Judge Jeanine Pirro: “They Kill Americans? They’re Terrorists!”

Published on Jan 31, 2015 by Steven Laboe

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Blistering Opening Statement on Barack Obama’s continued denial to refer to the Taliban as Terrorists


State Dept Won’t Label Taliban Attack that Killed Three American Civilians as Terrorism


January 30, 2015 

The White House has already doubled down this week saying that the Taliban is an armed insurgency and not a terrorist group. The State Department is now joining the White House in not saying whether the Taliban is a terrorist group.

The Taliban has taken credit for killing three American soldiers at the Kabul airport Thursday. At the State Department press briefing Friday, State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki danced around a the question if the attack on the American soldiers was an act of terrorism.

Psaki repeated the story back to the reporter who asked the question and mentioned that the Justice Department has already spoken on the subject and that there is an investigation into the situation.

“I’m not going to put new labels on the situation today,” Psaki said.

How Long Until ISIS is Elevated to Coveted Position of “Insurgency”

Eric Schultz

Eric Schultz

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 29, 2015:

In the kinds of moments we have seen repeatedly from press officials forced to defend the largely indefensible security policies of the Obama Administration, White House Spokesman Eric Schultz struggled to justify to Reporter John Karl why the White House’s decision to release 5 high-level Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for suspected deserter Bowe Bergdahl was some how superior in strategy and morals, to the contemplation of Jordanian officials to return a failed female suicide bomber, in exchange for a Jordanian fighter pilot captured by the Islamic State. Schultz attempted to argue that the Administration released the five, who all held senior positions with the Taliban, because the war in Afghanistan was “winding down” and prisoner exchanges are standard fare at the conclusion of a conflict. Schultz stressed that the Taliban was an “armed insurgency” where as the Islamic state was merely a “terrorist group” and the United States opposes negotiating with terrorists. Despite push back from Karl, who pointed out that there was no qualitative difference in behavior between the two groups, and that the Taliban continued to attack U.S and coalition forces making the “winding down a war” claim disingenuous at best, Schultz was apparently unmoved.

While Karl did not have the opportunity to make the point, the ludicrousness of this claim is extended further because the Islamic State is indeed an armed insurgency, easily meeting established definitions. And by any reasonable metric the Taliban engages in terrorism. This is because, of course, both groups are jihadist organizations, motivated by precisely the same goals, and operating within the strategic doctrine for how Jihad should be waged, in accordance with Shariah, which calls for both the use of terror (“…strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah… Sura 8:60) and the imposition of God’s law and governance over territory (“And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah… Sura8:39).

This is the problem with having a tactics-oriented strategy, rather than a strategy which orients on the enemy threat doctrine. Given time and opportunity, jihadists will always go from “terrorists” to “insurgents.” If not defeated, jihadists eventually become states, where upon (as the administration’s ongoing negotiations with Iran make clear) they are granted yet more privileges and benefits. The Islamic State is not the first band of jihadists to seize territory to further its vision of returning the Middle East to the ways of the earliest companions of the prophet (we call some of their predecessors the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.)

When a terrorist organization becomes an ‘armed insurgency’

American Thinker, by Rick Moran, Jan. 29, 2015

An organization that regularly uses suicide attacks against innocent civilians has been designated an “armed insurgency” by the White House.

The Afghanistan Taliban has sent dozens of suicide bombers and attackers to hit soft targets in Afghanistan, but the administration says it’s OK to negotiate with them because they’re not terrorists.

This pretzel logic was dispensed by deputy press secretary Eric Schultz, who was responding to a question about the proposed exchange of a Japanese civilian prisoner and a Jordanian pilot for an Iraqi woman convicted of terrorism in Jordan.  Isn’t that the same as us exchanging five Taliban commanders for deserter Bowe Bergdahl?

Not at all, said Schultz.

Wall Street Journal:

“Our policy is that we don’t pay ransom, that we don’t give concessions to terrorist organizations,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Wednesday. “This is a longstanding policy that predates this administration and it’s also one that we communicated to our friends and allies across the world,” he added.

But the U.S. engaged in a similar prisoner swap with Afghanistan’s Taliban last year, releasing several Guantanamo Bay prisoners in exchange for the freedom of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Mr. Bergdahl had been held by the Taliban as a prisoner since 2009 until his release last year as part of a prisoner swap.

The White House said the situation was different because Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is a terrorist group operating in Syria and Iraq while the Taliban is not, in the administration’s thinking.

“The Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. We don’t make concessions to terrorist groups,” Mr. Schultz said.

Asked directly if the White House considered the Taliban a terrorist group, Mr. Schultz repeated the line that they are an armed insurgency and said that the swap for Mr. Bergdahl was part of the “winding down of the war in Afghanistan.”

The Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan before being ousted by U.S. forces in late 2001 over the government’s refusal to hand over members of al Qaeda who were believed to be complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Since then, the Taliban has emerged as an insurgent force with bases of power in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan that continues to attack U.S. forces, Afghan government forces and civilians in both countries. In December, Taliban militants staged an attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, where 145 people were killed, mostly children.

The United States does not list the Taliban on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list run by the State Department, but it has listed the group on a separate Specially Designated Global Terrorist list since 2002. And the National Counterterrorism Center lists the “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on a map of global terrorism presences.


The administration is scrambling to differentiate the Taliban from IS because the army is apparently ready to charge Bergdahl with desertion, and giving away five terrorist commanders for a deserter is “bad optics” for the White House.  Besides, the administration would still like to cut a deal with the “good” Taliban to bring them into the Afghan government in a power-sharing arrangement.  If they were to refer to the Taliban as “terrorists,” it would look like an even worse idea than it already is.

There’s no doubt that in diplomacy, exactitude in language is an absolute necessity.  But this constant parsing of words from the White House about the terrorism issue is bizarre and unprecedented and not done to further our understanding of the threat, but rather to obscure it.  It is motivated not by diplomacy, but by domestic politics.

The next bunch of Taliban terrorists who shoot up a school can relax.  Your cause has been legitimized by the White House when they refer to you as an “armed insurgency.”

Jordan agrees to prisoner swap with ISIS in deal that could free pilot, Japanese journalist

Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh was captured by ISIS fighters in Syria last month. (AP Photo/Raqqa Media Center, File)

Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh was captured by ISIS fighters in Syria last month. (AP Photo/Raqqa Media Center, File)

Fox News, Jan. 28, 2015

Jordan has agreed to demands from ISIS that it release a female jihadist held since 2006, in a move that could free a Jordanian pilot captured in Syria last month and possibly a Japanese journalist who pleaded for his life in a video released by the terror group on Tuesday.

Jordanian government spokesman Mohammed al-Momani said in a statement the nation was prepared to free Sajida al-Rishawi, who was convicted of taking part in a deadly hotel bombing, if the Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, is released unharmed. His comments were carried by Jordan’s official Petra news agency. Although he made no mention of Japanese journalist Kenji Goto, a hostage audio message released by Islamic State a day earlier tied Goto’s fate to that of Al-Rishawi, as well.

Al-Rishawi was sentenced to death in Jordan for her involvement in a 2005 terrorist attack by Al Qaeda on hotels in Amman that killed 60 people. Jordan is reportedly in indirect talks with the militants through religious and tribal leaders in Iraq to secure the hostages’ release. The chairman of the foreign affairs committee of Jordan’s parliament, Bassam Al-Manasseer, has been quoted as saying that Jordan and Japan would not negotiate directly with the Islamic State group and would not free al-Rishawi for the Japanese hostage only.

Earlier Wednesday, the mother of the Japanese hostage, Kenji Goto, appealed publicly to Japan’s premier to save her son. The mother, Junko Ishido, read to reporters her plea to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which she said she sent after both Abe and Japan’s main government spokesman declined to meet with her.

“Please save Kenji’s life,” Ishido said, begging Abe to work with the Jordanian government until the very end to try to save Goto.

“Kenji has only a little time left,” she said.

The Jordanian government is under growing pressure at home to win the release of the pilot, with his father, Safi al-Kaseasbeh, pleading with Jordan “to meet the demands” of the Islamic State group.

“All people must know, from the head of the regime to everybody else, that the safety of Mu’ath means the stability of Jordan, and the death of Mu’ath means chaos in Jordan,” he told The Associated Press as about 200 of the pilot’s relatives protested outside the prime minister’s office in Amman, chanting anti-government slogans and urging that it meet the captors’ demands.

The development came after Islamic State released a flurry of grim threats at the West, one of which included an apparent beheading of a captured Kurdish soldier. In that video, discovered by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) on Tuesday, three Islamic State fighters stand behind the kneeling Kurdish fighter as one of the extremists launches into a diatribe against the U.S. and other Western nations.

Read more

Exclusive: Freed Al Qaeda Agent Was Part of Proposed Swap for Jailed Americans

The Daily Beast, by Shane Harris and James Kirchick, Jan. 25, 2015
An American couple’s freedom may have come at a steep price: the release of a convicted terrorist from Supermax prison.
Before he was released from a U.S. maximum-security prison last week, a confessed al Qaeda sleeper agent was offered up in a potential prisoner swap that would have freed two Americans held abroad.

The Daily Beast has learned that the proposal was floated in July 2014 to the then-U.S. ambassador in Qatar by an individual acting on behalf of that country’s attorney general. According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the case, the proposition was made shortly after the Obama administration traded fiveTaliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Those fighters were also sent to Qatar, where they’re to remain under government watch until later this year. U.S. officials have said they’re at risk of plotting further attacks against the United States.

The proposed swap involving the al Qaeda agent, Ali Saleh Al-Marri, raises troubling questions about whether the Bergdahl trade opened a kind of Pandora’s box, signaling to foreign governments that they can pressure the United States to make concessions on terrorism by trading American prisoners abroad for dangerous extremists held in the United States.

“I believe we must examine the administration’s decision in the case of Al-Marri and determine if his release is connected to negotiations of any kind,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, a frequent critic of the Obama administration’s hostage negotiations, wrote Thursday in a letter to Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the House Armed Services Committee chairman, obtained by The Daily Beast.

Governments’ hostage negotiations policies are once again taking center stage after ISIS released a photograph Saturday showing the apparent beheading of Haruna Yukawa, one of two Japanese men the group is holding. Unexpectedly, ISIS has now dropped an earlier demand of $200 million ransom and says it will free the remaining hostage, journalist Kenji Goto, in exchange for the release of Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi, a failed suicide bomber who’s imprisoned in Jordan for her role in an attack on three hotels in Amman in 2005, which killed 60 people.
ISIS has made other demands for freeing prisoners, including a Pakistani woman held in the United Sates, Aafia Siddiqui, known in counterterrorism circles as “Lady Al Qaeda,” who was convicted in 2010 of attempting to kill Americans in Afghanistan. Siddiqui has been used as a bargaining chip in other negotiations, as well. In 2012, Pakistani officials offered to try and win the release of Bergdahl if the United States would free Siddiqui. The Obama administration quickly rejected the idea because releasing her would be seen as offering concessions to terrorist groups and put a potentially dangerous woman back on the streets, according to current and former administration officials.

In his letter, Hunter accused the administration of failing to pursue other avenues for freeing Americans abroad and relying on prisoner releases or exchanges, “which are often counter to U.S. security interests, for leverage in negotiations.” The congressman also alluded to other potential swaps, saying it’s his understanding that “other foreign nationals” who are still in U.S. custody “have also been named as potential figures of interest in other cases, with Qatar at the forefront.”

Tara Todras-Whitehill/The New York Times, via Redux

Tara Todras-Whitehill/The New York Times, via Redux

Qatar has emerged as a go-between in various hostage negotiations. It agreed to take custody of the five Taliban fighters for a period of one year after Bergdahl’s release. And sources close to efforts to free other Americans held abroad said that Qatar facilitated a ransom payment to help free journalist Peter Theo Curtis, who was held for two years by al Qaeda’s branch in Syria.

Hunter helped spur the administration to review its hostage negotiation policy, which is widely seen by experts and family members of Americans held abroad as dysfunctional.

Read more 


ISIS Demands Hostage Swap, WH CoS Assures ‘We Don’t Negotiate With Hateful Characters’


Sebastian G.Video at Breitbart, by FRANCES MARTEL, Jan. 8, 2015:

Breitbart National Security Editor Dr. Sebastian Gorka, who is also the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University, appeared on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday to discuss the potential reactions by the French government to yesterday’s brutal jihadist attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and how a history of negotiating with terrorists might make preventing future attacks of this nature difficult.

“France has a track record all through the Cold War,” Gorka explained, “of deciding behind closed doors to basically negotiate with the bad guys.”

Highlighting terrorist affiliates and organizations, from Algerian groups the Palestinians to Iran, that the French government has worked with, Gorka explained that previous negotiations that “made it very, very difficult for international cooperation against terrorism” may now render any meaningful reaction on the part of France to the Charlie Hebdo massacre near impossible.

“Once the terrorist think that you are a potential funding stream,” Gorka asked, “what’s to stop them from kidnapping more of your citizens? … It’s a neverending cycle.” Past behavior may undermine the popular reaction to the attacks– thousands of French citizens taking to the streets yesterday night holding signs in solidarity with the magazine, with the slogans “Je Suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) and “Not Afraid.”

While positive that the French people have reacted so strongly against the attack, Gorka warned, “At the same time, it’s undermined by this track record of giving in to the bad guys”– who, he added, today are not merely partisan radical Islamists but subscribe to a fatalist global jihad ideology. Those who follow globalist Islamist ideology, he explained, cannot be negotiated with because “they want to destroy Western civilization.”

Also see:

ISIS Never Wanted Ransom to Free Foley

2716020119CSP, By Fred Fleitz:

Did ISIS kill photojournalist James Foley because the United States refused to pay ransom to win his release?  I doubt it.

A 100 million euro ransom was not a serious demand.  ISIS knew the US was unlikely to violate its “no-ransom to terrorists” policy to free Foley and would view paying such an astronomical sum a dangerous and unacceptable precedent.

However, ISIS also knew the Obama administration has shown flexibility with its “no-ransom” and “never negotiate with terrorists” policies and might have agreed to a deal to free Foley through a third party with a smaller ransom.

For example, the Obama administration traded five Guantanamo inmates to free U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl on May 31, 2014.  Oliver North claims a third country – possibly Qatar – also paid $5-6 million in ransom to free Bergdahl.  The Obama administration denied ransom was paid or that the prisoner swap constituted the U.S. negotiating with terrorists since Qatar did the negotiating and the United States has not designated the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  This was a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the world – the U.S. obviously negotiated a deal with terrorists to free Berghahl.

There was a similar situation in 2011 when Oman paid $1.5 million in bail to free three American hikers who had wandered into Iran.   The Obama administration made the dubious argument at the time that this didn’t amount to the US negotiating with a terrorist state because the US did not pay the bail.

ISIS knew the Obama administration would never agree to pay a 100 million euro ransom for one man, money that it would use for its campaign of terror.  To understand how outrageous this demand was, consider that according to the New York Times, about $125 million in ransom was paid by European states over the last 5 years to free 29 hostages held by al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the Middle East and north Africa.  The largest single ransom paid was $40 million to free four French nationals.

ISIS demanded a ransom it knew would never be paid because it never planned to release Foley and planned to use his execution to terrorize the region and encourage radicalized Islamists worldwide to join its fanatical cause.  Until President Obama approves a strategy of massive military force to destroy ISIS, it will continue to make gains on the ground, commit atrocities and is certain to attempt terrorist attacks against US interests worldwide, including against the US homeland.


Also see:

How Barack Obama Ends Wars

barack_michelle_salute_APBreitbart, By Frank Gaffney, Jr.:

In discussing last week his decision to eliminate essentially all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the time his term of office ends, Mr. Obama declared:  “This is how wars end in the 21st Century – not through signing ceremonies but through decisive blows against our adversaries, transitions to elected governments, security forces who are trained to take the lead and ultimately full responsibility.”

Actually, how Barack Obama ends wars is by what amounts to surrendering to our undefeated adversaries, undermining elected governments by emboldening those determined to destroy them, and abandoning local security forces who lack the capability to prevail.

The President’s exchange this weekend of “prisoner of war” Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five of the world’s most dangerous jihadists is a microcosm of his way of waging–and losing–wars. Consider the following features of this odious act of appeasement and its roll-out.

  •          The exchange was unbalanced:  We purchased at exceedingly high cost the freedom of an American described by his comrades as a deserter. It appears that by abandoning his sentinel’s post in the dark of night, he not only jeopardized their lives, but he set in train searches and tactical situations that cost the lives of numerous other servicemen.

Treating Bergdahl as some sort of heroic figure because of his five years in self-induced captivity is a further assault on the principles of integrity, discipline, and honor that have been central to the character and culture of the U.S. military for generations. This is not an accident. Destroying that culture happens to be a well-established feature of Team Obama’s social engineering of the armed forces.

  •         The price paid to achieve Bergdahl’s freedom was to release no fewer than five of the Taliban’s senior commanders to the custody of Qatar. Let’s take what’s wrong with this picture, piece by piece:

First, the Qatari government is on the other side in the War for the Free World. It is a bankroller of al Qaeda in Syria (and perhaps elsewhere): the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood, the underwriter of the enemy’s propaganda arm, al Jazeera, etc. Trusting the Qataris to be helpful to us with regard to anything having to do with jihad is worse than willful blindness; it is national security malfeasance.

Second, the best case is that these guys will be out of the fight for one more year. Since the administration won’t say what restrictions will be imposed on them in the interim, however, it is a safe bet they will be doing whatever they can to contribute to their terrorist organization’s return to power as soon as possible. But even if that were not the case, in the long war the United States is abandoning, a year is nothing for those determined to defeat us.

  •          To complete this exchange, President Obama violated the law, something he has done relentlessly in the course of his presidency.  (To appreciate just how often, see Andrew C. McCarthy’s splendid new book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.) The fact that Eric Holder’s Justice Department gave Chuck Hagel’s Defense Department a fig-leaf for doing so by claiming extenuating circumstances–namely, concerns about Bergdahl’s deteriorating health–does not alter the reality that Obama and Company did not conform to the statute requiring a 30-day pre-notification to Congress.
  •          Adding insult to injury is the fact that Bergdahl does not seem to be ill, let alone near death’s door. National Security Advisor Susan Rice said on Sunday the he is “in good health” and he has reportedly been released from the hospital in Germany where his medical condition was assessed post-release. Of course, he may have lingering psychological problems, but then that may have been the case before he deserted. Either way, there is no justification there for the president ignoring the law.
  •         Speaking of Susan Rice, her interviews on two Sunday talk shows this weekend vividly called to mind the notorious, serial appearances she turned in on five such programs in September 2012. Now, as then, she was the dutiful–almost robotic–spinner, relentlessly sticking to her misleading, if not patently fraudulent talking points.

Two years ago, Rice engaged in what amounted to lying about the murderous attacks in Benghazi, by insisting they were the result of a video, not jihadist attacks.  This meme, we recently learned, was manufactured by a man who is now her Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes.  It was explicitly designed by him to deflect politically problematic attention in the run-up to the 2012 election from questions about the President’s claims that al Qaeda was on the path to defeat, and other national security frauds.

This weekend, Rice reprised her role as untrustworthy flack by relentless insisting we have a “sacred duty not to leave anyone behind”–a duty that neither she nor any other senior Obama administration official seemed to feel while the Benghazi attacks were underway. All the while, she deflected questions that would have illuminated the reality of the Bergdahl exchange–the exorbitant price we paid, how the exchange was conducted under false pretenses, the dire implications with respect to strengthening our enemies and the lack of real justification for violating the law.

With the Bergdahl exchange, Americans are on notice: Unless this episode proves to be a very costly one for Team Obama, the President is on a trajectory not only to lose Afghanistan, as we previously lost Iraq. He will also ignore statutory inhibitions on releasing the rest of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and close that facility, foreclosing its use by a successor. The upshot of all this will be to establish that the way Barack Obama “ends wars in the 21st Century” is going to get a lot more of us killed.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. formerly acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan.  He is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for Breitbart News Network and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.


bowe-bergdahl-usarmyBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

The inconsistencies and suspicious aspects of Sgt. Bergdahl’s release and exchange for five Taliban commanders would strain the credulity of an episode of the national security drama Homeland.

Unfortunately, however, this is reality and part of a war in which thousands of Americans, civilian and uniformed alike, have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Those in the administration who authorized negotiations with the terrorists who are ideologically allies to those responsible for the murders of September 11th, 2001 will have to answer these questions:

    • How did Sgt. Bergdahl fall into the hands of the Enemy? The official version is that he left his post without permission, yet on a video his captors released, Bergdahl says he was the Tail-End Charlie of a foot patrol and became separated. Which is it? Did he go AWOL? Will he be charged with desertion?
    • Why did his father – who wears a full beard typical of fundamentalist Salafi Muslims – praise Allah in Arabic in the press conference with the Commander-in-Chief in front of the White House?
    • Why did the Haqqani Network, one of the deadliest jihadi groups in the world, agree to exchange Bergdahl for five commanders from the Afghan Taliban who are not members of the Haqqani Network? Instead of, for example, for Mali Kahn another Guantanamo detainee who is a senior Haqqani commander.
    • According to his friends and those that know him, Bergdahl joined the military in order to help the Afghan people and provide “philanthropic support to the war effort.” When did we change US Armed Forces recruiting protocols and start looking for charity workers instead of professional soldiers for our infantry?
    • At the strategic level, what response will the administration have to all the allied nations, including France, Spain, and Italy, to whom we have insisted since 2001 that they do not negotiate with terrorists for the release of their nationals and who did as we requested?
  • Lastly, what other concessions is the Obama White House prepared to make with the Enemy?

With this move, more than any other, President Obama violated a fundamental premise of American National Security which has both a moral and strategic rationale: that we do not negotiate with terrorists.

We do not negotiate with terrorists because in their willful targeting of the weak they embody evil, and because when you give in to evil, evil grows.

Now we have sent a message to all jihadists around the world: capture an American and America will do your bidding.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka has been appointed to Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and is National Security Affairs Editor for Breitbart.com.

Also see:

Allies, Adversaries and the Right to Self-Defense

negotiatingby Ali Salim:

Critics of those who defend the free world from its adversaries accuse governments and security forces of wiretapping public figures, including friendly governments, and of conducting drone-executed targeted killings as an accepted form of warfare.

But is anyone looking at who, exactly, is criticizing the Western world’s actions that defend it against terrorism? Do they really believe that terrorism can be successfully fought without violence? Criticism, even if justified, can sabotage a just battle and people’s right to self-defense.

According to the Arabic proverb, “If you honor and respect a noble man, he will become your friend, but if you honor and respect a villain, he will rise up against you.”

One view of diplomacy, deemed misguided by leaders such as Churchill, is to abandon one’s friends and court one’s enemies in the assumption that the friend is yours and will not abandon you. The United States deserted the Shah for the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards; it abandoned Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist Mohamed Morsi, and it has abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan to domestic chaos, growing terrorism and the approaching Islamist takeover.

Now, voices from the West and the Middle East have suggested that the status of the United States may be in jeopardy in countries where it previously had influence, such as Egypt.

The U.S. is withholding funding from the new Sisi regime, which may be the only chance of keeping Egypt from slipping back into the religious autocracy of the Muslim Brotherhood. America explained that its decision to cut funding to Egypt was due to lack of democratic process in Sisi’s advancement to power. Ironically, however, America has weakened the defenses of the world against violent Islamism, which can be defined as a militant political version of Islam, that outspokenly desires to take over the Arab-Muslim countries and turn them into a united base from which to bring Islam to the rest of the world. This goal, according to the Islamists, can be accomplished through irhab, or terrorism, with the eventual aim of converting everyone to Islam, using force if necessary. As it is written in the Noble Qur’an, Al-Anfal 8:60, “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war to strike fear into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah, and your enemies…” Neutralizing the fight against Islamism in the name of democracy and pluralism sounds like justifying theft and drug dealing in the name of freedom to earn a living.


In the war on terrorism the West cannot afford to flip-flop or apologize. Terrorism needs to be struck hard and all the relative advantages need to be used — wiretapping, drones, targeted killings and sanctions — against both terrorist groups and countries that sponsor terrorism, such as Iran.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Obama, a National Security Disaster

Obama Iran Policy Contradicts Interests of Iranian Grassroots


For decades, the United States has been among the countries that have suffered massively from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s (IRI’s) sponsorship of terrorism worldwide. It all started in 1979 when the Islamic regime ordered the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in which 66 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.

Later in 1983, the suicide bombing of U.S. military barracks in Beirut executed by the Islamic Jihad Organization, an Iranian regime’s terror proxy, left 299 Americans dead. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 carried out by IRI-supported groups of Hezbollah resulted in death of 19 U.S. service men. 60% of all American combat casualties in Iraq and 50% of combat casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IRI-made IEDs. More importantly the footprint of IRI’s terrorism in America became more apparent when the U.S. District Court ruled that Iran was behind the 9/11 Attacks.

American soldiers bring hope and leave graves in every corner of the world; they take bullets to protect the national interests of the country. Their lives are shattered to keep democracy alive. To a Commander-in-Chief, they are like his family members and their deaths are indirectly a loss of a family member to him. Mr. President, you don’t negotiate and you don’t deal with the terrorists who continuously murder your family members, you should do exactly what must be done with the murderers: hold them accountable by arresting and putting them on trial. That is what a Commander-in-Chief, who cares about the lost lives of his soldiers, does.

The bitterer tragedy of the IRI’s sponsorship of terrorism has been the mark it has made on its domestic victims, the Iranian people inside the country, who have been under the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion by this terrorist state from its get-go. The Cinema Rex fire was the first act of genocide of the IRI shortly before it came to power, which resulted in the burning to death of over 400 innocent individuals. As the IRI came to power, the regime started mass executing the top officials from the predecessor government. In 1988, an act of violence unprecedented in Iranian history, was committed by the genocidal regime of Iran, the systematic execution of thousands of political prisoners across the country, which lasted for about five continuous months and resulted in the killing of as many as 30,000 prisoners. Any democratic government in the world is established based on its people’s will; the Islamic government in Iran, by contrast, is run and carried on by imposing terror, violence, and fear among its public. The regime has fortified its hold on power by resorting to arbitrary arrests, detentions, rapes, torture, and extrajudicial executions.

The “alarming” rise in Iran’s extrajudicial execution rate has underscored the warning sign of mass atrocities in the country, a clear indication of the regime’s ongoing silent genocide of political, social, ethnic, and religious groups.  Additionally, the Iranian regime maintains a policy of “religious Apartheid” toward religious minorities in Iran – like the Christians, Baha’is and Zoroastrians, amongst others. Similarly, the regime advocates “sexual apartheid” in the country, where women and men are segregated from each other and women are deprived of their rights.

Mr. President, The mass murders in Iran have outrageously taken place on the watch of six U.S. presidents – Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Obama, yet none of those presidents has done anything beyond rhetorical condemnation against the atrocity, genocide, and apartheid acts of the IRI regime. Over the past few decades, the international community, including the U.S., has largely stood by and watched while mass atrocities in Iran occurred. The lack of leaders bothered by their conscience and the lack of effective response options has sapped the will of governments in responding to these unprecedented crimes against humanity.

Sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that should be revoked if a regime commits acts of atrocity and genocide against its own people. Now is the time for the international communities to protect the rights of the oppressed Iranian people and save them from the long-drawn-out genocide in Iran by putting an end to the sovereignty of the IRI regime, which indeed belongs to the grassroots people of Iran.

Mr. President, the above-mentioned atrocious acts occurred when the IRI was still far from the nuclear threshold. How, then, is an Iranian regime emboldened by nuclear acquisition likely to behave?   For more than a decade Americans have heard from different U.S. presidents that an Iranian nuclear weapon is “unacceptable.” Despicably, nothing more than a protracted approach of incrementally tightened nonpolitical sanctions with Iranian people as its main burdened target, and diplomacy with the regime for a containment routine, have been utilized to stop the IRI’s nuclear threat.

Years, if not decades, of diplomacy have led nowhere; consequently Iran blusters, threatens, and continues to work furiously to obtain nuclear weapons, with the patent support of Russia and China.  Mr. President, as a result of your promise to “embrace a new era of engagement” with America’s enemies, each passing day this potentially antagonistic regime is getting closer to witnessing a celebration in Tehran for the testing its first atomic bomb. The IRI Mullahs believe it is their responsibility to bring about nuclear war to facilitate the coming of the last Islamic Messiah.

Such a theocratic regime that values martyrdom more than life, even if lacks the technology for building the nuclear warhead, when the time calls, the IRI hardliners and fanatic leaders can easily promote the proliferation of dirty nuclear bombs and make them available in the hands of their terrorist proxies across the world. Any type of negotiation with the terrorist IRI regime not only undermines the repressive measures of the regime against its people but would passively underpin the acceptance of the perpetual IRI nuclear blackmail. Only adopting a policy of collapsing the power structure of the terrorist regime of IRI would put an end to its escalating nuclear threat.

Mr. President, during the Iranian uprising in June 2009 you abandoned the oppressed people of Iran when they asked for your support. Furthermore you chose to take sides with the terrorists and extended your outstretched hand to the eradicator regime of IRI. Mr. President, you don’t negotiate with a regime that commits act of atrocities and genocide against its own people, maintains a policy of apartheid inside the country, sponsors terrorism across the globe, has ties to Al Qaida, throws threats at the regional states, interferes in the affairs of neighboring countries, attacks U.S. interests anywhere in the world, kills the best men of United States Armed Forces, and pursues acquiring a nuclear arsenal. The outcome of such negotiations and diplomacy would only help to strengthen the terrorists and to passively legitimize their actions.

Read more…