STEALTH JIHADIST Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser, who likes to call himself a Muslim reformer, is anything but as he proves when he says, “There’s no greater threat” than Pamela Geller and her counter-ji…
Jasser’s book “Battle for the Soul of Islam” is a palliative compilation of his groundless wishful thinking that he proposes to non-Muslim Americans, as his publisher writes: “He offers non-Muslims a definitive comprehension of the difference between Islam and the spiritual cancer known as Islamism, or political Islam, and how violence and extremism run counter to Islam’s true teachings.”
The Clarion Project has always dissembled about the ideological roots of the phenomena it covers.
By Pamela Geller – on March 16, 2017
The Clarion Project has always dissembled about the ideological roots of the phenomena it covers. Its “Honor Diaries” video falsely claimed that honor killing was un-Islamic. Its “Third Jihad” video went out its way to assure us that the vast majority of Muslims not only didn’t participate in jihad activity, but rejected and abhorred it (while numerous international surveys show otherwise). The Grand Mufti of the Stealth Jihad, Zuhdi Jasser, is on its advisory board, so it’s no surprise that Clarion would rush to his aid in our recent controversy. (See my response to Jasser’s libels here.) But Robert Spencer thoroughly eviscerates their claims and shows them to be the ignorant, easily-led naifs they are.
“Clarion Project tries to show that Islamic reform is possible, instead only shows how easy it is to be fooled,” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, March 15, 2017:
The Clarion Project, of which moderate Muslim Zuhdi Jasser is an advisory board member, has rushed to his aid in our recent controversy, claiming to demonstrate in this piece that reform of Islam is not only possible, but happening now in all sorts of ways I am not acknowledging. Now, I have never said Islamic reform is not possible, but this Clarion article unfortunately only confirms several points I have made many times before: that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is really nothing of the kind, as the central doctrines of Islam are left untouched; and also that much of what is touted as reform of Islam is actually cynical deception designed to keep Infidels complacent. Both are on abundant display in this Clarion piece. More below.
“Is Muslim Reform Even Possible?,” by Elliot Friedland, Clarion Project, March 15, 2017:
Clarion advisory board member Dr. Zudhi Jasser has hit out of critics who claim that Muslim reform movements are bound to fail because they are not accepted within the Muslim community….
Spencer later adds, “I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed. I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does.”These are important questions that must be addressed honestly.
But Spencer misses the point in three key ways:
Firstly, Spencer’s arguments belie the fact that Islam has already changed many times throughout the centuries. It has seen intellectual flourishing, such as in the Abbasid House of Wisdom, and iconoclastic destruction, such as that meted out against Hindu India by the Ghaznavid Empire, or, of course, the contemporary Islamic State (who cited the exploits of Mahmud of Ghazni in the latest issue of their propaganda magazine Rumiyah). Just like Christianity has gone from the charity of St Francis of Assisi to the torture chambers of the Inquisition to fighting for both the abolition of and the maintenance of slavery in the 19th century.
This bespeaks a confusion about what reform of Islam actually is, or would be. Of course Islam, like all other religions and belief systems, has been expressed in different ways by its various adherents. But that is not the same thing as it undergoing an actual change of doctrine, such as, say, a rejection of the violent jihad imperative or the necessity to subjugate the “People of the Book” (i.e., Jews, Christians, and a few other groups) under the hegemony of Islamic law as dhimmis. There has never been such a rejection. The Abbasid House of Wisdom, for example, was flourishing amidst Islamic oppression that will sound familiar to people who have been reading about the atrocities of the Islamic State. Raymond Ibrahim reports this about the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid: “In the West [he] is depicted as a colorful and fun-loving prankster in the Arabian Nights. Though renowned for his secular pursuits — including riotous living, strong drink and harems of concubines, to the point that a modern day female Kuwaiti activist referred to him as a model to justify the institution of sex-slavery — Harun al-Rashid was still pious enough ‘to force Christians to distinguish themselves by dress, to expel them from their positions, and to destroy their churches through the use of fatwas by the imams.’”
To take but two recent examples: In 2016, the Marrakesh Declaration saw more than 250 scholars from around the Muslim world convene at the request of the King of Morocco (a direct descendant of Muhammed himself and hardly a marginal figure) to “AFFIRM that it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries.”
