FULL: Donald Trump at Morning Joe, May 20, 2016- ‘Would you consider Sanders as your running mate?’ May 20, 2016
(Spoiler alert: The question about Sanders as Trump’s VP choice comes at the tail end of the interview, and Trump’s answer was that Sanders should run as an independent. The interview is wide-ranging and deals with foreign policy, China, Mexico, the Islamist threat, the terrorist attack on EgyptAir and a bunch of other stuff. — DM)
Dems Seek Quicker Admission of Syrian Refugees Despite Terrorism Concerns, Washington Free Beacon, Natalie Johnson, May 18, 2016
Syrian refugee family in eastern Lebanese town / AP
Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Obama Wednesday pressing the administration to accelerate the admission process for Syrian refugees to settle in the United States.
Obama vowed last year that the U.S. would resettle up to 10,000 individuals seeking haven from the Syrian civil before September, but according to Reuters only 1,736 refugees have been admitted.
27 senators, including the No. 2 Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I, Vt.), signed the letter urging the Obama administration to “devote the necessary resources to expeditiously and safely resettle Refugees from Syria.”
“We are deeply concerned about the slow pace of admissions for Syrian refugees in the first seven months of the fiscal year,” the senators wrote in the letter obtained by Reuters.
The letter arrived three weeks after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the Islamic State terrorist group has “taken advantage” of the migrant crisis in Europe, advising E.U. nations to maintain awareness.
One of the suicide bombers who conspired in the November Paris attacks that killed 130 people entered Greece using a fake Syrian passport posing as a refugee. He then traveled the same route fleeing migrants use to make his way into Western Europe.
The revelations have ignited criticism from Republicans who contend that the president’s plan would lead to similar attacks in the U.S. without a stringent vetting process in place.
More than 30 governors have called on the U.S. to halt the refugee resettlement program and have tried implementing restrictions to prevent them from entering their states. Only one of those states was home to a Democratic governor.
The Democratic signatories demanded in their letter that the administration provide specific details as to how the nation would carry through on its vow to resettle the remaining 8,264 Syrians during the next five months.
“Other nations, including ours, can and should do much more,” the senators wrote.
The U.S. has so far resettled more than 6,000 refugees from Myanmar and more than 5,000 from Iraq.
Only Islam Can Save Us From Islam, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 18, 2016
In the Washington Post, Petraeus complained about the “inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam.” The former general warned that restricting Muslim immigration would “undermine our ability to defeat Islamist extremists by alienating and undermining the allies whose help we most need to win this fight: namely, Muslims.”
At Rutgers, Obama claimed that restricting Muslim immigration “would alienate the very communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism.”
If we alienate Muslims, who is going to help us fight Muslim terrorism?
You can see why Obama doesn’t mention Islamic terrorism in any way, shape or form. Once you drop the “I” word, then the argument is that you need Islam to fight Islam. And Muslims to fight Muslims.
This is bad enough in the Muslim world where we are told that we have to ally with the “moderate” Muslim governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fight the Muslim terrorists whom they sponsor.
Petraeus has troublingly close ties to the Saudis. He defended their oil dumping program, praised the role of Islamic law in fighting Islamic terrorism and endorsed their Syria plans. While defending the Saudis as allies, he blamed Israel for America’s problems with the Muslim world. The narrative he was using there was the traditional Saudi one in which Israel, not Islam, is the source of the friction.
He defended Pakistan as an ally and claimed to believe the Pakistani excuses that they did not know Osama bin Laden was living right in their military center and that they really wanted to fight the Taliban.
Obama’s “partners” against “violent extremism” have included Muslim Brotherhood terror supporters at home and abroad. He backed Al Qaeda’s LIFG in Libya, Iran’s Shiite terror militias in Iraq, Al Qaeda allies in Syria and those are just a few of the worst examples of his partners against extremism.
Petraeus and Obama view terrorists and state sponsors of terror as important allies. Their policies have led to multiple terrorist attacks against Americans. And they still insist that we need Islamic terrorists as allies to protect us from Islamic terrorists. We need moderate theocrats to protect us from extremist theocrats. We need the Saudis and Pakistanis to save us from the terrorists whom they arm and fund.
But it’s Muslim immigration where their argument really shines.
