Posted tagged ‘Middle East’

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism

January 7, 2016

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism, American ThinkerG. Murphy Donovan, January 7, 2016

Surely, whatever passed for American foreign or military policy in the past three decades is not working. Just as clearly, in case anyone keeps score these days, the dark side of Islam is ascendant at home and abroad. What follows here is a catalogue of policy initiatives that might halt the spread of Islamic fascism and encourage religious reform in the Ummah.

Some observers believe that the Muslim problem is a matter of life and death. Be assured that the need for Islamic reform is much more important than either. The choices for Islam are the same as they are for Palestine Arabs; behave or be humbled. Europe may still have a Quisling North and a Vichy South; but Russia, China, and even America, at heart, are still grounded by national survival instincts – and Samuel Colt.

Call a spade a spade

The threat is Islam, both kinetic and passive aggressive factions. If “moderate” Islam is real, then that community needs to step up and assume responsibility for barbaric terror lunatics and immigrants/refugees alike. Neither America nor Europe has solutions to the Islamic dystopia; civic incompetence, strategic illiteracy, migrants, poverty, religious schisms, or galloping irredentism. The UN and NATO have no remedies either. Islamism is an Ummah, Arab League, OIC problem to solve. Absent moral or civic conscience, unreformed Islam deserves no better consideration than any other criminal cult.

Western Intelligence agencies must stop cooking the books too. The West is at war and the enemy is clearly the adherents of a pernicious ideology. A global war against imperial Islam might be declared, just as angry Islam has declared war on civilization.  A modus vivendi might be negotiated only after the Ummah erects a universal barrier between church and state globally. Islam, as we know it, is incompatible with democracy, civility, peace, stability, and adult beverages.

Oxymoronic “Islamic” states need to be relegated to the dustbin of history. If the Muslim world cannot or will not mend itself, Islamism, like the secular fascism of the 20th Century, must be defeated, humbled in detail. Sooner is better.

Answer the Ayatollahs

Recent allied concessions to Tehran may prove to be a bridge too far. If the Persian priests do not abide by their nuclear commitments, two red lines might be drawn around Israel. Firstly, the ayatollahs should be put on notice, publicly, that any attack against Israel would be considered an attack against America — and met with massive Yankee retaliation. Secondly, any future cooperation with NATO or America should be predicated on an immediate cessation of clerical hate speech and so-called fatwas, those arbitrary death sentences.

Clerical threats to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” and “death to America” injunctions are designed to stimulate jihad and terror globally. The only difference between a Shia ayatollah and a Sunni imam in this regard these days seems to be the torque in their head threads.

Ostracize the Puppeteers

Strategic peril does not emanate from Sunni tacticians like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Abu Bakr al-Baghadadi. Nor does the real threat begin with or end with al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or the Islamic State. Lethal threat comes, instead, on four winds: toxic culture, religious politics, fanatic fighters, and furtive finance, all of which originate with Muslim state sponsors. The most prominent of these are Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

Put aside for a moment the Saudi team that brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Consider instead, the House of Saud as the most egregious exporter of Salifism (aka Wahabbism) doctrine, clerics, imams, and mosques from which ultra-irredentist ideologies are spread. The Saudis are at once the custodians of Islam’s sacredshrines and at the same time the world’s most decadent, corrupt, and duplicitous hypocrites. Imam Baghdadi is correct about two things: the venality of elites in Washington and Riyadh. The House of Saud, an absolutist tribal monarchy, does not have the moral standing to administer “holy” sites of any description — Mecca, Medina, or Disneyland.

The cozy relationship between Europe, the European Union, and Arabia can be summarized with a few words; oil, money, arms sales, and base rights. This near-sighted blend of Mideast obscenities has reached its sell-by date. The “white man’s burden” should have expired when Edward Said vacated New York for paradise.

Jettison Turkey and Pakistan

What Saudi Arabia is to toxic ideology in North Africa, Turkey and Pakistan are to perfidy in the Levant and South Asia. Turkey and Pakistan are Islam’s most obvious and persistent grifters. Turkey supports the Islamic State and other Sunni terror groups with a black market oil racket. Pakistan supports the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS with sanctuary and tolerance of the world’s largest opium garden. Oil and drug monies from Arabia, Turkey, and South Asia are financing the global jihad. Turkey also facilitates the migration of Muslims west to Europe while sending Islamist fighters and weapons south to Syria and Iraq.

With the advent of Erdogan and his Islamist AKP, Turkey has morphed into NATO’s Achilles Heel, potentially a fatal flaw.  Turkey needs to be drummed out of NATO until secular comity returns to Ankara. Pakistan needs to be restrained, too, with sanctions until it ceases to provide refuge for terrorists. Pakistani troops harassing India could be more prudently redeployed to exterminate jihadists.

Sanctions against Russia and Israel are a study in moral and political fatuity whilst Arabs and Muslims are appeased midst a cultural sewer of geo-political crime and human rights abuses. If NATO’s eastern flank needs to be anchored in trust and dependability, Russia, Kurdistan, or both, would make better allies than Turkey. Ignoring Turkish perfidy to protect ephemeral base rights confuses tactical necessity with strategic sufficiency.

Recognize Kurdistan

Aside from Israel, Kurdistan might be the most enlightened culture in the Mideast. The Kurds are also the largest ethnic group in the world not recognized as a state. While largely Muslim, the Kurds, unlike most of the Ummah, appreciate the virtues of religious diversity and women’s rights. Indeed, Kurdish women fight alongside their men against Turkish chauvinism and Sunni misogyny with equal aplomb. For too long, the Kurds have been patronized by Brussels and Washington.

While Kurdish fighters engage ISIS and attempt to control the Turkish oil black market, Ankara uses American manufactured NATO F-16s to bomb Kurds in Turkey and Syria. Turkish ground forces now occupy parts of Iraq too. In eastern Turkey, Ergdogan’s NATO legions use ISIS as an excuse for bookend genocide, a cleansing of Kurds that might rival the Armenian Christian genocide (1915-1917).

195876_5_Kurdish angel of death

All the while, American strategic amateurs argue for a “no-fly” zone in contested areas south of Turkey. Creating a no-fly zone is the kind of operational vacuity we have come to expect from American politicians and generals. Such a stratagem would foil Kurdish efforts to flank ISIS and allow the Erdogan jihad, arms, and oil rackets to flourish. A no-fly zone is a dangerous ploy designed to provoke Russia, not protect Muslim “moderates.”

Putin, Lavrov, and the Russians have it right this time; Turkish and Erdogan family subterfuges are lethal liabilities, not assets.

Washington and European allies have been redrawing the map in Eastern Europe, North Africa, South Asia, and the Mideast since the end of WWII. The time has come to put Kurdistan on the map too. Kurdistan is a unique and exemplary case of reformed or enlightened Islam; indeed, a nation that could serve as a model for the Muslim world.  If base rights are a consideration, Kurdistan would be an infinitely more dependable ally than Turkey or any corrupt tribal autocracy in Arabia. America has a little in common with desert dictators — and fewer genuine friends there either. Indeed, at the moment America is allied with the worst of Islam.

Create New Alliances

NATO, like the European Union, has become a parody of itself. Absent a threat like the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, Brussels has taken to justifying itself by meddling in East Europe and resuscitating a Cold War with the Kremlin. Indeed, having divided Yugoslavia, NATO now expands to the new Russian border with reckless abandon; in fact, fanning anti-Russian flames now with neo-Nazi cohorts in former Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

NATO support for the Muslims of one-time Yugoslavia is of a piece with support for Islamic troublemakers in Chechnya and China too. Throughout, we are led to believe that jihad Uighurs and caliphate Chechens are freedom fighters. Beslan, Boston, Paris, and now San Bernardino put the lie to any notion that Islamists are “victims” (or heroes). Indeed, the Boston Marathon bombing might have been prevented had Washington a better relationship with Moscow.

Truth is, America has more in common with Russia and China these days than we do with any number of traditional European Quislings. Indeed, it seems that Europe and America can’t take yes for an answer.

The Cold War ideological or philosophical argument has been won. Moscow and Beijing have succumbed to market capitalism. Islamism, in stark contrast, is now a menace to Russian, Chinese, and American secular polities alike. The logic of a cooperative or unified approach to a common enemy seems self-evident. America, China, and Russia, at least on issues like toxic Islam, is a match made in Mecca.

The late great contest with Marxist Russia and China was indeed a revolution without guns. Now the parties to that epic Cold War struggle may have to join forces to suppress a theo-fascist movement that, like its Nazi predecessor, will not be defeated without guns. The West is at war again, albeit in slow motion. Withal, questions of war are not rhetorical. Saying that you are not at war does not make it so. Once declared, by one party or the other, the only relevant question about war is who wins and who loses. Losers do not make the future.

If America and Europe were as committed to Judeo/Christian secular values as Islamists are committed to a sick religious culture, then the war against pernicious Islam would have been won decades ago. Or as Jack Kennedy once put it: “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.

Trump Footnote

Donald Trump made several policy suggestions on the Islamism issue, one on immigration, the other on Mideast oil. On the former, he suggests a hiatus on Muslim immigration until America develops a plan or reliable programs to vet migrants. On Arab oil, he suggests, given the lives and treasure spent liberating Kuwait and Iraqi oil fields, America should have held those resources in trust and use oil revenues to finance the war against jihad, however long that takes. The problem with both Trump ideas is that they come perilously close to common sense, an American instinct in short supply these days.

 

Column One: Rubio, Cruz and US global leadership

December 18, 2015

Column One: Rubio, Cruz and US global leadership, Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick, December 17, 2015

For the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy; But are they too late?

At some point between 2006 and 2008, the American people decided to turn their backs on the world. Between the seeming futility of the war in Iraq and the financial collapse of 2008, Americans decided they’d had enough.

In Barack Obama, they found a leader who could channel their frustration. Obama’s foreign policy, based on denying the existence of radical Islam and projecting the responsibility for Islamic aggression on the US and its allies, suited their mood just fine. If America is responsible, then America can walk away. Once it is gone, so the thinking has gone, the Muslims will forget their anger and leave America alone.

Sadly, Obama’s foreign policy assumptions are utter nonsense. America’s abandonment of global leadership has not made things better. Over the past seven years, the legions of radical Islam have expanded and grown more powerful than ever before. And now in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres in Paris and San Bernadino, the threats have grown so abundant that even Obama cannot pretend them away.

As a consequence, for the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy. But are they too late? Can the next president repair the damage Obama has caused? The Democrats give no cause for optimism. Led by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls stubbornly insist that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s foreign policy. If they are elected to succeed him, they pledge to follow in his footsteps.

On the Republican side, things are more encouraging, but also more complicated.

Republican presidential hopefuls are united in their rejection of Obama’s policy of ignoring the Islamic supremacist nature of the enemy. All reject the failed assumptions of Obama’s foreign policy.

All have pledged to abandon them on their first day in office. Yet for all their unity in rejecting Obama’s positions, Republicans are deeply divided over what alternative foreign policy they would adopt.

This divide has been seething under the surface throughout the Obama presidency. It burst into the open at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night.

The importance of the dispute cannot be overstated.

Given the Democrats’ allegiance to Obama’s disastrous policies, the only hope for a restoration of American leadership is that a Republican wins the next election. But if Republicans nominate a candidate who fails to reconcile with the realities of the world as it is, then the chance for a reassertion of American leadership will diminish significantly.

To understand just how high the stakes are, you need to look no further than two events that occurred just before the Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to close its investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. As far as the UN’s nuclear watchdog is concerned, Iran is good to go.

The move is a scandal. Its consequences will be disastrous.

The IAEA acknowledges that Iran continued to advance its illicit military nuclear program at least until 2009. Tehran refuses to divulge its nuclear activities to IAEA investigators as it is required to do under binding UN Security Council resolutions.

Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to its illicit nuclear sites. As a consequence, the IAEA lacks a clear understanding of what Iran’s nuclear status is today and therefore has no capacity to prevent it from maintaining or expanding its nuclear capabilities. This means that the inspection regime Iran supposedly accepted under Obama’s nuclear deal is worthless.

The IAEA also accepts that since Iran concluded its nuclear accord with the world powers, it has conducted two tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it is barred from doing so under binding Security Council resolutions.

But really, who cares? Certainly the Obama administration doesn’t. The sighs of relief emanating from the White House and the State Department after the IAEA decision were audible from Jerusalem to Tehran.

The IAEA’s decision has two direct consequences.

First, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday, it paves the way for the cancellation of the UN’s economic sanctions against Iran within the month.

Second, with the IAEA’s decision, the last obstacle impeding Iran’s completion of its nuclear weapons program has been removed. Inspections are a thing of the past. Iran is in the clear.

As Iran struts across the nuclear finish line, the Sunni jihadists are closing their ranks.

Hours after the IAEA vote, Turkey and Qatar announced that Turkey is setting up a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf emirate for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Their announcement indicates that the informal partnership between Turkey and Qatar on the one side, and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State on the other hand, which first came to the fore last year during Operation Protective Edge, is now becoming a more formal alliance.

Just as the Obama administration has no problem with Iran going nuclear, so it has no problem with this new jihadist alliance.

During Operation Protective Edge, the administration supported this jihadist alliance against the Israeli-Egyptian partnership. Throughout Hamas’s war against Israel, Obama demanded that Israel and Egypt accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms, as they were presented by Turkey and Qatar.

Since Operation Protective Edge, the Americans have continued to insist that Israel and Egypt bow to Hamas’s demands and open Gaza’s international borders. The Americans have kept up their pressure on Israel and Egypt despite Hamas’s open alliance with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula.

So, too, the Americans have kept Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at arm’s length, and continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate political force despite Sisi’s war against ISIS. Washington continues to embrace Qatar as a “moderate” force despite the emirate’s open support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and ISIS.

As for Turkey, it appears there is nothing Ankara can do that will dispel the US notion that it is a credible partner in the war on terror. Since 2011, Turkey has served as Hamas’s chief state sponsor, and as ISIS’s chief sponsor. It is waging war against the Kurds – the US’s strongest ally in its campaign against ISIS.

In other words, with the US’s blessing, the forces of both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march.

And the next president will have no grace period for repairing the damage.

Although the Republican debate Wednesday night was focused mainly on the war in Syria, its significance is far greater than one specific battlefield.

And while there were nine candidates on the stage, there were only two participants in this critical discussion.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off after weeks of rising contention between their campaigns.

In so doing, they brought the dispute that has been seething through their party since the Bush presidency into the open.

Rubio argued that in Syria, the US needs to both defeat ISIS and overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Cruz countered that the US should ignore Assad and concentrate on utterly destroying ISIS. America’s national interest, he said, is not advanced by overthrowing Assad, because in all likelihood, Assad will be replaced by ISIS.

Cruz added that America’s experience in overthrowing Middle Eastern leaders has shown that it is a mistake to overthrow dictators. Things only got worse after America overthrew Saddam Hussein and supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak.

For his part, Rubio explained that since Assad is Iran’s puppet, leaving him in power empowers Iran. The longer he remains in power, the more control Iran will wield over Syria and Lebanon.

The two candidates’ dispute is far greater than the question of who rules Syria. Their disagreement on Syria isn’t a tactical argument. It goes to the core question of what is the proper role of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s commitment to overthrowing Assad is one component of a wider strategic commitment to fostering democratic governance in Syria. By embracing the cause of democratization through regime change, Rubio has become the standard bearer of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s foreign policy had two seemingly contradictory anchors – a belief that liberal values are universal, and cultural meekness.

Bush’s belief that open elections would serve as a panacea for the pathologies of the Islamic world was not supported by empirical data. Survey after survey showed that if left to their own devices, the people of Muslim world would choose to be led by Islamic supremacists. But Bush rejected the data and embraced the fantasy that free elections lead a society to embrace liberal norms of peace and human rights.

As to cultural meekness, since the end of the Cold War and with the rise of political correctness, the notion that America could call for other people to adopt American values fell into disrepute. For American foreign policy practitioners, the idea that American values and norms are superior to Islamic supremacist values smacked of cultural chauvinism.

Consequently, rather than urge the Islamic world to abandon Islamic supremacism in favor of liberal democracy, in their public diplomacy efforts, Americans sufficed with vapid pronouncements of love and respect for Islam.

Islamic supremacists, for their part stepped into the ideological void without hesitation. In Iraq, the Iranian regime spent hundreds of millions of dollars training Iranian-controlled militias, building Iranian-controlled political parties and publishing pro-Iranian newspapers as the US did nothing to support pro-American Iraqis.

Although many Republicans opposed Bush’s policies, few dared make their disagreement with the head of their party public. As a result, for many, Wednesday’s debate was the first time the foundations of Bush’s foreign policy were coherently and forcefully rejected before a national audience.

If Rubio is the heir to Bush, Cruz is the spokesman for Bush’s until now silent opposition. In their longheld view, democratization is not a proper aim of American foreign policy. Defeating America’s enemies is the proper aim of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s people claim that carpet bombing ISIS is not a strategy. They are right. There are parts missing from in Cruz’s position on Syria.

But then again, although still not comprehensive, Cruz’s foreign policy trajectory has much to recommend it. First and foremost, it is based on the world as it is, rather than a vision of how the world should be. It makes a clear distinction between America’s allies and America’s enemies and calls for the US to side with the former and fight the latter.

It is far from clear which side will win this fight for the heart of the Republican Party. And it is impossible to know who the next US president will be.

But whatever happens, the fact that after their seven-year vacation, the Americans are returning the real world is a cause for cautious celebration.

 Paris Jews Intentionally Poisoned

December 17, 2015

The lock to a shul in southeastern Paris was coated with poison, sickening more than a dozen congregants.

By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Published: December 17th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Paris Jews Intentionally Poisoned

Vandalized synagogue in Bonneuil-sur-Marne, southeastern Paris.

Vandalized synagogue in Bonneuil-sur-Marne, southeastern Paris.
Photo Credit: Google map

The electronic lock to a synagogue in southeastern Paris was coated with poison which led to 14 Jews being sickened.

The incident took place on Monday evening, Dec.14, in the community of Bonneuil-sur-Marne.

Women arrived at the closed shul at around 9:00 p.m. to participate in a meeting. Ralph Botbol, president of the synagogue, said that just after arrival, two women began experiencing itchy hands, and one woman’s face “swelled significantly.”

Several more congregants began experiencing intense burning sensations in their eyes and itchy rashes on their skin, at which time emergency services were called.

More than a dozen fire fighters responded to the call and treated those affected. It was then that the problem was traced to the poison discovered on the lock.

They learned that the digital lock had been sprayed with the poison, and every woman who had come in contact with the lock experienced the burning sensations.

Although the shul is typically under police and military protection when open, the violent act of vandalism is believed to have taken place when the building was closed and no guards present. The vandals presumably knew when they could strike.

Initial analyses conducted on Tuesday disclosed that the poison used was “tear gas, very diluted with water.”

The president of the synagogue filed a complaint for this “anti-Semitic act.” He said: “We will not close our eyes, we checked, it is the only street to have been sprayed.”

The Creteil prosecutor on Tuesday opened an investigation for “aggravated violence,” which was handed over to the local police station.

Media: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Jordan may send 90,000 military to fight IS

December 10, 2015

Media: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Jordan may send 90,000 military to fight IS

World December 10, 11:16 UTC+3

Source: TASS: World – Media: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Jordan may send 90,000 military to fight IS

Iraq Press Agency quoted politician Hanan Al Faltawi as saying she received that information from reliable sources after talks between US Senator John McCain and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi

© EPA/ALI HASSAN

BEIRUT, December 10. /TASS/. Around 100,000 foreign military, including 90,000 from Arab countries, may be deployed to Iraq to fight against the Islamic State (IS) terrorist organization, Iraq Press Agency quoted politician Hanan Al Faltawi as saying.

Al Fatlawi said that she received this information from reliable sources after talks between US Senator John McCain and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. The meeting took place on November 27 in the joint American-Iraqi operational headquarters in Baghdad that coordinates military actions against IS, she added.

Foreign forces of 100,000 – 90,000 from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Jordan and 10,000 from the United States – will be stationed in Iraq’s western parts,” Al Fatlawi noted. The politician added that “the Iraqi prime minister openly expressed bewilderment over McCain’s statement but was told that everything had already been decided.”

Islamic State extremist organization

The Islamic State is an extremist organization banned in Russia. In 2013-2014, it called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In June 2014, IS announce the establishment of the “Islamic caliphate” on the territories seized in Iraq and Syria. According to US’ Central Intelligence Agency, the extremist group includes around 30,000 people, while Iraqi authorities claim there are around 200,000 in IS. Among members of the group are citizens of 80 countries, including France, Great Britain, Germany, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, US, Canada, as well as Russia and other CIS countries. According to reports, militants now control around 40% of the Iraqi territory and 50% of the Syrian territory.

Baghdad ultimatum to Ankara expires, Moscow to discuss Turkish military invasion at UNSC

December 8, 2015

Baghdad ultimatum to Ankara expires, Moscow to discuss Turkish military invasion at UNSC

Published time: 8 Dec, 2015 10:15 Edited time: 8 Dec, 2015 19:05

Source: Baghdad ultimatum to Ankara expires, Moscow to discuss Turkish military invasion at UNSC — RT News

© Murad Sezer
The Iraqi PM has called on NATO to intervene shortly after the deadline of a Baghdad-issued ultimatum demanding that Turkish troops leave its territory expired. Ankara has refused to withdraw.

Iraq “is incumbent upon NATO to use its powers to urge Turkey to withdraw immediately from Iraqi territory,” a statement posted on Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s website said on Tuesday.

The statement was made after the Baghdad government’s 48-hour deadline for Turkish withdrawal expired. Al-Abadi has already spoken with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg by telephone regarding the matter, the statement added, saying that the PM “reiterated during the call that these forces are present without the knowledge and consent of the Iraqi government.”

READ MORE: ‘Hostile act:’ Iraqi PM denounces US ground forces deployment on Iraq’s territory

Meanwhile, Russia intends to bring up Ankara’s invasion of northern Iraq at the UN Security Council on Thursday.

“The issue will be raised at a closed-door meeting,” TASS cited a diplomatic source within the organization as saying. The source also dismissed earlier reports that Moscow was going to call a separate UNSC meeting.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has expressed grave concern over reports of the US-led coalition’s missile airstrike on the Syrian Army base near Ayyash in the Deir ez-Zor province, which killed three Syrian soldiers, as well as an airstrike in Al-Hasakah Governorate that resulted in multiple civilian casualties.

“Generally, these facts serve proof that the situation on the frontline with Islamic State is heating up,” the Foreign Ministry’s Information and Press Department acknowledged.

“An additional and extremely dangerous factor promoting international tensions is the unlawful presence of the Turkish armed forces on Iraqi territory near the city of Mosul, which arrived there without a request and approval of the legitimate government of Iraq,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

We consider this [military] presence unacceptable,” the statement says, adding that violation of international law principles, such as respect towards other states’ sovereignty is “at the core of the emerging problems.”

READ MORE: ‘NATO member Turkey gets immunity from violating international law’

According to Iraqi media,Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi has put the Iraqi Air Force on high alert and the ruling National Iraqi Alliance has given the prime minister the go-ahead to take “any measures” to ensure territorial integrity and protect its borders, including addressing the UN and the Arab League.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry announced on Tuesday that the country is suspending further deployment of troops to Iraq, but refuses to withdraw servicemen and hardware already on Iraqi soil.

Baghdad was informed of Ankara’s decision in a phone conversation between the Turkish and Iraqi foreign ministers late on Monday.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu reiterated Ankara’s respect for Iraq’s territorial integrity, Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic told reporters.

In a separate statement, Turkish PM Davutoglu expressed readiness to visit Baghdad as soon as possible to discuss the current troop deployment crisis between Ankara and Baghdad.

Iraqi media reported earlier that on December 4 Iraq’s PM said: “Turkish troops numbering around one regiment armored with tanks and artillery entered Iraqi territory,” labeling the incident as a “serious breach of Iraqi sovereignty.” He added that the move “does not conform with good neighborly relations,” and called on to Ankara to “withdraw immediately from Iraqi territory.”

Ankara’s reaction has been offhand. It claimed up to 150 of its troops had crossed into Iraq to train forces battling Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

Although the US-led anti-IS coalition was aware of Turkey’s move, it emerged later that Ankara’s deployment is not part of the efforts of the US-led coalition battling Islamic State.

Turkish troops did not simply cross the Iraqi border into the Nineveh province, but penetrated 100 kilometer into Iraq, according to Reuters. They reached the Bashiqa region, about 10 kilometers northeast of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which has been occupied by IS terrorists since June 2014.

Turkey is lying when it says it received Baghdad’s blessing to invade part of its territory, according to the Iraqi PM.

On Monday, the governor of the Iraqi province of Nineveh told Sputnik that the number of Turkish servicemen there has reached 900.

On December 6, Baghdad warned that “Iraq has the right to use all available options, including resorting to the UN Security Council if these forces are not withdrawn within 48 hours,” reiterating the same ultimatum on Monday giving Ankara 24 hours to leave the area.

READ MORE: ‘Incursion’: Baghdad demands Turkey withdraw ‘training’ troops from northern Iraq

Iraqi Defense Minister Khaled Obeidi turned down his Turkish counterpart’s invitation to visit Ankara. A spokesman for the Iraqi Defense Ministry said the visit will take place only after Turkey sends “positive signals” regarding the withdrawal of its troops from northern Iraq.

Ankara refused to extract its military, claiming that heavily armed troops deployed to a camp near Mosul are needed to protect an Iraqi Kurd training mission, which is taking place near the frontline with Islamic State.

“It is our duty to provide security for our soldiers providing training there,” the Guardian cited the Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu as saying in an interview with Kanal 24 television. “Everybody is present in Iraq … The goal of all of them is clear. Train-and-equip advisory support is being provided. Our presence there is not a secret.”

ISIS terror cell planned attacks inside Israel

December 8, 2015

ISIS terror cell planned attacks inside Israel Five members of same Arab-Israeli family set up ‘Islamic State’ terror cell, planned attacks inside Israel.

By Ari Soffer

First Publish: 12/8/2015, 3:42 PM / Last Update: 12/8/2015, 4:26 PM

Source: ISIS terror cell planned attacks inside Israel – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

Five members of the same Arab-Israeli family have been charged with setting up an Islamic State (ISIS) terror cell with the intent to carry out terror attacks inside Israel, it was cleared for publication Tuesday.

According to the Israel Security Agency (ISA), the five terrorists – who are all from the northern Israeli town of Nazareth – exchanged Facebook messages extolling ISIS’s jihadist ideology, trained with weapons and planned to wage a terrorist campaign inside the Jewish state.

None of them had any plans to travel to Syria or Iraq, investigators said. The revelation comes just one day after senior Israeli security sources estimated that an ISIS terror attack inside Israel was only a matter of time.

The five were identified as Abd al Karim Ihab abd al Rahman Sliman (22), Mahmoud Ihab abd al Rahman Sliman (18), Abd al Karim Jamal Ali Sliman (23), Mohammed Salah Mohammed Sliman (19), and Murad Mohammed Salim Sliman (27).

From the ISA investigation it became clear that during the last year, the five worked to obtain weapons and even trained in using during repeated meetings. In the meetings they expressed support for ISIS and praised the concept of jihad against the “infidels.”

During their investigation, they gave over two rifles that they used for sporadic target practice at Hursha, located adjacent to Nazareth. One rifle was of the SKS model, while the other was a Carl Gustav variety.

ISA noted that during September 2014, the defense minister declared ISIS an illegal association, and one-and-a-half months ago the government of Israel declared ISIS a terrorist organization.

Indictments have been filed against the members of the terror cell by the northern district attorney’s office at the Nazareth District Court.

While only a few dozen Israeli Arabs are known to have traveled to Syria to join ISIS – far lower than the numbers from surrounding Middle Eastern countries, or even in Europe – a growing number of ISIS cells have been broken up by security forces, indicating a growing threat from the jihadist group.

Most such cells – including one broken up just last month – focus on recruiting fighters to travel out of Israel to ISIS’s “Caliphate.” However, a growing number of ISIS terror plots inside Israeli borders have been uncovered in recent month, including a cell which planned an attack on an IDF base in northern Israel.

The pictures of the five-man ISIS cell can be viewed below.

The Palestinians’ Window of Opportunity Is Closing

December 8, 2015

The Palestinians’ Window of Opportunity Is Closing

by Bassam Tawil December 8, 2015 at 5:00 am

Source: The Palestinians’ Window of Opportunity Is Closing

  • Now the Israelis are trying to circumvent us by means of agreements with the Arab countries. They may not have much to offer the Arabs, except for advances in technology, agriculture and medicine, but now they all have a common enemy: Iran.
  • Our demands are the result of the greed of our leaders, who do not want a Palestinian state alongside Israel, they want a Palestinian state instead of Israel. Recently we openly exposed our desire to destroy the Jewish state. That is why we demand Jerusalem for ourselves, insist on the right of Palestinians refugees to “return” and threaten the Jews.
  • Like Hezbollah, we interpret Israel’s political left as a sign of weakness and dissention. We all sense their hypocrisy, arrogance, disdain, and how they patronize us as if we were stupid. That is why the Palestinians have always respected the Israeli right: they always tell us the truth.
  • The Europeans attempt to weaken Israel with territorial concessions that would make it possible for the Palestinians to fire rockets at Israel’s main cities and airport from the West Bank.
  • After seeing the results of their withdrawal from Gaza, the Israelis doubtless think one would have to be crazy ever to give up control of the border with Jordan.

Before Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s trip to the United States to meet President Barack Obama, administration officials there said they had given up hope of establishing a Palestinian state during the president’s term of office. One could only think that if as the Palestinian project failed during the current administration, which supports the Palestinian cause, and with a secretary of state as highly motivated as John Kerry, the probability of its ever succeeding was fading away.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington, on November 9, 2015. (Image source: White House video screenshot)

Just as boycotting and marking Israeli goods from the territories have led only to the mass layoff of thousands of Palestinian workers from dream jobs in the settlements, the fairy tales about a binational state will leave the Palestinians with nothing to show for our years of waiting.

Unfortunately, as time passes, Palestinian intransigence has led the Israelis to build a Zionist enterprise that cannot simply be dismissed.

In effect, regardless of what we say and think, apparently our agreement or disagreement is not a condition for the continued existence of the Jews on land they took from us. The danger is that at the rate Israel is growing, at some point there may not be that much territory left for a future Palestinian state.

The window of opportunity for change is rapidly closing. The sad truth is that the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas and the other suicidal organizations, and by the Palestinians who stab Israeli civilians to death on the streets, are nothing more than the manifestations of our hopelessness and weakness. Worse, they serve the interests of the Israelis by fortifying their refusal to accomplish anything with us. We do not have one single individual in our leadership who has proposed a pragmatic plan that can be implemented to halt the process that is inexorably distancing us from any possible political solution with the Israelis.

As the growing wave of useless terrorism beats impotently on Israel’s increasing hesitance to accommodate us, it becomes increasingly clear that our leaders will eventually come to the painful realization that the Palestinian cause is going nowhere. It is a pity that when the scales fall from our eyes, our eventual, commonsensical acceptance of the existence of the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jews will come at the expense of so much needless death and suffering.

All we have been offering the Israelis are our mistakes and our unrealistic demands. One of them consists of putting the capital of Palestine in the heart of the capital of the State of Israel. Another is the ridiculous demand for the “return” of millions of Palestinian refugees to the territory of the State of Israel — which the Jews know would be demographic suicide for their country, and which would only be physically possible if all the Israelis suddenly vanished.

For our unrealizable demands, we look to the Europeans for support, while all they are interested in is gaining time and paying lip service to the local Islamists menacing them, while in effect, nothing is done for our cause.

Recently, out of an unjustified sense of self-confidence, we openly exposed our desire to destroy the Jewish state. That is why we demand Jerusalem for ourselves, insist on the right of the Palestinians refugees to “return” and threaten the Jews that if they do not accept our conditions we will demand the establishment of a binational state in all of Palestine.

Our demands are the result of the greed of our leaders, who do not want a Palestinian state alongside Israel, they want a Palestinian state instead of Israel. They delude themselves into thinking the West genuinely supports the Palestinian cause, hoping that by marking products made in the settlements, Israel will collapse like South Africa.

In reality, while the West does in fact hate Jews, it does not like Arabs much better. The West only supports the Palestinian cause out of the fear of another Islamist Arab Spring, carried out in their own backyards, instead of far away in the Middle East. We are betting that the West will support us against the Zionists, but even the radical Islamists know that Western support will mean a reentry of the Crusaders into our lands.

Our leaders have yet to identify the true source of Israel’s strengths, and in that they have made a fatal mistake. Like Hezbollah, we interpret Israel’s political left as a sign of weakness and dissention, we regard Israeli society as one long internal disagreement, and we consider Israel a paper tiger. What we do not understand is that arguing with one another and the lack of blind agreement are the foundations of Israeli democratic unity, and not signs that Israel is falling apart as we so earnestly desire.

What we have in fact identified is the sycophantic Israeli leftists, who think they can fool and cheat us with toned-down versions of the Zionist goals or seduce us with economic promises to make us suspect them less. We all sense their hypocrisy, arrogance, disdain, and how they patronize us as if we were stupid. That is why the Palestinians have always respected the Israeli right: they always tell the truth, even if it is unpleasant for us to hear.

Now the Israelis are trying to circumvent us by means of agreements with the Arab countries. They may not have much to offer the Arabs, except for advances in technology, agriculture and medicine, but now they all have a common enemy: Iran.

You can be sure that the Israelis do not delude themselves into thinking the Arabs will ever consider them as anything but a cancer in the heart of the Middle East. They rely only on their own strength and do not particularly care if we or the rest of the world agree. Paradoxically the more they strengthen and stop trying to negotiate with us, the more we shall expose our willingness to reach an agreement with them.

International oversight is out of the question. The Israelis are suspicious, and the Palestinians are greedy and respond only negatively.

Those who think Israel is immoral because it uses force do not understand that without the use of force Hamas, ISIS and Fatah would destroy it.

The European attempt to weaken Israel with territorial concessions that would make it possible for the Palestinians to fire rockets at Israel’s main cities and airport from the West Bank only increases the Palestinian appetite to eradicate Israel, and makes the Israelis more intransigent.

In view of the Palestinian determination not to reach a political solution, but rather bring about Israel’s demographic destruction as a binational apartheid state, it seems clear that the Israelis will continue with a reinforced reluctance to have anything to do with us. These actions on our part will simply lead Israel to make unilateral decisions, such as its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank. After seeing the results of their withdrawal from Gaza, the Israelis doubtless think they would have to be crazy ever to give up control of the border with Jordan, for fear of the massive infiltration of weapons and terrorist operatives. They may simply draw new borders around their settlement blocks, and leave the rest to the Palestinians.

Or they may simply cede, for instance, the city of Um el-Fahm, which for years has openly identified itself as Palestinian. If that happens, it is almost certain that Hamas will take over the territory. Hamas will then kill the Palestinian Authority activists or throw them off roofs, as they did in Gaza, thereby proving to the world that Israel was right to act as it did.

The suggestion that the Israelis would agree to a multinational force along its border with Jordan to prevent weapons, ISIS or other terrorists from crossing the border is a fantasy. What do international forces do when the first bullet is fired? They flee! They were incapable of preventing slaughter in Syria, in Iraq, and regrettably cannot even maintain security in their own countries.

In the end, we shall see an Israel that is stronger and even more reluctant than before to trust Palestinians, and we shall have lost our dream of a Palestinian state forever.

Whistleblower Warned Turkey Would Attack A Russian Jet

December 7, 2015

Whistleblower Warned Turkey Would Attack A Russian Jet Tyler Durden’s picture

by Tyler Durden on 12/05/2015 21:25 -0500

Source: Whistleblower Warned Turkey Would Attack A Russian Jet | Zero Hedge

Society needs whistleblowers. They serve as a check on corruption and governmental overreach and in the private sector, they are often the only thing that stands between unbridled corporate greed and the otherwise clueless masses.

As Edward Snowden demonstrated, even the most “developed” of nations need checks on government and that goes double in places like Turkey, where an autocracy is masquerading as a largely developed democracy.

Despite the fact that Erdogan has managed to create an environment in which the press and the police are afraid to pursue the truth for fear of brutal reprisals from Ankara, there’s one Turkish citizen who stands against the suppression of free speech: Fuat Avni.

Fuat Avni is a pseudonym used by an anonymous government whistleblower. He has more than 2.3 million followers on Twitter (so, half as many as Donald Trump).

Here are two excerpts from an interview Vocativ conducted with Fuat Avni last year:

Vocativ: Is there a reason why you chose the name Fuat Avni?

 

FA: I did not open the account with this name initially. I used different names. But I did not want any other person to be hurt because of what I wrote, so I changed user names frequently. Fuat Avni means “a helping heart.” I thought it to be suitable and I continued with it.

 

Vocativ: Do you alone control the Twitter account? 

 

FA: There is no team behind it, only me. I don’t need to get any information from anyone because for years I have been working at in sensitive positions within the AKP [Turkey’s ruling party]. Because of my position, I have information about people at critical points. The reports and information come to my desk as well. It is ridiculous to think that an insider gets information from an outsider. Only I and Allah know who Fuat Avni is.

 

Well, on Sunday, October 11, Fuat Avnil tweeted something interesting.

18. Seçimden çok korkan Yezid, iç savaş çıkarmanın yanısıra Rus jetlerini düşürüp ülkeyi fiilen savaşa sokmayı bile düşünüyor.

That, allegedly, is the tweet that foretold Ankara’s move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border late last month in the first incident of a NATO member engaging a Russian or Soviet aircraft in more than six decades.

The prediction didn’t go unnoticed.

Late last month, Russia’s sharp-tongued, US foreign policy critic extraordinaire Maria Zakharova cited the Fuat Avnil tweet in accusing Turkey of purposefully downing the Russian warplane. Here’s Today’s Zaman (whose editor in chief just resigned under legal pressure from Erdogan):

In comments on Turkey’s recent downing of a Russian jet over violation of its airspace, a spokesperson from the Russian Foreign Ministry has recalled that famous Turkish Twitter whistleblower claimed back in October that the Turkish government was planning to down a Russian jet to remain in power.

 

At a press conference on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that Turkey “purposefully” downed the Russian Su-24 at the Turkish-Syrian border on Tuesday and said the “unprecedented” incident will have serious repercussions.  

 

She also quoted statements of Turkish Twitter whistleblower Fuat Avni who claimed in October that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government and President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an were  planning to down a Russian jet to bring Turkey to brink of war with Russia to ultimately keep its power. “This is very interesting,” Zakharova said.

 


Yes, it is “very interesting” that Turkey’s most famous whistleblower and anonymous Twitter personality should predict such a dramatic event more than a month ahead of time. As Zaman goes on to note, “Fuat Avni’s identity is unknown and has prompted wide speculation, but the account has previously revealed numerous details that would appear to indicate that the user is close to or inside the government and the account has attracted a large following.”

Fuat Avni also predicted the widespread crackdown on the media ahead of of November’s elections. The government also attempted to have his account blocked in October after he tweeted information about Bilal Erdogan’s finances (again, from Today’s Zaman):

Fuat Avni said in a series of tweets on Oct. 4: “In Italy, Bilal will manage accounts in Switzerland and other countries. Bilal has billions of dollars to manage.” Claiming that Bilal flew to Italy on Sept. 27 and plans to remain there for a while, with family members possibly joining him later, Fuat Avni wrote: “They are planning to keep Bilal in Italy until the [Nov. 1] election. They will decide whether or not he will come back depending on the situation after the election.” The whistleblower said there is a plan in place for President Erdogan and his family to flee a possible trial on corruption charges if necessary after Nov. 1 and that Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioglu is organizing the plan.

 

After Fuat Avni’s claims were reported by media outlets, Bilal Erdogan’s lawyer filed a complaint against Fuat Avni’s Twitter account, asking for a court to block access to it on the grounds that the tweets breach his rights. In a decision on Oct. 6, the ?stanbul 7th Penal Court of Peace decided to demand that Twitter block access to the account in Turkey, but the popular social media website has refused to implement the court decision.

As you can see, this is a serious thorn in the side of the Erodgan regime and in case the implications of the above aren’t clear enough, we’ll close with a quote from Istanbul-based Cihan News – which is controlled by Zaman owner Feza Publications – ca. October 12:

Avni, who claims to be among Erdogan’s inner circle, says the president of Turkey has seen the latest polls in the run-up to the snap election in November, and is convinced that the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) cannot regain a single-party majority. 

 

Avni purports that Erdogan is even thinking of declaring war on Russia and taking advantage of the de facto situation, consolidating his grip on power. 

US-led coalition airstrike hit Syrian regime camp for the first time, kills four soldiers

December 7, 2015

US-led coalition airstrike hit Syrian regime camp for the first time, kills four soldiers

Source: US-led coalition airstrike hit Syrian regime camp for the first time, kills four soldiers – Daily Sabah

 U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle from the 48th Fighter Wing lands at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, November 12, 2015 (Reuters Photo)

U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle from the 48th Fighter Wing lands at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, November 12, 2015 (Reuters Photo)

An air strike believed to have been carried out by the U.S.-led coalition killed four Syrian military personnel in Deir al Zor province, which is mostly held by Daesh, a monitoring group said on Monday, in what would be the first time coalition warplanes had hit Syrian government forces.

A source close to the Syrian government confirmed the strike and said there had been casualties and vehicles destroyed.

Syria Foreign Ministry said that four jets from U.S.-led coalition targeted Syrian army camp with nine missiles, killing three soldiers, wounding 13 on Sunday, Reuters reported.

Meanwhile, the US-led coalition denied the allegations saying its planes carried out air strikes that killed at least three Syrian regime troops.

“We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir Ezzor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” said Colonel Steve Warren, spokesman for the coalition.

He said the coalition’s only strikes in Deir Ezzor on Sunday were some 55 kilometres (34 miles) southeast of the area where the troops were allegedly killed, near the town of Ayyash.

“We struck 55 km away from the area that the Syrians say was struck. That was the only area in Deir Ezzor we struck yesterday,” he told AFP.

“There were no human beings in the area that we struck yesterday, all we struck was a wellhead,” he added.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strike hit part of the Saeqa military camp near the town of Ayyash in western Deir al Zor province and wounded 13 military personnel in the first such incident since the coalition began its bombing campaign against Daesh in Syria.

The strike had hit some time in the last 24 hours, it said.

The U.S.-led force’s campaign is against Daesh, which controls most of Deir al Zor, including its capital, and has regularly targeted the group in the eastern Syrian province.

In Deir al Zor city, another air strike believed to be carried out by the coalition overnight killed a woman and two of her children, the Observatory said.

Deir al Zor province links Daesh’s de facto capital in Raqqa with territory controlled by the group in Iraq, and its oilfields are a major source of revenue for the group.

 

 

Iraq Could Ask Russia for Help After ‘Invasion’ by Turkish Forces

December 6, 2015

Iraq Could Ask Russia for Help After ‘Invasion’ by Turkish Forces

19:08 06.12.2015

Source: Iraq Could Ask Russia for Help After ‘Invasion’ by Turkish Forces

The head of Iraq’s parliamentary committee on security and defense, Hakim al-Zamili, in an interview with Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, said that Baghdad could turn to Moscow for help after Turkey had allegedly breached Iraq’s sovereignty.

Numerous reports suggest that on Friday Turkey sent approximately 130 soldiers to norther Iraq. Turkish forces, deployed near the city of Mosul, are allegedly tasked with training Peshmerga, which has been involved in the fight against Daesh, also known as ISIL.On Saturday, Baghdad described the move as “a serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty,” since it had not been authorized by Iraqi authorities.

“We may soon ask Russia for direct military intervention in Iraq in response to the Turkish invasion and the violation of Iraqi sovereignty,” Iraqi lawmaker al-Zamili said.

Earlier, Hakim al-Zamili threatened Turkey with a military operation if the Turkish soldiers do not leave Iraq immediately.The parliamentarian reiterated that Turkey sent troops into Iraqi territory without notifying the government.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi urged Ankara to immediately pull out its forces, including tanks and artillery, from the Nineveh province. Iraqi President Fuad Masum referred to the incident as a violation of international law and urged Ankara to refrain from similar activities in the future, al-Sumaria TV Channel reported.