Synagogue massacre averted, terror cell revealed Three Israeli Arabs arrested over terror plots to carry out massacre at Akko synagogue, attacks in Jerusalem.
Three Israeli Arabs from the Galilee region were indicted on Wednesday over a plot to carry out a series of terror attacks in the northern city of Akko and Old City of Jerusalem.
Wednesday’s indictment of the terror cell not only revealed the group’s existence, but shed light on the terrorists’ gruesome plans, which were inspired by one of the worst terror attacks in recent years.
According to the indictment, Ali Sobeah, Ibrahim Shami, and Mahdi Basel had planned a major terror attack on Israeli security forces near Damascus Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem. Their plan included both stabbing attacks and automatic firearms.
The group allegedly was looking for higher casualty levels than other similar terror attacks, and when they failed to acquire submachine guns, the attack was called off.
Several days later the three met in a mosque in northern Israel to plan out other terror attacks, including a shooting attack on Israeli soldiers.
Over the course of the next few months, the terror cell considered a number of possible attacks involving knives and firearms. According to the indictment, the group aimed to cause a mass casualty event and then “die as martyrs”.
Eventually the cell settled on two attacks: first, to slaughter Jewish worshippers praying at an Akko synagogue in northern Israel, then attack soldiers either at a local military base or in the Old City of Jerusalem.
The planned attack on the Akko synagogue was reportedly influenced by the 2014 Har Nof Massacre, in which four worshippers and one police officer were slaughtered.
Hoping to finally acquire firearms for the planned attacks, the group planned to use money Mahdi would likely receive as gifts for his upcoming wedding.
The terror cell selected a synagogue on Ben Ami Street in Akko for the attack.
In March 2016 Ali Sobeah and Mahdi Basel purchased submachine guns, along with ammunition and extra magazines. In April the two were arrested by Israeli security forces, who had uncovered the terror cell and its plot against the Akko synagogue.
A Muslim terrorist stabbed four people at a train station near Munich while screaming, “Allahu Akbar”. In between proclaiming the glory of Allah, he also shouted that his victims were all “unbelievers”. A woman heard him say, “Infidel, you must die”.
The German authorities came to the inescapable conclusion that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Instead the Muslim terrorist had been “mentally ill” and was probably not even fit to stand trial. The Koran wasn’t to blame. It was the fault of his psychological problems.
This isn’t surprising. It’s a well known fact that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Instead there are just a lot of people out there, of Muslim origin, suffering from a unique set of psychological problems that cause them to shout Allahu Akbar while trying to kill people who aren’t Muslims.
This should not however be attributed to the notoriously peaceful religion of peace.
Just last week the FBI busted James Muhammad who had been plotting to shoot up a Florida synagogue for the “glory of Allah”. Muhammad explained that he wanted to murder the men, women and children praying at the synagogue because, “I have a lot of love for Allah”.
Not only did this minor story receive only a fraction of the attention devoted to the truly important news that a Muslim teenage girl had Isis written in her High School yearbook, but Muhammad’s lawyer insisted at a bail hearing that he isn’t a terrorist, just suffering from mental problems.
Much like Ahmed Ferhani, who plotted to bomb a New York synagogue a few years ago to, in his own words, “send a message of intimidation and coercion to the Jewish population of New York City.” Ferhani however wasn’t just a racist terrorist, he’s also a cause célèbre for The Nation which five years later continues to advocate on behalf of an aspiring anti-Semitic mass murderer. The latest report from the left-wing magazine breathlessly informs readers that prison guards are being mean to poor Ahmed and that he never really meant to kill any Jews, but was entrapped due to his “psychiatric problems”.
Muhammad and Ferhani join Shahawar Matin Siraj who was convicted of plotting to bomb the Herald Square subway station in New York. Siraj was an illegal alien who worked at a Muslim bookstore and boasted, “I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in one day.” His family and defenders claimed he had a low IQ. His co-defendant, James Elshafay, suffered from, you guessed it, psychological problems.
Matthew Aaron Llaneza converted to Islam and tried to blow up a bank in Oakland. His defenders blamed mental problems. Muslim ISIS supporter Emanuel Lutchman plotted a machete attack in Rochester last year. Despite his contacts with ISIS, the culprit once again was mental illness.
Sami Osmakac plotted to bomb Florida nightclubs. He recorded a “martyrdom” video issuing a call to “Muslims worldwide” to carry out terrorist attacks and avenge Osama bin Laden. He declared that the toenail of a sinning Muslim is worth more than all the non-Muslims in the world put together.
You’ll probably be surprised to hear that his lawyer blamed “mental illness” and claimed that his client had been “entrapped”. As has every Muslim terrorist ever for 1,400 years since Mohammed.