The Marrakesh Declaration does indeed say that. This does not, however, constitute any reform of Islam in the slightest degree. A hadith has Muhammad saying, “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah” (At-Tabarani). Muhammad didn’t by saying this cancel the Qur’anic imperative to make sure that the dhimmis “pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). He didn’t want the dhimmis hurt because their jizya tax money was an important source of revenue for the Muslim community: the caliph Umar is quoted in a hadith saying that the jizya is the “source of the livelihood of your dependents” (Bukhari 4.53.388). One shouldn’t harm the goose that is laying the golden eggs. But this doesn’t mean that the dhimmis were any less subjugated. When the Marrakesh Declaration says that “it is unconscionable to employ religion for the purpose of aggressing upon the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries,” it is not reforming or rejecting the Qur’anic imperative to subjugate those minorities as dhimmis. In Islamic law, the dhimmis have rights; they just don’t have all the rights that Muslims have.
Closer to America, since 2013 the Muslim Leadership Initiative has seen Muslim leaders from America come to Israel to learn about Jews and Zionism, abandoning the decades long opposition to any interaction at all with the Jewish state within the establishment leadership in the Muslim community. Although this provoked a massive backlash, the fact that it happened at all is monumental in showing that it is possible to have a dialogue and move towards solutions to some of the seemingly intractable inter-communal problems that we face.
This one is really embarrassing for Clarion. Listed as an “MLI Facilitator” is none other than Haroon Moghul, a name that will be familiar to longtime Jihad Watch readers. Moghul is one of the most ridiculous exponents of the “Islamophobia” victimhood propaganda industry, and he has shown himself to be many times. Obsessed with furthering claims of Muslim victimhood, Moghul traffics in malicious defamation (likening Pamela Geller and me to jihad mass murder mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki) and dishonesty (discounting the reality of jihad terror while magnifying the fiction of “Islamophobia”) and taking advantage of his audience’s ignorance about Islam to invert reality, portraying Muslims as victims of a cruel “Islamophobic” machine, instead of non-Muslims threatened by the global jihad. He is the very model of a cynical pseudo-moderate taking advantage of the ignorance of his non-Muslim interlocutors in order to lull them into complacency regarding the jihad threat.
Secondly, Spencer does not acknowledge the damage done by rejecting Muslims like Jasser. When Muslims like Jasser are not seen as authentic by non-Muslims, it makes it that much harder for him to pitch to Muslims that his path will lead to acceptance. Fear is an incredibly powerful factor in politics. If Muslim communities fear they will be excluded no matter what, that non-Muslims have no interest in protecting them or their rights and are only interested in them as opponents of jihad, they have little incentive to speak out.
As I explained yesterday, Muslims actually don’t care what non-Muslims think about Islam, any more than Christians care about whether the Ayatollah Khamenei or caliph al-Baghdadi think they’re Christian or not. As influential as it is, this argument doesn’t get any less absurd by constant repetition. Until some Muslim appears who can honestly say, “I was going to join ISIS until I heard Pope Francis say that the Qur’an rejects violence,” I will continue to think it absurd.
Thirdly, Spencer does not recognize that these things take a long time. Even within living memory, the West has seen monumental cultural shifts, on women’s rights, on gay rights, on race relations. These changes have pushed the contemporary West further in the direction of upholding human freedoms than any other civilization in the history of the world….
Muslim Reform is happening. Just slower and more quietly than Robert Spencer would like.
Great. How slow is too slow? Is there a timetable? How long do we have to wait? How many people have to get killed by jihadists before we realize that waiting for this reform to happen is pointless?
The Clarion Project tried in this article to show that Islamic reform is possible and happening now. Instead, it only showed the perils of ignorance and how easy it is to be fooled by cynical sharpies such as Haroon Moghul.
Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has warned that Europe is headed for “wars of religion,” claiming Dutch politicians are taking the continent “to a cliff.” The statement comes amid a bitter dispute between the two countries.
Source: ‘Wars of religion will start in Europe’ – Turkish FM — RT News
READ MORE: Activists in German town protest mosque construction with crosses (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
Cavusoglu was speaking at a rally in Antalya on Thursday and gave his assessment of the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. The outcome of the polls saw a failure for the populist politician Geert Wilders to garner a majority of the votes, after a campaign rallying for the closure of mosques and banning of the Koran.
However, instead of rejoicing that the politician and his anti-Islam views had been defeated by Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), Cavusoglu warned that Wilders’ beliefs are shared by others across the Netherlands.
