’t be a Nazi and a Nazi can’t be a Judeophile.”

Question for Hamas-linked CAIR’s Hooper and Awad: are all these Muslims “Islamophobes” for saying that Islam and democracy are incompatible, or is that honor reserved only for Carson (and other infidels)? And are either or both of you cognizant of the irony of pretending to uphold Constitutional values while demanding that a man drop out of the Presidential race for the crime of exercising his freedom of speech? Are either or both of you aware that you have thereby just become poster children for how correct Ben Carson really was?

Carson was right. But now the media sharks, ever eager to do the bidding of Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacists, will be circling – and hungry. If he is forced to drop out for saying things CAIR doesn’t like, it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the free society that CAIR disingenuously professes to love and support, but which it is actually doing all it can to subvert.