Mansour Arbabsiar was dispatched by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. His defense claimed that he was bipolar. His lawyer insisted that the fact that he had confessed to everything proved that he was mentally ill because his illness, “led him to believe that he could convince the agents to see things his way”. Him and every other criminal out there.
Even when Muslim terrorists don’t claim mental illness, the media is happy to plead it for them.
When Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre, Time and the New York Times suggested that he had somehow contracted PTSD from treating soldiers. In fact Hasan was a Muslim terrorist. No media outlet would stop claiming that he had PTSD long enough to read his letters in which he explained that he was a Jihadist, supported ISIS and killed American soldiers “for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers” and defending the “Islamic Empire”.
The defense for the surviving Tsarnaev terrorist who had carried out the Boston Marathon bombing went one better by blaming the “severe psychiatric disorders” of his parents. The Boston Globe, had interviewed psychologists to determine what possible “mental health conditions” he might have had.
Any mental condition will do when it comes to Muslim terrorists.
And the media never leaves any exculpatory stone unturned when it comes to finding a crazy excuse for a Muslim terrorist. The Los Angeles Times tried to find excuses for Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino Muslim killer, by claiming that he had grown up in a home “racked by mental illness”.
If a Muslim terrorist isn’t actually mentally ill, maybe one of his relatives was mentally ill. Or maybe, like Hasan, he once met someone who was mentally ill and got PTSD all over himself.
Internationally all Muslim terrorists are also mentally ill. Zehaf-Bibeau opened fire at the Canadian Parliament. Terror apologists claimed that he was mentally ill. In the UK, Muhaydin Mire tried to behead a man while shouting, “This is for Syria”. He had ISIS material on his phone and pictures of the Paris and San Bernardino shootings. His brother claimed that smoking pot had given him a “mental problem”. Sydney hostage taker Sheikh Man Haron Monis, who had become infamous for sending threats to the families of dead Australian soildiers, had his actions blamed on “mental instability.”
Michael Adebowale, one of the Jihadists who brutally beheaded British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street, also went the mental illness route.
In Russia, Muslim monster Gyulchekhra Bobokulova beheaded a 4-year-old girl and displayed her head in the street while shouting, “Allahu Akbar. I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead.” Faced with these bafflingly inscrutable statements, the authorities blamed mental illness.
It was the safe thing to do. It always is.
Mental illness requires nothing of us except horror. Islamic terrorism demands that we do something about it. And that’s the last thing that the authorities who helped make this mess want.
German authorities, like their American, Russian, Europe and Australian counterparts, don’t want to take on Muslim immigration. It’s much easier to shove some more money at mental health clinics.
And what is mental illness anyway?
In the West, the conviction that you must kill people in order to receive 72 virgins in paradise would be considered a mental illness. In Islam, it’s a mainstream belief. 89% of Pakistanis believe in genies. But then again genies are present in Islamic scripture. 89% of Tunisians believe in witchcraft. 72% of Iraqis believe in the “evil eye”. 1 in 5 Afghanis have witnessed an exorcism. Half of Pakistanis believe in fairies.
Saudi religious police have a special Anti-Witchcraft Unit and there are actual witch trials. Majorities of Muslims don’t believe that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks. 40% of Pakistanis believe that fathers have a right to kill their daughters if they engage in premarital sex. Half of British Muslims think that the Jews are in league with the Freemasons. A third believes that Princess Diana was murdered to stop her from marrying a Muslim.
Ideas and behaviors associated with mental illness in the West are mainstream in parts of the Muslim world which exist in a pre-rational medieval universe brimming with conspiracy theories, paranoid delusions, lack of personal responsibility, erratic emotions and an inability to apply reason to reality.
Western psychiatric benchmarks don’t mean much in the Muslim world where witchcraft is a major problem, Jewish conspiracy theories abound and genies are responsible for psychiatric problems. Killing your daughter or just non-Muslims in general is socially approved behavior. The Muslim world has fundamentally different social norms than we do. And that means very different concepts of sanity.
Misattributing Muslim terrorism to madness is convenient, but meaningless. It’s a way for us to avoid dealing with the difficult questions posed by Islam. And that avoidance is also a form of insanity.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is coming under pressure, as federal investigators question her top aides about the private email scandal that is haunting the former Secretary of State’s campaign for the presidency.
Clinton is still reeling from news that her former staffer Bryan Pagliano’s emails are not in the possession of the State Department. Pagliano, who installed Clinton’s private server, pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in the growing criminal investigation.
“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that cover the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” a State Department spokesman said Monday. Pagliano’s missing emails are raising transparency alarms among observers of the case.
