Invoking The Dreaded “Moderate”

Posted on March 27, 2013 by lburt

There are few words I’ve learned to dread more when following Middle East policy and terrorism issues more than the word “moderate.” Take for instance it’s appearance in this story by the Washington Times, “U.S. Training Syrian Moderates in Jordan: Officials“:

For months now, the United States has been training secular Syrian fighters in Jordan with the goal of bolstering the array of forces battling President Bashar Assad’s regime while at the same time strengthening the hand of moderates among the country’s fractured opposition, American and foreign officials said. They said the effort is ongoing.

The training has been taking place since late last year at an unspecified location, concentrating largely on Sunnis and tribal Bedouins who formerly served as members of the Syrian army, officials told The Associated Press. The forces aren’t members of the leading rebel group, the Free Syrian Army, they said. The U.S. and others fear the growing role of extremist militia groups in the rebel ranks, including some linked to al Qaeda.

Which sounds good, until one remembers that to the Obama Administration, “moderate” and “secular” almost never seem to mean what one might expect them to mean. All too often, “moderate” simply means any Islamist who doesn’t have direct ties to Al Qaeda…yet.

This includes members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which currently dominates the Syrian political opposition, now headed by Ghassan Hitto, a member of multiple MB front groups, although better known to the mainstream media euphemistically as “a Texas resident.”

Its easy to forget that among one-time “moderates” are included such luminaries as Abdurahman Al-Amoudi (former leader of major MB front group the American Muslim Council, and imprisoned Al Qaeda financier), and Anwar Al-Awlaki (once celebrated “moderate” imam of Dar al-Hijrah mosque, whose board members consist of the leadership of multiple Muslim Brotherhood fronts, until he became the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.)

One could perhaps debate the value of arming and training actual Syrian nationalists and secular democrats (at whatever levels they may or may not be found to exist) as a counterbalance to Islamists and Bashar Assad’s Iranian-aligned Baathist regime. But given the deluded view of the Obama Administration and America’s intelligence community, it’s impossible to have any confidence they can successfully identify such individuals even if they want to. And there’s little evidence they want to.

Israel Closely Monitoring Jihadis Moving into the Golan

Posted on March 19, 2013 by lburt

by Paul Alster
Special to IPT News
March 19, 2013:

Haifa, Israel – If jihadi groups fighting to topple Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad succeed, “[i]t’s us afterwards,” warned Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt. General Benny Gantz during a conference last week. “We could be the next challenge for the same organizations.”

The Golan Heights, the border between Syria and Israel, has become increasingly unstable as the Assad regime loses its grip on power and radical Islamist and al-Qaida-inspired elements of the Free Syrian Army – reportedly backed directly or indirectly by the likes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia – move into the void.

The situation in Syria is “liquid, unstable and dangerous,” Gantz said in remarks at the 13^th Herzilya Conference on Israeli security. If Assad falls, Syria’s massive arsenal of weapons could fall into the wrong hands. Those jihadi groups would feel tempted to target Israel. As if to reinforce Gantz’s point, Reuters reported last Thursday that 1,000 insurgents have moved into Khan Sheikh, just 15 miles from the Golan, after killing 30 soldiers in a battle for a Syrian government missile squadron south of Damascus.

“The terror organizations are gaining footholds in the territory,” Gantz said.

Youtube video shows al-Qaida reconnaissance video of Israeli troops on Golan border

That threat adds to the already tense situation in Israel’s north, where Hizballah poses a constant threat. “[The North] could explode at any moment,” Gantz said. “We are prepared and we will know to act with the required force directly against Hezbollah and its state surroundings.”

In a widely reported comment, Gantz added, “Lebanon, as the neighboring state, can’t be sovereign but not responsible. If this goes off, I’d rather be an Israeli civilian, and not a Lebanese civilian.”

The recent abduction of 21 Filipino UN peacekeeping forces on the Golan border by a group associated with the Free Syrian Army highlights the escalating tensions on Syria’s southern border. Although the men were released unharmed, Croatia announced last week that it would withdraw its 100 men from the UN mission “very soon.” So far in 2013 Canada and Japan have pulled out, leaving just Austria, the Philippines, and India providing peacekeeping troops on the border; only the Indian mission appears fully committed to staying.

Fears that the UN may withdraw its entire mission, leaving unfettered freedom of movement for terror groups on Israel’s border, were hardly allayed at a recent press conference given by Martin Nesirky, spokesman for UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.

Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist who blogs at www.paulalster.com and can be followed on Twitter @paul_alster

Why Is America Midwiving a Muslim Brotherhood-Ruled Syria?

Posted on December 27, 2012 by lburt

By Andrew Bostom

Following significant military successes and diplomatic gains by Syria’s anti-Bashar Assad Sunni Muslim insurgency over recent weeks, Moscow, a key Assad regime ally, announced Tuesday 12/18/12 its preparations for an evacuation of Russian citizens living in Syria.

While the Assad regime’s ruling Alawite minority sect retained a firm hold on their indigenous base in the coastal Syrian provinces, the predominantly Sunni Muslim Syrian rebels have seized the northern and eastern border zones, near Turkey and Iraq, respectively, and dominate wide swathes of rural Syria. The continued rebel assault is even advancing on Assad’s seat of power, Damascus, near the western frontier of Lebanon, having just seized the pro-Assad Palestinian refugee camp of Yarmouk, on the southern edge of the Syrian capital.

By Wednesday, the rebels had reportedly captured at least six towns in the central Hama governorate (Latamneh, Helfaya, Kfar Naboudah, Hasraya, Tibat al-Imn, and Kfar Zita), with skirmishes erupting in the city of Hama itself. As of Friday, the Sunni insurgents were besieging Morek, an Alawite stronghold in Hama governorate, a province which contains dozens of Alawite and Christian villages among Sunni towns, igniting fears of increased sectarian violence.

During an interview with Barbara Walters on December 11, President Obama announced the U.S. would formally recognize the recently established Syrian National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition Forces (SNCROF), an umbrella group seeking to depose Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Obama extolled the SNCROF for its inclusiveness, allegedly being open to various ethnic and religious groups, and bonds to local councils participating in the fight against Assad’s security forces. He opined:

At this point we have a well-organized-enough coalition — opposition coalition that is representative — that we can recognize them as the legitimate representative of Syrian people.

SNCROF

Independent analysts sympathetic to the anti-Assad forces, have concluded that the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood remains the dominant force in SNCROF, as it had been in the earlier Syrian National Council opposition front. London-based Syrian journalist Malik Al-Abdeh noted:

The Muslim Brotherhood seems to be in the dominant position … However, the West feels compelled now to legitimize the Syrian opposition in whatever guise it may take, simply because of the fast pace of events on the ground in Syria.

Andrew Tabler, cofounder and former editor-in-chief of Syria Today, maintained: “The [Muslim Brotherhood-dominated] SNC [Syrian National Council] is still a major player.” Tabler also expressed this ominous concern:

And that’s just the civil end. The armed groups within the country are not included in this coalition directly. How is that going to work?

Apropos to Tabler’s worry and concurrent with President Obama’s recognition of SNCROF on December 11, the U.S. State Department designated the Syrian jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra a terrorist organization, amending the 2004 designation of al-Qaeda affiliate Islamic State of Iraq (AQISI), and declaring there was “sufficient factual basis” to conclude AQISI, under the guise of Jabhat al-Nusra, was operating in Syria. Justifying the designation, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland stated the group had claimed responsibility for almost 600 attacks in several cities during the past year, including homicide bombings, which had caused the deaths of “numerous innocent Syrians.” She added:

[Al Nusra] has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, an attempt by AQI [i.e., AQISI, Al-Qaeda affiliate Islamic State of Iraq] to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes.

Public Syrian denunciations of the State Department’s formal labeling of Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group were swift and often fierce, running the gamut from the Syrian opposition website Sooryoon.net, and the mass vox populi demonstrations of anti-Assad Syrian civilian populations, to the SNCROF leadership itself (including comments by SNCROF’s anti-Western, antisemitic, titular leader, Sheikh Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib).

Anticipating the State Department’s 12/11/12 designation of Jabhat al-Nusra as terrorists, Sooryoon.net had posted articles (on December 6 and 7, 2012) which recognized Jabhat Al-Nusra’s efforts in damaging Assad’s regime, while objecting to the motives of the (then) looming U.S. action. Sooryoon.net claimed the U.S. sought to blunt the burgeoning support and gratitude Jabhat Al-Nusra has garnered among the Syrians. Moreover, regarding Jabhat Al-Nusra’s avowed goal of establishing a strictly Sharia-compliant Islamic state following removal of the Assad regime, the Syrian opposition website insisted there was “nothing wrong” with this openly proclaimed aspiration, acknowledging it was shared by multitudes of Syrians, especially members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Sooryoon.net also warned the SNC/SNCROF leadership not to accept Jabhat Al-Nusra’s terrorist designation, while urging vigorous opposition to the U.S. action, and encouraging FSA leaders and members, and all Syrians, to declare their solidarity with Jabhat Al-Nusra. By December 11, Sooryoon.net cautioned the U.S. against intensifying its hostility toward Jabhat Al-Nusra, adding such measures would be counterproductive at any rate, and would swell the jihadist group’s popularity among the Syrian Muslim masses. The website further chastised the U.S. for allegedly missing opportunities to be effectively involved in Syria, and even forewarning that any direct U.S. commitment now would transform the country into an American graveyard.

*******

Conclusion

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her subordinate State Department advisers and minions have recklessly eschewed Wafa Sultan’s June 2005 wise, experience-based tocsin of looming calamity. The Clinton State Department also apparently never learned, or chose to ignore, the frank, unchanged truths conveyed in the State Department’s own December, 1947 assessment of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Ms. Clinton’s likely replacement as Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry, judging from his own uninformed statements about the parent Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, will not change America’s delusive and dangerous empowerment of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood as “policy.” Tragically, America seems hell bent on midwiving a post-Assad Muslim Botherhood-ruled Syria.

Why Terrorist Attacks Have Quadrupled Since 2001

Posted on December 5, 2012 by lburt

By Kerry Patton

Terrorism is a tactic used by individuals with specific ideologies. Killing an ideology is nearly impossible. The war on terror is a complete misnomer. A war cannot be waged against a tactic. And proving to be an ideological war, evidence demonstrates that today, the tactic of terrorism is actually growing world-wide.

Since 2001, the United States and our allies have been engaged in a complex war fighting against an ideology. Many people have been killed while many more have been maimed. Today, it is known via the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, deaths caused by terror have decreased yet attacks have actually quadrupled world-wide since 2001.

The leading ideological culprit behind the growing terror dilemma is Islam. The Global Terrorism Database proves unequivocally that those who embrace a very twisted religious ideology are leading the world today in terrorist activities — i.e. Islamists.

Terrorists have varied their tactics with advanced unconventional tools. Today, we learn that Syria is threatening to incorporate chemical weapons against its opposition. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) has already ransacked at least three Syrian military bases procuring Manual Portable Air Defense (MANPAD) systems shooting down a Syrian military helicopter just last week. Do we know whether they obtained any chemical weapons during the raids as well?

What happens if the opposition obtains these chemical weapons? What happens if Al Qaeda elements fighting alongside Free Syrian Army rebels transfer these weapon systems elsewhere later, incorporating them into the streets of a European or North American nation? Terrorist and their movements strengthen.

Four credible arguments can be made explaining why terrorist incidents have increased over the years—weak US foreign policy, internal fighting between conventional and unconventional military wisdom, technical intelligence dependency, and decapitated US human intelligence.

A weak US foreign policy could be partially blamed for the spike in world-wide terrorist incidents. Since the start of the Arab Spring, the United States has actually emboldened terrorist groups through “behind closed doors” diplomacy, weapons procurement, and other logistical needs. Simply put, the very people we often assist frequently become the very people we fight.

Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II)

Posted on November 29, 2012 by lburt

By Doug Hagmann

Author’s note: This is part two of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. In this part, the insider provides information about the events of the attack and the continuation of the cover-up at the highest levels of our government. (For Part I, please click here).

We’ve heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened?

First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location.

The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner time, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness.

It’s also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don’t know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation.

Now I’ll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. and intermittently throughout the day. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination.

It’s also noteworthy to point out that the Turkish counsel general most likely passed through one or more of these checkpoints, or at least would have noticed that things were not right in the area. You must remember that just as Stevens was previously CIA working under diplomatic cover, the Turkish counsel general was his counterpart. It’s typical spy versus spy stuff.

Also consider this. One of the men stationed at the compound, a British national, left the compound at about 9:20 p.m., reportedly to get more phone cards. That’s right, phone cards, like you would buy at Walmart. Why? Because the men at the compound ran out of minutes. Just who do you think they were talking to that day to burn through the minutes, and why do you think they needed them at that exact time?

They were using the phones as a last and perhaps only line of communications to provide assessments of the strange things going on earlier. They knew that something was being planned and they were conveying that information – their observations to those who could assist them, in Tripoli and DC.

Based on these activities, it is clear that the men at the compound suspected that they were in trouble long before the first shot was ever fired. They were calling anyone who would listen, or who should have listened. We knew trouble was brewing and no one responded in any meaningful way.

Could the man who left to buy more phone cards have known what was about to take place?

Well, it’s possible, but there is no indication of that.

Was the Turkish counsel general in on this, to set Stevens up?

Well, what have we heard from our government? Has anyone even bothered to interview him? What did he say? Don’t forget, this administration decided to handle this attack as a crime and not a terrorist attack. How long did it take for the FBI to be able to access the ‘crime scene’ after the attack? More importantly, what was left at the ‘crime scene’ to examine by the FBI due to this delay? Do you think the delay was accidental?

Do you know what was discussed, or the reason for the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish consul general?

Yes, I know some key points. First, keep in mind what this arms running operation was all about. It was to topple Assad and replace him with a Muslim Brotherhood leader. It was to destabilize Syria to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. They were using U.S. and NATO forces to do exactly that.

However, Assad is no Gaddafi, and there is no comparison between Assad’s army and the Libyan army. It would take much more than rebels inside Syria to topple Assad. There is no way on earth that the Syrian rebels, or Free Syrian Army, has the capability to accomplish this objective alone. It required U.S. assistance, arms and training.

Now, Turkey is a NATO ally. They were assisting the Obama-Clinton-Saudi plan to funnel weapons ultimately to Syria, but the primary staging areas for these weapons were in Turkey near the Syrian border. Visual surveillance by Russia, using satellites and other means amassed photographic documentation of the U.S. assisting the ‘anti-Assad rebels’ inside Turkey. They developed evidence of the U.S. training these rebels and assisting them into Syria to fight against Assad.

Think about this. What if surveillance images observed anti-Assad rebels being trained to handle and mount chemical weapons – gas shells – onto rockets? The process would be apparent and would obviously be detected by a number of visual indicators. Obviously, Syria wanted this to stop. By extension, so did Russia.

One aspect of the weapons plan was to set up a false flag operation to make it appear that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Imagine the outcry from the civilized world to the news that Assad ‘gassed’ his own people. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to openly intervene. Don’t forget about the timing of all of this. Two months before the elections, and time was running out. The job of taking out Assad was not yet complete. Such an event would quickly advance this agenda. By this time, however, being caught and placed in a rather unenviable position between Russia and the U.S., the Turkish consul general was in a ‘CYA, clean-up’ mode, assuring that none of the chemical weapons that might have still been in Libya were headed for Turkey.

It is also important to understand that the covert weapons running operation was just about finished. An estimated 40 million pounds of weapons were already shipped from Libya, and things were winding down.

There was another issue as well, a very important and telling one. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent had been kidnapped or snatched from the streets of Benghazi on or about July 31, 2012. Again you must understand that virtually anyone walking on the streets of Benghazi not indigenous to the area are spies. Covert operatives, operating under various covers. From all nations.

Along with the message that the weapons running operation was compromised, the Iranians had good reason to suspect that the ‘Red Crescent workers’ were snatched by the CIA or with their assistance. Iran wanted them back. They were spies, and countries want their spies back! So part of the meeting was to address this, as there was pressure by Russia against a wavering Turkey to switch sides. Anyway, you’ll see how this ties in to the way the actual attack was executed.

Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”

Posted on November 28, 2012 by lburt

By Douglas J. Hagmann

27 November 2012: This is part one of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. In this part, he provides important background, and explains that this administration is engaged in a massive cover-up.

DH: It’s been a while since we’ve discussed Benghazi. What have you heard lately?

II: Before I answer that, I want to get a few things off my chest. Every politician, whether it’s a congressman senator, diplomat, or their spokespeople and the media are lying to the American public every time they call the location of the attack a consulate. It was not. There was absolutely no diplomatic consulate in Benghazi. None. Words are important here. They can create a wrong image, an incorrect picture of what was really going on. The property where our Ambassador and other Americans were murdered was a rented villa consisting of a primary residence with a couple of outbuildings behind the actual house. The reason they’re still calling it a consulate is to subtly divert any questions about our activities there.

DH: Let’s go over this again; exactly what was taking place at Benghazi?

II: As I said, the place where the attack happened is one of the largest, one of the most active CIA operation centers in North Africa, if not in the entire Middle East. It was not a diplomatic station. It was a planning and operations center, a logistics hub for weapons and arms being funneled out of Libya. Unlike the embassy in Tripoli, there was limited security in Benghazi. Why? So the operation did not draw attention to what was going on there.

DH: So in reality there were no actual security issues?

II: Oh yes, there were, in Tripoli. Diplomatic cables show that. But it was for the embassy in Tripoli, the Ambassador and the diplomatic staff in general, not specifically for the Benghazi location for two reasons. First, the Benghazi location was a CIA operation, not a diplomatic one. Visible security at that location would draw unwanted attention there. They had to blend in. Remember, the villa was located in a somewhat residential area, sort of like the suburbs. Secondly, additional manpower was not needed there, at this CIA center, as the operation was already winding down.

DH: I know you’ve gone over this before, but let’s get into the specifics of the operation at Benghazi.

II: Good, I want to be clear. After Gaddafi was taken out, there was the matter of his weapons and arms that were hidden all over Libya, including chemical weapons – gas weapons. According to Obama and Hillary Clinton, we were in Libya to collect and destroy these weapons to make for a ‘safer’ Libya. That’s what they were telling the American public. That’s not really what was going on, though, and it seems like all of the other nations except the average American knew it. Anyway, you can find pictures and videos of weapons caches being destroyed, but that is strictly for the public’s consumption.

What was really happening, before Gaddafi’s body was even cold, is that we had people locating caches of weapons, separating the working from those that weren’t, and making a big show of destroying the weapons, but only the weapons that were useless. The working weapons were being given to Islamic terrorists. They were being funneled through Libya, crisscrossing Libya on a Muslim Brotherhood managed strategic supply route. In fact, Michael Reagan called it the modern day equivalent of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in a recent article he wrote, and he is correct.

The entire arms and weapons running operation was headquartered in Benghazi, The weapons were actually being shipped out of Libya from the port city of Dernah, located about a hundred miles east of Benghazi. That was the ‘choke point’ of the weapons being shipped out. Remember the Lusitania? Think in those terms, ships carrying weapons hid among ‘humanitarian aid.’ By the time of the attacks, an estimated 30-40 million pounds of arms were already transported out of Libya.

From there, the weapons were being sent to staging areas in Turkey near the Syrian border, for use by the Free Syrian Army and other ragtag terrorist groups to fight against Assad. The objective was and still is to destabilize the Assad government.

New Syrian Opposition Leader: Islamist-In-Chief

Posted on November 15, 2012 by lburt

Sheikh Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib

The new leader of Syria’s opposition has a history of statements that are anti-Semitic, outrageous, and sometimes downright bizarre.

BY MOHANAD HAGE ALI

Even as opponents of President Bashar al-Assad have gained ground inside Syria, the political opposition in exile has remained famously divided. The Syrian National Council, a body formed more than a year ago with the goal of uniting all opposition groups, was the poster child for these failures: Many of its most prominent members resigned in anger over the Muslim Brotherhood’s domination of its top ranks and the council’s detachment from groups inside the country.

However, recent developments have prompted a burst of optimism about the state of Syria’s opposition. On Nov. 11, anti-Assad groups met in Doha, Qatar, where they hashed out an agreement, under U.S. and Qatari auspices, to form the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. The new rebel coalition was hailed as the first truly representative opposition body — and its new leader, Sheikh Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, was widely praised as the perfect figure to represent the opposition to the world.

Syria’s opposition received an immediate diplomatic boost after the formation of the new coalition. France recognized it as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people, and pledged to reexamine the possibility of shipping arms to the rebels. The Arab League also recognized the body, with Secretary General Nabil al-Araby hailing it as a “glimmer of hope.” By dispelling Western fears of growing jihadist influence within the Free Syrian Army, the rebels hope, the new coalition can open the door to increased financial and military assistance from the international community.

The election of the Cairo-based Khatib, a former imam of Damascus’s historic Umayyad Mosque who was imprisoned under Assad, is a crucial part of this strategy. Western media outlets such as the BBC were quick to declare him “a respected figure within Syria” who holds “moderate” political views, citing his trips to Britain and the United States, as well as his teaching experience at the Dutch Institute in Damascus, as evidence. However, public statements posted on the clergyman’s website, darbuna.net, paint a different picture.

Khatib’s website features numerous instances of anti-Semitic rhetoric. In one of his own articles, he writes that one of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s positive legacies was “terrifying the Jews.” He has also published others’ anti-Semitic observations on his site: In one article, written by Abdul Salam Basiouni, Jews are described as “gold worshipers.” Finally, in an obituary of a Gaza sheikh copied from IslamSyria, Jews are dubbed “the enemies of God.”

While Khatib used his post-election speech to call for equal rights for “all parts of the harmonious Syrian people,” his previous rhetoric toward his country’s minorities has been nothing short of virulent. One of his articles describes Shiite using the slur rawafid, or “rejectionists”; he even goes further, criticizing Shiites’ ability to “establish lies and follow them.” Such language, needless to say, will hardly reassure the country’s Alawite community, a Shiite offshoot to which Assad belongs.

Syrian Opposition Speaks

Posted on October 27, 2012 by lburt

By Adam Kredo:

President Barack Obama’s administration has continued to turn its back on Syrian opposition fighters, refusing to provide not only critical weaponry but also direct humanitarian aid to those fighting a bloody battle against embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to an opposition leader who just returned from the battle’s front lines.

The dearth of direct support has enabled Assad to continue slaughtering citizens and opposition forces, prolonging a civil war that has claimed thousands of lives since it broke out over a year ago.

“I saw no support for the armed rebels by the U.S.,” Mouaz Moustafa, political director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF) and United for a Free Syria (UFS), said Friday afternoon during a conference call with reporters.

A lack of sophisticated weaponry has allowed armed terrorist groups, such as Iran-funded Hezbollah, to infiltrate Syria and stir chaos that could spill across the region, said Moustafa, who recently spent time in Syrian cities that have been decimated by Assad’s forces.

“There needs to be more serious arming of the [opposition] efforts,” he concluded. “That would greatly help depose the regime.”

A level of “military intervention to end the blood being spilled” would help rebel forces speed up Assad’s ouster, said Moustafa, who also serves as a board member for the Coalition for a Democratic Syria (CDS). “That’s something we’ve been very slow to move on.”

“The risks of not doing anything, not bombing … are far outweighed by the risks of letting these [attack on civilians] go on,” he added.

The United States also has failed to take a lead on the humanitarian front, Moustafa explained.

Currently, the U.S. sends aid to Syria via several United Nations bodies and other “middle men,” he said.

“It doesn’t have the stamp of the U.S.,” he said. “There’s middle men.”

It would send a “huge” message to the Syrian people if the U.S. were to take a more direct approach, Moustafa explained.

“We’re hoping to see it as more direct so Uncle Sam gets the credit,” he said. “It’s much needed.”

There are huge risks associated with the Obama administration’s continued passivity on the Syrian front, Moustafa said, including the rampant destruction and violence that continues to devastate towns along the Syria-Turkey border.

That violence could spread further into Turkey, potentially leading Saudi Arabia or even Jordan to get involved in what could become a regional conflict.

Additionally, if Assad falls, a power vacuum could allow militants and Islamic extremists to gain a foothold in the nation, as they have done in other Middle Eastern countries that have experienced tumult.

If the U.S. and other Western nations fail to prepare and organize local governments for the toppling of the Assad government, the situation in Syria could become “ten times more complicated and worse for the U.S.,” Moustafa said.

“We really have to take advantage because if we don’t … then we’ll end up with problems.”

There is growing evidence that Hezbollah and other extremist groups have been waging deadly cross border raids aimed at murdering Assad’s enemies.

Free Syrian Army fighters have recounted tales of being targeted by Hezbollah, according to reports.

Hezbollah has provided arms to pro-Assad forces, which routinely engage in the mass slaughter of innocent Syrian civilians.

Saudi Arabia has also reportedly armed opposition fighters in an effort to counter Iran and Hezbollah in Syria.

“Sectarian divisions driven by the war are sowing political instability outside of Syria, alongside the unstable security situation introduced by the fighting itself,” The Israel Project, a D.C.-based organization, wrote in a recent analysis of the conflict.

Moustafa reported seeing evidence of “spill over” from the conflict during his time in Syria.

“We see it already happening in certain places” such as Lebanon, he said.

Armed fighters have entered the conflict from Iraq, Moustafa said.

“There’s potential to have chaos in the entire region,” which is exactly what Assad is “banking on.”

Anti-Terror Authorities Question Where Money Goes From Group With Special License From Obama Administration

Posted on October 25, 2012 by lburt

By Patrick Poole:

In July, the Obama State Department approved an extraordinary license for a newly formed U.S.-based organization, the Syrian Support Group, to raise money for Syrian rebels – overriding the administration’s own sanctions and Obama’s Executive Order against such activity.

To some counterterrorism and terror finance authorities in Washington D.C., this extremely rare privilege raises considerable concerns.

This is especially true because two related figures with the organization, Louay Safi and Mazen Asbahi, have previously been tied to terror fundraising efforts by Islamic organizations identified by the U.S. government in federal court as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

One U.S. Treasury official specializing in terror finance said:

This license sets a dangerous precedent because it gives complete and perfect cover to virtually all of their activities. They can honestly say, “I can’t be fundraising for terror because I have a license from the State Department.” But we have absolutely no idea where that money is going once it leaves the United States. And as the Supreme Court recognized in a court case a few years ago, money raised for terrorist groups is fungible.

The situation in Syria is so fluid, we don’t have the slightest idea who is actually benefiting from this money being raised here, and anybody from the administration who says that they do is bald-faced lying.

The Syrian Support Group was incorporated in April 2012, according to records obtained from the District of Columbia Corporations Division.

On May 24, the group sent a letter to the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and on July 23 that same office issued the license – a copy of which was obtained by The Blaze – allowing them to “export, reexport, sell, or supply to the Free Syrian Army (‘FSA’) financial, communications, logistical, and other services otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13582 in order to support the FSA.”

The Free Syrian Army is affiliated with the Syrian National Council governed by that group’s military bureau, which is overwhelming dominated by Islamist groups, including the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. The SNC’s political director, Louay Safi, used to be one of the top Islamic advisers to the Pentagon and was only one of two officials authorized to certify Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military services.

The attorney who actually incorporated the Syrian Support Group and applied for the State Department OFAC license was a Chicago attorney, Mazen Asbahi. When running for president in 2008, Barack Obama appointed Asbahi to head Muslim outreach for his campaign – a position he held for only a short period of time.

After his appointment, several media outlets noted that Asbahi had previously served as a board member of the Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a division of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT was identified by federal prosecutors as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2007 and 2008 and named unindicted co-conspirator in the case. Prosecutors entered into evidence hundreds of wire transfers showing that NAIT was actually the conduit used by the Holy Land Foundation to transmit millions of dollars to the terrorist group Hamas.

Also joining Asbahi on the board of Allied Assets Advisors was Jamal Said, a Chicago-area imam who was personally named unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial. A February 2004 article on the front page of the Chicago Tribune reports on Imam Said raising $50,000 in one night for Sami al-Arian, the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in North America.

Asbahi came under fire when news of his leadership role with NAIT, his affiliation with Jamal Said, and his connections with other Muslim Brotherhood front groups was noted by several media outlets. While he claimed that he only served for several weeks with the NAIT organization (a claim he never provided evidence for) he nonetheless resigned his position with the Obama campaign, though he continued to work “unofficially” in support of Obama’s election.

Re-enter Louay Safi, the onetime Islamic adviser to the U.S. government and current political director of the Syrian National Council based in Doha, Qatar.

Safi’s relationship with the Pentagon ended in 2010 after it was revealed in media reports that he was teaching classes on Islamic theology to deploying troops headed for Afghanistan. What concerned some observers was Safi’s ties to terrorism, which included his being named unindicted co-conspirator in the Sami Al-Arian terrorism support trial, being caught on federal wiretaps in conversations with top terror officials, and having his office raided in 2002 by U.S. Customs in a wide-spread terror finance investigation.

Those revelations prompted 13 members of Congress to send a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding an end to the use of Safi as an approved instructor. By year’s end, Safi’s role with the Pentagon had come to an end.

Less than two years later, though, Safi reappeared as the head of the Syrian National Council at a press conference held in Istanbul.

Which brings us back to the Syrian Support Group.

The fundraising efforts of the Syrian Support Group, incorporated by Mazen Asbahi, are directed exclusively to the Free Syrian Army, which is affiliated with the Syrian National Council, whose political director is Louay Safi.

Arming Our Enemies and the Libya-Syria Weapons Pipeline

Posted on October 19, 2012 by lburt

By Joseph Klein:

The Obama administration has a habit of helping our enemies obtain weapons, with lethal consequences. The Fast & Furious operation resulted in guns going to Mexican drug lords. The Libyan “lead from behind” operation allowed weapons to get loose and ultimately into the hands of Islamist jihadists. The latest episode involves arms flowing from Islamic countries, who claim to be in our camp, to Islamist jihadists, some with ties or affiliations with al Qaeda.

While the United States has not been directly arming the Syrian rebels itself – at least not openly – the Obama administration has effectively outsourced this task to our allies in the region, principally Saudi Arabia and Qatar. They have done so in part through the Free Syrian Army, which operates from bases in Turkey.

As the New York Times reported on October 15th, most of the arms shipped are “going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

Qatar is reportedly the largest source of shipments going to the jihadists fighting in Syria. According to the Times, “American officials have been trying to understand why hardline Islamists have received the lion’s share of the arms shipped to the Syrian opposition through the shadowy pipeline with roots in Qatar, and, to a lesser degree, Saudi Arabia.”

Vice President Joe Biden curiously omitted to mention Qatar at last week’s vice presidential debate when he discussed the countries supplying aid to “the free forces inside of Syria.” He listed only Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan. Was this simply an oversight or an intentional omission to cover up the fact that an Islamic country in the Gulf region with whom we have close military and economic ties is in fact actively helping our enemies? Does Biden want us to forget how President Obama publicly praised the emir of Qatar in April 2011 during the emir’s visit to the Oval Office for his country’s role in supporting democracy in the Middle East, as a hedge just in case more evidence becomes known of Qatar’s complicity with the Islamist jihadists in Syria?

Here is what President Obama said publicly according to the White House transcript on April 14, 2011:

Well, I want to welcome the Emir of Qatar, and we have just completed a very useful conversation. I expressed to him my appreciation of the leadership that the Emir has shown when it comes to democracy in the Middle East… In addition to our efforts in Libya, we have a strong relationship between our two countries. It is an economic relationship. It is a military relationship. It is a cultural relationship. And obviously, Qatar has done very well under His Highness’s leadership, but his influence extends beyond his borders. And so we’ve had discussions about how we can continue to promote democracy, human rights, increased freedom and reform throughout the Middle East.

In remarks Obama made privately to donors about the emir’s visit on the very same day in April 2011, which were caught by CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller via an open mike, the president made fun of the notion that the emir is really a democratic reformer. However, at the same time he praised the emir for buying peace by redistributing the country’s riches:

The emir of Qatar come by the Oval Office today, and he owns Al-Jazeera basically. Pretty influential guy. He is a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform. You’re seeing it on Al-Jazeera. Now, he himself is not reforming significantly (laughter from the audience). There is no big move towards democracy in Qatar.

You know part of the reason is that the per capita income of Qatar is $145,000 a year. That will dampen a lot of conflict (quiet laughter) – $145,000 a year!

Now keep in mind they have like 1.7 million people, and 75 percent of them aren’t even Qatari. They’re from all over the world. You know, Filipinos and Pakistanis.

But you know the average income is $145,000 a year. Now granted, if you look at the curve, I’m sure not every laborer there is making (that), but I make this point only to say that if there’s opportunity, if people feel like their lives can get better, then a lot of these problems get solved.

Obama can joke about the Qatar emir’s dedication to democratic principles, but Qatar’s role in the arming of Islamist jihadists is no laughing matter. Obama knew by his own admission, when at the same time he was publicly extolling “the leadership that the Emir has shown when it comes to democracy in the Middle East,” that the emir was in reality no democratic reformer. However, the Obama administration decided to rely on Qatar to help “promote democracy, human rights, increased freedom and reform throughout the Middle East.” And now, as the Obama policy of outreach to the Islamists unravels in the aftermath of the Benghazi disaster, the administration is suddenly waking up and expressing alarm that our partner Qatar is helping to arm the hard-line Islamist jihadists!

The Counter Jihad Report

News ~ Resources ~ Activism

Tag Archives: Free Syrian Army

Invoking The Dreaded “Moderate”

Israel Closely Monitoring Jihadis Moving into the Golan

Why Is America Midwiving a Muslim Brotherhood-Ruled Syria?

Why Terrorist Attacks Have Quadrupled Since 2001

Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II)

Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider”

New Syrian Opposition Leader: Islamist-In-Chief

Syrian Opposition Speaks

Anti-Terror Authorities Question Where Money Goes From Group With Special License From Obama Administration

Arming Our Enemies and the Libya-Syria Weapons Pipeline

Follow “The Counter Jihad Report”

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related articles

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related articles

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Follow “The Counter Jihad Report”