The United States faces a terror threat because a certain percentage of the Muslim population will kill Americans. Every increase in the Muslim population also increases the number of potential terrorists. Muslim immigration increases the terrorism risk to Americans every single year.
These are undeniable facts.
When you’re in a hole, stop digging. Muslim populations are a hole. Immigration is the shovel. Dig deep enough and you’re six feet under.
Even if the mainstream narrative about a moderate majority and extremist minority were true, how could the cost of Islamic terrorism justify the expansion of even moderate Muslim communities?
9/11 cost us $3.3 trillion, over 10,000 dead, a national loss of privacy and traumas inflicted on millions. What could any number of moderate Muslims possibly contribute to outweigh all that? If it were a debt, it would take a thousand years to even begin balancing out those scales. And instead of trying to make amends, Muslim groups like CAIR and ISNA have waged a relentless campaign to undermine national security and defame Americans. They have refused to cooperate with law enforcement, defended terrorists and denounced America. These are our “moderate” partners.
But the Obama/Petraeus narrative about needing partners in Muslim communities in America implicitly concedes that Muslim communities at home, like the Saudis and Pakistanis abroad, create environments in which Islamic terrorists can safely operate. They admit the existence of Islamic no-go zones where the FBI and local law enforcement are ineffective so that we have to treat parts of Michigan or New Jersey like Pakistan or Iraq, trying to work with untrustworthy allies to gain intelligence on enemy territory.
We have to work with CAIR or ISNA, the way we do with the Saudis or Pakistanis, even though they’re untrustworthy, because they’re all we have in parts of America that have become enemy territory.
This argument is terrible enough in the Middle East. But it’s horrifying in the Midwest.
It’s bad enough that we sign off on “partners” who finance terrorists and then pretend to fight them in Syria or Afghanistan, do we really want to be doing this in Illinois or California?
The real problem, as Obama and Petraeus indirectly concede, is that Muslim communities create an ideal environment for Muslim terrorists. The last thing that we should be doing is building them up.
Even if Muslim communities were an asset, the Obama/Petraeus narrative is that they benefit us by helping us deal with the problems that they cause. The obvious question would be to wonder why we need them in the first place to help us cope with a problem that wouldn’t exist without them.
Obama insists that we need Muslim immigration so that Muslims will help us fight Muslim terror. But if we didn’t have Muslim immigration, we wouldn’t need Muslims to help us fight Muslim terrorism.
Muslim immigration isn’t a solution. It’s a problem posing as a solution. And we are told that we need to make the problem bigger in order to solve it. Muslim immigration has yet to reduce terrorism in any country. The increase in Muslim populations has not made Europe any safer. On the contrary, it has increased the risk of terrorism. The same is also true in Africa, Asia and across the Middle East.
The plan to reduce the risk of terrorism by increasing the Muslim population has failed around the world. Nor has it ever worked in the United States. What are the odds that it suddenly will now?
Building a counterterrorism strategy around creating more terrorism is not a strategy, it’s a suicide mission. Using Muslim immigration to fix a terrorism problem caused by Muslim immigration is like drilling a hole in a boat and then trying to plug it with water. Europe is sinking and if we don’t stop importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, we’ll be facing the same problems that Europe does.
“It is precisely because the danger of Islamist extremism is so great that politicians here and abroad who toy with anti-Muslim bigotry must consider the effects of their rhetoric,” Petraeus insists. It’s a compelling argument, but not in the way that he thinks it is.
If Muslims can’t handle the full spectrum of argument, debate and namecalling that is a part of life in a free country without turning homicidal, then something has to go. According to Petraeus, it’s freedom of speech. According to others, it’s Muslim migration. Americans will have to decide whether they would rather have freedom of speech or Muslim immigration. Because even the advocates for Muslim migration are increasingly willing to admit that we can’t have both. The choice is ours.
Either we can hope that Islam will save us from Islam. And that Muslims will protect us from other Muslims. Or we can try to protect ourselves and save our lives and our freedoms from Islam.
American Homegrown ‘Violent Extremists’ All Linked to Islamists, Clarion Project, May 15, 2016
Map showing violent extremists in the U.S. from the recent report by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness
[T]he Washington Free Beacon states, “Congressional attempts to investigate the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals snagged on terror charges since 2014 have been stymied by the Obama administration. There remain at least 1,000 open investigations into ISIS members residing in the United States.”
**********************
Amid the unprecedented rise in foiled terrorist attacks in the United States, a recent report found at least 75 “homegrown violent extremists” were operating across the U.S. in 2015. Of those extremists, nearly half tried to travel overseas – presumably to join terror groups – but only four percent succeeded.
Close to one third were found to be plotting terrorist attacks in the United States and were caught either before or after executing the attack.
Figures issued by New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness show that 65 of these extremist were affiliated with the Islamic State, while the rest were linked to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Nusra Front, or other Islamic extremist groups and ideologies.
In addition, the New Jersey agency reported radicalized extremists were able to enter, operate and thrive in the U.S.
“In 2015, [homegrown violent extremists] demonstrated an ability to operate in New Jersey and throughout the United States while connecting with like-minded individuals online and acting independently from organized terrorist groups,” security officials said. “Since late 2014, a variety of radical groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have encouraged [extremists] to attack in their home countries.”
Extremists were found be operating particularly up and down the East Coast as well as in Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alabama, Kansas, Texas and southern California.
Commenting on the report, the Washington Free Beacon states, “Congressional attempts to investigate the immigration histories of at least 113 foreign-born individuals snagged on terror charges since 2014 have been stymied by the Obama administration. There remain at least 1,000 open investigations into ISIS members residing in the United States.”
In other news, a former member of the 9/11 Commission that investigated the most lethal terrorist attack in the history of the U.S. said that, contrary to the official report, a classified section said six Saudi individuals may have been involved in the attack.
John Lehman, the former commission member, revealed that one of the Saudis involved is a man who worked at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California (near Los Angeles).
Lehman, along with former federal prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste called for a new investigation and the release of the 28 pages of classified documents from the original investigation.
Op-Ed: Trump versus the Muslim mayor of London, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, May 13, 2016
First the good news about Sadiq Khan. In his first act as London’s newly elected Muslim mayor he attended a Holocaust memorial service.
Terrific.
Next we hear that he plans a trip to Israel. This is still good. But after that, and even before that, the news is not so good.
He says that if Trump is elected he won’t come to the United States. (Ain’t that a shame.)
Then he says that if Muslims will be prevented, or limited, from entering the United States there will be consequences. Expect Islamic violence.
If other words, we’re asking for it if we don’t elect someone entirely favorable to the Muslim world. This, of course, excludes Trump and favors Hillary.
But this…
We get Muslim violence regardless who is president, don’t we? We got 9/11 while George W. Bush was in office. Trump was nowhere in sight.
We got Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, San Bernardino and other acts of Muslim violence while Obama was in office and no one’s been more favorable to the Muslim cause than Obama – except maybe LBJ. Back in 1965, LBJ signed into law the (Hart-Celler) Immigration and Naturalization Act that opened America’s doors wide open for Muslims.
Trump was nowhere to be seen when a Muslim Palestinian Arab, Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy in 1968.
LBJ was president and we already know that LBJ’s heart was in the right place for Islam.
So why Trump, when it’s Mayor Khan who should be in the hot seat. The day after he was declared the winner, buses in London were driving along with signs declaring “Glory to Allah” and we imagine that Hamas were handing out candy in Gaza and likewise the PA in Ramallah.
Where – Trump might ask Mayor Khan – yes where is the Jewish mayor of Islamabad?
Or where is the Christian mayor anywhere in Pakistan, Mayor Khan’s ancestral home?
Let me answer – that’ll be the day.
So while the West celebrates itself for being so elaborately diverse, don’t even dream about diversity anywhere along the world’s 57 Islamic states.
Don’t plan on “Glory to Tolerance” buses running through the Maelbeek neighborhood of Brussels.
Only Western Democracies, like Britain, like the United States, like Israel, are expected to extend hospitality and equality – and we do.
In Israel, the Muslim population numbers more than one and a half million and these Palestinian Arab citizens enjoy full and equal rights.
The number for London alone is about 600,000 – “Glory to Allah.” Except that here’s another question from Trump to Khan.
What about the rape epidemic that’s been sweeping parts of London throughout the years?
Khan needs to answer for his Pakistani countrymen who are alleged to be the dominant assailants against thousands of British women and girls.
No wonder, then, that Trump keeps calling for a pause on migrating Syrian refugees.