“The whole thing stinks to high heaven,” said Dan Metcalfe, the founding director of the Office of Information and Privacy within the Department of Justice and onetime chief DOJ official for overseeing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matters.
As 147 FBI agents work on the investigation, Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills is feeling the heat. Mills and her attorney reportedly left her interrogation by the FBI, regrouped, and later came back when the FBI went off script. According to the Washington Post:
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said…
The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.
Clinton has yet to be called by investigators.
It’s now been nine months since Breitbart News broke the story that Clinton had multiple classified “Top Secret” emails on her private server, and that she had classified emails on her homebrew server that were classified when “originated.” As America waits to find out if the FBI will recommend indictment, and whether the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch will indict, the case against Clinton seemingly grows more solid.
The case hinges on whether or not Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1913 (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) by possessing national defense information and allowing it “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
Here are key pieces of evidence that could lead to a whole lot of trouble for Hillary Clinton:
Exhibit A: The Non-Secure BlackBerry
Hillary Clinton used a BlackBerry to send and receive classified emails during her time as Secretary of State, even though her device was so non-secure that she wasn’t even allowed to use it in her “Mahogany Row” offices on the seventh floor of the State Department.
Clinton did not get her BlackBerry from the Department. It appears that her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills actually did get their devices from the Department, but those devices were destroyed. The State Department testified in a civil court filing:
“[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department…
…Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.”
Now here’s where the BlackBerry issue really becomes important. Clinton was warned in 2009 to stop using her BlackBerry because her device suffered a security “vulnerability” when she visited East Asian countries, including China, on her first official State Department trip.
On March 11, 2009, a State Department official, whose name is redacted, sent an email to another State Department official, whose name is redacted. That email, obtained in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, might be the smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email case – at least as it pertains to Clinton possibly losing information due to “gross negligence.”
According to the official, Hillary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and asked him about BlackBerry use. Specifically, Clinton asked about the fact that the Department had “intelligence concerning the vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”
The official wrote:
After this mornings “management meeting” with the A/Secys, Secretary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and mentioned that she had read the IM and that she “gets it.” Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (DS) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.
Secretary Clinton has asked Ambassador Boswell for this information. Please prepare a short informal paper OR provide the A/Secy with a briefing on this matter. Your assistance is appreciated. The Secretary did not provide a “due date”…BUT the Ambassador would like to close this loop as soon as possible.
But Clinton continued to use her BlackBerry as late as 2011, two years after this warning, according to former State Department official Wendy Sherman. Sherman spoke Clinton’s BlackBerry use in a speech that was quietly recorded on video and released right before the Iowa caucus, which Clinton barely won over Bernie Sanders.
Exhibit B: White House Less Than Supportive
The Obama White House’s refusal to go to bat for Clinton publicly during this ordeal has been one of the most intriguing narratives of the election. Though President Obama helped her out a bit by saying that he didn’t think Clinton jeopardized national security, the Obama operatives who still remember the vicious 2008 primary season aren’t doing her any favors.
Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett dropped a relevant bombshell when she said that the White House sent official guidance to Clinton telling her to use a government email account. Clinton’s decision to ignore the White House’s warning does not bode well for her defense against the “gross negligence” portion of the Espionage Act.
Remember that brief, bizarre stretch of the campaign right around the February 1 Iowa caucus when Clinton was going out of her way to say nice things about Obama? That might not have been just a ploy to make her seem more electable than Bernie Sanders. It might have also been a ploy to protect her own legal interests by cozying up to a man with pardon power who oversees the Department of Justice.
Clinton confidante Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, sent Clinton a summer 2011 email with a spam link and the lines “Look what I’ve found” and “Here is a very nice offer. Enjoy!”
In her reply, Clinton indicated that she opened the spam link.
“Neera–did you send me this? If not, I think your email address book has been hacked. If so, why? Anyway, hope you’re well,” Clinton wrote back to Tanden.
On at least five documented occasions, Clinton received emails in her personal inbox that came from hackers, including hackers from Russia as part of a scheme in which victims’ personal data ended up getting sent to foreign computers including in Russia.
Here’s another very important piece of the puzzle: In September 2011, Clinton’s inbox was reviewed by outside IT professionals as part of a formal analysis of the security of her private email account. Those IT professionals found that Russian hackers had at least repeatedly attempted to get into Clinton’s information.
Why did Clinton have IT experts in to review her email account just weeks after Tanden sent her “hacked” email to Clinton?
One thing is clear: if those Russian hackers did gain entry to Clinton’s information, they would have had a field day. Why? It turns out Clinton’s server had an open webmail portal that gave potential hackers unrestricted access to Clinton’s personal information.
Exhibit D: She Avoided Signing Non-Disclosure Form
As Breitbart News exclusively reported, Hillary Clinton did NOT sign a mandatory OF-109 “Separation Statement” when she left the State Department.
