Erik Prince: Trump Considering My Proposal for Afghanistan War

Getty Images/Getty Images/AFP/File MARK WILSON

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Aug. 16, 2017:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is considering a plan drawn up by former Blackwater CEO Erik Prince to hire a private army to end the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan, Breitbart News has confirmed.

Prince told Breitbart News that the U.S. is assessing his strategy as it debates what to do about the ongoing conflict that has already outlasted two administrations.

“My proposal has been taken up by various federal officials for review as part of their recommendations to the president,” declared the former U.S. Navy SEAL, dismissing claims that his plan involves the full privatization of the war in Afghanistan.

Prince argues that there would be fewer private contractors in Afghanistan under his plan than there are there now.

“There’s already nearly 26,000 private contractors in Afghanistan, that number would go down to about 5,000,” he told Breitbart News. “The American troop levels would go from 9,000 down to 2,000. That’s hardly a privatization of the war. That’s a rationalization and an ending of the war.”

On Monday, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis indicated that the Trump administration is, in fact, considering the option of using private contractors in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has already tried both a surge and a drawdown of U.S. forces just to have the Taliban resurge, taking more territory, and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) establish a presence in Afghanistan.

According to the U.S. military, the Afghanistan-Pakistan region is home to the largest concentration of Islamic terrorist groups in the world.

Prince told Breitbart News that U.S. victory in Afghanistan, which he said involves making the region “very, very miserable for terrorists to live and operate,” is attainable, stressing that he can deliver the winning strategy.

Breitbart News has learned that President Trump is unhappy with the plans put forward by the Pentagon and the White House.

Trump is reportedly looking for a novel approach to dealing with the seemingly endless war.

Prince said he believes his plan offers “exactly” what the commander-in-chief is looking for — a new strategy to “ending” the war in Afghanistan.

President Trump has “a real reluctance” to sign up to plans to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, Prince told the Times adding, “A change of course is necessary.”

The Blackwater founder argues that he can achieve victory for the United States using a leaner and cheaper private army of about 5,500 contractors who would train Afghan soldiers and engage in combat against the Taliban, with the assistance of a handful of U.S. special forces and a 90-aircraft private air force, Military Times reported.

Prince has revealed that his plan would cost less than $10 billion dollars a year, as opposed to the estimated $45 billion the U.S. is expected to spend in 2017 alone on its military presence in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has obligated about $714 billion for the war in Afghanistan, which started in October 2001, soon after al-Qaeda attacked the American homeland on 9/11.

***

EXCLUSIVE – Terrorism Expert: H.R. McMaster is Endangering U.S. National Security

AP/Susan Walsh

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Aug. 16, 2017:

TEL AVIV — H.R. McMaster, the embattled National Security Adviser to President Trump, is threatening U.S. national security by refusing to recognize radical Islamic terrorism, a top terrorism expert told Breitbart News.

“The refusal to utter or condemn by name radical Islamic terrorism only helps makes the battle against Islamic terrorism impossible to win,” stated Steven Emerson, executive director of the respected Investigative Project on Terrorism. “If you cannot identify the problem, you cannot beat it.”

McMaster’s refusal to “condemn radical Islamic terrorism by name is a threat to our national security,” Emerson posited.

Emerson was responding to a 2014 speech on the Middle East, unearthed yesterday by Breitbart News, in which McMaster claimed that Islamic terrorist organizations are “really un-Islamic” and are “really irreligious organizations” who cloak themselves in the “false legitimacy of Islam.”

McMaster’s comments represent views of Islamic terrorism that are diametrically opposed to those espoused by President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly utilized the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism.”

McMaster, who serves in a critical national security position, seems to be minimizing the central religious motivations of radical Islamic terrorist groups who are waging a religious war against Western civilization. Indeed, in his speech, McMaster urged the audience to focus on the “human factors” that he says drive conflict while downplaying any religious motivation.

The comments in the 2014 video are not the only time McMaster has seemingly denied the Islamic motivations of America’s terrorist enemies. In February, CNN cited a source inside a National Security Council meeting quoting McMaster as saying that use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” is unhelpful in working with allies to fight terrorism.

In May, McMaster spoke on ABC’s This Week about whether Trump would use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” in a speech that the president was about to give in Saudi Arabia. “The president will call it whatever he wants to call it,” McMaster said. “But I think it’s important that, whatever we call it, we recognize that [extremists] are not religious people. And, in fact, these enemies of all civilizations, what they want to do is to cloak their criminal behavior under this false idea of some kind of religious war.”

Emerson compared McMaster’s views on terrorism to those officially espoused for eight years by the Obama administration, which refused to attribute radical Islamic motivations to terrorism, instead referring to the phenomenon as “violent extremism.”

Stated Emerson:

Nearly the entire liberal/left wing media spectrum have been continuously condemning President Trump for not condemning by name the ultra-white nationalist groups who came out for battle on Saturday in Charlottesville instead of condemning the generalized categories of “hate and bigotry.”  In fact, we also criticized that hesitation to name the neo-Nazi  coalition, but at least the President  condemned them by name on Monday.

But by the scurrilous standards of McMaster and the 8 years of the Obama Administration, a generalized statement against “violent extremism” should have been enough for the events on Saturday. But of course, that meaningless euphemism invoked by Obama, to the murderous applause of a compliant media, meant absolutely nothing. And in fact, only emboldened the quest for power by radical Islamic front groups over truly moderate Islamic reform groups and leaders. That McMaster is pursuing the same refusal to condemn radical Islamic terrorism by name is a threat to our national security.

Also reacting to McMaster’s statements on terrorism, Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, told Breitbart News yesterday that he believes McMaster is endangering U.S. national security by seeming to scrub Islam as a motivating factor.

Stated Gaffney, “It is no small irony that National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster – a man who wrote a book entitled Dereliction of Duty about malfeasant political interference in the U.S. military’s conduct of a war – is now perpetrating the greatest reprise of such dereliction since Vietnam with his insistence that the wellspring for jihadist terror is not authoritative Islam and its supremacist Sharia doctrine. President Trump must treat such incompetence as a firing offense.”

Shia and Sunni Islamic terrorist groups such as al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Islamic State each openly espouse Islamic motivations, repeatedly cite the Quran, and claim they are fighting a religious war.  Some of the Sunni groups are violent offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to create a global Islamic caliphate.

Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaida, infamously cited Quranic scripture and was heavily influenced by Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader, ideologue and Islamic theorist Sayyid Qutb, considered the Brotherhood’s intellectual godfather.  Writing in the New York Times magazine in 2003, author Paul Berman dissected the Quranic origins of Qutb’s book Milestones – utilized by bin Laden as a sort of religious guidebook – as being drawn from Qutb’s massive commentary on the Quran titled, In the Shade of the Qur’an.

Hamas’s original charter repeatedly cites the Quran and other mainstream Islamic texts.  In March, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, claimed that “removing the Jews from the land they occupied in 1948 is an immutable principle because it appears in the Book of Allah.”  Zahar was referring to the entire State of Israel.

While there are legitimate arguments about how much these terrorist groups in some cases may utilize an extremist interpretation of Islam, McMaster is clearly downplaying the transparent religious motivations of America’s terrorist enemies.

McMaster’s views on Islamic terrorism are the latest controversy to engulf the Trump administration official.

Last week, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel group in the country, released an analysis of McMaster’s policies and reported views, concluding that he should be reassigned outside the NSC after it found that McMaster may be undermining Trump’s stated national security agenda.

The analysis states:

We find it hard to understand how someone who clearly has animus toward Israel, who supports the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, who opposes calling out radical Islamist terrorists, who fires Trump loyalists and supporters of Israel and opponents of Iran, who hires those opposed to President Trump’s policies especially on Israel and Iran, who refused to acknowledge that the Western Wall is in Israel, who opposes Israeli counterterrorism measures, and who shuts down joint U.S. counterterrorism programs that are of enormous value to U.S. security, can faithfully serve President Trump as top national security advisor. President Trump made it crystal clear, both before and since his election, that supporting Israel and the U.S.-Israel alliance, abrogating or at least vigorously enforcing the Iran deal while calling out and sanctioning Iran’s violations, confronting radical Islamist terrorism, and draining the Washington swamp were key, distinguishing policies of his administration.
The ZOA’s analysis cited Breitbart News articles from this reporter on McMaster’s background.
Last week, Breitbart News reported that McMaster served at a UK-based think tank financed by a controversial, George Soros-funded group identified by the Obama White House as central in helping to sell the Iran nuclear deal to the public and news media. 
From September 2006 to February 2017, McMaster was listed as a member of International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), where he served as consulting senior fellow. The IISS describes itself as a “world-leading authority on global security, political risk and military conflict.” The group was also financed directly by Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
Breitbart also reported that IISS is bankrolled by multinational corporate firms doing billions of dollars in business in Iran.
And IISS quietly took in about $32.5 million in funding from Bahrain, a country whose constitution explicitly enshrines Sharia Islamic law as its governing doctrine, Breitbart News documented.
The funding from Bahrain, a repressive regime with a dismal human rights track record but also an important regional U.S. ally, reportedly amounted to one quarter of the think tank’s total income.
Also see:

Washington Post Reporter Smears Iraq War Vets as Potential Extremists After Shilling for Hezbollah Terrorists

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Aug.16, 2017:

As the media cartel has been pushing the narrative over the last few days glorifying violent antifa thugs and comparing them to the Americans who landed at Omaha and Utah beaches in Normandy on D-Day, at least one senior media official was smearing Iraq War veterans as extremists on Twitter last night.

Washington Post’s Beirut-based Middle East bureau chief Liz Sly took to Twitter to warn, “a whole generation of Americans was potentially radicalized in Iraq.”

She deleted the tweet several hours later.

Remarkably, Sly co-authored an oped at the Washington Post just a few weeks ago rehabilitating Hezbollah terrorists after the group took her on a press junket around Lebanon.

Sly’s rant last night began with her now-deleted tweet:

After taking heat for her sweeping generalization, she delivered a “sorry, not sorry” apology for the tweet but continued to push the “veterans are potential extremists” narrative:

This seems to be a bit of a hobbyhorse for Sly, such as when she raised the issue last year after Black Lives Matter support Micah Xavier Johnson, who served in Afghanistan, shot and killed five Dallas Police officers while a BLM march was ongoing, describing the attack as “blowback.”

Of course, it would be highly unfair for anyone to use incidents of Islamic extremism and terrorism by U.S. Muslim service members, such as Major Nidal Hasan, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, or Pvt. Nasser Abdo, to cast blanket suspicion on all Muslim service members by saying that there has been “a whole generation of Muslim Americans potentially radicalized by service in the U.S. armed forces.”

Read more

Hamas-linked CAIR calls for destruction of every Confederate memorial

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 15, 2017:

Besides removing supposed temptations to idolatry, Islamic supremacists want to ruin the artifacts of non-Muslim civilizations because doing so testifies to the truth of Islam, as the Qur’an suggests that ruins are a sign of Allah’s punishment of those who rejected his truth:

Many were the Ways of Life that have passed away before you: travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth. (Qur’an 3:137)

This is one of the foundations of the Islamic idea that pre-Islamic civilizations, and non-Islamic civilizations, are all jahiliyya — the society of unbelievers, which is worthless trash. Obviously this cuts against the idea of having some historical memory and respect for where we have been as an aid to understanding and guiding where we may be going. The non-Muslim past is to be regarded solely with disgust and contempt, and the memory of it erased.

This impulse is yet another element of the alliance of Muslims such as those of Hamas-linked CAIR and Leftists. Both demonize all disagreement and dissent from their positions,  and do not debate their opponents, but instead defame them as morally evil. And in this call from Nihad Awad, Hamas-linked CAIR joins the Left in wanting all traces that anyone ever thought differently from the acceptable current orthodoxy be forever effaced.

“Council on American-Islamic Relations: Tear Down Every Confederate Memorial,” by Eric Owens, Daily Caller, August 15, 2017:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, is calling on state and local governments all over the United States to tear down all monuments and memorials commemorating Confederate leaders and the short-lived Confederate States of America.

CAIR joined several groups asking for the removal of Confederate memorials in the wake of a “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally that turned violent over the weekend. At the Charlottesville, Va. rally, James Alex Fields, a rally attendee, allegedly plowed his grey Dodge Challenger through a large group of people on a pedestrian mall. One woman, Heather Heyer, died in the incident. About 20 other people suffered injuries.

Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, urged state and local governments to erase every symbol and every vestige of Confederate history immediately.

“A fitting response to the deadly terror attack on anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville would be for officials in states and cities nationwide to immediately announce that every street, every school, every flag, and every public memorial honoring those who took up arms in defense of white supremacy and slavery will be removed or have its name changed to instead honor those who fought for civil rights,” Awad said in a statement to The Daily Caller.

“Removal of these memorials would be a small step forward in turning the page on the darkest period in our nation’s history,” Awad also said.

CAIR has created a template for state governments, municipal governments and school district officials to use for introducing resolutions seeking the removal of Confederate memorials and other symbolism….

On Monday evening, a group of protestors toppled a monument to Confederate soldiers in Durham, North Carolina….

In 2009, CAIR was listed by the U.S. government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme that provided funding to the terror group Hamas.

Charlottesville Shows How Dangerous the SPLC Really Is

Anti-Trump rally, New York, August 14, 2017 (Rex Features via AP Images)

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, Aug. 16, 2017:

Charlottesville was a huge victory for the hard-Left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). And that’s not good for anyone who loves freedom.

The driver of the car who plowed into a crowd of Leftist demonstrators in Charlottesville Saturday was a neo-Nazi, and on Monday President Trump denounced the Ku Klux Klan, “neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups,” which he rightly said were “repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Leftist media outlets are making all they can out of this opportunity to stigmatize and marginalize definitively all “hate groups,” using the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) list of such groups. There’s just one problem: the SPLC’s “hate group” list is an irresponsible and libelous mélange of real hate groups with organizations that simply oppose the SPLC’s hard-Left agenda.

The mainstream media has for years conferred an aura of legitimacy on the SPLC, treating this cynical gang of profiteers as if it were a neutral and reliable arbiter of what constitutes a “hate group” and what does not. Charlotte Allen wrote in The Weekly Standard last March:

It’s hard to say what’s worse: the outrageousness of the Southern Poverty Law Center in pinning the label “white nationalist” and “extremist” on anyone who bucks the prevailing politically correct narrative, or the credulity of the mainstream media in treating the SPLC as a neutral source.

Yet CNN did it again Monday in a story about how GoDaddy had revoked the account of a site called Daily Stormer in the wake of Charlottesville:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “the Daily Stormer is dedicated to spreading anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism, primarily through guttural hyperbole and epithet-laden stories about topics like alleged Jewish world control and black-on-white crime.” The SPLC, which tracks hate groups, says the unapologetic hatred on the Daily Stormer — which also takes aim at African-Americans and opponents of President Donald Trump, for example — is a catalyst for division.

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reminded us:

There are 917 hate groups currently operating across the U.S., according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And that’s where the SPLC’s hate group listing becomes insidious. If, post-Charlottesville, the establishment media and the Left are going to embark upon a full-scale jihad (I wouldn’t want to offend Leftists by calling it a “crusade”) against neo-Nazis and white supremacists, they’re going to catch in their net a great many legitimate groups if they rely on the SPLC to direct them to the “hate groups.”

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) wrote in the Washington Post in March:

Since 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center has methodically added mainstream organizations critical of current immigration policy to its blacklist of “hate groups,” including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Californians for Population Stabilization, among others. In February, my own organization, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), got its turn.

The wickedness of the SPLC’s blacklist lies in the fact that it conflates groups that really do preach hatred, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam, with ones that simply do not share the SPLC’s political preferences. The obvious goal is to marginalize the organizations in this second category by bullying reporters into avoiding them, scaring away writers and researchers from working for them, and limiting invitations for them to discuss their work.

Indeed. That is certainly the objective behind this hard-Left moneymaking and incitement machine’s latest dossier on “Islamophobes,” which says:

Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists — and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.

They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.

The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes” whom can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about.

In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labeled me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.”

We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people?

No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel.

And in the post-Charlottesville hysteria, it’s a dangerous one.

As the Left calls for a clampdown on “hate groups” and uses the SPLC to buttress its claims, it is working actively toward bringing about a situation in which only hard-Left voices can be heard in the public square. We’re already well on the way.

MB Groups Increasingly Open in Endorsing Anti-Sisi Violence

by John Rossomando
IPT News
August 16, 2017

A group of exiled Morsi-era Muslim Brotherhood politicians based in Istanbul has posted on Facebook a blueprint for overthrowing Egypt’s military regime. The Egyptian Revolutionary Council (ERC) reposted several videos on July 31 that it had released on Facebook over the past month offering strategies for violently toppling the government of Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi.

Sisi rose to power in 2013, after the military ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government.

Until now the ERC, which met with Obama administration officials and liberal think tanks in 2015, has largely been involved in lobbying against Sisi’s government. An Arabic hashtag saying, “Preparing for the Revolution#,” appeared on the ERC’s Facebook page. The attached videos contain PowerPoint-type presentations with recommendations for Muslim Brotherhood revolutionaries in Egypt.

A July 1 ERC video asks, “How do we prepare for the revolution?” Egypt’s military holds all of the tools of power, so the video calls for Brotherhood supporters to block military movement to hinder it from suppressing any revolt.

“What do we do with the Army?? Like the Turks did,” the video says. “Determine the sites of all military units and the roads they use, and the locations of gates to hinder and cripple their movement when they think they are going out to confront the revolution.

“Like the Turks did using huge vehicles and deflating their tires to block the roads. We can use heavy oil on the roads to prevent the passage of [armored personnel] carriers like they did in Venezuela.”

Another video recommends targeting regime military airfields, ground defense units, pilot barracks, spare part warehouses, radar sites, and air defense installations. It emphasizes getting soldiers who either secretly belong to the Muslim Brotherhood or are sympathetic to the group to collect intelligence on pilots and navigators to keep them away from their aircraft. It also suggests gaining intelligence on the types of aircraft used by the Egyptian military and getting information about their takeoff schedules.

“The airfields must cease operating in the time of the revolution,” a slide says. “Blockading the pilots and preventing them form reaching the airfields is half the victory in the battle.”

The ERC enjoys little influence or name recognition within Egypt, but its turn toward endorsing violence puts egg on the faces of the Obama administration officials and the liberal intellectuals who embraced them, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Samuel Tadros told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“Even the fronts created to talk to the West are now using the language of violence,” Tadros said. “The mask has fallen; there’s no need to pretend any longer.”

ERC members used talking points about democracy and the rule of law while speaking in English during their 2015 visit, Tadros said, but those points were noticeably absent when they spoke in Arabic.

Other exiled Muslim Brotherhood leaders also have called for violence recently on social media.

Senior Muslim Brotherhood leader Ashraf Abdelghaffar called on Brotherhood members to return to the jihadist traditions of the movement’s founder, Hasan al-Banna. A “Mujahid Brother” – a Muslim Brotherhood member who wages violent jihad – held the highest place of honor in the movement, Abdelghaffar argued in an Aug. 5 Facebook post.

“The only weakness that shall humiliate us is the love of this world and hating death,” Abdelghaffar wrote. “Therefore we have prepared your souls for great action. Strive for death – and life will be given to you. Know that there is no escaping death, and it will happen only once, and if you carry it out for the sake of God, there will be profit in this world and reward in the Afterlife, and nothing will harm you except what Allah has decreed. Work for an honorable death, you will be thus granted full happiness. May God provide us and you, the honor of achieving the martyrdom.”

This thinking, he wrote, reflected Al-Banna’s instructions.

“Imam Al-Banna talks about elevating the word of Allah and liberating the homelands,” Abdelghaffar wrote. “The summit of Islam is Jihad in the Way of Allah.”

Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorist groups, such as the Revolutionary Punishment Movement (RPM), Popular Resistance Movement (PRM) and the Hassm Movement, have carried out attacks across Egypt since 2014 – sometimes in conjunction with ISIS Sinai Province. RPM and PRM were founded by Mohamed Kamal, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau who was killed last October in a gun battle with Egyptian police.

Kamal’s faction of the Muslim Brotherhood executive committee, also known as the “new guard,” decided to back away from the group’s prior public policy of endorsing peaceful resistance to the Sisi regime, George Washington University Muslim Brotherhood expert Mokhtar Awad noted in a July 26 Hudson Institute article.

The Brotherhood’s Shariah Committee published a book on a file sharing website in January 2015, The Jurisprudence of the Popular Resistance to the Coup, that offered a religious justification for a campaign of violence against the Sisi regime. The book acknowledged that the Muslim Brotherhood’s touted public support for non-violence was tactical rather than a matter of principle, Awad said, citing this passage:

“Peacefulness is not a fundamental of Islam or the group [Muslim Brotherhood], and special operations work does not mean total confrontation,” the book’s authors wrote. “‘May God grant us and you the honor of martyrdom’ … the Jihadi tendency settled as a doctrine in the foundation of Imam al-Banna’s methodology and the acculturation of the Muslim Brotherhood. Until it became a slogan they repeat day and night and on every occasion: ‘God is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Quran is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of God is our greatest hope.”

The Jurisprudence of the Popular Resistance to the Coup appeared around the same time as the Brotherhood’s official Arabic website, Ikhwanonline, posted a communiqué calling for “a long, unrelenting jihad.”

Peacefulness isn’t a fundamental tenet of Islam or the Brotherhood and that things can change. Magdy Shalash, one of Kamal’s top Muslim Brotherhood deputies, told the Turkish-based pro-Brotherhood channel Mekameleen TV. The Brotherhood leadership’s espousal of a non-violent slogan after the military toppled President Morsi did not apply to self-defense, he said.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s old guard, headed by Acting Supreme Guide Mahmoud Ezzat, still talks about peace, but the proliferation of violence and violent rhetoric shows it is losing control of the movement.

Dallas ISIS Recruiter Gave Green Light to Manchester Suicide Bomber, ‘Kill Them and Show No Mercy’

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, Aug. 15, 2017:

A stunning new report reveals that a Dallas-based ISIS recruiter gave the greenlight to Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi, encouraging him to “kill them and show no mercy,” according to a report in the Italian news outlet L’Espresso last week.

Even more remarkable, U.S. authorities knew about the conversations months in advance of the terror attack and cited it in court document this past March when they charged the ISIS recruiter, 40-year old Said Azzam Mohamad Rahim of Richardson, Texas, for lying to FBI investigators.

The FBI knew about the conversation months in advance of the bombing that killed 22 and injured 250+ who were leaving the arena in Manchester following an Ariana Grande concert on May 22nd.

The Australian reported:

The Manchester Arena bombing was authorised in an online chat between a plotter, an Islamic State operative in Syria, a jihadist recruiter in Dallas and a Moroccan-born Islamist living in Turin, it was claimed yesterday.

The online conversation took place on August 28 last year using the Zello secure messaging app and was intercepted by the FBI, according to L’Espresso, an Italian weekly magazine.

One of the five people taking part in the chat asked: “Sheikh, I live in Manchester, in Great Britain. I live among non-Muslims. I have found work with them. Am I allowed to kill them? Is it permitted to kill them with a bomb?”

The sheikh, who is thought to have been living in Syria, replied with a phrase from the Koran: “Fight the pagans all together.”

The man from Dallas was identified by L’Espresso as Said Azzam Mohamad Rahim, who was born in America to Jordanian parents. He allegedly said: “To the boy from Manchester I say, OK, kill them! Show no mercy to civilians.”

Rahim was arrested this past March — more than two months before the bombing — and indicted for making false statements to the FBI.

Rahim was stopped by FBI agents at DFW Airport on March 5th, where he was questioned about his statements in support of ISIS. He was intending to board a flight to Jordan.

The Dallas CBS affiliate reported on Rahim’s arrest and indictment:

A Richardson man was indicted on charges of lying to the FBI about his support for ISIS.

Earlier this month, agents met up with Said Rahim inside terminal D at DFW International Airport. After he went through security and waited to board a flight to Jordan, agents say he agreed to answer questions. Investigators arrested him after he lied about his past statements about ISIS.

Rahim is accused of praising ISIS’ violent activities in chat rooms and encouraged people to engage in violent jihad […]

The FBI agent says Rahim glorified last year’s terror attacks at the Orlando night club and at the Bastile Day celebration in Nice, France. In the chat room, Rahim is accused of saying, “France will wake-up to a tragedy, a catastrophe (chuckle).. a great killing, implemented by… one of God’s lions.. against those infidel French.”

In a later post, Rahim is accused of telling someone it was ok to murder non-Muslims in England. “Kill them and do not show them mercy or compassion. If you have the ability to go and kill, poison them, throw a rock, push down a building… the important thing is that you kill.”

It’s now been reported by L’Espresso that “someone” was none other than Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

The criminal complaint filed in federal court the next day describes the August 28, 2016 online conversation that Rahim and four others, including Abedi, participated in.

During the conversation, Abedi asked:

I don’t want to interrupt…but with your permission, Sheikh; I reside in Manchester, Britain and work with persons who are all foreigners. Is killing them permissible? Is killing them permissible or not, or bombing them or anything else? I want to… to understand this matter from the Sheikhs of the [Islamic] State. Is killing any person permissible?

According to the federal complaint, Rahim replied:

OK, may God Bless you. I was going to grab the microphone so I would tell him, the one in Manchester. OK, kill and do not consult anyone or seek the opinion of others; kill. Kill them and do not show them mercy or compassion for neither the civilian clothes protect them nor the military uniform sanctions the shedding of their blood, they are all the same in their unbelief. Kill them I mean… don’t event consult with anyone. Go and kill, if you have the ability to go and kill, poison them, throw a rock, push down a building, do whatever you do; the important thing is that you kill. Kill with intention of waging jihad for the sake of Allah, and the intention that your banner is clear, the banner of ‘[t]here is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’… kill them I mean with the intention of jihad, with the-the intention of you being a mujahid for the sake of God, maybe this act, I mean, forgives your past and future transgressions.

Rely on God; kill if you have a chance, to hell with those Englishmen… The killer of an infidel will not go to hell. It is well known that shedding the blood of the infidel is lawful; shedding the blood of the infidel is lawful. But, if they say to you in this case that he was a safeguarded ally, then where is the Islamic State that this infidel lives in to be considered an ally and a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule? Does he pay Jizyah [tax]? Does he, does he, does he? No! So, kill, kill… if you ask the scholars of the tyrants they will tell you not to kill him. But, kill him, rely on Allah and kill them. Think of a way to kill the biggest number possible of those, may Allah’s curse fall on them.

According to the L’Espresso report, the unnamed “sheikh” who participated in the conversation is believed to be an ISIS operative living in Syria. The participant in Turin was named in the report as Mouner el-Aoual, who has been arrested.

Rahim, born in America to Jordanian parents, is currently being detained on the charges outlined in the complaint after a federal judge ruled him to be a flight risk.

So far Rahim has not been charged in connection to the Manchester bombing.

What warnings the FBI gave to U.K. authorities prior to the Manchester bombing — if any — is still unknown.