Can’t Sell Your New Quran? Just Call it a “Bible”

Faith Freedom, by Louis Palme, March 3, 2015:

Bible-QuranAn enterprising translator in the U.S., A.L. Bilal Muhammad, decided to boost the sales of his new Quran translation by calling it a “Bible.”

Why not? The best-selling book in the world is the Bible. The Guinness World Records website estimates that some 5 billion copies have been distributed – about one for every reading-age person on the globe today. The whole Bible has been translated into 349 languages, as compared with only 47 languages for the Quran. The “Bible-branding” of this Quran has to be pinnacle of Islamic deception. The pages of this Quran are in the two-column format used in most Bibles instead of the one-column format found in most Qurans. But Bilal can’t make up his mind if the source of this “Bible” is God or Allah. Here is his description of the book from the http://www.Amazon.com listing:

Bible with the name of Allah.

“God excludes and keeps what He pleases. With Him is the Mother of the Book.” 13:39 Imagine God released a Bible app around the time of Adam or Abraham and occasionally released updates. Then around the time of Christ Jesus, God released a major update to the app. Then again around the time of Muhammed the Prophet, God released another major update. I hear someone asking, “Why would God not simply create a perfect Bible that does not need updates?” Perhaps for the same reason God did not simply create a perfect world with perfect people. Or maybe God did create the Bible(s) perfect, and just like humanity and the world, humans and/or Satan messed it up. Either way, God allows us to decline the Bible updates if we wish. And God has left the previous Bible apps in the app store for a reason. One reason might be to remind humanity that God based the message revealed to Muhammed the Prophet on the Bible(s). And to remind humanity that our Bible(s) was updated.

Nowhere in this new translation is the word “Allah” used. Sometimes, as in Surah 2:17, the Jewish rendering “G-d” is used. Bilal still uses the expression “People of the Book,” meaning Jews and Christians – which draws a contrast between their Bible and his Bible/Quran. So was the Quran ever passed [based?]on their Book, as Bilal asserts?

Why are all these new Qurans coming out?

David Wood recently made the point that Allah must be the worst communicator ever. He wrote:

In the Quran, Allah claims to be perfectly clear in his commands (see 11:1; 16:89; 24:1, 57:9; 65:11; etc.). Yet when critics of Islam quote the Quran, many Muslims insist that Allah means something very different from what he says. This should cause us to wonder: Is Allah’s speech clear, or is it horribly unclear? Since Allah regularly says one thing but means nearly the opposite (according to his Westernized followers), should we regard him as the worst communicator ever?

 

Coupled with this confusion over its meanng is the fact that there are now 23 “generally accepted” English translations of the Quran and an additional 18 English translations that are considered ‘non-Muslim, new, controversial, depreciated, or undetermined.” See the complete text of the Quran in all of these versions at http://www.IslamAwakened.com.

One reason for all the different new versions of the Quran is that Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been shocked after reading older, literal translations. Did Allah really order Muslims to slit the throats of non-Muslims, chop off the hands of petty thieves, whip adulterers, and beat wives? Not only have these literal translations made it difficult to win new converts to Islam, but it is now estimated that 6 million Muslims leave Islam and convert to Christianity every year despite the risk of being killed for apostasy.

See:

 

So the surge of new Qurans are attempts to render the original 7th Century Arabic text into an English version that is not so shocking to 21st Century readers.

So what does this new Quran Bible Say?

Whenever a new translation of the Quran is published I buy it in hopes that, finally, someone has discovered that Islam’s sacred text was misinterpreted, that it is really about equality, justice, and peace. Of course, the true test of the word of God is not whether it called “Quran” or “Bible,” but rather whether it is worthy of the all-knowing Creator of the world and humanity. There is a simple test I have developed for assessing the humanitarian content of any translation of the Quran. It consists of ten topics which are now crimes under national and international laws. I have listed the 1955 “interpretations” of these verses by A. J. Arberry on the left, along with Bilal Mohammed’s new translation on the right. (Arberry’s Quran was the first English translation by a bona fide scholar of Arabic and Islam. The translation is without prejudice and is probably the best around. It has earned the admiration of intellectuals worldwide, and having been reprinted several times, remains the reference of choice for most academics, according to a 2005 Middle East Quarterly review of English Quran translations.)

Inequality of women: God charges you, concerning your children: to the male the like of the portion of two females. (Surah 4: 11)

And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of, that if one of the two women errs the other will remind her. (Surah 2:282)

Physical abuse of women: And those [women] you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. (Surah 4:34)

Protection of children: O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period . . . As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months, and those who have not menstruated as yet. (Emphasis added.) (Surah 65:1 – 4)

Inequality of non-Muslims: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute [jizya] out of hand and have been humbled. (Surah 9:29)

Cruel and abusive punishment: And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from God. (Surah 5:38)

Beheading captives: When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds (Surah 47:3)

God directs you regarding your children’s inheritance. To the male, a portion equal to that of two females. (Surah 4:11)

And get two witnesses from your men. If not two men, then a man and two women, of whom you agree to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, then one of the two can remind the other.. (Surah 2:282)

As for those [women] who you suspect disloyalty, advise them, refrain from sleeping with them, and separate from them. (Surah 4:34)

O Prophet, if you divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count accurately their prescribed periods. . . . . As for those who have no period, it is the same. (Surah 65:1 – 4)

Fight those who do not believe in God, nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the way of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizyah with willingness, even though they are of modest means. (Surah 9:29)

As well as the male and female thief. So cut off their hands. A punishment by way of example from God, for what they acquired, and God is exalted in power. (Surah 5:38)

Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers in war, strike at their necks, then when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly.(Surah 47:3)

Taking of hostages and booty: It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter in the land . . . Eat of what you have taken as booty, such as is lawful and good, and fear your God. (Surah 8:67-70)

Freedom of thought, including religion: [Hypocrites] wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them. (Surah 4: 89)

Intolerance of other religions: O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing. (Surah 9:125)

Separation of religion and politics: That which you serve, apart from Him, is nothing but names yourselves have named, you and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. Judgment belongs only to God. (Surah 12:40)

It is not fitting for a prophet to have prisoners of war until he has fought in the land. . . But enjoy what you took in war, permissible and good, but be conscious of God. . . (Surah 8:67-70)

[Hypocrites] only wish that you would not believe, like they do, so that you would be on the same level as them. But do not take friends from their ranks until they go the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them…. (Surah 4:89)

O you who believe, fight the unbelievers who are close to you, and let them find resolve in you, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him. (Surah 9:125)

If not Him, you worship nothing but names which you have named, you and your parents, for which God has sent down no authority. The command is for none but God. (Surah 12:40)

So this new translation brings no relief from the crimes and atrocities in earlier translations. One must conclude that it is really true, as stated in Surah 18:27, “None can change His words.” Regardless whether the book is called a Quran or a Bible, when one sees how hostile the text is to 21st Century concepts of equality, justice, and peace, this is truly unfortunate.

Netanyahu: ‘Even If Israel Has to Stand Alone, Israel Will Stand’

 

The complete transcript of Netanyahu’s address to Congress

 

Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, March 3, 2015:

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the State of Israel reset the agenda for the Western world in a speech before a joint session of Congress.

For weeks, the Obama administration has attempted to direct attention away from Netanyahu’s actual agenda – stopping the Iranian nuclear deal – and toward petty political maneuvering over permissions to speak and Democratic boycotts. All of that fell away in the wake of a clear, powerful, and emotional call by Netanyahu for the United States and Israel to stand united against the evil terror of Iran.

Netanyahu opened by expressing his humility for the invite, calling Congress the “most important legislative body in the world.” He then apologized for the speech itself becoming controversial. “That was never my intention,” he stated. “I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that on whichever side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.”

That clever gambit – an attempt to kill the Obama administration and the boycotting Democrats with kindness – placed President Obama’s puerile spitefulness on Israel in stark contrast. That, of course, was the point. Every time Netanyahu spelled out the ways in which the Obama administration had helped Israel – instances that were, by and large, pro forma commitments every American president makes to Israel – he forced Obama into a corner. Turning the other political cheek turned out to be a powerful weapon.

Netanyahu got to the heart of his message: absolutely devastating Obama’s reported Iranian peace deal. In the shadow of the Jewish holiday of Purim, when a Jewish woman pled for the survival of her people from the genocidal intentions of a Persian anti-Semite, Netanyahu echoed Queen Esther’s language:

I feel profound obligation to speak to you about a threat to the survival of my country and the survival of my people, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. In nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people.

Netanyahu expressed that the threat was not only to Israel, but to the West, explaining, “Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem…Iran’s regime poses a grave threat not only to Israel but to the peace of the entire world.”

And, he said, to understand the nature of the deal being cut, the key lay in understanding “the nature of that regime.” Netanyahu described Israel’s enemies, funded by Iran, as “clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror.” He described Iran stretching from Syria to Iraq to Yemen. “At a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations,” he stated, “Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror.”

But that was his point: Obama is forwarding Iran’s march, despite Iran’s obvious intention to destroy the West. Many commentators have described Netanyahu as the true leader of the free world, given President Obama’s unwillingness to speak on behalf of a free world. He made that case today before Congress:

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever. Its cries of Death to America, the same nation it calls the Great Satan, are as loud as ever. This shouldn’t be surprising…[Iran’s] ideology is rooted in militant Islam. That’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

“Militant Islam.” The two words Obama refuses to say in that order.

Netanyahu continued by leveling the Obama argument that America must cut a deal with Iran in order to stop ISIS:

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam…Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire, first on the region, then on the entire world. They just disagree who will be the ruler of this empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there is no place for America or Israel…When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

And, Netanyahu pointed out, Obama’s negotiation would end with Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

 That is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal won’t prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee Iran gets those weapons. Lots of them.

Netanyahu laid out his two major critiques of the proposed deal. First, he explained, the deal would protect Iran’s “vast nuclear infrastructure,” placing them within a short period of developing nuclear weapons. Iran could cheat, Netanyahu pointed out – after all, “Inspectors document violations. They don’t stop them. Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb. But that didn’t stop anything.”

Second, and more importantly, he said, even if Iran complies with the deal, after the ten year period, they would be free to develop nuclear weapons without restriction. A decade, Netanyau pointed out, is a “blink of an eye in the life of our children.” And when that decade ends, “The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire nuclear arsenal, and this with full international legitimacy.” Furthermore, no deal will include a stop on Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles, leaving Europe and the United States vulnerable.

Netanyahu summed up, “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It paves Iran’s path to the bomb.” He also explained that such concessions would only embolden Iran to pursue more terror with more money and more legitimacy. “Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds, aggression abroad, prosperity at home?” Netanyahu asked, pointing out that in response, other Middle Eastern countries would go nuclear.

Then Netanyahu truly turned brutal, eviscerating the Obama administration’s strawman-laden defense of the deal. “We’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal,” Netanyahu averred.