That statement would have required her to affirm that she had returned all classified materials in her possession. Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills also avoided signing a separation statement.
Citizen researcher Larry Kawa provided to Breitbart News the most clear-cut evidence that Clinton avoided going through mandatory channels to return classified government information.
Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” on January 22, 2009. This document is known as an SF-312. It is standard for government employees to sign an SF-312 when they begin working in a role that gives them access to classified information. But she was also required to sign an OF-109, or “Separation Statement,” when she left the job.
That OF-109 document would have required her to affirm the following:
I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession. I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof…
But Clinton never signed an OF-109, even though the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual requires all employees to do so.
A Separation Statement exists for top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and a copy of it was quietly released by the State Department. But the statement was never signed, by Mills or anyone else.
It was left blank.
Exhibit E: The Clinton Foundation
Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s server was operating on the same email network, and was housed in the exact physical space, as the server for the Clinton Foundation, indicating that they were sharing a server. That space was in New York City, not in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home, as she claimed. Daughter Chelsea Clinton’s office was also using the email network.
Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the clintonemail.com server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.
No wonder then that the FBI expanded its investigation to scrutinize possible public corruption on the part of the Clinton Foundation. And no wonder then that Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the Clinton Foundation’s charitable status.
Exhibit F: Server Went Down Three Times
Clinton’s server went down at least three times during her tenure as secretary of state, including weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton never even told her own IT Help Desk at the State Department that she was using a private server, keeping them in the dark about her activities.
Furthermore, Clinton went so far as to hide the identity of the people running her private server, paying a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. That company, based in Jacksonville, enters its own meaningless contact information into official Internet databases so that its clients’ identities will not be exposed.
One of the most extraordinary things about Donald Trump’s primary victory in the Republican Party is that he received more votes from people identifying as Christian than his closest competitor Ted Cruz — the son of an evangelical pastor and one who profusely displayed his Christian identity in speech and temperament. In contrast, by standards that many believe to be the essence of Christian character as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, Donald Trump has been anything but meek, merciful, or peacemaking in his political rise. Some have likened him to a one-man wrecking ball. So what’s going on?
No one doubts that these are unusual times, with more forces pulling the United States down than at any other time in history. There is plenty of blame to go around for America’s spiraling state of decline, but at the top of the list are two things: First, we have had a culture captured and constrained by secular progressive political correctness. Second, we have an overbearing federal government that has corrupted both parties, the bureaucracies, and even the supposedly independent Federal Reserve.
At the grassroots, Republicans have tried to bring about a corrective, and they did succeed in getting many conservative reform candidates elected to congress in the last six years. Yet the stranglehold of political correctness and the corruption of Washington from special interests and lobbyists have proven insurmountable. Washington, DC — a metropolis producing very little with limited industry and almost no manufacturing — has become the richest city in the country, while driving the nation to the edge of financial ruin, as manifest in a national debt exceeding $19 trillion, 47 million people on food stamps, and a true unemployment rate that may be three times higher than the manipulated official rate released by the federal government.
Even as white Christians have diminished in their overall percentage of the population at large, according to the Pew Research Center, they still account for nearly seven in ten Americans who identify with, or lean toward, the Republican Party — about the same percentage as in the 1980s during the Reagan years. The problem is the GOP — despite its success in gaining majorities in both houses of Congress and controlling the power of the purse — has been ineffective as an opposition party during the Obama years.
The tipping point for many Christians came with a realization that the Republican Party was as incapable of protecting their rights and values at home as it was feckless in stopping an errant foreign policy that undermined trust with allies and emboldened enemies.
Two unnerving breaches of protection prompted many to recognize compelling qualities in Donald Trump over other candidates. First, he exuded an unapologetic toughness about building a wall and stopping the wave of illegal immigrants flooding over the Mexican border. Second, he was unequivocal about obliterating ISIS quickly and decisively — ending its wanton slaughter of Christians and other ethnic groups. And bridging both of these issues, in the aftermath of ISIS-inspired attacks in San Bernardino and Brussels, Trump unhesitatingly opposed Obama’s wish to take in undocumented Syrian refugees, “until we figure out what the hell is going on.” In that alone in the eyes of the majority, Trump demonstrated he was presidential, putting the protection of Americans as the top priority.
Political correctness and intolerance, which debilitates critical thinking, discourse and debate, has been shaping American culture for more than a generation. Throughout the seven plus years of the Obama administration, political correctness has driven domestic and foreign policy — with disastrous results. Obama has gone beyond anyone in recent memory in assaulting the First Amendment, undermining both speech and the exercise of Christian religion. We now see among liberals and secular progressives operating in the Democrat Party an Orwellian power structure that seeks to advance a statist, socialist and globalist transformation of the U.S. by silencing opposing views through the courts, misinformation, and distortion of the truth. Call it “newspeak” as Orwell did or the successor term “doublespeak,” its purpose is the same: to shape the masses thinking and obfuscate what is really going down.
Political correctness has not only prevented development of an effective strategy to deal with Islamist terrorism. It has turned U.S. relations in the Middle East upside down. The Obama administration celebrated the ouster and replacement of Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak, a long-standing U.S. ally, with Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi. A similar glee was initially expressed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the news of Muammar Gaddafi being hunted down and killed, only to be followed by increased mayhem in Libya, leading to the tragedy and humiliation of the U.S. at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.
But for many Christians, the bridge too far was Obama’s rebuke of Israel and his end run around the U.S. Congress, in forcing through a fundamentally flawed nuclear deal with Iran. Iran is both the top exporter of hate and the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism whose longstanding primary targets are the United States (often referred to as the “big Satan”), and Israel (the “little Satan”).
Everyone recognizes that Donald Trump is a flawed candidate. His Christian supporters certainly know this as well or better than his critics. But they also recognize that sinners are all that there are to choose from and that America’s precarious position at home and abroad requires an unconventional leader with unusual characteristics — some of which may not be aligned with a stereotypical Christian temperament.
One thing few could disagree with is that Trump deserves credit more than any conservative for fracturing the foundation of political correctness, upon which rests the entire liberal superstructure.
In fact, conventional conservatives may have reached a limit in expanding their audience. In contrast, it appears to be harvest time for Trump. His style of common sense plain talk has the potential to make huge inroads into both independent and liberal constituencies who are just now waking up to the absurdities of political correctness. While many still can’t see clearly, the fog is lifting, and the soul, spontaneity and humor of America is making an incipient revival, even in the midst of rancor.
If one can get past the braggadocio, narcissism and other negatives of Trump’s character, on the positive side he exudes confidence, ambition and a keenness to make good deals, get results and win. He is bold, direct and doesn’t shy away from confrontation. Mr. Trump is quite social and clearly likes to entertain, but he is also tough as nails, unrelenting and unpredictable with adversaries. He is unquestionably and refreshingly patriotic.
It turns out that some of these qualities are among those most vital to rebuilding relations with America’s allies and restoring respect — even fear — from adversaries. Mr. Trump’s irectness also suggests he is the best-suited presidential candidate to take on America’s greatest threat — insolvency. He could break the cycle of denial that completely engulfs the Democrat Party, and has hitherto prevented predecessors from doing much of anything regarding the nation’s out-of-control spending, deficits and unsustainable debt. Additionally, Trump’s toughness may be the key virtue needed to rule in a divided country and to successfully downsize and restructure federal agencies and get Washington out of the way of the American economy and its people.
Although the GOP believes it has a big tent, understandably many party members with well-established positions and values have great difficulty in accepting for the highest office in the land a newcomer candidate as fundamentally different as Donald Trump. To them I would say, unusual times with threats on every front at home and abroad call for an unconventional candidate. And it’s not so hard after all to recognize qualities in Donald Trump that make him in certain ways uniquely well-suited for our times.
Obama’s CENTCOM is cooking the data to make it appear as if we’re defeating ISIS when in fact we aren’t. It’s cynical and thoroughly politically motivated: the administration wants to make it seem as if it’s doing something against terrorism so that Hillary can get elected and the gravy train can continue. When the courageous Carolyn Stewart spoke up, she was fired. The entire treasonous CENTCOM brass and the Obama administration as a whole needs to be fired.
“She Spoke Up About Cooked ISIS Intel. They Booted Her—for Cursing,” by Nancy A. Youssef, Daily Beast, May 9, 2016:
TAMPA, Florida — She worked on and off for five years identifying targets for the U.S. military’s Central Command.
And then, when, some believe, she spoke up about cherry-picked intelligence in the ISIS war, she was drummed out of her job—allegedly for cursing twice in the span of the year.
Those were just some of the surreal allegations thrown around last week in a Tampa law office conference room turned into a quasi-courtroom.
Had the case not involved the third-highest ranking person at the Defense Intelligence Agency, a two-star general, a military judge, and hours of testimony—all at a cost of thousands of dollars—it would have been hard to take seriously. Even with those high-ranking officials, at times it was hard not to do a double-take about what was happening.
After all, if cursing were really a fireable offense in the military, every soldier, sailor, Marine, and Defense Department civilian would have to be sent home.
The case suggested that, at CENTCOM, there are two wars being waged: one against ISIS and a separate internal fight between whistleblowers and commanders. This all came to the fore during a rare public hearing last Wednesday before the government appeals board, brought by a subordinate of Gregory Ryckman, the top-ranking civilian at CENTCOM’s Joint Intelligence office, known as the J2.
The woman at the center of the case makes a now-familiar allegation: that the same military officials who cherry-picked information about the ISIS war and downplayed the terror group’s rising threat also selectively picked information about her. The Pentagon inspector general now is investigating whether CENTCOM officials, including Ryckman, watered down assessments on the rising jihadist threat to comport with the White House.
The woman at the center of the controversy in this case, Carolyn Stewart, is a small person with a big voice. The Army veteran seemingly is demure at first glance, with shoulder-length light brown hair. But as soon as she speaks, it is clear she is not afraid to say exactly what she thinks.
She repeatedly prodded her lawyer throughout the day-long hearing about which questions to ask, which evidence to present, and which details to point out in her favor.
The hearing was a window into how allegations of toxic work environments, faulty reports, and bad leadership consumed the office tasked with leading CENTCOM’s intelligence gathering. At issue during the hours-long hearing was whether Stewart cursed at CENTCOM, and if she did curse, whether that created a hostile work environment.
“I went to other action officers to avoid Ms. Stewart,” one witness explained to the judge, in support of the decision to reassign her.
The hearing, held through a teleconference connecting DIA lawyers in Washington with a judge in Atlanta and the complainant in Tampa, had all the markings of a proper trial. Someone wore a robe and lawyers yelled out objections.
But one couldn’t help thinking it was like an episode of The Office. Those charged with helping target ISIS terrorists were instead obsessed with things like who “bitched out” whom. The government claimed she said it to another woman. Another witnesses said someone else said those words to Stewart.
It is worth noting that such debates were occupying a command post tasked with leading the war on ISIS. And yet the key issue of the time was how precisely Stewart handled a colleague telling her he would not adjust a target order.
“Did she toss the papers down or did she place them down?” a government lawyer asked a witness.
In the midst of the war against ISIS, the highest-ranking general in charge of intelligence gathering sat for hours waiting in a Tampa law office to testify for all of 15 minutes. The Defense Intelligence Agency chief of staff, the third-highest ranking member of that office, testified for hours over why she decided that a few curses could not be tolerated in an office that helped determine which suspected ISIS members should be targeted for death from above….
WASHINGTON — Reporter Kate C sat down for an exclusive interview with White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest to get straight answers on U.S. involvement in Iraq.
Kate C: Thank you for sitting down with us today, Press Secretary Joshua Earnest.
Joshua Ernest: Please, call me Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
KC: Sure thing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest. Three U.S. troops have died in Iraq since 2014, the most recent being Navy SEAL Charles Keating IV in a firefight.
PSJE: Yes, terrible news for us here. Oh, and for everyone of course.
KC: But at Tuesday’s press conference you said U.S. troops “do not have a combat mission” in Iraq. Could you clarify “combat mission?”
PSJE: Excellent question. You’ll notice I use “quotation marks” a lot with my “hands” for this interview, but don’t pay too much “attention” to that.
KC: Got it. So the mission —
PSJE: You have to understand that “combat” and “mission” are just two words from a dictionary. What do they “really” mean? What are words even? Hard to say.
PSJE: I like your use of “hand quotes” at the end there. See how it really looks like quotation “marks”?
KC: The definition of combat —
PSJE: My hands have been tied — I mean dry — lately so I use Aveeno “Active Naturals” in “Lavender.”
KC: Um, ok. Let’s move on to the number of “boots on the ground” in Iraq. President Obama announced a troop cap of 3,870 and this April it was raised to 4,087, but there are an estimated 5,000 there now, not including contractors.
PSJE: I’ve actually been working on a “flow chart” for this one.
KC: I’m not sure you’re supposed to be showing anyone that.
PSJE: Look, it’s better to keep things murky until a major “news” paper makes a fuss about it. Discretion keeps our troops “safe” and the “enemy” on their “toes”. You want our troops “safe” don’t you?
KC: I’m not sure what’s happening right now, and I am actually more confused about U.S. involvement in Iraq than before this interview started. But thank you for your time?
In Manchester, England, police staged a mock suicide bombing attack at a shopping center as part of a training exercise. The pretend bomber yelled “Alluhu Akbar” just before he detonated his mock explosives–a touch of verisimilitude appropriate to the exercise. But it prompted a complaint, followed by an apology:
Police in Manchester, England has issued an apology, after a suicide bombing “simulation” which involved an actor shouting the Islamic phrase “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater) before detonating mock explosives.
The simulated terror attack was held at one of the UK’s largest shopping centers, the Old Trafford Centre, and was part of a counter-terrorism training drill preparing for a possible Paris-style assault by jihadist terrorists.
However, police later apologized for “linking Islam” with terrorism.
The drill had been criticized by some politicians and Muslim activists, including The Community Safety Forum, an anti-Islamophobia organization.
“This sort of thing panders to stereotypes and further divides us. It will increase anti-Muslim hate crime,” the group claimed.
Anti-Muslim hate crimes being, of course, the issue that is currently roiling Europe. Here is the Manchester Police Department’s statement:
“For the past 24 hours, GMP (Greater Manchester Police), along with other agencies, has been hosting a counter-terrorism training exercise based at the Trafford Centre, which began with a mock suicide bomber detonating a bomb inside the shopping centre,” police spokesman Gary Shewan said.
“It is a necessity for agencies, including the police, to train and prepare using exercises such as this, so that we would be in the best possible position to respond in the event that the unthinkable happened and an attack took place.”
“The scenario for this exercise is based on a suicide attack by an extremist Daesh-style organisation,” he continued, using the Arabic term for the ISIS terrorist group, “and the scenario writers have centred the circumstances around previous similar attacks of this nature, mirroring details of past events to make the situation as real life as possible for all of those involved.
“However, on reflection, we acknowledge that it was unacceptable to use this religious phrase immediately before the mock suicide bombing, which so vocally linked this exercise with Islam. We recognise and apologise for the offence that this has caused.”
“Linking” Islamic terrorism to Islam is now an offense punishable by career derailment.
So, what is the actor carrying out a mock suicide bombing supposed to yell before he pulls the cord? Excelsior? Geronimo? (No, wait, never mind.) Take that, you Limeys? I suppose he had best maintain a discreet silence.
Reality eventually intrudes:
Also on Tuesday, Italian police revealed that two Afghan nationals arrested in the southern Italian city of Bari were part of an Islamist terror cell linked to ISIS, which was plotting attacks in both Italy and Britain.
Three other cell members are still at large, two of whom are believed to have returned to Afghanistan.
Fortunately, the terror attacks planned by this stall have been forestalled, at least for now. But if they had been carried out, you can be sure they would have been preceded by cries of “Allahu Akbar.”
Marwan Barghouti mural on security barrier Kobi Gideon/Flash 90
The wife of arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti has revealed that European MPs and political parties support her husband’s candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize, and will soon come out and publicly express their position of support for him.
Fadwa Barghouti, the wife of the senior terrorist from Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah party who is serving five life sentences in Israel, welcomed her husband’s Nobel Prize candidacy in an interview with the Turkish Anadolu news agency.
She praised the Arab League support for his candidacy, which was submitted in early March by Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina, who won the Nobel Prize back in 1980 for his human rights work.
According to Fadwa Barghouti the very submission of her husband’s candidacy for the prize gives a message to the world that the “struggle” of the Palestinians is legitimate, and that Barghouti is a symbol of a legitimate “struggle” and not a symbol of terror.
Her talk of a European campaign of support comes after Labour party head Jeremy Corbyn – whose party is in the midst of a massive anti-Semitism scandal – was revealed in early May as having glorified Barghouti as an “icon,” comparing him to Nelson Mandela of South Africa.
Barghouti was convicted of organizing numerous terror attacks against Israeli civilians, and was sentenced to five life sentences in 2002 for his leading role in planning suicide bombings during the 2000 Second Intifada or Oslo War.
Those life sentences stem from his conviction on five murders – Yoela Hen (45), Eli Dahan (53), Yosef Habi (52), Police officer Sgt. Maj. Salim Barakat (33) and Greek monk Tsibouktsakis Germanus.
The arch-terrorist is considered one of the founders of Tanzim, one of Fatah’s armed terrorist factions. Numerous Israeli civilians were murdered by Tanzim terrorists under Barghouti’s reign, although he was not tried for those murders.
As outrageous as Barghouti’s candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize may be, it is not the first time an arch-terrorist has been considered for, or indeed awarded, the prize.
Yasser Arafat, the founder of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and an arch-terrorist responsible for the murder of hundreds of Israelis, was given the prize together with then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after the 1994 Oslo Accords.
Recent Nobel Peace Prize candidates were US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif for their work forming the controversial nuclear deal – which reportedly has already sparked a regional nuclear race. Kerry and Zarif ended up being snubbed by the prize committee.
US President Barack Obama won the award in 2009 after less than a year in office, and before having taken any concrete steps in his post that would have possibly warranted the more than $1 million prize.
Geir Lundestad, former Director of the Nobel Institute for 25 years, said last September that giving Obama the award was a mistake.
The new Muslim mayor of London has issued a warning to Donald Trump: Moderate your stance on Muslims, or they will launch more attacks against America.
Trump recently praised Sadiq Khan for winning London’s mayoral race, and said he would be willing to create an exception in his policy restricting Muslim entry into the United States in order to allow Khan to visit. But in a statement Tuesday, Khan dismissed Trump’s invitation, and also denounced his views on Islam as “ignorant,” suggesting Trump’s policies would increase the terrorist threat in both the U.S. and
“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”
While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.
Editor’s Note: The National Interest and the Heritage Foundation have partnered for a multi-part occasional series examining various aspects of the Iran nuclear agreement. The below is part four of the series. You can read previous parts here: one, two and three.
Last summer’s Iran nuclear deal has been roundly criticized for a number of solid reasons, ranging from Tehran’s ability under the deal to continue advanced centrifuge research to lingering questions about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.
That’s all well established.
One issue that has been largely ignored—wittingly or unwittingly—is this: What if Iran were able to find a suitable partner to collude with on an ‘‘underground” nuclear weapons program, all while seemingly staying within the restrictions of the July 2015 nuclear deal?
In other words, Tehran could by all public accounts adhere to the P5+1’s (China, France, Germany/European Union, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But concurrently, Iran could work clandestinely with another country to advance its nuclear weapons program, essentially circumventing the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspections and monitoring of the nuclear program inside Iran.
What better candidate for covert cooperation than cagey North Korea?
First, there’s no doubt that North Korea has a nuclear weapons capability. It has conducted four—maybe soon five—tests (2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016), possibly using both plutonium and uranium as fissile material.
Next, some analysts believe Pyongyang may have already “miniaturized” or “weaponized” the underground testing device into a nuclear warhead, capable of being mated to a ballistic missile. Even if North Korea hasn’t achieved it yet, it’s working on it.
Pyongyang has also expanded its missile testing beyond land-based launches. It now has conducted at least two subsurface ballistic missile tests that may also be related eventually to its nuclear weapons program. Clearly, these North Korean capabilities—though not all proven—would benefit an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Also important is that Pyongyang seems willing to share its nuclear know-how with others, as evidenced by its building of a nuclear facility for Damascus that was destroyed in an Israeli air strike in 2007. Though public evidence is scarce and, if available, gauzy, it’s quite reasonable to conclude with some confidence that Pyongyang and Tehran already have some sort of established security or defense relationship. For instance, in 2012, Iran and North Korea reportedly signed a science and technology (S&T) agreement. It’s fair to assume that any cooperation is defense-related.
Indeed, considering the sorry state of their respective economies, research and industrial bases, it’s hard to conceive of what sort of civilian S&T Pyongyang might offer Tehran—and vice versa, of course.
Lending credence to this idea is the report that, at the time of the S&T agreement’s signing, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, spoke of how Tehran and Pyongyang had “common enemies.” The United States quickly—and clearly—comes to mind.
The idea of collaboration should come as no real surprise, as it’s seemingly well-known that the Iran and North Korea are reported to have been cooperating at some level on ballistic missiles going back to at least the late 1990s. For instance, it’s long been asserted that some Iranian ballistic missiles (e.g., the Shahab) are based on North Korean ballistic-missile technology (e.g., the Nodong) or transfers (e.g., the Scud).
Equally alarming is the New York Times report suggesting that the 2013 North Korean nuclear test may have been conducted “for two countries.” That notion was raised by unattributed U.S. government sources and gives support to concerns that Pyongyang and Tehran may be cooperating on more than ballistic missiles. This wouldn’t be the first time such an allegation has been leveled at Tehran and Pyongyang informally, but perhaps the first time it’s been acknowledged by Washington, taking into account a source not willing to be identified.
Of course, the situation has changed dramatically with the JCPOA now in force. Iran now has more than a passing interest in moving forward with its nuclear weapons program—especially considering the evolving regional security situation—without losing the benefits that the agreement provides, such as the removing of crippling economic sanctions. From Iran’s perspective, the need for “nuclear networking” with North Korea is greater than ever.
Of course, it’s not just Tehran that is in need. Pyongyang is also needy for its own reasons, such as its self-imposed, collectivist economic woes and the increasing international economic sanctions it faces over nuclear and missile tests.
In addition, North Korea could use some technical assistance with its space launch program, where Iran is arguably more advanced, but which is integral—and critical—to Pyongyang’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program.
Lastly, both countries despise the United States and some of its allies (e.g., South Korea and Israel). Accordingly, Iran and North Korea would benefit from the existence of another state that threatens America with nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
In other words, there’s plenty of political and military motivation for these two rogue states to get together on nuclear and/or missile matters, arguably even more so today than last summer, before the JCPOA came into effect.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments