MOSUL: Iraqi Military Displays Shi’ite Flags In Advance on Sunni Region

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Iran in Iraq, Iraq war, Shiite vs Sunni

Tags: , ,

MOSUL: Iraqi Military Displays Shi’ite Flags In Advance on Sunni Region, Counter Jihad, October 24, 2016


Shi’a flags above Iraq’s army as it proceeds into Mosul means that no peace is possible regardless of the outcome of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).  This is the endorsement of a sectarian war by the official arm of the Baghdad government.  Even if ISIS loses, the Sunnis will have to fight on in order to avoid being subjugated by a central government that has become their actual enemy.


Here are CounterJihad we have been warning for some time about the growing influence of Shi’a militias within Iraq, as they proclaim that their first loyalty is to Iran and its clerical leadership.  The power that these sectarian militas are exercising within Iraq makes it difficult to believe that the government in Baghdad will be able to remain independent from Iran, as the militias are a dagger pressed at Baghdad’s throat.

This story is worse than that.  This story is about the flying of sectarian flags by Baghdad’s own official state military.

Iraqi soldiers fighting to retake the largely Sunni city of Mosul from Islamic State are mounting Shiite flags on their vehicles and raising them atop buildings, stoking the sectarian divisions that Iraq’s government has vowed to repair….  Flying on tanks or over government checkpoints and homes in recently reclaimed Sunni villages, they often dwarf Iraqi flags next to them.

The flags are rankling Sunnis as well as Kurdish Peshmerga fighters taking part in the assault. Sunnis said the display undermines the message of national unity against Islamic State and reinforces their long-held impression that they don’t belong in Iraq’s state and security structure.

Further testing the alliance, Iraqi Shiite militias said Friday they were set to join the battle to dislodge Islamic State from Mosul.

This development underlines just how we got to a caliphate in western Iraq to begin with.  The Sunni forces fighting against the Baghdad government were brought to the peace table out of an outrage with al Qaeda in Iraq’s brutality against them.  They agreed to support the Baghdad government in return for fair treatment, instead of being suppressed as an ethnic minority.

The US military, which in those days had multiple divisions within Iraq, conducted patient negotiation with militants formerly aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq.  The agreements the US military negotiated for the Sunnis were designed to effect a reconciliation between the government and the tribes.  Agreements included promises of jobs, assistance for communities recovering from the war, and many other things that the government agreed to provide in return for the support of these former enemies.  The United States helped to negotiate all these agreements, and promised to see that they would be kept faithfully.

Instead, our Secretary of State — one Hillary Clinton — failed to produce either a new Status of Forces agreement that would permit US troops to remain in Iraq, or an agreement that would allow State Department personnel to move about the country safely to observe whether agreements were being kept.  In the wake of the precipitous withdrawal of US forces, Prime Minister Maliki moved to arrest Sunni leaders in government, and broke all his promises to the tribes.

The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency.

The Baghdad government is responsible for the actions that undermined Sunni faith in the system it represented.  It compounded the problem by allowing these Iranian-backed Shi’a militias to conduct punitive war crimes against Sunni villages that had supported Saddam’s regime.  At least the militias were plausibly acting on their own, however, rather than as agents of the state.

Shi’a flags above Iraq’s army as it proceeds into Mosul means that no peace is possible regardless of the outcome of the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).  This is the endorsement of a sectarian war by the official arm of the Baghdad government.  Even if ISIS loses, the Sunnis will have to fight on in order to avoid being subjugated by a central government that has become their actual enemy.

Tehran will fight Turkey’s role in Mosul operation

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Department of Defense, Iran - Iraq war, Iranian proxies, Iraq war, Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters, Mosul, Turkey in Iraq

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tehran will fight Turkey’s role in Mosul operation, DEBKAfile, October 24, 2016


The involvement of Turkish special operations, armored and artillery forces in support of the Kurdish Peshmerga battle to drive ISIS out of Bashiqa, 12 south of Mosul, marks a pivotal moment in the US-led coalition’s anti-ISIS offensive to free Iraq’s second city. The entire Mosul operation hangs in the balance since Turkey stepped into the fighting in Iraq, at the initiative of the US. Instead of fighting ISIS, the coalition’s partners are squaring off to fight each other.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Turkey was allowed to gatecrash the fighting around Mosul after US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter visited the KRG capital of Irbil Sunday, Oct. 23. He urged Kurdish leaders to bow to President Tayyip Erdogan’s demands for a role in the battle.

The Kurdish leaders succumbed to the pressure with the proviso that Turkey cease its air and artillery assaults on Syrian Kurdish militias in northern Syria.

When Ankara accepted this condition, Ashton set out for the Bashiqa arena, becoming the first US defense secretary to come that close to a battlefront against ISIS in Iraq.

He visited the Turkish military encampment outside Bashiqa and was given a briefing by their commanders. As soon as he departed, Turkish units entered the fray in support of the Peshmerga fighters

According to Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildrim, this involvement was limited to tank and artillery support for the Kurdish forces. Our military sources report, however, that it went much further and included Turkish special operations forces and tanks. By Monday, Oct. 24, Turkish troops were still backing up the Kurdish effort to purge Bashiqa of ISIS fighters.