Iran, Netanyahu said, could be held to account. They could earn their way to legitimacy, rather than being given legitimacy without making any concessions. They could be forced to stop regional aggression, stop supporting terrorism, stop threatening to “annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.” And, he continued:

If the world powers aren’t willing to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least, insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires. If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

What could the West do? Netanyahu suggested, “call their bluff”:

They need the deal a lot more than you do. And by maintaining the pressure on Iran, and those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

Finally, Netanyahu invoked the Holocaust. He gave a tribute to Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, stating, “Standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is.” Then he warned the world:

I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrificed the future for the present, not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. But I can guarantee you this: the days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over!

Netanyahu vowed, “as PM of Israel, I can promise you one more thing. Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand. But I know that Israel does not stand alone, I know that America stands with Israel, I know that you stand with Israel.”

Netanyahu concluded by citing the Bible, in Hebrew. He quoted the parting words of Moses as the Jews were about to enter the land of Israel, from Deuteronomy 31:6:

Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years…Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them. My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute, may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead, may we face the future with confidence, strength and hope. May God bless the state of Israel, and may God bless the United States of America.

The controversy over the politics of the speech is over. Now the world must answer Netanyahu’s question: will Israel have to stand alone?

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book,The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Also see:

When Iran goes nuclear – Failure to protect the nation would amount to dereliction of duty

Failure to Protect Against Iranian Nukes Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Failure to Protect Against Iranian Nukes Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Washington Times, - – Monday, March 2, 2015

Our attention these days with regard to security is understandably riveted on the Islamic State, or ISIS, and its hideous decapitations, rapes and live immolations. We must deal with the Islamic State, but it is not the gravest threat we face. The Israelis are right — we should awaken to the fact that the coming of a nuclear Iran holds special dangers and requires particularly urgent attention. There are four driving reasons.

First, the Mideast abounds in clashing religious beliefs, but there is special danger in the Shiite doctrine held by many Iranians, including some of Iran’s national leaders: The return of the hidden Imam will bring the war that ends the world and creates heavenly bliss for believers. As America’s dean of Mideast studies, Bernard Lewis, puts it: During the Cold War, Mutual Assured Destruction was a deterrent; today it is an inducement.

Second, Iran works very closely with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs. Consequently, it has the ballistic missile capacity to launch weapons of substantial size and intercontinental range against us, or to orbit satellites above us.

So troubling is this capability — in the hands of either Iran or North Korea — that nine years ago, based on the ability of North Korea’s Taepodong missile to carry a nuclear warhead to intercontinental range, the current secretary of defense, Ashton Carter, and a prominent former secretary, William Perry, urged in a 2006 oped a pre-emptive strike against the then-new North Korean long-range missiles on their launch pads. As the two secretaries put it then, “Intervening before mortal threats to U.S. security can develop is surely a prudent policy.” Their view was that our ballistic missile defense capabilities were unproven and should not be relied upon for such an important task. “Diplomacy has failed,” they said, “And we cannot sit by.”

Third, Iran now is either very close to being able to field a nuclear weapon or it should be regarded as already having that capability. As William Graham, who served as President Reagan’s science adviser, administrator of NASA and chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission, as well as many of his distinguished colleagues, such as Henry Cooper, who was director of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and Fritz Ermarth, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have put it:

“Regardless of intelligence uncertainties and unknowns about Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, we know enough now to make a prudent judgment that Iran should be regarded by national security decision makers as a nuclear missile state capable of posing an existential threat to the United States and its allies.”

Iran’s progress toward having a nuclear weapon that can be orbited or delivered by a long-range missile will not be halted by the concession-rich compromises proposed by the administration’s arms control negotiators in Geneva. North Korea already has this capability. As it appears now, Iran will have it before long. What are the consequences for our vulnerability to these two rogue states?

The new factor that makes one or a few nuclear warhead-carrying missiles launched into orbit much more dangerous than during the Cold War is the possibility of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the critical infrastructures that are the foundation of modern societies, especially the national electric grid. Electronics are increasingly vulnerable to EMP — more than a million times more vulnerable (and, yes, also much more capable) than they were at the dawn of the age of modern electronics a half-century ago. Moore’s Law has not been kind to our electronic vulnerabilities.

Consequently, even one nuclear warhead detonated at orbital altitude over the United States would black out the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for months or years by means of the electromagnetic pulse it would create. The Congressional EMP Commission assessed that a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill nine of 10 Americans through starvation and societal collapse. Islamic State-like gangs would rule the streets.

Just such a scenario is described in Iranian military documents.

Thus, once Iran has a nuclear weapon, even a primitive one, with a small number of long-range missiles it can use an EMP attack to threaten our survival as a nation and, indeed, the existence of modern society. If a nuclear Iran decided that we were, literally, (and not just as the target of a Persian religious expletive) “the Great Satan,” it might decide that we should meet Satan’s fate.

The advice given President George W. Bush by the two secretaries of defense nine years ago with respect to striking North Korea may turn out to be advice to which President Obama should give heed for one or both of these rogue states.

But just on the chance that a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s strategic capabilities has somehow not found its way onto the chart of options now being discussed these days in the Oval Office, at a minimum the United States needs to protect, now, its electric grid and other critical infrastructures from EMP by passing the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act and the Shield Act. These would at least let us begin to take some key and affordable steps toward hardening the electric grid.

These bills gathering dust in Congress for years without presidential support or interest, mark a new low in the failure of the White House and Congress to fulfill their security responsibilities to the nation. Their continued failure could be the most fateful government dereliction of duty in history.

R. James Woolsey is a former director of central intelligence and is chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the EMP Task Force, and served in the EMP Commission, the Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.

Action Alert: Boston imam who shared ties with senior al-Qaida operative is keynote speaker for CAIR-PA banquet at Marriott Springfield Country Club

Florida Family Association:

Click here to send your email to Marriott and Springfield Country Club officials.

B_HXKbfUQAEjbfqThe Courtyard Marriott Springfield Country Club is hosting the CAIR Pennsylvania annual fundraising banquet on Saturday, March 7, 2015.  Courtyard Marriott Springfield Country Club is located at 400 W Sproul Rd, Springfield, PA 19064.  The banquet is also being promoted by the Philly MSA.

Imam Suhaib Webb is the keynote speaker.  Wikipedia.com reports in part:  Suhaid Webb was born William Webb in 1973 in Oklahoma to a Christian family.  He lost interest in religion and began engaging in delinquency by joining a local gang and became a local Hip-Hop DJ and producer.  

The Daily Caller reports in part:  Dzhokhar-Tsarnaevs imam shares ties with senior al qaeda operative.

The Islamic organization that includes Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s mosque has ties to the al-Qaeda operative that reportedly inspired Tsarnaev to carry out the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, according to FBI surveillance documents.

Tsarnaev, 19, was indicted Thursday on 30 criminal counts related to the April 15 bombing at the Boston Marathon, which was allegedly carried out by Tsarnaev and his late brother Tamerlan. The bombing left three people dead and numerous others injured, and resulted in a manhunt during which a Boston-area campus police officer was shot and killed.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly left a note in the boat he hid in during the manhunt claiming that he bombed the Boston Marathon as retribution for U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” Tsarnaev wrote.

Prior to the Boston Marathon attack, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge,downloaded radical Islamic propaganda from the Internet, including materials authored by Anwar al-Awlaki, the senior al Qaeda operative who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen on September 30, 2011. Tsarnaev also downloaded a summer 2010 edition of the al Qaeda magazine “Inspire,” which included bomb-making instructions and which is thought to have been the work of al-Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki lived in the United States between 1990 and 2002, when he moved to the United Kingdom before eventually relocating to Yemen, where he where worked for al-Qaeda and produced propaganda tapes and other materials urging Muslims to commit terrorist attacks against the United States.

Suhaib Webb, imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, spoke alongside al-Awlaki at a September 9, 2001 fundraiser at the University of California at Irvine, according to FBI surveillance documents. The fundraiser was intended to raise money for the legal defense of H. Rap Brown, an Atlanta-based Islamic radical who shot and killed two Georgia police officers. Webb and al-Awlaki helped raise $100,000 to defend Brown, who was eventually convicted for his crimes.

Webb and Aulaki may be associated with the Muslim American Society,” according to the surveillance documents, which were prepared to investigate the unconfirmed possibility that al-Awlaki purchased plane tickets for some of the 9/11 hijackers.

An Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center spokesman told The Daily Caller that Webb did not know the full extent of al-Awlaki’s terrorist agenda when Webb was “working with him.”

Counterjihadreport.com reports in part:

FBI documents found that Webb and Awlaki were closely associated through the Muslim American Society, which many believe to be an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

Webb also served as imam of the sister organization of the mosque attended by Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Before coming to Boston, Webb was the imam of the Islamic Society of Oklahoma City, which was home to Alton Nolen, the man who beheaded an innocent Oklahoma woman in September.

Twelve of Webb’s Islamic Society of Boston members “have either been killed, imprisoned, or declared fugitives due to their involvement in terrorist activity,” according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance.

Additionally, some of the reasons why many American’s are concerned about CAIR’s history and agenda are posted below:

  • CAIR chapters demonstrated in the streets across America to show their support for Hamas even declaring that “We are Hamas.” 
  • Omar Ahmad, Chairman and founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, told a Muslim crowd Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.   At the Islamic Association of Palestine’s third annual convention in Chicago in November 1999, Omar Ahmad gave a speech at a youth session praising suicide bombers who kill themselves for Islam.  Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam — that is not suicide. They kill themselves for Islam, he said.
  • Nihad Awad, CAIR Executive Director, said I am in support of the Hamas movement.
  • Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch, told a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas in 2013 If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land.
  • CAIR pressured the FBI in June 2013 to stop their Most Wanted advertising campaign which helped the FBI gain information regarding the whereabouts of dangerous terrorists.  The list of CAIR officials who have made apologetic comments in the public regarding terrorists is quite extensive.
  • The Council on American Islamic Relations is vigorously fighting bills in twenty state legislatures that would prohibit courts from considering provisions of foreign laws including Sharia if they are inconsistent with the United States and state constitutions. Sharia law is antithetical to the rights and liberties afforded under the United States Constitution.
  • Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter, in 2009 received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians.
  • Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was in 1995 designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a “terrorist and Hamas leader.” He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.
  • Randall Royer, CAIR’s former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres.
  • Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.
  • Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.
  • CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case–so named by the Justice Department during the HLF trial.

Americans who are concerned about CAIR’s history and agenda and the people who address their banquets have the First Amendment Right to complain about this event and choose to patronize hoteliers who do not give place to the same.  Florida Family Association’s online campaigns have influenced several hoteliers.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to Marriott and Springfield Country Club officials.   Your email will not only voice concern about this important issue but it will also educate corporate officials with facts regarding CAIR’s history and the people who speak at their events.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also change the subject or message text if you wish.

Please click here to send your email Marriott and Springfield Country Club officials.

Contact information (scroll down to end of article)

Sign up for future email alerts

March 3, 2015 – On Bibi’s Knowns and Unknowns

150303_0-150x150High Frontier, By Henry F. Cooper on March 2, 2015:

In seeking to protect Israel from an existential Iranian threat, Prime Minister Netanyahu confronts problematic facts and key uncertainties. It will be interesting to hear how he deals with them in today’s address to Congress and all Americans—who also face an existential threat from Iran, whether they know it or not. 

Consider former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s breakdown on what we know and don’t know about important issues when considering the content of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address.

150303_2

In particular, contemplate Netanyahu’s efforts to assess existential threats to Israel in view of the apparent perceptions and actions of U.S. leadership in dealing with Iran, whose leaders since the 1979 revolution that founded the current regime have sworn to destroy the Little Satan Israel and the Great Satan America. This common threat should unite us with our Israeli friends—but does it do so?  If not, why not?

Known Knowns.

Not the least of the Prime Minister’s “known knowns,” to use the first of Rumsfeld’s categories, is that one of the few consistencies of recent U.S. foreign policy is the Obama administration’s failures and obviously delusional perspectives,

  • From its widely publicized “Reset” with Russia—now fomenting what some call a new Cold War with aggressive actions in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, while our strategic forces atrophy due to lack of the support promised by the Obama administration in exchange for the votes of a few foolish Republican Senators during the 2010 Lame Duck Session, enabling ratification of the New START Treaty, an  ill-advised treaty that required U.S. strategic force reductions and legitimized a build-up of modernized Russian strategic forces;
  • To its vacuous “pivot to Asia” as North Korea increases its ability to threaten us with nuclear armed missiles and satellites (in cooperation with Iran), not to mention China’s persistent progress in becoming a peer economic and military competitor-especially to threaten our naval operations and key space systems as well as the U.S. homeland; and
  • To its failures in the Middle East where we have withdrawn from three more embassies (most recently in Yemen, the President’s alleged model just a few months ago for his “successful” leading-from-behind policy in the Middle East) and have no apparent strategy to deal with the growing threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which the President ridiculed as a “Jayvee team” last September as they began to advance and our “partners” dropped their arms (actually U.S. made arms we had supplied) and ran. And ISIS is expanding beyond the Middle East, and has designs on America as well. Meanwhile, U.S. led negotiations with Iran seem to have reduced sanctions that were encouraging Iran to negotiate seriously with little apparent in return—we continue to “kick the can” down the road while the centrifuges spin.

Last week, the President and Secretary of State John Kerry declared we were safer than ever; but the President’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper almost immediately thereafter told the Senate Armed Services Committee that 2014 was “the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled.” Click here for a blunt but accurate assessment of this sad illustration of why Netanyahu has to believe Obama administration is at a minimum delusional—to be generous.

Furthermore, in some cases the record shows that our leaders have been astonishingly duplicitous.  For example, there’s Benghazi—where it is now clear from recently made public email traffic (thanks to the persistent efforts of Judicial Watch) that the events were well known within minutes; nevertheless, the President and his most senior foreign policy advisors, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his National Security Advisor Susan Rice, misrepresented those facts to America and the rest of the world—for weeks on end, and to this day they have not admitted that they lied.

This will be a very political issue in the 2016 elections—click here for one example from the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). And of course, Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) House Select Committee on Benghazi is supposed to be weighing in soon—including testimony from former Secretary of State Clinton.   That hearing should be interesting.

Recently, Ms. Rice claimed that Netanyahu’s speech today is “destructive of the fabric” of our long time close ties with Israel. Maybe such “torn fabric” is with President Obama if it is possible to make that relationship less amicable—but with congress and the American people?  I don’t think so. And I think Bibi—who well understands the American people from his years living with us knows better.

Imagine what he must think as he contemplates these facts among the “known” threats with which Israel must contend—and which American should also recognize and counter effectively. And why he wants to address the U.S. Congress and American people to seek to reassure the historic ties between the United States and Israel in confronting common enemies—particularly an Iran intent on gaining nuclear armed missiles that represent a threat to both our nations.

Known Unknowns.

Among the known unknowns are factors that affect the all-important issue of when Iran can gain deliverable nuclear weapons.

Uncertainties in estimating with confidence that timeline provoke major controversy because of a fundamental difference of perspectives—and inconvenient facts that limit confidence in gaining verifiably agreed approaches to processing nuclear materials.

Netanyahu wants assurance that Iran will never gain a capability that indeed is as existential threat to Israel posed by even one—or at most a few—Iranian nuclear weapons.

The administration’s apparent interest is to delay the time for Iran gets that capability—and to negotiate with Iran and others among the P5 +1 (the five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) about “how much delay is enough.” For an up-to-date summary of ongoing efforts, see Michael Gordon’s article in the March 1, 2015 New York Times.

Notwithstanding optimistic prognostications, Effective verification is very problematic, especially considering a major circumvention “loophole” as discussed in depth by Sellin and Vallely in their February 28, 2015 Family Security Matters article US – Iran nuclear deal may be dead on arrival and should be.”

In particular, the well-known and long-standing alliance between Iran and North Korea in developing and testing nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them is an obvious pathway for Iran to cheat on whatever verification arrangements are negotiated with Iran alone.

Netanyahu has previously discussed his concerns about negotiating limits on Iran’s nuclear materials enrichment efforts rather than to end them. And I have written—e.g., in our June 14, 2013 message and in earlier linked messages—about his views of a pending “red line” which he believes must not be crossed, views also shared in his September 27, 2012 address to the United Nations. It will be instructive to learn if he believes we are currently crossing that “red line.”

The perspective of many of the U.S. “elite” seems consistent with a policy of containment, as was underwritten by our deterrent policies during the Cold War with the Soviet Union.  But Iran is not the Soviet Union—and there is justified concern that the Mullahs cannot be deterred, when it comes to destroying the Little Satan and the Great Satan.

At least Bibi is cognizant of this reality—perhaps our leaders are not, or do not take it seriously. And dealing with the known unknowns adds major concerns about our negotiation objectives and approach.

*** (read more)

High Frontier Next Steps.

We currently are focused on raising South Carolinians’ awareness of EMP threats to the electric grid, and what they can do to counter them—especially as such threats are posed by rogue states like North Korea and Iran, and Islamic Terrorists like ISIS. We are working the problem in South Carolina from the bottom-up among local and state authorities—because Washington seems unable even to identify the obvious problems, let alone deal with them.

On March 14, 2015, we are joining with the Center for Security Policy and Breitbart News to sponsor the all-day South Carolina National Security Action Summit to discuss these very clear and present dangers we face—especially the vulnerability of our electric grid, the global jihad, immigration issues and the hollowing out of our military capabilities. As should be clear from my above discussion, these are linked to threats that also confront Israel.

A number of experts will be joining to discuss solutions to these important problems, if we simply can persuade the powers that be to execute them! So far, Senator Ted Cruz, former Senator Rick Santorum, Ambassador John Bolton, Governor Bobby Jindal, Phyllis Schlafly, Frank Gaffney, Dr. Peter Pry and a number of others have confirmed their participation. Please make your plans to join us in Columbia at the Brookland Baptist Banquet and Conference Center—especially if you live in South Carolina or nearby. Please click here to learn more and to reserve your tickets!

The U.S. Anti-ISIS Strategy’s True Cost

 

Rubin CenterMARCH 2, 2015 BY AYMENN JAWAD AL-TAMIMI:

On Monday the Iraqi military launched its largest operation to date against the self-declared Islamic State (IS), also called ISIS, to retake control of the city of Tikrit. Alongside the Iraqi military the coalition fighting IS in Tikrit includes Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces, but it leans heavily on Iranian backed Shia militias and reportedly includes a contingent from Iran’s revolutionary guard. The urgent question now as the battle against IS intensifies is whether any US policy to defeat IS in Iraq can achieve its aim without ceding the country as a base for Iranian expansionism.

Critics who regard President Obama’s regional policy as aiming for a grand détente with Iran have frequently argued that the current approach undermines attempts to counter IS. The bargain for making a deal with Iran, these critics say, has allowed Iran a free hand to assert dominance in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

Exhibit A for this line of thinking is Iran’s cultivation of proxy militias in Iraq, principally in the Badr Organization, Kata’ib Hezbollah and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, These militias have not just been active on the frontlines in Iraq but also have arguably played the leading role in all major offensives to retake territory from IS, with Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp figure Qassem Suleimani helping to direct operations.

The Badr Organization in particular, with its control of the Interior Ministry, seems poised to become Iraq’s version of Hezbollah. Last fall, the group launched ‘Operation Ashura‘ to clear out Jurf al-Sakhr to the south of Baghdad. Under Suleimani’s guidance, the operation employed a successful strategy of amassing vast militia manpower operating under cover of U.S. airpower.

A virtually identical tactic is now being implemented in the offensive to capture Tikrit except this time with Iraqi fighter jets taking the place of U.S. airpower.

Since these proxy militias frequently engage in ethnic cleansing against Sunnis and answer directly to Iran, they bolster IS’ narrative that it is defending Sunnis against a sectarian government, arguably undermining any attempt to roll back IS. Besides, reflecting Iran’s own anti-American ideology, they also promote a narrative that the U.S. is behind the IS phenomenon, further undermining U.S. influence in Iraq to the benefit of Iranian expansionism.

There is much to be said in favour of these arguments. Since the fall of Mosul to IS in June 2014 and the call to arms issued by Iraq’s most senior Shi’a cleric Ayatollah Sistani, militias that are ideologically aligned with Iran (‘Khomeinist’) if not actual proxies have proliferated most, with many new brands emerging beyond the three mentioned above. A considerable degree of overlap exists between these new groups. For instance, one commander I interviewed is simultaneously involved with two recognizably Khomeinist militias: Kata’ib al-Imam al-Gha’ib (a ‘Hezbollah’ brand) and the Mujahideen of Iraq Brigade, the ‘military wing’ of the Nasrallah Islamic Movement (named after Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah).

Beyond the question of Iranian influence, those who defend the ‘Popular Mobilization’ trend as a military necessity tend to downplay the more general negative consequences of militiafication. There is little reason to accept former U.S. defence official Douglas Ollivant’s contention that the militias “will either return home or be regularized by the central government in some way” once the IS threat is dealt with. Militias also create an atmosphere of lawlessness and criminality regardless of the sectarian issue. Indeed, some of the militias themselves have acknowledged the problem of kidnappings and stealing in their name, including a Khomeinist militia known as Kata’ib Ruh Allah.

The complaints about Iran’s expanding influence in Iraq are valid but they raise an important question that has yet to be answered. How exactly do you curb Iranian influence at this stage when its forces dominate in Iraq? The usual line here is to say that the U.S. needs to stop abetting the Iranian proxies through airstrikes and arms provisions to the Iraqi government. But going back even conditionally on these measures simply creates a bigger military vacuum for Iran to fill. At the same time, Iranian proxies are undoubtedly spearheading most new offensives by government forces against IS and at least some of the new weapons shipments intended for Iraqi security forces are likely to end up in the hands of Iranian proxies.

One also hears calls for new U.S. engagement in Iraq, but there is no honesty about the scale of commitment that would be required. If the goal is to rebuild Iraq’s conventional security forces as an alternative to the militias, then the reality is that there will have to be tens of thousands of ground troops, deployed for a number of years and not only willing to train these new forces but coordinating with them in combat missions. Yet even such a massive commitment—tried once before in recent memory—has no guarantee of success. Such an approach is also politically unfeasible due to American war weariness and scepticism of any mission with shifting goalposts. Further, a large-scale American ground presence risks fuelling further support for IS, the possibility of infiltration of rebuilt army brigades by the Iranian proxies, and open warfare between the proxies and U.S. troops.

Notions that the U.S. should focus only on cultivating Kurdish and Sunni allies are also unrealistic. Kurdish forces alone are unable to dislodge IS from its main strongholds, and Sunni locals have good reason for concerns about treatment at the hands of Kurdish forces.

The strategy employed during the last US war in Iraq, employing Sunni tribal groups to lead the fight against IS, has its own problems.

With supposed Sunni allies, the biggest question remains of who is out there for the U.S. to approach.

Sunni insurgent actors like the Ba’athist Naqshbandi Army find themselves severely weakened, having lost out to IS in all major towns and cities outside of government control. Local Sunni forces that are actively pushing back against IS in Iraq’s Anbar province are in fact already working with the Iraqi government and the militias but have been unable to dislodge the group.

On the political axis, Sunni politicians are more lacking in credibility among their constituents than ever.

Simply put, there are no viable ‘third-way’ Sunni actors who reject both the government and IS.

Concern has been expressed that the U.S. ‘risks’ losing Iraq to Iran in the fight against IS, but it is probably more accurate to say the U.S. has already lost Iraq to Iran. No good options seem to exist, and the expansion of Iran’s sphere of influence may well have to be accepted as an inevitable consequence of the original decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam’s regime from power.

(Update: Provision of U.S. airpower in Tikrit offensive denied by Pentagon. Re. ‘Kurdish forces’ in piece above: symbolic representation via ISOF contingent).

Also see:

****

They say that the Arab world moves with the “politics of the wind”. I think we can see which way that hot wind is blowing:

Iraqi Shiite Militia Leader: Give Me a Month, and I Will Make ISIS Terrorists Wear Women’s Clothing

US-Backed Syrian Group Disbands – But Were They Ever Truly “Moderate” to Begin With?

March 3, 2015 / /

Surprise, surprise, Harakat Hazm (HH) – one of the US government’s favorite factions challenging the Asad regime in Syria – has completely collapsed after being routed by al-Nusra at one of their last remaining bases in Atarib. After the group was routed and announced its dissolution, al-Nusra began taking inventory of the new toys they seized such as TOW anti-tank missiles, night-vision optics and anti-air missiles – all courtesy of the Obama administration. In the grand scheme of things it didn’t really matter since the group had been giving a lot of what they were receiving from the US to al-Nusra over the last 8 months. HH has been touted as being one of the last real “moderate” entities in the country. The problem with that is this statement is inaccurate, and only goes to show just how dangerously naive the Obama administration’s views are in this fight.

Syria: al-Qaeda Nusra Front ‘seizes’ hi-tech weapons after defeat of US-armed Harakat Hazm rebels
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-us-armed-harakat-hazm-rebels-disband-al-qaeda-nusra-front-captures-base-weapons-1490075

Main U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Group Disbanding, Joining Islamists
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/01/main-u-s-backed-syrian-rebel-group-disbanding-joining-islamists.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

Obama wants $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/white-house-release-money-train-syria-rebels.html

reuters

Source: Reuters

We first wrote about HH’s alliance over the past year with some less than “moderate” groups back in our 20 JUL 14 piece titled “This is Why We Need to Avoid Giving Weapons to Anti-Asad Rebels.” The not-so-convenient truth is that HH had been actively conducting joint-operations with al-Nusra and the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) and Islamic Army. HH, SRF and the Islamic Army were all established to put a “moderate” face on the Syrian rebels – although in actuality no such group exists. Over the past year HH had worked closely with SRF, whose leader, Jamal Marouf, has admitted to sharing weapons with al-Nusra and stated that “fighting al-Qaida (AQ) is not our problem.” Mutual ally and Islamic Front leader Zahran Aloush is a known Salafist who is all about waving the AQ flag on the battlefield. No, that man is not a “moderate,” and neither are any of the other groups we mentioned above. in fact, Aloush had participated in a joint-operation with al-Nusra in the attack on Adra in DEC 2013, which led to over 40 civilians being massacred. As for the Islamic Front, well, they were a subordinate organization under the al-Nusra banner but switched over to ISIS when the feud between the two jihadist organizations kicked into high-gear.

This is Why We Need to Avoid Giving Weapons to Anti-Asad Rebels
http://isisstudygroup.com/?p=76

Islamists kill 15 Alawite and Druze civilians in Syria -activists
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/syria-crisis-adra-idINDEE9BB0AR20131212

Chief of Syrian Revolutionaries Front says al Qaeda is ‘not our problem’
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2014/04/chief_of_syrian_revolutionary.php

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 7.17.56 PM

Zahran Aloush: Syria’s biggest Hello Kitty fan
Source: kwout.com

The following excerpt from the LA Times article titled “Syria Rebels, Once Hopeful of U.S. Weapons, Lament Lack of Firepower” is quite revealing:

“Inside Syria we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us,” Zeidan said, referring to an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group that has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Then he smiled and added, “But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”

Syria rebels, once hopeful of U.S. weapons, lament lack of firepower
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-harakat-hazm-20140907-story.html#page=1

By now some of our readers are probably thinking, “you can’t judge HH on what others do” – and you would be justified in those thoughts. Both the Obama administration and Senators John McCain and Lyndsey Graham have praised HH as being a “model for the type of group the US should be supporting.” Specifically, they’ve been praising HH as being a “secular” organization. However, the truth behind the group’s formation and history is very different than what has been sold to the msm and the American people. HH’s formation actually predates the Islamic Front and involves the establishment of the Harakat Zaman Muhammad (of which it was a part of) under the Quranic verse “And fight against disbelievers collectively. [9:36]” The effort involved the recreation of the al-Farouq Brigades (you know, the guys who force non-Muslims to pay the “jizya” or “tax” in the territories they seize) in a new form under new leadership for the purpose of uniting all Islamist groups in Syria at a later stage.

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB – the Grandfather of the modern Sunni terrorist btw) put its full support behind the group, but the lack of a prominent face was an obstacle. The two individual who would fill this role are Aloush and Ahrar al-Sham Movement leader Hasan Aboud aka “Abu Abdullah al-Hamwi.” The idea at the time was for the movement to be “the lead” in the fight against the Asad regime and the Islamic State (IS) in Northern Syria. The Harakat Zaman Muhammad organization would later become what we know today as “HH” with Bilal Atar and Abdullah Awda as the “faces” of the organization to the west. The decision to change the name to “Harakat Hazm” was made by the MB leadership to give the entity a “secular” appearance so as to look more appealing to the west. In other words, the group wasn’t “secular” at all, and was really just the armed-wing of the MB that once again fooled a clueless Obama administration. Aside from the US, HH also received substantial assistance from Turkey and Qatar – who were likely the ones American weaponry were being funneled through.

Harakat Hazm: America’s new favorite jihadist group
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19874

The moderate rebels: A needle in a haystack
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/moderate-rebels-needle-haystack

In addition to forcing non-Muslims to pay the jizya (which is pretty much protection money), HH’s friends the al-Farouq Brigades is also the organization that engages in eating the hearts of their enemies (doesn’t every moderate?):

 

It was sometime at the end of last summer that HH and al-Nusra had a falling out, which of course resulted in the group’s eventual disbandment. In SEP 14 HH began to show signs of moving towards the IS sphere of influence when they condemned US military airstrikes targeting IS positions in Northern Syria. By then, the group had started to experience mass defections to al-Nusra and IS. Here’s the official statement (from our friends at the Counter Jihad Report):

HH_statement

Lack of reliable partners in Syria poses daunting challenge to U.S.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-islamic-state-challenges-20140924-story.html

You can find more HH info on the Counter Jihad Report’s website:

http://counterjihadreport.com/tag/harakat-al-hazm/

The Obama administration’s support provided to HH is a damning indictment of the lack of competence in the foreign policy and national security-arenas endemic from top to bottom. Not one person in the administration fully understands the nature of the threat nor do the individuals considered “Middle East subject matter experts” appear to know the difference between a jihadist and an actual moderate. Ironically, the Asad regime is the most moderate faction in Syria. Most people don’t realize that Asad married a Sunni woman and that Sunnis and Christians are represented throughout the government. In fact, the reason Asad remains in power is due to the Sunnis – the real moderates – who remained loyal to the regime. The same can also be said for the US government’s failure to provide adequate support to other moderates such as Jordan, Egypt, Libyan GEN Khalifa Haftar and the Kurdish factions.

But we’re not advocating an alliance with Asad. Far from it. We’re saying that the current situation was created by an Obama administration that was clearly in over its head when it supported the “Arab Spring,” the Islamists/jihadists driving the movement and the “moderates” that would later rise in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria. Had the Obama administration not supported the Arab Spring or pulled out of Iraq when it did all this would have likely never materialized. Unfortunately, the administration’s current rudderless IS strategy has only led to the violence in the region escalating to the point where we’re now faced with an IS that is spreading into Gaza, North Africa and the AF/PAK region like a cancer metastasizing in a weakened body. Now we have no choice but to put boots on the ground with a lax ROE and the full support to do what’s necessary to defeat this enemy – and the longer we put it off, the worst its going to get for all involved. Especially for our military. The world is burning, and President Obama is doing his best impersonation of Nero…

Links to Other Related Articles:

Obama’s ISIS Strategy: Failed Before it Started

Another Reason Obama’s ISIS Strategy Has Already Failed

The Asad Stratagem

Syrian Army Takes Advantage of US Airstrikes in Counter-Offensive

Islamic State Strength Underestimated: Already Eclipsed Al Qaida As Primary Threat

Nearly Six Years After Obama’s Cairo Speech, Middle East in Total Disarray

AP Photo/Hassan Ammar

AP Photo/Hassan Ammar

Breitbart, by FRED GEDRICH, March 2, 2015:

The Arab world is rife with political turmoil and violence. The Sunni Muslim Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and other jihadi terrorists are continuing their savagery within its boundaries, and Iran’s theocratic terrorist rulers are still exporting and/or solidifying their brand of the Shiite Muslim Islamic Revolution to Arab countries and territories. And the Obama administration appears unable or unwilling to effectively deal with each emerging crisis there.

The competing goals of Sunni and Shiite jihadists are to dominate the Arab world, and their forces and surrogates are engaged in nasty fights for supremacy throughout the region. The area they seek to control generally spans 21 Middle East and North Africa countries as well as territories under Palestinian control in Gaza and the West Bank. Its riches include 364 million people, the world’s largest known oil and gas reserves which fuel developed world economies, and strategic waterways where the petroleum-based commerce flows. About 92 percent of the Arab World population is Muslim (336 million), of which 87 percent are Sunni Muslim and 13 percent Shiite Muslim.

In 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in Cairo, Egypt and promised the Arab and greater Muslim world a ‘new beginning’ in relations with the United States.  However, hopefulness turned into hopelessness for tens of millions of Arab world residents after the speech and Arab Spring which followed. Consider the current state of affairs:

  • Freedom House –a non-profit global freedom watchdog – ranked Middle East and North Africa countries (e.g., most of the Arab world) in 2015 as the world’s most freedom-less area with only Tunisia granting citizens political rights and civil liberties to qualify as a free nation.
  • Freedom House also reported that not one Arab country or territory provided the necessary legal environment, political influences, and economic conditions to guarantee a truly free press.
  • The U.S. State Department reports that 29 of 59 groups on its Foreign Terrorist Organization List have gestated and operate in Arab countries and territories, all of which endanger local residents, Israel, and U.S. citizens and security interests. Twelve FTO’s were added during Obama’s presidency.
  • The U.S. State Department reports that three of four designated state sponsors of terror – Iran, Syria, and Sudan – apply their deadly trade in Arab countries. One of them, Iran, has an illegal nuclear weapons development program.
  • Four Arab states and one territory – Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Gaza– are heavily dependent on Iran’s terrorist leaders for their governments’ survival.
  • Five Arab countries – Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen – are either failed states or don’t exercise sovereignty over their boundaries.
  • The average annual income of Arab world residents is $9,700, which is 26 percent below the global average of $13,100, with a wide income disparity between rich nations like Qatar and poor nations like Somalia.

The persons most responsible for perpetuating these conditions are an assortment of Islamic terror groups and extremists and authoritarian leaders. However, the Middle East and North African landscape is littered with the remnants of dubious Obama administration decisions that contributed to them ranging from the premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; the Syrian ‘redline;’ the Libyan military misadventure; calling ISIS a junior al-Qaeda varsity team; unwillingness to admit jihadi terrorists are part of Islam; refusal to support Iran’s peaceful Green Revolutionaries, and thinking Iran’s terrorist state can be part of any peaceful Arab world solution.

Muslims consider the dominion of Islam as the central pillar of their global-domination political program. Sunnis and Shiites disagree sharply on which of them, and who, should lead. They agree that the prime basis of governance and administration of justice should be Islamic (Shariah) law as enunciated in the Koran and traditions of Muhammad, and further elaborated by classical Muslim legists.

The global Muslim population contains Islamists and jihadists.  An Islamist is any Muslim who wants to impose and enforce Shariah – whether by violent or nonviolent means. A jihadist is an Islamic terrorist.

Shariah law totally subordinates women and mandates many other human rights violations, such as relegating non-Muslim minorities to a much lower legal status than Muslims and dispensing cruel and unusual punishment. It also rejects freedom of speech and conscience and mandates aggressive jihad until the world is brought under Islamic hegemony.

In forging a path to some kind of durable regional peace, it is not only important to understand the aforementioned Arab world problems and radical Islamic-driven terrorism but to effectively do something about them. Egypt’s Muslim President, Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, showed the way by removing the repressive Muslim Brothers from power during a popular revolution, publicly meeting with non-Muslims being persecuted by the various jihadists, and calling on clerics to reform Islam by eliminating rhetoric that fosters violence.

The Arab world is the epicenter of a global jihadist threat, and it is time for the U.S. and its allies, regional and otherwise, to also act diplomatically, economically, and militarily if necessary against all of those jihadist forces – including ISIS and Iran – operating there who are using violence and Shariah to acquire and retain power.  However, seeking to degrade and defeat the Sunni Muslim jihadist brand while leaving the Shiite Muslim jihadist brand intact, as the U.S. is currently doing, will only perpetuate problems for those Arabs and others who genuinely seek a better life and to live in freedom.

The time for decisive and effective action is now. Regional and world peace depends on it.

Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst and served in the U.S. departments of Defense and State.

U.S. Backed Rebel Reportedly Leads Islamic State in Libya

map derna

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, March 2, 2015: 

Major news out of Libya as  the former head of the Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and a major player in the U.S.-backed overthrow of Mummar Gaddafi, has reportedly joined the Islamic State and is leading its forces there. This according to The Blaze National Security journalist Sara Carter on twitter, and Fox News’ Catherine Herridge in a Fox News report.

Belhadj’s ties to Al Qaeda were controversial during the run up to U.S. airstrikes in support of the Libyan rebels, but this did not prevent him from maintaining a high profile at the time, including being made head of the Tripoli Military Council, a position he held until resigning to run for office in May 2012. Belhadj has a reputation for involvement in the international jihad has well, playing a role in the 2004 Madrid training bombings, and accused by investigators of being involved in the murder of two Tunisian politicians at behest of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Islamic State fighters landed in Libya back in November of 2014, and have been at work establishing training camps in the Libyan city of Derna before launching a terror offensive which included an attack on a Libyan hotel, attacks on oil field workers, and the execution of 21 Copts in a graphic video which made international headlines.

If Belhadj has gone over to Islamic State, it will represent a major boost to IS’ efforts to co-opt and bring in Libya’s existing jihadist forces under their banner, which now reportedly includes as many as 3,000 fighters.   BelHadj’s forces play a significant role in the Islamist “Libyan Dawn” coalition (which includes the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda’s Ansar al-Sharia), which currently holds Tripoli, and which claims to be the rightful government in opposition to the UN recognized government of Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni.

Libyan Dawn supporters have repeatedly blamed Anti-Islamist general Khalifa al Haftar for the terror attacks of the Islamic State, including on the hotel residence of the Libyan Dawn prime minister, so there is reason to believe that if a binary choice develops between Belhadj and Haftar (who was recently made Commander and Chief of the Al-Thinni government forces), the Islamist factions will chooses Belhadj.

This would represent a major coup for the Islamic State, whose global strategy requires the incorporation of pre-established jihadist groups to bolsters their claim to Caliphate status and take additional territory, thus reinforcing their religious and legal authority, and attracting additional recruits.

Also see:

Islamists Demand Australian Senator ‘Introduce Sharia Law’ or Be Beheaded

1417421999234-640x480Breitbart, by DR. PHYLLIS CHESLER, 2 Mar 2015:

Yesterday, terrorists threatened to “behead” Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie if she did not help “introduce sharia law in Australia.”

To her credit, Lambie had recently called for the introduction of the death penalty for terrorists and had been quoted as saying: “If you don’t like our Australian law… then pack your bags and… leave. We will never bow down to sharia law.”

The police do not yet know whether this death threat was sent by Jihadists or by opponents of a planned mosque.

Australia, Down Under? Is there no continent free of lone wolves, wolf packs, citizen-jihadists who turn on their own countrymen or who travel to join ISIS?

Sadly, the answer is no. In fact, yesterday the Australian government barred its citizens from traveling to Mosul to combat “what the government calls growing radicalization among young Australian Muslims, some of whom have fought overseas with militant groups.”

Australia is part of the core group coalition against ISIS, which consists of the United States, Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland, and Denmark.

Jihad is not new to Australia. According to Mark Durie, writing in Middle East Forum, almost one hundred years ago, in 1915, two Muslim men joined forces to shoot and kill four people and wound several others before being killed by police. They were answering the “call to jihad issued by the Ottoman Caliphate (on 11 November 1914).”

Durie defines three different forms of jihad: “individual jihad,” “jihad by bands,” and “jihad by campaigns,” which is warfare using armies directed by the Caliph. “This is the mode the self-declared caliphate known as the Islamic State is following today.”

These jihadists are not crazy or stupid or impoverished or justifiably angry because they have been persecuted. This is, pure and simple, “a manifestation of Islamic theology.” Westerners, especially our leaders and elites, do not want to believe this. As I have pointed out elsewhere, contrary to Western myth, many Islamic terrorists come from stable homes and have advanced educations; their leaders are often men of enormous wealth.

In December of 2014, “Sheikh” Man Haron Monis took 18 people hostage at the Lindt Chocolate Café in Sydney; he also hung an ISIS flag in the window. Two hostages and the gunman were killed. Like the 1915 Australian jihadists, Monis had experienced difficulties with the law. One of the 1915 jihadists, Mullah Abdullah, had been convicted of slaughtering sheep on an unlicensed premise; in 2014, Monis was facing criminal charges as an accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.

When someone is taught that they are “superior” and should dominate others and yet finds himself treated just like everyone else—or treated punitively due to what constitutes criminal behavior in the West but not in the Muslim world—one’s honor has been assaulted and revenge is called for. Such behavior—attacking Western officers or civilians– means that “sudden” or “instant” jihadists have internalized shame and honor codes and believe that Islam should reign supreme over every other religion and legal system.

Westerners have a very hard time believing this as well.

Jihad has been building for years in Australia. In 1998, a Sydney police station was shot atby four Arabs. In 2004, a Lebanese-Australian told a reporter that he “wanted to undertake a terror attack in Sydney in the name of Islam.”

According to Australian terrorism researcher Andrew Zammitt, in 2003, thirteen Melbourne men and nine Sydney men were arrested and charged with forming two different cells to prepare attacks. Eighteen were convicted. These arrests suggested that Australians had become “newly radicalized” post 9/11.

In 2005, hundreds of Australian women at the beach were harassed by angry, offended Muslims. Two hundred such men thereafter smashed hundreds of cars and windows, bashed several people and threatened women with rape.

In the summer of 2014, when Israel was self-defensively trying to eradicate the diabolical terror tunnels in Gaza, a convoy of cars drove through Sydney, brandishing the black flag of ISIS. Some chanted: “Jew and Christian will not stand. You can never stop Islam.”

In the fall of 2014, in Melbourne, Abdul Numan Haider was going to be questioned for “inflammatory” social media postings. He was on the radar. However, when the police came to talk to him—only to talk to him, not to arrest him—Haider stabbed one officer in the abdomen, neck, and head; he stabbed a second officer in the forearm. Haider was shot and killed.

Haider was considered to be a “gentle, loving, quiet” person, a “skinny small boy” who was a devout Muslim.

A worshipper at Haider’s mosque suggested that the 18 year-old was “upset about the recent cancellation of his passport and the police attention on him, [and] frustrated at what was happening in Iraq and Syria.”

Like the jihadists in 1915 and 2014, Haider did not view Australian law as more important than Sharia law and the “call to Jihad,” and when he got in trouble with the law (he was legally stopped from leaving Australia), and when he was merely questioned, he immediately enacted his own, lone Jihad.

I called a friend in Australia who does not want to be named. He is a physician and has many Arab patients. He shared the following anecdotes.

“I have had many Arab patients. I tell them I am German. Many praised me because Hitler was German and did ‘such a great job with the Jews.’ At a clinic, a Muslim reception clerk often greeted me with Heil Hitler, arm extended, and a smile. He thought I was an Aryan German. A young man, whom Australian Jews had helped, confided in me, saying that ‘Islam is going to take over the world as the fastest growing religion. Even in Australia.’ One of my Australian patients complained that he was harassed and bullied on the street by Arabs, shouting, ‘we are going to take over your f**king country.’ Someone who had been a member of Hezbollah, wanted me to write a letter for him to the Prime Minister so he would not be deported. When I declined, he grabbed me by the neck and threatened me.”

Islamic Hatred for the Jews And How it Got That Way

siege of the fortressAn Inquiry into Islam:

The following was written by F. W. Burleigh, author of It’s All About Muhammad.

On Tuesday, March 3, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of the United States Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House John Boehner. This will take place despite strong opposition from the White House, whose approval for this event was not sought.

Netanyahu will address the danger that an Iran with nuclear weapons would represent not only for Israel, but also for the United States and the entire world. More pointedly he will seek to persuade Congress not to support a deal that the Obama administration appears to be working out with Iran that will guarantee that Iran will soon have such weapons. Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be catastrophic, Netanyahu will say.

His concerns are well founded. Iran’s leaders hate Israel for merely existing, and they have a history of threatening to annihilate the Jewish state. Nuclear weapons would give them a means to do so in one strike. One of Iran’s former presidents, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a man considered a moderate by Iranian standards, said that “it is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

It will be interesting to hear what Netanyahu has to say about “such an eventuality.” It is likely to be a momentous speech, but due to the time allotted, he will have to leave out much of what needs to be explained — chiefly, why these theocratic Iranian leaders hate Israel so much that they would love to incinerate it out of existence.

The short explanation: It has to do with an ancient hatred so thick you would need a chainsaw to cut through it.

Since it is unlikely the Israeli prime minister will address this phenomenon of hatred, I have written a speech for him that says what needs to be said about this very important subject. Perhaps he will see fit to insert this into his speech. The theme of this is Iran’s hatred for Jews and how it got that way:

“Distinguished members of Congress, I want to emphasize that this hatred did not come about as a result of creation of the State of Israel in 1948, nor from any of the conflicts, major and minor, between Israelis and Arabs that have occurred since then. The cause of the hatred goes back 1,400 years to the founder of Islam. Muslims hate Jews because Muhammad hated Jews. Muhammad hated Jews because they refused to accept his claim that he was their prophet.

This hatred is the story of Muhammad and his claim that God talked to him through an angel and dictated the contents of the Koran to him. It is the history of the rejection Muhammad first got from his compatriots in Mecca who thought he was devil possessed. Muhammad proclaimed to them that he was of the line of the Jewish prophets, and was commissioned by God to restore true faith in the one God of Abraham. They should listen to him and obey him if they wanted to achieve paradise and avoid hellfire. The Meccans put up with him for ten years before deciding they had to kill him to preserve their way of life. He fled to Yathrib, now called Medina, two hundred miles north of Mecca.

This is where the Jewish part of the story begins. Half of the population of the sprawling valley was Jewish, divided among three major tribes. The other half of the population consisted of Arabs who practiced the same polytheism as the Meccans. Muhammad built a mosque in the center of the valley and turned it into his al-qaeda, his base of operations for a war he declared against the Meccans. This consisted first of attacks on their caravans and ended in pitched battles. Within 18 months, he began to purge the Jewish population from Yathrib.

When Muhammad first arrived in their valley, the Jews listened politely to him, but when they analyzed the prophet verses he had come up with in Mecca, they realized they were not based on the Torah. They were versions of the derivative Jewish legends about the prophets, but even then there were significant variations, yet Muhammad claimed his versions were the correct ones because he got everything from God. When he insisted they accept him as their prophet, the Jews laughed in his face and began mocking him.

While in Mecca, Muhammad had developed curse prayers — hate prayers — that he and his followers recited against the Meccans. He now turned his curses on the Jews. He branded them as apes and pigs and stirred up hatred against them in diatribes from the pulpit at his mosque. “They are mischief makers. They are fools. The Jews deny the truth,” he screamed on one occasion. (Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 248)

He composed numerous Koran verses that seethed with the hatred he felt for the Jews for rejecting him. In verse after verse he warned them that hellfire awaited them for not believing in him. “Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!” he said in Koran 4:55. In another he said, “There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.” (Koran 59:14)

He made life for them a hell on earth. His hatred turned deadly after a battle near the caravan stop of Badr in which his small band of 300 men defeated a Meccan army three times larger. This battle took place about 18 months after his flight from Mecca. When he returned victorious to Yathrib, he began assassinating Jewish poets who had mocked him in their poems. Within a month of his victory over the Meccans, he forced one of the Jewish tribes to leave and confiscated all of their property. He wanted to behead all of them, but was dissuaded by one of their pagan allies.

genocideFrom the battle of Badr on, the Muhammad story is largely the account of atrocities he committed, particularly against the Jews. A year after purging Yathrib of the first Jewish tribe, he forced another to leave under penalty of death if they did not, and he distributed their fortresses, date plantations, and farms to the elite of his Meccan followers. This had been Jewish land for nearly a thousand years. The remaining Jewish tribe, the Qurayzas, suffered a worse fate after they took sides against him during a Meccan assault that ended in failure because of a defensive ditch Muhammad dug around Yathrib. He beheaded as many as 900 men and boys. His attacks against the Jews continued with the conquest of Khaybar, a wealthy Jewish oasis known as the date farm of Western Arabia, and other ancient Jewish centers in western Arabia.

On his deathbed he ordered his followers not to allow any religion but his to exist on the Arabian Peninsula — or anywhere else for that matter.

Hatred is as transmissible as electricity. Because Muslims believe Muhammad’s Koran came from God and that everything he did was in accordance with the will of God, the Muslims of his day absorbed his hatreds. His hatred of the Jews became their hatred of the Jews. This hatred has been passed down generation after generation, and today we see it with the Iranians. It is because of the hatred that has been transmitted through 14 centuries that the Iranians seek to destroy Israel.”

Perhaps Netanyahu can be persuaded to include these remarks in his speech. It is the story behind the story, and it is the story that people need to hear.

Frank Burleigh is the author of It’s All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs at www.itsallaboutmuhammad.com.

Netanyahu to AIPAC: ‘Moral Obligation’ to Speak Against Iran Deal ‘While There’s Still Time’

 

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, March 2, 2015:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu rocked the house at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee mega-conference in Washington this morning, teasing his speech to a joint session of Congress tomorrow to focus on his rift with the administration over “the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons.”

Netanyahu received a standing ovation from the crowd at the mere mention of his name by AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr, who introduced the prime minister.

And he received thunderous applause, cheers, and an extended standing ovation befitting a rock star when he finally took the stage before the packed crowd of 16,000.

“As prime minister of Israel I have a moral obligation to speak out about these dangers while there’s still time to avert them,” he said of Iran, which “envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror.”

“The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over,” Netanyahu said, garnering a massive ovation. “Tomorrow as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state I plan to use that voice.”

“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he quipped.

He thanked the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, as “a man who knows how to take the heat.”

Still, he said, “reports of the demise of the U.S.-Israeli relations are not only premature, they’re just wrong.”

“My address is not to show disrespect to President Obama or the office that he holds — I have great respect for both,” Netanyahu said, adding he’s been “deeply grateful” for Obama’s support for Israel.

The address also is “not intended to inject Israel into the partisan debate,” he added, noting the military assistance from Congress including the Iron Dome missile defense system. “Working together has made Israel stronger; working together has made our alliance stronger.”

“I regret that some people have misperceived my visit here,” he said. “Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. Israel should always remain a bipartisan issue.”

The purpose of his visit, Netanyahu said, is “to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

He framed the disagreement as matter of differing perspectives in the U.S. and Israel, where leaders in Washington worry about the security of its citizens while Israel worries about the survival of its citizens.

“America lives in one of the world’s safest neighborhoods; Israel lives in the world’s most dangerous neighborhood,” he said.

In his nine years as prime minister, Netanyahu stressed, “not a single day, not one day I didn’t think about the survival of my country and the actions that I take to ensure that, not one day.”

“And because of these differences, America and Israel have had some serious disagreements over the course of our nearly 70-year-old friendship,” he said, citing historical instances where Washington called out Israel beginning with David Ben-Gurion’s declaration of statehood.

“Despite occasional disagreements, the friendship between America and Israel grew stronger and stronger, decade after decade. And our friendship will weather the current disagreement, as well, to grow even stronger in the future.”

As the region “descends into medieval barbarism,” he said, Israel is “the one that upholds these values common to us and to you.”

“As Christians in the Middle East are beheaded and their ancient communities are decimated, Israel’s Christian community is growing and thriving, the only one such community in the Middle East,” Netanyahu said, drawing a loud standing ovation.

Of U.S.-Israel rifts: “Disagreements in the family are always uncomfortable, but we must always remember that we are family.”

Jihad, Islamic Jew-Hatred, and ‘Najis’ Doctrine in Shiite Iran: Past as Prologue

Ayatollah Khamenei Facebook

Ayatollah Khamenei Facebook

Breitbart, by Andrew G. Bostom, March 2, 2015:

In light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Congress this week and the continuation of Iranian nuclear talks, it is important to understand Iran’s history of Islamist threats against both Israel and the United States. For Part I of this analysis, click here.

Briefly, Shiite doctrine on jihad evolved to be indistinguishable from its Sunni counterpart by the late 13th century, i.e., open-ended warfare against non-Muslims. Iran’s theocratic Shiite Safavid and Qajar dynasties, its primary rulers from 1501-1925 (i.e., barring a period of Sunni Afghan invasion, internecine turmoil, and the heterodox reign of Nadir Shah, covering ~ 70 years during the 18th century), fully implemented this warfare doctrine, including the notion that jihad was more laudable in the absence of the 12th imam.

Al-Amili (d. 1622), a distinguished jurist under Shah Abbas I, encapsulated these views in his authoritative manual of Islamic Law. He wrote, “Jihad against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam, or pay the poll-tax (per Koran 9:29)”

Predatory jihad campaigns (under the longest reigning Safavid Shah Tahmasp, r. 1524-1576) waged against Christian Georgia—punctuated by massacre, pillage, enslavement, and deportation—were consistent with this doctrine. The killing of non-combatants during jihad campaigns was fully sanctioned according to the prominent 14th, and 18th (to early 19th) century Shiite jurists, respectively, Allameh Helli [Hilli](d. 1325), and Sayyid Ali Tabatabai (d. 1816). Allameh Helli maintained there was a consensus among Shiite legalists that if defeating the enemy required attacking and killing children, women, and the elderly, then these actions were to be undertaken. Ali Tabatabai invoked Muhammad’s campaigns against the Medinan Jewish tribe Banu Nadir and his siege of Taif to justify such actions

This shared, mainstream Sunni and Shiite doctrine on jihad is the validating context in which Iran’s 1979 Constitutional provision on its self-proclaimed “Ideological Army” must be evaluated. Animated by the ideology of jihad, The Islamic Republic’s aggressive, conquering Weltanschauung, is self-evident.

Invoking Koran 8:60, the 1979 Iranian Constitution declares:

In the formation and equipping of the country’s defense forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).

*** (read more)

Conclusions

The Islamic Republic of Iran melds Islam’s totalitarian religious zealotry—a living embodiment of aggressive jihadism and Sharia supremacism—to Shi’ism’s najis-inspired Jew-hatred. Having forcibly returned its indigenous vestigial remnant Jewish population (i.e., the small minority of those 120,000 post-World War II Iranian Jews who have not fled!) to a state of obsequious dhimmitude, this toxic amalgam of belligerent, if “sacralized” Islamic ideologies animates Iran’s obsession to destroy the autonomous Jewish State of Israel, the initial goal of its larger hegemonic aspirations. Moreover, the Islamic Republic’s “pious” adherence to a jihad martyrdom mentality renders deterrence of its expressed nuclear annihilationist designs on Israel, a dubious proposition. Regardless, Iran’s jihadist proxies, in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah, with itsdemonstrated jihad martyrdom pedigree, and now possessing an estimated 100,000 rockets, could operate with impunity under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.

Deciding to cancel a planned visit to her Iranian homeland, Jewish refugee Farideh Goldin, born (1953) and raised in the Shiraz, Iran Jewish ghetto, made these plaintive observations, in a 2006 essay:

Visiting Iran for the last time in the summer of 1976, I vowed never to return. But during the past few years, the temptation slowly crept into me, like a long-abandoned addiction…My husband has never visited the country of my birth. We had planned to spend a year in Iran after he finished his medical internship…[A] medical conference in Mashad [Iran] seemed to be my best chance to introduce my husband to my first homeland. I made the decision to go with much trepidation, however. I am a woman; I am Jewish; I am a writer; each category subjected me to discrimination and suspicion…That was October 21, 2005. Barely a week later, Iran was in the headlines. Its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the destruction of the state of Israel: every man, woman and child; artist, farmer scientist, grocer; the young girl whose parents walked from Yemen; my friend who was carried out of Syria in her father’s arms, screaming from hunger; the young man from Ethiopia who left everything behind; …—and yes, my mother, father and sister too. What are they to this fanatic leader but a small price to pay on the road to heavenly redemption? …How could I go back to Iran? I mourn for my parents’ loss of dignity, for all the Iranian Jewish refugees still numb with the political earthquake that tumbled their lives. The hands of evil are strong and long, seeking them still—not with daggers and clubs, as when my parents and grandparents lived in the dark ghettos of Iran, when Jew-haters, encouraged by fanatical mullahs, rampaged through their meager belongings—but now with missiles and atomic bombs.

All the potentially catastrophic dynamics Goldin characterized with such eloquence—and despair—persist, and now, after the delusive and destabilizing “P5 + 1” negotiations process approaches finality, have advanced to a truly imminent stage.

The question arises as to why more than 12-years after the August 14, 2002 revelations about Iran’s Natanz and Arak nuclear installations—6-years under the Bush II Administration, and another 6-years (and counting) during the Obama Administration—sound, practical U.S. geostrategic arguments, and actions, such as those advocated by Professor Matthew Kroenig, have been dismissed. My book Iran’s Final Solution For Israel examines at some length, the origins of this tragic, yet entirely avoidable failure of imagination, and will, rooted in intellectual sloth, and cowardice.

The case for limited, targeted military strikes on Iran’s four known nuclear facilities has been made with cogent clarity by Professor Kroenig, Georgetown University International Relations Professor, and expert on Iran’s nuclear program. Kroenig’s dispassionate May, 2014, study, A Time to Attack, elucidates the profoundly destabilizing threat posed by an Iran armed with nuclear weapons:

From Iran, a revisionist and risk-acceptant state, we can expect…reckless behavior. Iran will almost certainly be willing to risk nuclear war in future geopolitical conflicts, and this will mean that it will be able on occasion to engage in successful nuclear coercion. It also means that, in playing these games of brinkmanship, it will increase the risk of a nuclear exchange.

Kroenig then outlines the tactical obstacles military strikes on Iran’s four established nuclear facilities would confront, from the relative ease of attacking the surface Isfahan and Arak sites, to the difficulty of targeting the underground Natanz and Qom complexes.

…Isfahan and Arak are above ground and therefore are easy military targets. We [the U.S.] could easily destroy these facilities using air- or sea-launched cruise missiles, launched from U.S. B-52 bombers operating outside Iranian airspace or U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Natanz is buried under seventy feet of earth and several meters of reinforced concrete, and Qom is built into the aide of a mountain and is therefore protected by 295 feet of rock. To destroy these sites we would need to use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. The MOP weighs 30,000 pounds and according to open source reporting, is capable of penetrating up to 200 feet before exploding. Some simple arithmetic (200 feet is greater than 70+ feet) suggests that Natanz doesn’t stand a chance. It is unlikely that the MOP could penetrate into the enrichment chamber of Qom in a single shot (295 feet is greater than 200 feet), but we could simply put subsequent bombs in the crater left from a previous bomb and thus eventually tunnel our way in. Putting multiple bombs in the same hole requires a fair bit of accuracy in our targeting, but we can do it. In addition to destroying their entrances, exits, ventilation heating and cooling systems, and their power lines and sources. The MOP can only be carried on the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber. Since it can be refueled in midair, the B-2 can be sent on a roundtrip mission from U.S. bases in Missouri and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to its targets in Iran and back home again without stopping. The B-2 could also be escorted by stealthy U.S. F-22 fighters, or F-16s, to protect it against fighter aircraft.

This relatively limited, and very brief campaign consisting of “a barrage of cruise missiles and bombing sorties,” Kroenig observes, plausibly conducted in one night, would almost certainly succeed in its intended mission and destroy Iran’s key nuclear facilities.

Citing four historical precedents where pre-emptive bombing of nuclear facilities achievedthe goal of non-proliferation, decisively—“Nazi Germany during World War II, Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq several times in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and Syria in 2007”—Kroenig concludes by enumerating the multiple benefits which would accrue from similarly destroying Iran’s known nuclear installations:

There is absolutely no doubt that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facility would significantly set back Iran’s nuclear progress and create a real possibility that Iran would remain non-nuclear for the foreseeable future. Moreover…[a] strike…would stem the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and bolster the nonproliferation regime around the world. Furthermore, a U.S. strike would also strengthen American credibility. We declared many times that we were prepared to use force if necessary to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. A strike would demonstrate that we mean what we say and say what we mean and that other countries, friends and foes alike, would be foolish to ignore America’s foreign policy pronouncements.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Deputy Commander Brigadier-General Hossein Salami made the following comments at a conference held in Tehran, which aired on Al-Alam TV on March 11, 2014:

Despite the geographical distance, we are attached to the hearts of the Palestinians. How is it that our slogans and goals are identical to the slogans and causes of the Palestinians? Why do we strive to become martyrs and risk our lives for the Palestinian cause?  The answer is that the religion of Islam has designated this for us – this goal, this motivation, this belief, this energy – so that we, here, can muster all our energies in order to annihilate the Zionist entity, more than 1,400 kilometers away. We are ready for that moment in the future.

The “Trusting Khomeini-Khamenei-Rohani” brain trust shaping current Obama Administration Iran policy maintains the good general Salami doesn’t mean any of this, and it is somehow mere “cultural bluster.” Conservative “Trusting Montazeri/Green Movement,” self-styled “Iran shenasans” (“Iran experts”) would argue the good general is simply “distorting” Shiite Islam and we must be patient, support the (Soylent) Green Movement of Iranian Jeffersonian Democrats, and at some unstated future time point, “regime replacement” will solve the Iranian nuclear weapons, and all other such problems engendered by the “distortion of Shiite Islam.” Accordingly, we must ignore the hard data that show 83% support for the Sharia in Iran, or the 63% of Iranians who insisted that Iran should continue to develop its nuclear program, even at the height of the period of strictest international economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Till now, those are your Iran policy options from the ones who control such discourse—and current or  planned actions—across the political and ideological spectrum. As a potential alternative to this dangerously misguided policy morass, I queried Professor Kroenig (in early November, 2014) about the possibility of urgent Israeli airstrikes. Kroenig’s  A Time to Attack argues persuasively about the limitations of such an Israeli campaign, Israel lacking any known capability, for example, to penetrate the deeply embedded fortifications of Iran’s Qom/Fordow uranium enrichment facility. However, given what is truly needed two-years from now, hope against hope—a complete U.S. political and policymaking class “regime change”—I offer Professor Kroenig’s temporizing solution until the U.S. regains its geostrategic and moral bearings: 

As a last resort, an Israeli strike– and the year or two of breathing space, at minimum, it would buy– would be preferable to acquiescing to a nuclear Iran.

Finally, the American public, regardless of the attitudes of current political leadership and policymaking elites, appears fully cognizant of Iran’s intentions, and the unacceptable security threat posed by an Islamic Republic armed with nuclear weapons. Polling data from a U.S. national sample of 1800 Americans completed Sunday, November 23, 2014,indicated the following:

  • 85% of Americans do not believe the Iranians’ assertions that their nuclear program is peaceful
  • 81% of Americans do not believe the current government in Iran can be trusted to keep agreements
  • 69% of Americans oppose any negotiated agreement leaving Iran with nuclear capabilities

Hope springs eternal such gimlet-eyed Americans will elect equally astute political leaders also endowed with the courage necessary to authorize targeted military strikes which complete a task Israel will have initiated by 2015: destroying, or severely damaging the Islamic Republic of Iran’s current nuclear development facilities, forestalling, and perhaps even preventing long term, a nuclear weapons-armed Iran.

Illustrative materials, particularly key background doctrinal and historical quotes were reproduced from the author’s Iran’s Final Solution For Israel, re-published with an updated preface November 26, 2014.

Israel and the U.S.: Two (‘Unclean’) Dogs in the Same Fight With Iranian Jihadism

iran1a-640x401Breitbart, by ANDREW G. BOSTOM,  March 2,  2015:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is slated to address Congress Tuesday, March 3, 2015 regarding his concerns over the so-called “P5 (i.e., the U.S., Russia, China, France, and Britain) +1 (Germany)” nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015, a week before Netanyahu’s scheduled appearance– which is clearly unwelcome by the Obama Administration– Susan Rice, the Administration’s national security adviser, told PBS’s Charlie Rose, bluntly:

I think it’s [Netanyahu’s address] destructive of the fabric of the [U.S.-Israel] relationship.

Subsequently, Israel National News (on March 1, 2015) repeated unconfirmed allegations from a Kuwaiti newspaper that President Obama personally thwarted a planned Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014, threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they reached their Iranian targets. By Sunday evening (3/1/15), in a statement issued toThe Washington Times, a senior Obama Administration official claimed the Kuwaiti report was “totally false.”

Pair this frank denial of the Kuwaiti story with Ms. Rice’s icy, hostile remark, and it reflects an Obama administration thoroughly, even vindictively dismissive of the Israeli Prime Minister’s grave, rational apprehensions. Mr. Netanyahu appropriately rejects the current negotiations process which abets, and de facto legitimizes, Iran’s nuclear aspirations, under the guise of regulated uranium enrichment for promised non-military uses, while ignoring the Islamic Republic’s long range ballistic missile development, and nuclear weaponization programs. Speaking at Bar Ilan University, on February 9, 2015, Netanyahu offered a plaintive rationale for his Congressional address in early March, highlighting the shared existential threat to Israel, and the U.S:

The true question is whether Iran will have nuclear bombs to implement its intention to destroy the State of Israel. That is something we will not allow. This is not a political issue either in Israel or the U.S. This is an existential issue.

Referencing the disturbing findings of a confidential IAEA report exposed by the New York Times on February 20, 2015 (discussed below), Netanyahu later expressed his “astonishment” that the P5 +1 negotiations had not been abandoned altogether:

Not only are they continuing, there is an increased effort to reach a nuclear agreement in the coming days and weeks. Therefore, the coming month is critical for the nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers because a framework agreement is liable to be signed that will allow Iran to develop the nuclear capabilities that threaten our existence.

The Israeli Prime Minister re-affirmed his view of the unacceptable dangers such an agreement posed to Israel, and the international community overall. He also criticized the moral depravity of negotiations with an Iranian regime that continued to actively support global jihad terrorism.

[T]herefore, I will go to the US next week in order to explain to the American Congress, which could influence the fate of the agreement, why this agreement is dangerous for Israel, the region and the entire world. [Iran] continues its murderous terror activities around the region and the world, does not, unfortunately, bother the international community, which is continuing to talk with Iran about a nuclear accord that will allow it to build an industrial capacity to develop nuclear arms.

The sobriety of Prime Minster Netanyahu’s tocsin of looming calamity is completely validated by the following recent developments, which highlight Iran’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear and conventional military capabilities (directed against both Israel, and the U.S.), all inspired by its openly avowed, bellicose Islamic ideology:

  • An independent report of 102 pp. issued on 11/20/2014, reviewing over a decade of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) analyses (and other investigative findings), concluded (despite repeated, disingenuous countervailing protests) that the Iranian regime continued to engage in “systematic,” “vigorous” combined military, and dual military-civilian efforts “such as enrichment, weaponization, warhead, and delivery system at some stage,” whose ultimate goal was procuring nuclear weapons capability. There were “no serious indications that Tehran has stopped or abandoned this project or intends to do so.” Iran, on the contrary, “has resorted to further secrecy and concealment to keep its program intact and unhindered.” Additional discoveries and data all underscored how “a military program and military related activities” remain “at the heart of the Iranian nuclear program.”
  • A subsequent updated report by the IAEA itself, leaked to the New York Times and disclosed on February 20, 2015, stated that the agency “remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” Adding Iran had not provided explanations for the IAEA’s queries about all Iranian nuclear-related work, the IAEA report claimed the agency was “not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”
  • An Israeli TV Channel 2 Wednesday, January 21, 2015 report showed images taken by the Eros B commercial Earth observation satellite revealing that “Iran has built a 27-meter-long missile, capable of delivering a warhead far beyond Europe, and placed it on a launch pad at a site close to Tehran.”
  • Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz published (on January 22, 2015) a conservative estimate that Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium—which has burgeoned since 2009—could be readily further enriched to provide 6 to 8 nuclear weapons. Reviewing Fleitz’s data, Ollie Heinonen, previously an IAEA official who now teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School, maintained that Iran could produce a “higher number” of weapons—perhaps as many as 11—from the enriched uranium it has accumulated since 2009.
  • On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, the Iranian opposition group the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) claimed that a complex, dubbed Lavizan-3, on the outskirts of Tehran, was “buried deep underground in tunnels and underground facilities” with “radiation-proof doors” to prevent any leaks that could be detected by the United Nations International Energy Agency inspectors. The NCRI claimed it smuggled out a photograph demonstrating a 1-foot thick lead-lined door which shields the complex from radiation, alleging further that the clandestine rooms and hallways are insulated for sound and radiation leaks so that they would remain undetected. The NCRI also maintained that the Iranian regime has secretly used the site to enrich uranium with advanced centrifuges since 2008, consistent with a long established deceptive pattern of hiding its actual nuclear activities.
  • The presence of Iranian command posts and special forces in the Golan Heights now extends beyond Iran’s pattern of supporting proxy activities (i.e., by Hezbollah). Per May 2014 statements by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) senior official Hossein Hamedani that were censored and removed immediately after publication in Iran, the command posts are designed to coordinate “130,000 trained Iranian Basij fighters waiting to enter Syria.” A February 13, 2015 essay in the Lebanese publication Al-Akhbar by Nahed Al-Hattar noted, appositely, that while Israel’s nuclear weapons capabilities were constrained due to international considerations, Iran has amassed a “practical, direct and conventional” threat against the Jewish State: “Israel faces a fateful crisis. As much as it feared the Iranian nuclear program, it never imagined that Iran would be standing on its border even before its nuclear agreement with the Americans was complete. The Iranian threat to Israel is no longer theoretical, nor does it have anything to do with Israel’s deterrent of using its nuclear weapons, which cannot be used considering the international power balance. The threat has become direct, practical and conventional.”
  • Iran’s Fars News Agency reported February 25, 2015 that at a simulated “life size” U.S. aircraft carrier was destroyed by IRGC missiles during the IRGC Navy’s massive “The Great Prophet 9” war games in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. In a Sunday 3/1/15 follow-up statement, Iranian legislators lauded the IRGC’s naval war games: “Using the hi-tech weapons and complicated and high-precision missiles in these military drills was a clear message to the world that sanctions can never prevent Iranians’ access to the most advanced and state-of-the-art weapons.”
  • On February 11, 2015, during events marking the 36th anniversary of the 1979 “revolution,” the theocratic putsch’s virulently anti-American and anti-Israeli character was re-affirmed. Prominent displays of hatred toward President Obama, shown hanging from a gallows, and Secretary of State Kerry, depicted as a devious fox, were featured. And at a February 11, 2015 address in Kermanshah, Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi declared“The Iranian people calls in unison the slogans ‘death to America’ and ‘death to Israel’. America and Israel will end up like the rest. The Iranian nation’s unity will cause the elimination of these arrogant [countries]…The 5+1 coalition [the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany – who are conducting nuclear negotiations with Iran] is a coalition against humanity and against Islam. The enemies always fear Islam and the progress of the Iranian nation…”
  • Finally, a domino display held in the city of Gonabad, in the Razavi Korasan Province of Iran, February 16, 2015, riveted upon Iran’s nuclear program. Structures made of dominoes simulating obstacles to the Iranian nuclear program—sanctions, the Stuxnet virus, the assassination of scientists—were toppled, being replaced by messages proclaiming Iran’s nuclear accomplishments. Some of the US-related models featured, such as the word “CIA,” the RQ-170 drone, and the US flag, were collapsed. The show concluded with a missile destroying a domino structure of an Israeli flag.

What animates Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, a quest initiated under the combined leadership of Mir Hossein Mousavi (now a “Green Movement” leader), and Ayatollah Khomeini himself, between 1987 to 1988? Though almost universally ignored, or willfully obfuscated and trivialized, Iran’s central abiding motivations are pellucid. Brazenly articulated by its foundational ideologues and governmental decrees, repeated in countless religio-political pronouncements over the intervening 36-years since the retrograde Khomeini “revolution” of 1979, the three pillars of Iran’s hegemonic aspirations remain jihad, canonical Islamic Jew-hatred, and the uniquely dehumanizing Shiite Islamic conception of “najis,” “impurity/uncleanliness,” as it pertains to non-Muslims (which I will elaborate).

For the second part of this analysis, click here.

A top Shariah lawyer’s stunning response to the question: ‘Is there such a thing as moderate Islam?’

419gPOS7xaLThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 26 2015:

We sat down with a leading Shariah lawyer from Iran, Daniel Akbari, to discuss his illuminating new book ”Honor Killing: A Professional’s Guide to Sexual Relations and Ghayra Violence from the Islamic Sources, in which he seeks to awaken Americans to the generally antithetical nature of Islam to Judeo-Christian society, and specifically Shariah-dictated domestic violence towards women — up to and including so-called honor killings — and how we in the West can prevent such atrocities.

During the extensive interview, which you can skip to here, we had a chance to ask him a series of questions on the nature of Islam, its goals, tactics, how Western Muslims become jihadists, and all manner of other topics.

But it was in response to a question on whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam that Mr. Akbari, a man who studied at the seat of Shia religious learning at the Tehran University School of Law, and specialized in criminal and family law before leaving Iran, gave perhaps his most stunning response of all, stating:

What Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey says is actually perfect and totally Islamic because Islamis Islam. We don’t have such a thing like — “radical Islam extremism” — many things that are said in Islam like beheading, like stoning, like flogging — they are not extremism acts, those are pure Islam.

…The second thing is, this is not “extremism,” this is “fundamentalism.” People who believe in [the] Koran understand it and practice it and take it serious.

About moderate Muslims, we have to…make a distinction between those people who come from Islamic backgrounds, come from [the] Middle East, their names are ‘Mohammed’…they might not believe in [the] Koran at all. They might just be atheists. They just come from that region.

Who are moderate Muslims in reality according to Akbari?

…Moderate Muslims actually are kind of like CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] people — people who are Muslim Brotherhood types…and these people fight for Islam, love it, but they give a peaceful feature, and good-looking [nature] to Islam, to…deceive Americans not to resist the process of Islam.

Sometimes they deceive Americans this way that “We are the same as your neighbor who is from the Middle East.” That neighbor might be an atheist, might be a Buddhist at heart. Just by nature and feature, people might assume [him or her] Islamic.

…Moderate Muslims, as we might know as Muslim Brotherhood, they are the backbone of jihad.

Without them, there…[are] not gonna be any jihadis. They support jihad financially. They recruit here for jihadists — they recruit in this country. They have their own Islamic centers. They go to jail and recruit for ISIS.

So without these moderate Muslims — I’m not talking about just people coming from [the] Middle East — I’m talking about those who fight for Islam, or those who love Islam and pay for jihadists and also support to…try to recruit people, or sympathizers. My point about moderates is kind of different than what Americans might say.

Moderates are not anybody from [the] Middle East with an Islamic name.

My point about moderates are people who have Islamic organizations in an organized way, fight to improve Islam, I call those people moderates. To my eyes, those moderates are no different than ISIS or other jihadists.

During the interview, we also had the opportunity to discuss a series of other topics with Mr. Akbari including:

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.