Altogether, Trump says, we need to think twice about a Muslim influx. He’s appointing Mayor Rudy Giuliani to study the situation.
Mayor Khan may turn out to be an okay guy.
But he’s no Mayor Rudy, who can still smell the burning flesh from what they came and did to us on 9/11.
All Muslim Terrorists are Crazy, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, May 11, 2016
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.
(Does Al-Zawahiri show strength or weakness? — DM)
The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.
On May 8, 2016, Al-Qaeda issued a new audio message from its leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, after several month of silence. In the message, Al-Zawahiri calls on the jihad groups in Syria to unite because this is a matter of life and death for them. He urges the Muslims of Syria to reject the initiatives of Saudi Arabia and its allies in the region, and assures them that the jihadis will defeat “the Eastern and Western Crusaders war machine” – i.e., both Russia and America – as well as their allies, the Syrian regime and Iran. Addressing the relationship between Al-Qaeda and its affiliate in Syria, Jabhat Al-Nusra (JN), he hints that the ties between them are strong and that they should remain so, for the world will not accept JN as legitimate in any case, unless it completely changes its nature to suit the superpowers.
The following are excerpts from the message:
“Syria today is the hope of the Islamic nation, for [its revolution] is the only Arab Spring revolution that is taking the correct path – the path of da’wa and jihad for the sake of strengthening the shar’ia and enacting [its laws], and for the sake of striving to establish a righteous caliphate, not the caliphate of Ibrahim Al-Badri [i.e., Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi]…
“This is why the world’s arch-criminals [i.e., the superpowers and the international community] have come together to prevent the establishment of a jihadi state in Syria… and have hatched [various] plots and [exerted various] pressures… However, Allah willed it that there should remain one jihad-fighting group [i.e., JN and its allies], comprising the best of theansar [local fighters] and muhajiroun [foreign fighters], which cleaves to the truth and does not stray from it. The Muslims in Syria rallied around this group, seeing the difference between its correct path and the false path of the extremist Khawarij, the new takfiris [i.e., ISIS]…
“My brothers the mujahideen everywhere, our duty today is to defend the jihad in Syria against the plots being hatched against it, plots which are directed by the pampered daughter of Britain and proxy of the U.S., the state of the Sa’ud [royal] family [namely Saudi Arabia] and its lackeys in the region. The aim of all these plots is to establish a regime in Syria that will present itself as Islamic but will be based on a false Islam that coexists in harmony with secularism and with the concept of the nation-state, with extremist nationalism and with the regime of the international arch-criminals. [This regime] will sacrifice the lives of the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets to call out the natural slogan: ‘[the Prophet] Muhammad is our commander and our lord forever.’
“The greatest problem facing the world order and our apostate leaders and their governments [today] is that the mujahideen in Syria are standing on the borders of Palestine and threatening what they call ‘the state of Israel,’ [which is actually] the 51st American state and the largest military base outside America. Therefore, these criminals are compelled to cooperate in order to fight this jihad, kill it while it is still small, and divert it from its path [towards the path] of nationalism, secularism and capitulation to the world order of [these] arch-criminals. This is why they hatch one plot after another: Geneva, Riyadh, ceasefires, resolutions by the arch-criminals’ Security Council– an endless series of deceptions, lies and duplicities.
“Our duty today is to support the jihad in Syria with all our might and rally around it, all of us, [both] light and heavy.[1]Our duty today is to call for unity among the muhajideen in Syria until it is liberated from the secularist Nusairi [i.e., Alawite] regime, its partners, the rawafid Safavis [i.e., Shi’ite Persians, referring to Iran], and their allies, the Russians and the Western Crusaders – until a righteous, jihadi Islamic entity is established in this land.
“My brothers the mujahideen in Syria, who come from all over the world, today unity is a matter of life and death for you. You can unite and live a life of honor, or you can stay divided and be devoured, one by one.”
Al-Zawahiri then moves on to address the issue of the organizational ties between Al-Qaeda and JN: “There remains an open question that is dealt with extensively in an attempt to distract the Muslims in Syria from their true enemies, namely [the question of] the ties between Al-Qaeda and the dear, honorable and glorious Jabhat Al-Nusra, with whom we are proud to have relations and pray to Allah that he enhance its success and steadfastness. Let me say briefly and clearly: We have said time and again that, if and when the heroic people of Syria establish an Islamic government and choose for themselves a leader, whoever they choose will be acceptable to us. We are not power-hungry. We do not want to rule over the Muslims; we want the shari’a to rule and we want to be ruled as Muslims according to Islam. We call for unity among the mujahedeen in Syria, and urge them to agree on the establishment of a jihad-fighting and righteous Islamic government… that will wage jihad, liberate the lands, and strive to liberate Al-Aqsa and establish a caliphate in the path of prophecy. JN’s organizational affiliation will never pose an obstacle to these great objectives that we, as part of the Islamic nation, hope for. [Unlike ISIS] we do not presume to be the patrons [of the Islamic nation], nor do we pounce upon it, demanding to that it swear loyalty to unknown people and to a caliph of surprises.
“Besides, would the arch-criminals accept JN if it left Al-Qaeda? Or will they obligate it to conduct negotiations with the criminal murderers, and then compel it to obey the agreements of abasement and shame and then capitulate to the governments of corruption and subordination… We in Al-Qaeda do not accept a pledge of loyalty unless it is voluntary. We do not force anyone to swear loyalty to us. We do not threaten to blow up or behead [our opponents]. We do not brand anyone fighting against us an apostate, as do the new Khawrij [ISIS], who make baseless claims.
“Al-Zawahiri concludes with an appeal to the Muslims in Syria: “We are part of you. Though we come from different countries, religion and faith unite us. We are with you, waging one war on many fronts against the Crusader arch-criminals and their apostate partners. Your victory is our victory, your dignity is our dignity, and your strength is our strength. Stand fast, oh servants of Allah, against the savage attack of the Crusaders from East and West [the Russians and Americans], who have forged an alliance with the secular Nusairis and the criminal rawafids. Stand fast and fight. Do not let the Crusader war machine intimidate you.” Citing former Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, Al-Zawahiri states that “Allah promised us victory,” and adds: “It was trust in Allah alone that shattered this Eastern and Western [i.e., Russian and American] Crusader war machine in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, and it is [faith in Allah] that will shatter it in Syria, Allah willing. Beware the seductions of the traitorous and subordinate apostate governments, which will not give you either freedom or dignity, because one who lacks something [himself] cannot provide it [to others]. Your deeds must justify your words when you say: ‘death and not abasement.'”
_________________________________
[1] Koran 9:41: ” Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah.”
Iran’s Plans to Control a Palestinian State, Gatestone Institute, Khaled Abu Toameh, May 9, 2016
(Please see also, Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel. — DM)
♦ The Iran nuclear deal, marking its first anniversary, does not appear to have had a calming effect on the Middle East.
♦ Iran funnels money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. The Iranian leaders want to see Hamas killing Jews every day, with no break. Ironically, Hamas has become too “moderate” for the Iranian leadership because it is not doing enough to drive Jews out of the region.
♦ More Palestinian terror group leaders may soon perform the “pilgrimage” to their masters in Tehran. If this keeps up, the Iranians themselves will puppeteer any Palestinian state that is created in the region.
The Iran nuclear deal, marking its first anniversary, does not appear to have had a calming effect on the Middle East. The Iranians seem to be deepening their intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general and in internal Palestinian affairs in particular.
This intervention is an extension of Iran’s ongoing efforts to expand its influence in Arab and Islamic countries, including Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon and some Gulf states. The nuclear deal between Tehran and the world powers has not stopped the Iranians from proceeding with their global plan to export their “Islamic Revolution.” On the contrary, the general sense among Arabs and Muslims is that in the wake of the nuclear deal, Iran has accelerated its efforts to spread its influence.
Iran’s direct and indirect presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon has garnered some international attention, yet its actions in the Palestinian arena are still ignored by the world.
That Iran provides financial and military aid to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad has never been a secret. In fact, both the Iranians and the Palestinian radical groups have been boasting about their relations.
Iran funnels money to these groups because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad agreed to play the role of Tehran’s proxies and enablers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Iran used to funnel money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad because they share its desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic empire. Relations between Iran and Hamas foundered a few years back, when Hamas leaders refused to support the Iranian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad. Pictured above: Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal (left) confers with Iranian “Supreme Leader” Ali Khamenei, in 2010. (Image source: Office of the Supreme Leader)
But puppets must remain puppets. Iran gets nasty when its dummies do not play according to its rules. This is precisely what happened with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Relations between Iran and Hamas foundered a few years back over the crisis in Syria. Defying their masters in Tehran, Hamas leaders refused to declare support for the Iranian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad. Things between Iran and Hamas have been pretty bad ever since.
First, the Assad government closed down Hamas offices in Damascus. Second, Assad expelled the Hamas leadership from Syria. Third, Iran suspended financial and military aid to Hamas, further aggravating the financial crisis that the Gaza-based Islamist movement had already been facing.
Islamic Jihad got it next. Iranian mullahs woke up one morning to realize that Islamic Jihad leaders have been a bit unfaithful. Some of the Islamic Jihad leaders were caught flirting with Iran’s Sunni rivals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. Even worse, the Iranians discovered that Islamic Jihad was still working closely with their erstwhile allies in the Gaza Strip, Hamas.
Iran had had high hopes for Islamic Jihad replacing Hamas as Tehran’s darling, and major proxy in the Palestinian arena. But here were Islamic Jihad leaders and activists working with their cohorts in Hamas, in apparent disregard of Papa Iran.
The mullahs did not lose much time. Outraged by Islamic Jihad’s apparent disloyalty, Iran launched its own terror group inside the Gaza Strip: Al-Sabireen (The Patient Ones). This group, which currently consists of several hundred disgruntled ex-Hamas and ex-Islamic Jihad members, was meant to replace Islamic Jihad the same way Islamic Jihad was supposed to replace Hamas in the Gaza Strip — in accordance with Iran’s scheme.
Lo and behold: it is hard to get things right with Iran. Al-Sabireen has also failed to please its masters in Tehran and is not “delivering.” Palestinian sources in the Gaza Strip say that Iran has realized that the investment in Al-Sabireen has not been worthwhile because the group has not been able to do anything “dramatic” in the past two years. By “dramatic,” the sources mean that Al-Sabireen has neither emerged as a serious challenger to Islamic Jihad or Hamas, and has not succeeded in killing enough Israelis.
So Iran has gone running back to its former bedfellow, Islamic Jihad.
For now, Iran is not prepared fully to bring Hamas back under its wings. Hamas, for the Iranians, is a “treacherous” movement, thanks to its periodic temporary ceasefires with Israel. The Iranian leaders want to see Hamas killing Jews every day, with no break. Ironically, Hamas has become too “moderate” for the Iranian leadership because it is not doing enough to drive Jews out of the region.
That leaves Iran with the Islamic Jihad.
In a surprise move, the Iranians this week hosted Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Shalah and senior officials from his organization, in a renewed bid to revive Islamic Jihad’s role as the major puppet of Tehran in the Gaza Strip. Islamic Jihad officials said that the visit has resulted in the resumption of Iranian financial aid to their cash-strapped organization. As a result of the rift between Islamic Jihad and Iran, the Iranians are said to have cut off nearly 90% of their financial aid to the Palestinian terror organization.
Some Palestinians, such as political analyst Hamadeh Fara’neh, see the rapprochement between Iran and Islamic Jihad as a response to the warming of relations between Hamas and Turkey. The Iranians, he argues, are unhappy with recent reports that suggested that Turkey was acting as a mediator between Hamas and Israel.
Other Palestinians believe that Iran’s real goal is to unite Islamic Jihad and Al-Sabireen so that they would become a real and realistic alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Whatever Iran’s intentions may be, one thing is clear: The Iranians are taking advantage of the nuclear deal to move forward with their efforts to increase their influence over some Arab and Islamic countries. Iran is also showing that it remains very keen on playing a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — one that emboldens radical groups that are bent on the destruction of Israel and that share the same values as the Islamic State terror group.
Iran’s latest courtship of Islamic Jihad is yet another attempt by the mullahs to deepen their infiltration of the Palestinian arena by supporting and arming any terror group that strives to smash Israel. For now, it seems that Hamas’s scheme is working, largely thanks to the apathy of the international community, where many believe that Iran has been declawed by the nuclear deal.
But more Palestinian terror group leaders may soon perform the “pilgrimage” to their masters in Tehran. If this keeps up, the Iranians themselves will puppeteer any Palestinian state that is created in the region. Their ultimate task, after all, is to use this state as a launching pad to destroy Israel. And the Iranians are prepared to fund and arm any Palestinian group that is willing to help achieve this goal.
D.C. ‘Terror Analyst’ Still Thinks Muslim Brotherhood a ‘Firewall Against Violent Extremism’ PJ Media, Robert Spencer, May 5, 2016
Is the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, or one of the world’s foremost bulwarks against terrorism? Numerous mainstream terror analysts in Washington contend that it is the latter.
They have to ignore a mountain of evidence to do so.
Arguing in the Washington Post that Congress should not designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, Mark Lynch of George Washington University and the Project on Middle East Political Science asserts:
The Muslim Brotherhood’s firewall against extremism [was] a very real thing in the decade following 9/11.
However, Lynch thinks that, because of the al-Sisi government’s crackdown on the Brotherhood:
… the key mechanisms by which the firewall operated have now dramatically eroded.
More from Lynch:
Prior to the Arab uprising, I argued that mainstream Islamists served as a firewall against more violent extremists … [because] the Brotherhood publicly articulated an ideology of nonviolence and democratic participation. It competed with al-Qaeda for recruits and for public influence, and kept its members tightly embedded within its institutional structures. The Brotherhood could compete with al-Qaeda and other extreme groups in ways that liberals and state elites could not.
Hmm.
Lynch is apparently unaware that al-Qaeda founders Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden, as well as its current leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, were all members of or trained by the Muslim Brotherhood. Even more importantly, in building his case that the Muslim Brotherhood is a competitor to and bulwark against al-Qaeda and other jihad terror groups, Lynch ignores the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda have exactly the same ultimate goal.
In his 2002 letter to the American people, Osama bin Laden wrote:
The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. … You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.
The Muslim Brotherhood shares the goal of replacing democratic rule with Sharia, as even CNN acknowledged in 2013:
The Muslim Brotherhood is a religious and political group founded on the belief that Islam is not simply a religion, but a way of life. It advocates a move away from secularism, and a return to the rules of the Quran as a basis for healthy families, communities, and states.
The key difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda — and other jihad groups — is that the Brotherhood works through the democratic process in order to undermine that process and ultimately destroy it. The jihadis choose the path of violently attacking the installations of democratic governments, but with the same goal of ultimate destruction.
For Lynch and other Washington policy analysts, this is an all-important distinction. In reality, it is a distinction without a difference. The Brotherhood and the jihad groups are two sides of the same coin, working for the same goal via different means.
What’s more, the assertion that the Brotherhood eschews violence is egregiously false.
Lynch writes:
[D]espite post-coup propaganda and arrests by the Egyptian regime, there is very little to substantiate the charge that the Brotherhood behaved like a terrorist organization during Egypt’s transition or embraced violence either ideologically or strategically.
Beltway fantasy, meet reality: Egypt’s El Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence documented 359 cases of torture by the Muslim Brotherhood regime during its one year in power. By way of comparison, this was ten times more than the number of cases documented annually during the notoriously brutal Mubarak regime — the regime Obama and his Beltway terror analysts helped replace with the Brotherhood.
Even worse, when the Brotherhood was toppled from power, it blamed its failure on Egypt’s Christians – and that’s when Lynch’s “bulwark” against terror really began its campaign of, yes, terror.
Brotherhood members and supporters burned and looted nearly seventy churches, and destroyed 1,000 Christian businesses and homes. According to the Rev. Khalil Fawzi of Kasr El Dubarrah Evangelical Church, the Middle East’s largest evangelical church:
The Muslim Brotherhood were the ones who called for aggression. They are responsible.
In light of the Brotherhood’s willingness to engage in violence to further its ends, and the Sharia goal it shares with violent jihad organizations, Lynch’s recommendation that the U.S. work to strengthen the Brotherhood as a bulwark against al-Qaeda is the height of folly. It would be tantamount to aiding Mussolini in order to defeat Hitler, or electing Hillary Clinton to roll back the policies of Barack Obama.
By contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act is more realistic. It quotes testimony from former FBI Director Robert Mueller:
[E]lements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism.
Supporters of terrorism richly deserve the terrorism designation. Mainstream analysts such as Mark Lynch have led the U.S. down numerous policy blind alleys. His viewpoint needs to be decisively rejected now.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments