Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup

2013 9/11 Memorial Ceremonies PoolBy Paul Sperry, New York Post, December 15, 2013 (H/T Pamela Geller)

After the 9/11 attacks, the public was told al Qaeda acted alone, with no state sponsors.

But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.

It was kept secret and remains so today.

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).

A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.

Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”

Some information already has leaked from the classified section, which is based on both CIA and FBI documents, and it points back to Saudi Arabia, a presumed ally.

The Saudis deny any role in 9/11, but the CIA in one memo reportedly found “incontrovertible evidence” that Saudi government officials — not just wealthy Saudi hardliners, but high-level diplomats and intelligence officers employed by the kingdom — helped the hijackers both financially and logistically. The intelligence files cited in the report directly implicate the Saudi embassy in Washington and consulate in Los Angeles in the attacks, making 9/11 not just an act of terrorism, but an act of war.

9781410207418_p0_v1_s600.jpgThe findings, if confirmed, would back up open-source reporting showing the hijackers had, at a minimum, ties to several Saudi officials and agents while they were preparing for their attacks inside the United States. In fact, they got help from Saudi VIPs from coast to coast:

LOS ANGELES: Saudi consulate official Fahad al-Thumairy allegedly arranged for an advance team to receive two of the Saudi hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — as they arrived at LAX in 2000. One of the advance men, Omar al-Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi intelligence agent, left the LA consulate and met the hijackers at a local restaurant. (Bayoumi left the United States two months before the attacks, while Thumairy was deported back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.)

SAN DIEGO: Bayoumi and another suspected Saudi agent, Osama Bassnan, set up essentially a forward operating base in San Diego for the hijackers after leaving LA. They were provided rooms, rent and phones, as well as private meetings with an American al Qaeda cleric who would later become notorious, Anwar al-Awlaki, at a Saudi-funded mosque he ran in a nearby suburb. They were also feted at a welcoming party. (Bassnan also fled the United States just before the attacks.)

WASHINGTON: Then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar and his wife sent checks totaling some $130,000 to Bassnan while he was handling the hijackers. Though the Bandars claim the checks were “welfare” for Bassnan’s supposedly ill wife, the money nonetheless made its way into the hijackers’ hands.

Other al Qaeda funding was traced back to Bandar and his embassy — so much so that by 2004 Riggs Bank of Washington had dropped the Saudis as a client.

The next year, as a number of embassy employees popped up in terror probes, Riyadh recalled Bandar.

“Our investigations contributed to the ambassador’s departure,” an investigator who worked with the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Washington told me, though Bandar says he left for “personal reasons.”

FALLS CHURCH, VA.: In 2001, Awlaki and the San Diego hijackers turned up together again — this time at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a Pentagon-area mosque built with funds from the Saudi Embassy. Awlaki was recruited 3,000 miles away to head the mosque. As its imam, Awlaki helped the hijackers, who showed up at his doorstep as if on cue. He tasked a handler to help them acquire apartments and IDs before they attacked the Pentagon.

Awlaki worked closely with the Saudi Embassy. He lectured at a Saudi Islamic think tank in Merrifield, Va., chaired by Bandar. Saudi travel itinerary documents I’ve obtained show he also served as the ­official imam on Saudi Embassy-sponsored trips to Mecca and tours of Saudi holy sites.

Most suspiciously, though, Awlaki fled the United States on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11.

As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration,” quoting from classified US documents, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was briefly detained at JFK before being released into the custody of a “Saudi representative.” A federal warrant for Awlaki’s arrest had mysteriously been withdrawn the previous day. A US drone killed Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.

HERNDON, VA.: On the eve of the attacks, top Saudi government official Saleh Hussayen checked into the same Marriott Residence Inn near Dulles Airport as three of the Saudi hijackers who targeted the Pentagon. Hussayen had left a nearby hotel to move into the hijackers’ hotel. Did he meet with them? The FBI never found out. They let him go after he “feigned a seizure,” one agent recalled. (Hussayen’s name doesn’t appear in the separate 9/11 Commission Report, which clears the Saudis.)

SARASOTA, FLA.: 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and other hijackers visited a home owned by Esam Ghazzawi, a Saudi adviser to the nephew of King Fahd. FBI agents investigating the connection in 2002 found that visitor logs for the gated community and photos of license tags matched vehicles driven by the hijackers. Just two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi luxury home was abandoned. Three cars, including a new Chrysler PT Cruiser, were left in the driveway. Inside, opulent furniture was untouched.

Democrat Bob Graham, the former Florida senator who chaired the Joint Inquiry, has asked the FBI for the Sarasota case files, but can’t get a single, even heavily redacted, page released. He says it’s a “coverup.”

Is the federal government protecting the Saudis? Case agents tell me they were repeatedly called off pursuing 9/11 leads back to the Saudi Embassy, which had curious sway over White House and FBI responses to the attacks.

Just days after Bush met with the Saudi ambassador in the White House, the FBI evacuated from the United States dozens of Saudi officials, as well as Osama bin Laden family members. Bandar made the request for escorts directly to FBI headquarters on Sept. 13, 2001 — just hours after he met with the president. The two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony while discussing the attacks.

Bill Doyle, who lost his son in the World Trade Center attacks and heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families, calls the suppression of Saudi evidence a “coverup beyond belief.” Last week, he sent out an e-mail to relatives urging them to phone their representatives in Congress to support the resolution and read for themselves the censored 28 pages.

Astonishing as that sounds, few lawmakers in fact have bothered to read the classified section of arguably the most important investigation in US history.

Granted, it’s not easy to do. It took a monthlong letter-writing campaign by Jones and Lynch to convince the House intelligence panel to give them access to the material.

But it’s critical they take the time to read it and pressure the White House to let all Americans read it. This isn’t water under the bridge. The information is still relevant today. Pursuing leads further, getting to the bottom of the foreign support, could help head off another 9/11.

As the frustrated Joint Inquiry authors warned, in an overlooked addendum to their heavily redacted 2002 report, “State-sponsored terrorism substantially increases the likelihood of successful and more ­lethal attacks within the United States.”

Their findings must be released, even if they forever change US-Saudi relations. If an oil-rich foreign power was capable of orchestrating simultaneous bulls-eye hits on our centers of commerce and defense a dozen years ago, it may be able to pull off similarly devastating attacks today.

Members of Congress reluctant to read the full report ought to remember that the 9/11 assault missed its fourth target: them.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.”

Top Iranian General: Give Us Full Nuclear Rights or Deal Void

Jafari

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guard’s chief commander, also said Israel would be destroyed if U.S. attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities.

BY REZA KAHLILI:

The leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is warning not only the West, but his own government that any agreement reached in Geneva must guarantee the Islamic Republic’s full nuclear rights or it will be voided.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the Guard’s chief commander, also threatened to destroy Israel should Washington order an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“In case [Iranian] officials witness any violation or an effort to disregard our country’s inalienable nuclear rights by the West and America taking advantage of the [Geneva] agreement with their interpretation of it, they should consider the agreement annulled with full authority,” Jafari said in an exclusive interview Monday with Tasnim, an Iranian media outlet.

The Revolutionary Guard was organized early after the 1979 revolution as a parallel force to Iran’s military to protect the new regime and the clerical establishment. It is now the de facto force of the regime, its influence expanding to all aspects of the economy and the government.

Jafari said Islamic Republic principles require it to confront “oppressive powers,” and the country will continue to do so for as long as America continues its “arrogant behavior” against Iran and the rest of the world.

In blunt language, Jafari sneered at the use of the “military option” against Iran.

Read more at Clarion Project

 

Is the US changing sides in the regional conflict between Iran and its enemies?

allianceby Jonathan Spyer
The Jerusalem Post
November 30, 2013

A report by respected Washington-based journalist Hussein Abdul Hussein in the Kuwaiti Al-Rai newspaper this week revealed details of an indirect US channel with Hezbollah.

The report comes, of course, close on the heels of the interim agreement concluded in Geneva between the P5 + 1 world powers and Iran, allowing the latter to continue to enrich uranium.

News items are also surfacing suggesting a stark split between the US and Saudi Arabia over regional policy in general, and policy toward Syria in particular. Saudi officials are going on the record expressing their alarm at the direction of American policy.

Happily stirring the pot, some Iran-associated outlets have suggested that Washington is actively seeking to rein in Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who favors a hardline against Iranian interference in the region.

Meanwhile, agreement has now been reached over the long-postponed “Geneva 2″ conference, to discuss the war in Syria.

The conference will go ahead because US-backed Syrian opposition representatives abandoned their demand that President Bashar Assad could have no part in any transitional phase of government in the country.

What does all this add up to? There are an increasing number of voices which perceive a shape behind all these details: Namely, an effort by the current US administration to turn the Iranian regime from an adversary into a partner. The method: Acceding, in part or whole, to key Iranian demands.

Let’s take a look at each item in more detail.

The usually reliable Abdul Hussein’s report details the mechanism by which the US is speaking to Hezbollah, in spite of that organization being a US-designated terrorist group. British diplomats are the ones doing the talking.

The channel of communication between UK officials and the “political wing” of the movement was recently revived, in tune with the improving relations between London and Tehran.

It is now serving to transfer messages between Washington and Tehran.

An unnamed diplomatic source quoted by Abdul Hussein explained that this dialogue is “designed to keep pace with the changes in the region and the world, and the potential return of Iran to the international community.”

The official went on to explain that because the US does not concur with the (British, entirely fictitious) division of Hezbollah into “political” and “military” wings, direct dialogue is currently not possible.

The report goes on to outline moments in recent months when the US has found itself on the same page as Hezbollah. One of these, very notably, was the occasion in June when the Lebanese Army, together with Hezbollah fighters, fought against the partisans of the pro al-Qaida Salafi preacher Ahmad al-Assir in the Lebanese town of Sidon. The US backed the army, without reference to the key role played by Hezbollah fighters in the action, which resulted in al-Assir’s defeat.

The other was the US condemnation of the recent al-Qaida-linked bombing at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut. The condemnation, well-noted in Lebanon, did not contain any reference to the presence of Iranian and Hezbollah fighters in Syria.

The Abdul Hussein report also tells us the US “outreach” to Iran has not been on the nuclear file alone. Rather, even before any comprehensive agreement was reached, Washington appears to have begun to dismantle the carefully assembled diplomatic structure seeking to contain Iranian regional ambitions.

Even Tehran’s proxy Hezbollah, which killed 241 US Marines in Beirut in 1983, is evidently now a fit subject for communication, as part of Iran’s return to the international community.

Reports suggesting American efforts to contain Bandar are somewhat less reliable, coming as they do from pro-Iran and pro-Hezbollah media outlets (al-Manar and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards-associated Fars News Agency). But certainly, the deep Saudi frustrations with the direction of US policy are not an invention of pro-Iran propagandists.

Nawaf Obaid, a senior adviser to the Saudi royal family, this week accused Washington of deceiving Riyadh over the Iran nuclear deal. “We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” Obaid told an audience in London, as quoted in The Daily Telegraph. He went on to vow continued Saudi resistance to Iranian machinations across the region. In particular, he expressed Saudi determination to turn back the Iranians in Syria.

“We cannot accept Revolutionary Guards running around Homs,” the adviser said. But this defiant tone appears in stark contrast to the developing US position.

The Geneva 2 conference is now scheduled to take place on January 22. It is a US-sponsored affair. It is not yet clear if Iran itself will be there. But what is clear is that the conference will take place entirely according to the agenda of the Assad regime and its backers.

That is – the US-backed Syrian National Coalition will directly face the regime, while the regime now flatly rejects any notion of its stepping down.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, humming with the old Ba’athist rhetoric, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said, “The official Syrian delegation is not going to Geneva to surrender power… The age of colonialism, with the installation and toppling of governments, is over. They must wake from their dreams.”

The armed rebels will not be sending representatives to the conference.

They, financed and armed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have formed a new “Islamic Front” that is battling the regime around Damascus, in Aleppo and in the border region of Qalamoun this week. The military advantage continues to ebb and flow.

But the stark contrast between the US-led diplomacy and the events on the ground is another clear reminder of the extent to which Washington’s position has moved away from confrontation, away from Riyadh – and toward Tehran.

Assad has revived his fortunes in the course of 2013, mainly because of the massive Iranian assistance he has received. Washington, which officially backs the opposition, appears to be sponsoring a conference which will crown this achievement.

So is the US in fact changing sides in the contest between Iran and those regional forces seeking to contain and turn back its advance?

Michael Doran of the Brookings Institute suggested this week that Washington is in the first phase of seeking a “strategic partnership” with Iran, an “entente cordiale” which would see a US-Iranian alliance forming a lynchpin of regional stability.

If this is truly what the welter of evidence detailed above portends, then the Middle East is headed into a dangerous period indeed. As Doran also notes, there is no reason at all to think that Iranian designs for regional hegemony have been abandoned.

The effect of US overtures to Tehran and undermining of allies will be to build the Iranians’ appetite. This will serve to intensify their continued efforts at expansion.

The corresponding efforts by other regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia chief among them, to resist this process will also increase.

That, in turn, is likely to mean greater instability across the region – and an eventual direct collision could result.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs(GLORIA) Center, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

The Failure of U.S. Policy toward Damascus

by Eyal Zisser
Middle East Quarterly
Fall 2013, pp. 59-65 (view PDF)

The failure of the Bush and the Obama administrations to topple Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad goes a long way to explaining Washington’s declining Middle Eastern position. United by a distinct lack of vision, as opposed to hopes and wishful thinking, as well as determination and a coherent plan of action, these otherwise very different administrations helped erode America’s stature in the region. Widely seen as a declining superpower that has lost belief in itself and its leading role in the world, Washington earns neither fear nor respect in the Middle East.

Bush vs. Assad

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 was a decisive moment in the history of the Middle East. True, George W. Bush acquired a demonic image in the eyes of many, both in the region and beyond, but there is no doubt that history will prove that the stand he took against the region’s dictators, including some long-standing U.S. allies, was an important factor in creating significant cracks in the Middle East’s dictatorial walls and in encouraging the calls for justice and freedom that began to be heard there. In this sense, the Bush administration’s Middle East policy, which set as its aim the promotion of democracy, was an important preparatory factor, even an accelerator, for the developments that led to the outbreak of the 2011 Arab uprisings. The Iraq invasion made a strong impression on the region’s inhabitants, strengthening Washington’s standing in their eyes as a leading world power, politically, economically, and especially, militarily and technologically. At the same time, this image of the United States was accompanied by fear and awe—and unconcealed resentment, jealousy, and even hatred. Nevertheless, the routing of Saddam Hussein’s army convinced even Iran’s ayatollahs to pause in their mad dash to achieve nuclear power.[1]Only later, after Iraq became a treacherous swamp for Washington because of its failed policies there, did the halo of the initial victory lose its shine. Over time, the historical significance of the Saddam regime collapse lost much of its impact.

President Obama (left) meets with Jordan’s King Abdullah II (right) at the White House, April 26, 2013, where they discussed the Syrian crisis. Obama’s initial tough talk about Syrian use of chemical weapons being a “red line” that would evoke a strong U.S. response has become something of a joke even among the war-weary Syrian citizens. In April, the president walked back his pledge demanding instead a “chain of custody” to prove who used which weapons where.

At the same time, the war in Iraq placed the Bush administration on a collision course with Assad, who perceived the U.S. attack as being directed not only against Iraq but also against Syria. In the eyes of Damascus, the war was part of a joint U.S.-Israeli campaign directed at breaking up the Arab world and debilitating its might in order to strengthen Israel—or so the Syrians convinced themselves. It also seems that the Assad regime really believed that Washington would find it difficult to overthrow Saddam and assumed that the Vietnam war quagmire would be repeated in Iraq.[2]

In their memoirs, both George W. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair testify that Washington had entertained the idea of carrying the military campaign from Baghdad to Damascus and overthrowing the Assad regime.[3] However, the initial shock experienced in the region, including by Syria, eventually wore off, especially as the U.S. administration found itself entangled in a morass of Shiite-Sunni violence in Iraq. Damascus thus concluded that it was in its interest for the United States to suffer total defeat in Iraq. As a result, the Assad regime began to turn a blind eye and even to assist the Muslim jihadis who crossed Syria on their way to fight the Americans in Iraq. Ironically, these same fighters were destined to return to Syria a decade later when the March 2011 revolution broke out there, leading a jihadist war against Assad’s “heretical” regime.

In light of this hostile course, the Bush administration came to the conclusion that the Syrian president was a clear and present danger to U.S. interests in the Middle East. However, Washington decided not to adopt a straightforward military option. Instead, U.S. leaders tried to exploit a series of opportunities that emerged in order to push Assad into a corner or even overthrow him. The steps taken were essentially political in character, but there is no evidence that they were part of an orderly or planned-out policy.

Read more at Middle East Forum

See also:

ACLU Honors CAIR With Civil Libertarian Award

aclu

The FBI stopped outreach to CAIR “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support terrorist ideologies.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

Every year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter of Washington state bestows a defender of freedom with a Civil Libertarian Award. Of the seven million people in the state, the ACLU has chosen the state’s branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity linked to Hamas, to be this year’s award recipient.

CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation, another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was shut down for financing Hamas. The FBI officially ended its connection to CAIR as an outreach partner in order to “ensure that the FBI is not supporting individuals who support extremist or terrorist ideologies.”

A recent Facebook announcement by CAIR-National boasts that the Washington chapters of CAIR and the ACLU succeeded in having advertisements on buses removed that “stigmatized Muslims as terrorists.”

The ads were funded by the State Department to promote rewards for finding wanted terrorists. CAIR-WA was offended that the majority of the most wanted terrorists are Muslims.

The executive director of CAIR’s Washington chapter is Arsalan Bukhari. He and other CAIR officials have inhibited FBI investigations into terrorist recruitment, enraging other Muslim leaders.

“There’s nothing to gain from talking to law enforcement,” Bukhari said to a Muslim audience in December 2009.

He continued, “I can’t emphasize enough, you have the right to remain silent, so use it.”

Bukhari’s message is part of the overall “Islamophobia” narrative used by CAIR and its allies to influence public perception and politics. Islamists consistently label their critics as anti-Muslim bigots and tell Muslim audiences that they face a severe threat from the U.S. government, society and an immensely-powerful “Islamophobia Network.”

Read more at Clarion Project

Saudi state TV flaks for CAIR’s “Islamophobia” report #LegislatingFear

download (24)CSP, By Adam Savit:

The only TV channel to cover CAIR’s new Islamophobia report as a featured story was KSA-2, the official English-language network of the regime of Saudi Arabia.

Despite substantial promotion on CAIR’s part the report received little media coverage, but they posted KSA-2’s flattering 4-minute segment on their YouTube channel.  CAIR fails to identify which news outlet produced the segment in the video description, and the reporter’s benign demeanor and American accent suggest some nondescript local news affiliate.  But just next to the call sign “KSA-2” on the reporter’s microphone, one can discern crossed sabers reminiscent of the Saudi flag.  “KSA” stands for “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” and the channel is owned and operated by the Saudi Ministry of Culture and Information.

At the very end the reporter identifies himself as Burton Bollag of KSA-2 Washington.  CAIR has been the subject of at least 3 softball segments with Bollag since April, when CAIR used the opportunity to do damage control after Chechen-born jihadists bombed the Boston Marathon.

The release of CAIR’s “Legislating Fear” Islamophobia report was largely overshadowed by a piece of investigative journalism authored by Charles Johnson of the Daily Caller, exposing CAIR’s receipt of millions of dollars from foreign donors using a series of shell organizations.  Relevant to the KSA-TV coverage, Johnson’s report noted a donation of $199,980 from “Kingdom Holding Company, Saudi Arabia.”  The CAIR Observatory website documents another $1.2 million in donations from Saudi nationals including Princes Alwaleed bin Talal and Abdulla bin Mosa’ad.  CAIR Observatory uses open-source data to propose that CAIR’s receipt of funding and direction from, and execution of influence operations on behalf of foreign principles is in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).  Those principles include Saudi nationals, organizations and the government itself.

In the immediate wake of the report’s release, CAIR posted only three clips of media coverage to its YouTube channel, all of them local media items less than one minute in length.  In addition, the usual Islamist and far-left fringe outlets echoed the message, but more influential left-of-center cable news and websites declined to partake.

Despite their pretensions to major “civil liberties organization” status, CAIR has a wilting domestic membership and fundraising capability, which necessitates direction and funding from a variety of foreign sources.

U.S. Middle East Policy: The Wrong Response to 9/11

Cairo embassy attackBY BARRY RUBIN:

“I had always thought wishful thinking a motive frequently underrated in political analysis and prediction.”  –WALTER LAQUEUR

If you have never understood U.S. Middle East policy  here it is: The  (wrong) response to September 11.

What do I mean? Simple.

There are two ways to respond to September 11:

A. There is a struggle on with revolutionary Islamists which is a huge battle that is parallel to the Cold War or the Allied-Axis conflict. America must organize a united front to fight this battle against the Islamists:

Sunnis or Shia; Turkish, Iranian, or Arab; the Muslim BrotherhoodSalafist, and al-Qaida. Hamas, Hizballah. And the Taliban.

B. Or, what appears easier, having a lot more allies and fewer enemies (I said seems) only to focus on al-Qaida. That’s the problem! After all, who else attacked the United States, Great Britain, Spain, and Kenya? Etc.? And anyway, the conflict is probably America’s fault or a lack of communication.

That’s it. Honest. And guess what? The Washington insiders, “experts” (anything but), officials, lots of intelligence (people and also John Brennan, the head of the CIA), a lot of military officers, and lots of sectors of the Republican party (especially Senator John McCain) believe this.

It is not healthy in Washington for one’s career not to believe it.

But after all, it is understandable (albeit also inaccurate and stupid).

Look at this point:

Who do you believe is an enemy who wants to fight and hurt America and the West?

A. The Syrian and Egyptian Muslim Brotherhoods, the Salafists, al-Qaida. Hamas, Hizballah, the Taliban, Iran, and Turkey.

B. Just al-Qaida?

See what I mean?

Think some more:

Suppose we could get all these non-al-Qaida Islamists as allies?

Suppose we could get all these non-al-Qaida Islamists to repress al-Qaida and so stop terrorist attacks?

Wouldn’t that be an easier task? One that would theoretically involve costing fewer American lives, less money, and be more popular with voters?

Of course.

And finally, of course, that’s what the president and mass media believe.

The problem is, though, that gets the Islamist ideology wrong. Al-Qaida and the other revolutionary Islamist have different tactics but not different goals. Learning that lesson will take years and be very painful. The wrong ideas are deeply embedded in large parts of the arrogant, ignorant, and financially interested establishment.

You should understand that: It is not acceptable in official Washington or its peripheral sectors to say that the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt, Syria, Hamas) is a terrorist group.

It is not acceptable in official Washington or its peripheral sectors to say that the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt, Syria, Hamas) is an anti-American group.

But it is perfectly acceptable to claim that the Republicans are terrorists, hostage-takers and anti-Americans.

Strange, huh?

Read more at Clarion Project

Congressional Delegation Declares Solidarity with Egypt Against Terrorism

1240239_10201825408419897_1709016101_nWASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Coptic Solidarity and its Egyptian secular allies and friends, are pleased to inform the public of the success of a visit by a bipartisan Congressional delegation to Egypt to strengthen the relationship between the American People and Egypt and to deepen the US-Egyptian alliance against terrorism and extremism. The delegation included Republican and Democratic Representatives Dana Rohrabacher, Michele Bachmann, Louie Golmert, Dana Edward, Steve King, Steve Stockman, Robert Pittenger, and Louis Franklin.

The delegation met with Interim President Mansour, minister of Defense General al-Sisi, and members of the cabinet, and visited the Pope Tadraous, spiritual leader of the Coptic Church. They had excellent meetings and assured Egypt’s leaders that a majority in the US Congress stands firmly with Egyptians against terrorism and extremism and reject the violence and radical ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The delegation visited burned churches and expressed its horror at the damages and victims at the hands of Muslim Brotherhood militias and Jihadi Terrorists. Pope Tawadros told the delegation that “the community paid a dear price, dozens of churches were burned down, but if these sacrifices help in bringing freedom to Egypt, we consent.” The delegation assured the Pope that Congress would do all it can to support the Egyptian people, the Coptic community and to all civil society moderates in Egypt.

Three leaders from the delegation, Representatives Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Steve King held a joint Press briefer at the Egyptian American Chamber and declared their “full support to Egypt’s people, Government and revolution, in confronting the terror and oppression of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said “we are with you people of Egyptagainst the common threat, the Muslim Brotherhood. We have diversity of opinion in Washington, but be sure the people of Egyptare standing with Egypt against the Brotherhood terror.” Congressman Gohmert said “we were opposed to send military assistance to the Muslim Brotherhood regime before your revolution, but now we will work on getting all military assistance needed to fight the Jihadists and the Terrorists.” Congressman King said “we will work on an economic partnership between the US and Egypt and make sure you move forward to a stage of democracy and economic success.” The press briefer can be viewed here:

In Washington, Dr Walid Phares, Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Parliamentary Group and advisor to members of the US Congress and the European Parliament on Middle East affairs said “this delegation brought hope to Egyptians that the American public stands firmly with the democratic revolution, support the aspirations of the 30 million Egyptians who marched for freedom and is a partner in the struggle against Terrorism.” Phares said, “Egyptian Americans have worked hard to insure the success of a Congressional initiative to Egypt. The Coptic Solidarity Conference held in June on Capitol Hill was supported by many members of Congress, some of whom in fact were part of the delegation to Egypt. That Conference triggered several meetings and initiatives that inspired the formation of this delegation. The presence of Egyptian secular leaders at the Coptic Solidarity Conference inWashington also helped convincing Congressional leaders that what later happened in Egypt wasn’t a coup, but a real popular revolution.”

Coptic Solidarity will continue to help building positive relationships between the US Congress and Egypt as well as between European legislatures and the Egyptian people.

Coptic Solidarity is non-profit organization dedicated to leading efforts to achieve equal citizenship for the Copts in Egypt. For more information, contact Hal Meawad 240-644-5153, or info@copticsolidarity.org

Analysis: The Regional Implications of a U.S. Strike on Syria

by Yaakov Lappin
Special to IPT News
August 27, 2013

Bikers to Counter Million Muslim March on 9/11

2 million bikers to DCBy Bob Unruh:

Muslims who have begun promoting a 9/11 march in Washington that originally was to protest “anti-Islamic bigotry in the U.S.” and then turned into a “March Against Fear” may have some competition.

Loud competition. Very loud. And lots of it.

In what was a virtual impossibility before the Internet, a Facebook page has been created in which many individuals are coordinating what they have dubbed “2 Million Bikers to DC.”

At the Mr. Conservative blog, the author said: “The best way to counter bad speech is to oppose it with good speech. Sometimes ‘speech’ can be expressed simply by the number of people who are willing to show up to support a principle. That’s the view that hundreds of bikers (so far) across American have as they prepare to join a ’2 Million Biker Ride to DC’ to counter the planned Sept. 11 ‘Million Muslim March.’”

On the Facebook page, the community purpose is described as: “To honor those who were killed on 911 and our armed forces who fought those who precipitated this attack!”

More than 16,000 “likes” had been generated in just a short time.

“We have now created the final phase for states to coordinate! All riders need to look at the state list, choose your state and request to be added! Several states still need coordinators,” is included in the instructions.

Four dozen pages to coordinate delegations from individuals states already exist.

A Ronald Curaba said: “Who ever comments I would like to do this … should shut up and show up! Im a retired FDN Lt. I should be at my old firehouse where I was on that ill fated day …. but I will be in DC riding! God willing!”

1175033_570457703017080_1915577640_nAdded Bryan Short: “How appropriate. A million muslims surrounded by 2 million hogs!”

Organizers of the page added: “Folks, just wanted to say thank you for your support. This event has been a lot of work. But for our country it is worth it. As with any event such as this we are being attacked from every angle. But we will not allow those distractions to deter us from our goal nor the goal of the originator of this event Mr. Bill Williamson.”

“God Bless Ride Safe,” added Tammy Bowman.

“Ride on brothers,” said Bob Halley.

“Don’t forget ya’ll don’t need a bike to participate. Support vehicles will be needed. I suppose most of the U.S. will be there in spirit. Those of us who are lucky to still have employment still need to work their knickers off to survive these days. Perhaps red/white/blue boys can adorn people’s homes in support?” suggested Trish Zysk.

Options for those who cannot make the trek to D.C.?

“Organize a ride to your own state Capitol! Get with like-mined folks and get started planning! Someone take a lead in your state and get the event in motion.”

Also, get with your ‘Impeach Obama Overpass’ organization.

“Whatever you decide please do something to support America on 911!”

Read more at WND with video

Rally Organizers Deny Ties with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

by Abha Shankar
IPT News

The Fight For Egypt

alsisi-450x272By :

Tense calm prevailed in Egypt on Tuesday. The new military-led government laid out a timetable for returning to some semblance of civilian democracy in about six months.

The government also appeared to have come up with a broadly acceptable, technocratic, interim prime minister in Hazem el-Biblawi, an economist and former finance minister.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were also reportedly planning to funnel billions of dollars in aid and loans to Egypt, which has been on the brink of economic disaster. During the one-year rule of ousted president Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis withheld funds because of their hatred and fear of the Brotherhood.

The previous day, Monday, was of course much less quiet as government forces killed 51 Muslim Brotherhood protesters—or according to other versions, violent rioters. But the other major news on Monday was that—notwithstanding such disruptions—the Obama administration had decided to keep financially aiding Egypt despite calls by some to suspend aid over last week’s alleged “military coup.”

In other words, the developments for General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s interim military-led government look favorable at the moment with aid coming both from Washington and the Gulf.

Read more at Front Page

FBI’s Most-Wanted Ads Blocked by Muslim Brotherhood Group

FBI Faces of Global Terrorism Ad - Blocked by CAIR

FBI Faces of Global Terrorism Ad – Blocked by CAIR

By Ryan Mauro:

The U.S. government has long offered rewards for its most wanted terrorists as a way of incentivizing people to be on the lookout. Its success obviously relies upon widespread knowledge of the award and what the terrorists look like.

For the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, the fact that Americans would become aware that the most-wanted terrorists are Muslim compelled it to take action. As usual, CAIR cried “Islamophobia,” deployed its interfaith partners and was successful in having the most-wanted terrorist ads taken down.

The U.S. government posted ads on buses in Seattle that said, “Faces of Global Terrorism.” Their purpose was to notify citizens that up to $25 million could be earned for information leading to the neutralization of 16 top terrorists. OnIslam.net explains that 7 of the terrorists are from Africa, 4 from the Philippines, 3 from the U.S., 1 from Malaysia and 1 from Chechnya.

CAIR, noticing that these 16 terrorists are Muslims, said the ads were offensive and claimed that it promotes Islamophobia. The director of CAIR’s branch in Washington state, Arsalan Bukhari, took action and rallied his non-Muslim allies.

Read more at The Clarion Project

FactRAND Corporation determined that 96% of deadly terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. between 2000-2010 were committed by Muslims.

CAIR tells School: Don’t Criticize Hamas and the Taliban

Islamist Watch,  Mar 18, 2013 

by Marc J. Fink:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has called for called for a Justice Department civil rights investigation against a small-town Washington teacher for “racism.” Her offense? According to Brigitte Gabriel of ACT! For America, “during a class on bullying, she referred to Hamas and the Taliban as examples of organizations that use violence to bully people.”

In a statement, the teacher said:

I explained to [the students] that I was not talking about Muslims and Arabs in general, but groups that chose to impose their will by training people to intimidate and kill other people. … It is related to a state mandate that public schools teach students about bullying and not allow it.

CAIR’s attack against the teacher is specifically aimed at the education system, threatening to constrict the capacity of our youth to comprehend the world. The implications of an education system dominated by the Islamist group are dire and in direct conflict with the American way of life.

Hamas Deliberately Targets Children. In 2011, the terror group launched an anti-tank missile directly at a yellow school bus. A 16-year-old boy, the only passenger on the bus, was critically wounded. The driver had just dropped off 30 other students. The New York Daily News called the attack “subhuman.”

86

The Taliban Regularly Stone Women to Death. In 2010, ABC News reported on a video showing a woman stoned to death by the Taliban. Below is an unedited, graphic video of the horrific crime.

 

The Islamist Group CAIR Has Penetrated Deep Into America.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR's latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

CAIR has penetrated areas far from traditional Muslim population centers such as Dearborn, MI and Northern New Jersey. CAIR’s latest assault is against a teacher in Concrete, WA (A pin), an isolated town 100 miles from Seattle.

A rally in support of the teacher will take place Tuesday, March 19 at 7:30 p.m. at the Concrete Assembly of God, Concrete, WA.

 

Breaking: Muhammad Is Just like…George Washington?!

20130120_muhammed-washington-LARGEBy ANDREW E. HARROD

Achieving the seemingly impossible, “interfaith activist” and Trinity College  (Dublin) Ph.D. candidate Craig  Considine has reached new heights in modern Islamophile naïveté.   Considine has stiff competition in this regard, given Director of National  Intelligence James Clapper’s February  10, 2011 assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood as “largely secular” and as a  movement that “has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of  Islam” and has “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in  Egypt.”  Yet those who thought that uncritical glorification of the  Religion of Peace could not get any worse should consider Considine’s latest Huffington Post (HP) article, “An  Unlikely Connection Between the Prophet Muhammad and George Washington.”

Considine begins his analysis discussing a “Prophet Muhammad” in  seventh-century Arabia who “had a vision to create a new religious and social  order.”  Citing various verses from the Quran and hadith,  Considine seeks to show that Muhammad “told his band of followers to behave  wisely and civilly.”  Considine in turn sees “Muhammad’s wisdom … echoed  again” in the behavioral rules encompassed in Rules of Civility, a book  first written by the United   States’ Founding Father George Washington as a  13-year-old boy.  According to Considine, both the “Holy Quran, the Islamic  Scripture which documents God’s revelations to Muhammad,” and Rules of  Civility “offer guidance toward achieving a more peaceful and noble  life.”

Although Considine finds an “unlikely connection” between Muhammad and  Washington, he determines that:

… in fact they share strikingly similar biographies. Muhammad and  Washington were students of history, restorers of justice and fierce warriors  who led their respective nations through successful revolutions. Both men united  a large swath of political territory and served as the founding father for two  unprecedented social movements-Islam and the United States of America-whose  universal ideals would both spread throughout the world respectively.

Considine cites the famous eulogy of Washington’s fellow Founding Father,  Richard Henry Lee, who called Washington “first  in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”   Considine also notes that even Britain’s King George III attributed to his  colonial rebel the “greatest character of the age.”  Considine, meanwhile,  notes without any further analysis that “Muslims worldwide see Muhammad as the  perfect human being,” an Islamic doctrine stipulated in verse 33:21  of the Quran (consistently called “Holy” by Considine).  Considine  furthermore cites Mahatma Gandhi calling Muhammad “a treasure of wisdom not only  for Muslims but for all mankind.”

Citing respective passages of the Quran and Rules of Civility,  Considine draws several parallels between Muhammad and Washington.  He  concludes, for example, that both men opposed “foul language” and “taught their  peers to improve relations with others by using kindness and positive  words.”  This would “avoid misunderstandings and create a more harmonious  society.”

Common to both Muhammad and Washington was also a concern for “modest and  clean appearance” as an “indication of healthy inner feelings and humble  attitudes.”  Considine in this respect cites verse 24:31  of the Quran with its injunction that women “not display the charms of their  bodies beyond what may be apparent thereof; hence, let them draw their  head-coverings over their bosoms.”  Considine neglects, however, to explain  just how far-reaching such Islamic norms of modesty for women can be,  encompassing even burqas and niqabs.

Considine additionally discerns “humility” in both Muhammad and Washington, a  trait that “was crucial to the early success of their fledgling nations.”   He speculates that the “direction of the Arab and American society could  have had a much different history if Muhammad and Washington were egotistical  and presumptuous leaders.”  Considine thereby does not analyze whether  Muhammad’s prophetic claims, if invalid, would qualify him as “presumptuous,”  nor does he indicate any tangible improvement of Arab society through Muhammad’s  attributed humility.

“Respect, especially for one’s parents,” is yet another commonality between  Muhammad and Washington apparent to Considine.  “Both men realized,” he  elaborates, “that the key to a strong society is for people, especially  families, to treat each other how they wished to be treated.”  Even “good  hygiene” and a “clean, well-presented physical appearance” were a common concern  for Muhammad and Washington.  For both men, “good hygiene was a projection  of a positive body image, which, in turn, reflected a healthy mind.”   Considine concludes that “Muhammad and Washington were gentlemen of the highest  degree.”  Thus, Considine suggests that “Muslims worldwide and American  could forge better relations if each group adhered to the advice Muhammad and  Washington provided.”

Many commentators in the numerous comments upon Considine’s article and  elsewhere have had a field day with his rose-colored, hagiographic analysis of  Muhammad and the Quran.  Citing numerous Quran verses and hadith  attributed to Muhammad, they have pointed to less savory aspects of Islam.   Longstanding Islam critic Pamela Geller interlineated Considine’s article  with numerous such canonical Islamic sources at her website, Atlas  Shrugs.   Geller concluded:  “It’s to vomit.   Muhammad and George Washington are polar opposites.  A man of honor who  respected human life and refused the title of king and a bloody warlord who  preached conquest, subjugation and slavery.”

Geller’s longtime comrade, Robert Spencer, linked to Geller’s analysis on his  website, Jihadwatch,  and confessed that he “had to laugh.”  “You remember,” Spencer mocked, with  allusions to key controversies in canonical accounts of Muhammad’s life, “when  George Washington made the British line up beside a trench and beheaded  900 of them, don’t you?  And when he consummated his marriage with John  Adams’ nine-year-old  daughter?”

These commentators also call into question Muhammad’s global legacy, not  being enamored with one of history’s greatest campaigns of conquest.  Such  an empirical record is far less appealing than Considine’s benign descriptions  of Muhammad as being one of the “restorers of justice” who “united a large swath  of political territory” (which, in Muhammad’s case, actually later broke apart  during numerous internal conflicts) in one of two “unprecedented social  movements.”  The Muslim societies existing throughout history and present  today in places like the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan and the  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, along with Muslim movements like the worldwide Muslim  Brotherhood (including Hamas), the Taliban, and Hezb’allah, also seem to  manifest to objective observers not Considine’s claimed “universal ideals,” but  rather specifically sectarian, often brutal policies of sharia.  A  “more harmonious society” as well as “kindness and positive words” seem to be  sadly lacking in the Muslim world today.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from  the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington  University Law School.  He is admitted to the Virginia State Bar.  He  has published various pieces concerning an Islamic supremacist agenda at the  Middle East Forum’s Legal Project, American Thinker, and Faith Freedom  International