Tehran’s reaction to this change on the game board was extreme. Our sources report that the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite militias assigned to subordinate tasks in the Mosul operation were immediately put on a state of readiness. Commanders of the Bader Brigades, the Population Mobilization Force and the Hashd eal-Shaabi reported that they were standing ready to attack the Turkish forces operating at Bashiqa, whom they termed “gangs of terrorists no less dangerous than ISIS.”

The Iranian government leaned hard on Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi to make him redirect Iraqi government forces from the Mosul arena to join the Shiite forces preparing to strike the Turkish troops at Bashiqa.

Al-Abadi had in the past week demanded the removal of Turkish troops from Iraqi soil, a demand Ankara just as steadily rebuffed.

Building up at present is an imminent head-to-head fight between Turkish and Kurdish forces on the one hand and Iraqi Shiites on the other.

In an effort to prevent the long-awaited Mosul operation degenerating into an all-out conflagration among US allies, with the Islamist State no doubt cheering on, the Obama administration Monday turned to Tehran, Baghdad, Ankara and Irbil and asked them back off lest they wreck their primary mission of evicting ISIS from Mosul.

Tehran may decide to give ground on this but the price it exacts will be steep: an overhaul of the Iraqi Shiite militias’ rear position and permission for their direct intervention in the battle for Mosul, including their entry into the city. This permission the US commanders have hitherto withheld.

This would be a big prize. Mosul has been coveted by Iranian strategists as a major transit point on the land bridge they have designed to link the Islamic Republic to Syria and the Mediterranean. This prize would go by the board if the Turks and Kurds were first in the liberated city first and assumed control.

Hillary Clinton: Architect of Disaster

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton

Tags: ,

Hillary Clinton: Architect of Disaster, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 24, 2016

Many conservatives hold out hope that, as president, Hillary Clinton will be okay on foreign policy and national security issues. A few even plan to vote for her for this reason, seeing Donald Trump as worse than Clinton on these matters.

Keith Kellogg, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and adviser to the Trump campaign, demonstrates that hopes for a sound foreign national security policy can only be founded on wishful thinking and dislike of Trump. They find no support in her record.

Kellogg begins with Iraq. Clinton voted for that war. Was this a mistake? Clinton says it was.

It certainly was a major mistake to vote (as Clinton did) against the surge that turned the tide in Iraq, and to ridicule Gen. Petraeus, the surge’s architect. And it was a major mistake to pull out of Iraq when President Obama came to office. (The excuses for the pullout have been debunked by Dexter Filkins of the New York Times).

Kellogg blames Clinton for not being able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. The evidence suggests that Obama didn’t want to reach an agreement and I believe that this, not poor negotiating by Clinton, is why we didn’t get one. But Clinton was part of the team that gave away our hard-won gains (gains she tried to prevent by opposing the surge) in Iraq.

Kellogg next considers Libya. There can be no Clinton finger pointing when it comes to the disasters that have occurred there. She was the architect of our Libya policy, which, email traffic shows, her team considered her greatest achievement as Secretary of State.

Some achievement. As Kellogg points out:

When [Qaddifi] was overthrown, there was no plan for follow-up governance. The result was instability, a huge refugee flow into southern Europe and the Islamic State gaining a foothold in Libya.

Worse was the eventual loss of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens in the Benghazi terrorist attack. It was the first killing of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty since 1979. The response from our secretary of state? She claimed his killing was the result of an anti-Islamic video.

Clinton’s Russian reset began badly. As Kellogg reminds us, Clinton couldn’t even get the translation on the idiotic reset button correct: The Russian word emblazoned on the button actually meant “overload.”

Since the reset, Russia has taken Crimea, invaded main portions of Ukraine, strongly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad, conducted airstrikes against civilians in Aleppo, Syria and significantly increased its military and political presence in the Middle East.

It’s ironic that Clinton is winning the debate over Russia. Yes, Clinton talks tougher than Trump about Russia. But, as Trump likes to say, it’s all talk.

Egypt is a case in point. In 2009, she called Mubarak a family friend. But when he came under attack, she supported his overthrow and then backed the Muslim Brotherhood government. Now, she denounces the U.S. friendly government as “basically a military dictatorship.”

As for Iran, Clinton backs the great giveaway known as the nuclear deal. We can be confident that in a Clinton administration, Iran will get away with violation after violation.

As for Syria, Clinton has tried to distance herself from the disastrous Obama policy. Supposedly, she wanted a firmer anti-Obama stance.

You can believe this if you want to. But the big question is how Clinton will deal with Syria now and, more generally, how she will deal with the next hot spots and crises.

Given her astounding misjudgments about Iraq, Libya, and Russia — indeed, about virtually every hot spot and crisis that arose during her time as Secretary of State — it should be impossible for any fair-minded observer to believe Clinton won’t botch any significant foreign policy issue that comes up.

Kiss Goodbye Your Freedom of Speech

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Freedom of speech, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorism, Islamists and freedom of speech, UN Resolution 16/18

Tags: , , , ,

Kiss Goodbye Your Freedom of Speech, Center for Security PolicyFrank Gaffney, Jr., October 24, 2016

The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that Facebook has decided that Donald Trump violated its “hate speech” policies in calling for a ban on Muslim immigration until a way could be found to stop importing more jihadists. Its chairman, Mark Zuckerberg, however disagreed with some employees – including a dozen Muslims involved in censoring content – that Facebook should remove Trump’s comments because he is, after all, a presidential candidate.

Facebook has adopted, though, the European Union’s practice of suppressing so-called “defamation” of Islam. And Zuckerberg’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, supports UN Resolution 16/18 that effectively requires the prohibition of speech that offends Islamic supremacists.

If Mrs. Clinton becomes president, count on your First Amendment-guaranteed freedom of speech not extending to discussion of the global jihadist threat, lest it offend the jihadists.

That’s a formula for getting more of us killed by them.

German “expert on Salafism” says: Give Muslims their own city to prevent “radicalization”

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: Germany, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Salafists

Tags: , , ,

German “expert on Salafism” says: Give Muslims their own city to prevent “radicalization”, Jihad Watch

(It seems as though in Obama’s America Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota are already under the control of Islamists. –DM)

Hey, great idea! How about Berlin?

In any case, if Edler is really an expert on Salafism, he knows that the Salafis won’t ever be satisfied with just one city, and will be emboldened by the gift to demand more. And in the final analysis, it doesn’t really matter: if Merkel’s policies continue, the Salafis will control plenty of German cities soon enough.


“‘Expert’: Give Syrians Their Own City in Germany To Prevent Radicalisation,” by Chris Tomlinson, Breitbart, October 23, 2016:

A left wing expert on Salafism has suggested that Germany has no real culture and that Syrians should be allowed their own city rather than be forced to integrate into German society.

Expert on Salafism and Green party member Kurt Edler is proposing a radical idea on how the German government should handle the integration of Syrians and other migrants into German society.

Mr. Edler contends that Germany has no real culture to speak of and that the migrants shouldn’t have to integrate and instead he claims they should be afforded their own city in an area like Vorpommern reports, Die Welt. 

Mr. Edler admits after the attempted bombing in Leipzig and other terror attacks in Wurzburg and elsewhere, that Islamism has formally arrived in Germany.

Speaking on the need for migrants to integrate into Germany he said, “the indigenous people themselves have completely disintegrated. The common word is dominant culture. There is none. There are lifestyle milieus.”

Since there is no common culture, according to Edler, there should be no problem in simply creating what he calls a “New Aleppo” in somewhere like German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The Chancellor is still reeling from the  recent regional election loss to the anti-mass migration Alternative for Germany (AfD).

On the subject of the AfD Edler said support for the party was a reaction to the mass experience of “social modernization.”

The new Syrian city would foster a sense of community that Edler says those in the West have given up on. “Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said a wise phrase: ‘There is no society’. Indeed” he said.

Adding that the concept of a homeland, the German word heimat, and notions of the West were “pseudo utopias” he added “the West has long since perished.”

The idea of separate cities fro Muslims has been floated before by a German academic named Ulrike Guérot who also agrees with Edler that the idea of “dominant culture” is “Fascistic.” The agreement of the two academics shows that the ideas may have growing prominence in German academic circles…

Immigrants! Don’t Vote for What You Fled

Posted October 24, 2016 by danmillerinpanama
Categories: 2016 elections, Donald Trump and immigration, Hillary Clinton and immigration, Latin America

Tags: , , ,

Immigrants! Don’t Vote for What You Fled, Prager University via YouTube, October 24, 2016

(Are we about to vote for what they fled? — DM)

Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe

Posted October 24, 2016 by joopklepzeiker
Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , ,

Clinton ally gave $500K to wife of FBI agent on email probe.

By Daniel Halper

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (right) hugs Hillary Clinton as she arrives to speak at a campaign rally in Norfolk, S.C. Photo: AP

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system, according to a report.

The political action committee of McAuliffe, the Clinton loyalist, gave $467,500 to the state Senate campaign of the wife of Andrew McCabe, who is now deputy director of the FBI, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The report states Jill McCabe received an additional $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by McAuliffe.

The money directed by McAuliffe began flowing two months after the FBI investigation into Clinton began in July 2015. Around that time, the candidate’s husband was promoted from running the Washington field office for the FBI to the No. 3 position at the bureau.

Within a year, McCabe was promoted to deputy director, the second-highest position in the bureau.

In a statement to the Journal, the FBI said McCabe “played no role, attended no events, and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind. Months after the completion of her campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to Deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

The governor’s office claimed the FBI’s McCabe met the governor only once — on March 7, 2015, when McAuliffe persuaded Jill McCabe to run.

The 2015 Virginia state Senate run — her first attempt to gain public office — was unsuccessful as she lost to the incumbent Republican.

McAuliffe “supported Jill McCabe because he believed she would be a good state senator. This is a customary practice for Virginia governors … Any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous,” a spokesman for the Virginia governor told the Journal.

McAuliffe has been a longtime backer of the Clintons, even serving as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair in 2008.