“There is no difference between the mindsets of Geert Wilders and social democrats in the Netherlands. They all have the same mindset…that mindset is taking Europe to the cliff. Soon wars of religion may and will start in Europe,” Cavusoglu said, as quoted by Reuters.
The comments come amid a bitter feud between the Netherlands and Turkey. Ankara suspended high-level relations with the European country on Monday, after it banned ministers from addressing Turks at a rally in Rotterdam, where they were expected to advocate for a constitutional referendum in Turkey.
Following the ban, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused the Netherlands of acting like “Nazi remnants.”
Erdogan also accused the Netherlands of state terrorism and having a “rotten” character earlier this week, claiming the Dutch were responsible for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian War.
“We know how rotten their character is from their massacre of 8,000 Bosnians there. Nobody should try to give us lessons on morality, especially not those who have blood on their hands,” he said.
Dutch peacekeepers have been accused of standing down at the time, allegedly allowing Bosnian Serb forces to kill up to 8,000 Bosnian Muslims.
Prior to Turkey imposing diplomatic sanctions on the Netherlands, Rutte warned Ankara that his country would “never negotiate under threats by the Turkish government.”
He said he would attempt to “de-escalate” the row, but stressed that it “takes two to tango.”
Erdogan is lobbying for 5.5 million expatriate Turks to vote ‘yes’ in an upcoming referendum which would give him sweeping new powers to issue decrees, declare emergency rule, appoint ministers and state officials, and dissolve parliament.
Critics say the move would be a step backwards for democracy, removing the system of checks and balances.
Report: Iran Pushing For Deal With Assad Regime To Build Naval Base In Syria
12 Mar 2017
Source: Report: Iran Pushing Deal With Assad Regime To Build Naval Base In Syria
LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/Getty Images
The naval base would act as payment for Iran’s support of Assad over the past six years of civil war, the unnamed official said.
According to the report, establishing an Iranian military presence on the Mediterranean Sea would be viewed by Israel as a “radical step” that would “heighten the instability in the region and advance terror” against the Jewish state. Such a measure would also increase the threat to the Israeli home front since it would strengthen the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah, which is currently fighting in Syria.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu relayed his concerns about Iran’s intentions to build a naval base in his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
“I spoke with President Putin at length about the strategic significance of Iran’s creating a permanent presence in Syria, or its attempt to do so,” he said in a press briefing following their meeting, adding that an Iranian presence in Syria would be against the “long-term interests of everyone except the Iranians.”
“I said that it would undermine the stability, and actually hurt the possibility of a diplomatic arrangement [for Syria]. I made it clear that it is something that will be unacceptable to the State of Israel.”
Netanyahu said he believed Putin was receptive to his concerns.
“I made it clear to President Putin our resolute opposition to the consolidation of Iran and its proxies in Syria,” the prime minister said. “We see Iran trying to build a military force, military infrastructure, with the intention to be based in Syria, including the attempt by Iran to build a seaport. All this has serious implications in terms of Israel’s security.”
Al Harith’s story reveals the depth of one of Europe’s biggest scandals: the jihadis’ use of European cradle-to-grave entitlements to fund their “holy war”. Europe gave them everything: jobs, homes, public assistance, unemployment benefits, relief
by Giulio Meotti
March 10, 2017 at 5:00 am
Source: Jihadis Living on Support Payments from the Europe They Vowed to Destroy
Four years ago, the British liberal newspaper, The Guardian, ran a story about the “survivors of Guantanamo“, the “victims of America’s ‘icon of lawlessness'”, “Britain’s survivors of the detention centre that has been called the ‘gulag of our times'”. The article featured a photograph of Jamal al Harith.
Al Harith, born Ronald Fiddler, a Christian convert to Islam, returned to Manchester from detention at Guantanamo Bay thanks to activism of David Blunkett, Home Secretary of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. Al Harith was immediately welcomed in England as a hero, the innocent victim of the unjust “war on terror” after September 11. The Mirror and ITV gave him £60,000 ($73,000) for an exclusive interview about his experience at Guantanamo. Al Harith was also compensated with one million pounds by the British authorities. The victim of the “gulag of our times” bought a very nice house with the taxpayers’ cash.
A few weeks ago, al Harith made his last “journey”: he was blown up in Mosul, Iraq, on behalf of the Islamic State. Al Harith had also been recruited by the non-governmental organization “CAGE” (formerly known as “Cageprisoners”) as part of its testimony advocating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Celebrities such as Vanessa Redgrave, Victoria Brittain, Peter Oborne and Sadiq Khan appeared at CAGE’s fundraising events. The NGO has been funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, a fund created by the chocolate magnate, and by the Roddick Foundation, the charity of Anita Roddick. Al Harith was also invited to the Council of Europe, to give testimony against retaining Guantanamo.
Al Harith’s story reveals the depth of one of Europe’s biggest scandals: the jihadis’ use of European cradle-to-grave entitlements to fund their “holy war”. Europe gave them everything: jobs, homes, public assistance, unemployment benefits, relief payments, child benefits, disability payments, cash support. These Muslim extremists, however, do not see this “Dependistan”, as Mark Steyn called the welfare state, as a sign of generosity, but of weakness. They understand that Europe is ready to be destroyed. They have no respect for it. From Marseille to Malmö, many Muslim children have been raised to despise the societies that have made them so comfortable. Most Islamists in Europe are now living on support payments from the nations they had vowed to destroy.
A few days ago, the Danish press revealed that the Danish government has been paying sickness and disability benefits to Muslim extremists fighting in Syria for the Islamic State. “It is a huge scandal that we disburse money from the welfare fund in Denmark for people who go to Syria,” said Employment Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. The terrorists who struck Paris and Brussels have also used the generous British welfare system to fund their jihad. It is emerging from a trial in the UK that Mohamed Abrini, known as “the man with the hat” after the deadly attack at Brussels airport, received £3,000 in benefits before flying to Paris and disappearing.
It is not the first time that the role of the welfare state emerges in the Islamic infrastructure of terror:
Europe’s welfare system has created a cultural toxin for many in a sullen, unproductive Muslim underclass who live in the segregated enclaves such as the banlieues of Paris or “Londonistan”. Filled with religious certainty and ideological hatred for the West, not required to assimilate to Europe’s values and norms, certain of these European Muslims seem to feel as if they are destined to devour an exhausted civilization.
 Muhammad Shamsuddin, a 39-year-old London-based Islamist, was featured in a documentary called “The Jihadis Next Door.” Shamsuddin, a divorced father of five who lives on state handouts and claims he cannot work because he has “chronic fatigue syndrome,” was filmed preaching hate against non-Muslims on British streets. (Image source: Channel 4 video screenshot) |
Public policy goals instead need to be to move people off welfare — shown to be basically a disincentive to looking for work — except in extraordinary cases, and toward personal responsibility. There need to be legal limits on the uses to which welfare funds can be put — for example, welfare funds should not to be used for purchasing illegal drugs, for gambling, for terrorism or, as there is no free speech in Europe anyway, for promoting terrorism. One could create and fine-tune such a list. Disregarding the limitations could result in losing the benefits. Measures such as that would will help fight against the ghettoization and Islamization of Europe’s Muslims.
Who is winning here? Democracy or Islamic extremism? The cycle of welfare and jihad needs to be stopped. Now.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic.”
By Pamela Geller – on February 25, 2017
This is a throwback to the politically correct lies and half-truths that deformed our response to the Islamic jihad threat during the Obama years. President Trump had vowed to correct this. Now he has appointed a national security adviser who is just as willfully ignorant as Obama and his team. This has to be sorted out, and quickly.
“H.R. McMaster Breaks With Administration on Views of Islam,” by Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, February 24, 2017:
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser has told his staff that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are perverting their religion, rejecting a key ideological view of other senior Trump advisers and signaling a potentially more moderate approach to the Islamic world.
The adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.
That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.
It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.
Wearing his Army uniform, General McMaster spoke to a group that has been rattled and deeply demoralized after weeks of upheaval, following a haphazard transition from the Obama administration and amid the questions about links to Russia, which swiftly engulfed Mr. Flynn.
General McMaster, several officials said, has been vocal about his views on dealing with Islamic militancy, including with Mr. Trump, who on Monday described him as “a man of tremendous talent, tremendous experience.” General McMaster got the job after Mr. Trump’s first choice, Robert S. Harward, a retired Navy vice admiral, turned it down.
Within a day of his appointment on Monday, General McMaster was popping into offices to introduce himself to the council’s professional staff members. The staff members, many of them holdovers from the Obama administration, felt viewed with suspicion by Mr. Trump’s team and shut out of the policy-making process, according to current and former officials.
In his language, General McMaster is closer to the positions of former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both took pains to separate acts of terrorism from Islamic teaching, in part because they argued that the United States needed the help of Muslim allies to hunt down terrorists.
“This is very much a repudiation of his new boss’s lexicon and worldview,” said William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of “The ISIS Apocalypse.”
“McMaster, like Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United States should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” Mr. McCants said.
“There is a deep hunger for McMaster’s view in the interagency,” he added, referring to the process by which the State Department, Pentagon and other agencies funnel recommendations through the National Security Council. “The fact that he has made himself the champion of this view makes people realize they have an advocate to express dissenting opinions.”
But Mr. McCants and others cautioned that General McMaster’s views would not necessarily be the final word in a White House where Mr. Trump and several of his top advisers view Islam in deeply xenophobic terms. Some aides, including the president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, have warned of a looming existential clash between Islam and the Judeo-Christian world….
To understand the activity within any intelligence action any observer must do two things: #1 You must stay elevated. If you try to get into the weeds you will be lost because your insight will be …
To understand the activity within any intelligence action any observer must do two things:
The recent example of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Mike Pompeo traveling to Saudi Arabia last weekend, at the request of President Donald Trump, to personally present Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef with an award named after former CIA director George Tenet, is an example of the need for this approach.
If you want to understand what’s going on, you must understand the recent relationship of the parties. It begins with understanding modern political Islam.
Within “political Islam” there are various factions. However, again with the intent to remain elevated, let us just approach two larger congregations as: “Authentic supporters” and “Reform Agents”.
The modern extremist elements fall under the category of “Authentic Supporters” or Salafists (politically, The Muslim Brotherhood). The “Reform Agents” are represented by people like Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah III.
Within “Political Islam” these two elements (Authentic -vs- Reform) are fighting for the heart, soul, intellect and -in larger measures- the future of Islam in a modern world.
All the various Muslim factions fall along a continuum of authenticity to the principles of Islam. The more authentic the expression, the more violent and confrontational the group. The more moderate the expression, the reformers, the less violent… etc.
Over the course of the past decade each political side has surged and/or retreated during the larger struggle for the heart of those who adhere to the Muslim faith. The so-called “Arab Spring” was a surge of the Authentic group, and was empowered/emboldened by the foreign policy activity of exterior nations. In particular, the ideological sympathy of former President Barack Obama.
In the face of the growth of the various Authentic expressions, the Reform elements were in a retreating position attempting to contain the internal damage being carried out by the extremist groups. Reformers and more moderate voices were simply trying to hold on to the construct of a civil society amid the growing crisis created by emotional demands of extremists requiring adherence to Sharia, the authentic political law of Islam.
On January 19th 2015, three days before Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz died from a lung infection, Egypt’s President Fattah al-Sisi was urgently summoned to met with him.
It was only a few weeks earlier (New Years Day 2015) when al-Sisi delivered an impassioned speech to a scholarly audience in Al-Azhar University in Cairo comprised of Islam’s most important religious leaders.
As the most notable and visible reformer (<- important link) President Fattah al-Sisi made the case for “a religious revolution in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse“:
“The corpus of texts and ideas that we have made sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. You cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You must step outside yourselves and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.” –LINK–
President al-Sisi’s visit to Saudi Arabia to visit with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz was a meeting specifically requested by an aging 90-year-old Saudi King to recognize Sisi for his courage and leadership.
King Abdulaziz was intent on honoring his friend.
Saudi Arabia had been coping with the same internal conflict as all other Muslim nations who were caught between the internal struggle.
President Sisi left Saudi Arabia with the full support of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, and upon his death a few days later the new Saudi King Salman; who honored Sisi in a similar fashion as did his brother.
With the support of Saudi Arabia, the demands of al-Sisi to remove the extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood gained traction. The Gulf States finally, and collectively, pressured Qatar to stop aiding/financing extremism.
Under pressure Qatar conceded and expelled The Brotherhood along with the five leading voices of leadership within the Muslim Brotherhood. Recep Erdogan gave them refuge in Turkey.
This was the origin of the turning tide, when the Reform Agents began to stabilize and reassert their politics and internal domestic economies – the underlying wedge issue used by The Brotherhood to stir turmoil.
Each unstable nation being stirred by the extremist voices of various agents operating under the umbrella of the destabilizing politics expressed by The Muslim Brotherhood.
Remove the destabilizing agents and the Reformers believe they will be able to stop the extremists. This is the longer-term objective of those within the fight inside political Islam.
Now look again at the nations of Trump’s visa restrictions and you’ll note the presence of the destabilizing agents: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran [and Sudan, Somalia].
This is the necessary backdrop to understand events as they unfold and relate to President Donald Trump and his own foreign policy objectives and engagements.
It is not accidental that newly appointed CIA Director Mike Pompeo traveled to meet with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef, after a phone call between Saudi King Salman and President Trump took place.
Director Pompeo’s visit was to recognize the efforts of Saudi Arabia in the larger fight against Islamic extremism/terrorism. However, based on internal consumption, Pompeo could not be seen publicly in this regard with King Salman himself. The visible face of Saudi Reform is the crown prince.
By all appearances it seems the Trump administration was given a head’s up of sorts as to specific [Muslim Brotherhood] agents within the U.S. State Department. And also with key Democrat staffers, in highly sensitive intelligence positions, amid Congress.
Additionally:
To wit, Egyptian media announce that Fattah el-Sisi will be traveling to Washington DC to meet with President Trump:
[…] Informed sources said that the presidency is currently coordinating with the US to arrange a visit next month. The sources referred to the visit as the first official one for an Egyptian president to Washington since 2009, as the last visit since then was paid by former President Hosni Mubarak.
Meanwhile, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu will leave Washington next Monday going back to Tel Aviv. Israeli TV reported on Sunday that Netanyahu is planning to form the ‘Israeli-Saudi-Egyptian’ axis. (read more)
It is ironic, but not coincidental, that no official Egyptian delegation has visited the United States since President Obama traveled to Cairo and started “The Islamist Spring” which led to the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood extremism in Egypt.
Irony, because now the Trump administration is facing the internal extremist purging of the Muslim Brotherhood embeds remaining within the U.S. government leftover from President Obama’s aftermath…. and now, President Fattah el-Sisi, the destroyer of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt comes to officially visit President Trump in Washington.
I hope everyone can clearly see what’s going on in the bigger picture.
After eight years of Obama’s intense political embedding of extremist sympathy in every aspect of governance, and culture – President Trump is now tasked with removing it, all of it; and finding allies amid those who have already mounted the same effort.
It is also important to remember the political enterprise of The Muslim Brotherhood not only employs congressional staffers, but also has key connections to elected officials within both parties. Representative Adam Kinzinger and John McCain are two of the more obvious sympathizers on the right side of the UniParty.
Again, reference the seven states of turmoil/concern and you’ll notice a pattern:
What came next?… The installation of the Muslim Brotherhood:
What came next?…. The rise of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood
What came next? Yup, you guessed it – Muslim Brotherhood (via ISIS)
Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump
by Geert Wilders
February 2, 2017 at 4:00 am
Source: Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump
Geert Wilders:
President Donald Trump, what a relief! What a relief in comparison with the leftist dictatorship of the fearful cowardly and willfully blind leaders that we have in the rest of Europe and also here in this Chamber. It makes one cry. I tell you, finally America has a President, finally a Western country has a President who not only fulfills his promises, but also states that the security of his own citizens is his primary concern.
I tell you, Foreign Minister, that, in two weeks’ time, President Trump has passed an immigration policy that is more effective than that of your entire cabinet as long as it has existed. As long as it has existed. They did it. And I tell you something else. If we in the Netherlands, in Europe, had done what Mr Trump does – namely close the borders to people from places such as Syria – then these people, including terrorists, would not have come our way and then a lot of innocent people, innocent victims of terrorism in Europe, would still be alive today.
Speaker of the House:
And your question is?
Wilders:
So stop shedding crocodile tears. My question is: Learn from Trump and stop chickening out like cowards.
Foreign Minister Bert Koenders:
I would like to say to Mr Wilders that what he proposes is exactly what is ineffective in the fight against terrorism, namely the famous divide and rule. Ensure that the people in your own society no longer have any rights. Ensure that you look away when it comes to human rights. Ensure that the Iraqis, with whom our soldiers at the moment are fighting against ISIS, have no rights anymore and that the countries, from which terrorists obviously do not come, are the ones on this list.
The chaos we now see in the international world when it comes to air travel, does nothing to do increase the security of our people. On the contrary, it tears people apart. I will tell you one thing from my experience as foreign minister who frequently visits the Middle East: If you want to fight terrorism the worst thing you can do is to trample human rights, conduct a divide-and-rule policy and so-called screen people, whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims, and not look at what can really protect us. I address you, because we are at the moment at a central point in the Netherlands and the world. We need to fight against terrorism together. If we fail to do it together, but exclude, then I guarantee you that the fight against terrorism will not be effective and that your position is one of insecurity.
Wilders:
A lot of words, but absolutely no content. What this minister, Mrs Merkel and Prime Minister Rutte have done – what is written large on their foreheads – is open borders. Come on in everyone, do come in. Even when you have a fake passport or no identity card, come on in everyone. And we’ve seen what happens then. We have seen that with the asylum influx, the tsunami of asylum seekers, which was already disruptive in itself, terrorists have come along from countries such as Syria – because you agreed with it, because you refused to check them – who, all over Europe, from Paris to Berlin, have murdered innocent people. You’d better stop talking about security! Just stop it. Because of the open borders and bringing people from Islamic countries here, attacks were committed in Europe. Stop the lies!
Koenders:
Balderdash, Mr Wilders, balderdash! Really, how are you even able to concoct such an amalgam. As if the Dutch government is responsible for the terror attacks. First, the people who commit these attacks are responsible. Second, you know damn well that, when it comes to refugee policy and counter-terrorism, you toss it all together, as if there is no screening, as if the threat of terror comes only from the outside – often people from one’s own society are involved – and as if trampling human rights and large groups of people does not lead exactly to what we want to avoid, namely radicalization and terror. You prescribe the wrong medicine. It will not work and you will make the country unsafe with it.
The common goal: destroying western civilization.
HYPOCRISY: US To Help Build A Wall On The Entire Tunisia/Libya Border
Source: HYPOCRISY: US To Help Build A Wall On The Entire Tunisia/Libya Border » DailySurge
There’s been a lot of talk about building walls this election cycle. Donald Trump famously has built a campaign around building a wall between Mexico and the US and having Mexico pay for it.
He has been laughed at, mocked, maligned, and threatened for this stance. People have said it could never be done and the whole thing was a political stunt cooked up by Mr. Trump.
The liberal left and even the Pope (who lives behind a wall) have called it downright inhumane.
The Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton have derided and jeered at the idea of building a wall. The wall critics have piously stated, “That’s not who we are” or “We build bridges not walls”.
So explain this hypocrisy…according to IntelligenceBriefs.com we are funding and building a massive wall and equipping it with high-tech electronic surveillance equipment to run the entire length of the Tunisia/Libya border.
The video shows the wall is a combination of sand barriers and a mote! Yes, we are helping the Tunisians build a mote. Still in the middle ages? Apparently, the mote was not as effective as they had hoped, without some of America’s high tech gadgets.
The purpose is to keep ISIS from coming into Tunisia, but walls don’t work…so what’s going on?
Here is the short brief from Intelligence Briefs:
March 29, 2016: The United States has agreed to fund the multi-million-dollar project to install an electronic security surveillance system on Tunisia-Libyan border. The wall that Tunisia is erecting is set to keep off ISIS terrorists that have found haven in the neighboring Libya.
US Diplomatic mission to Tunisia said that the she would disburse the first installment of the $24.9 million project to strengthen the security along the frontier.
The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) awarded the contract to American construction group BTP and consulting and engineering firm AECOM.
The project will include installation of an integrated surveillance system using sensors and regular security equipment as well training Tunisian personnel on how to use the system
The project will robust the already built 200km barrier that stretches about half through the entire length of the border with Libya.
The security wall/barrier was building following a series of attacks on holidaymakers in 2015 by t ISIS, the attacks are believed to have been planned in Libya.
See also THIS ! :
01/14/2015
Graphic News
https://www.graphicnews.com/pages/en/32572/SAUDI_ARABIA_High-tech_border_fence_iGraphic_infographic
January 14, 2015 — Saudi Arabia has unveiled a 900km state-of-the art fence along its border with Iraq to ensure the war waged by so-called Islamic State doesn’t spill across its frontier. The $3.4 billion Northern Border Security Project was built by Munich-based Airbus Defence and Space.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments