CIA, Terrorism, and the Emergent New Cold War: Considerations for the New Administration

ciaBy Brian Fairchild, July 20, 2016:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  In addition to the threats posed by the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and the international jihad movement, the US is also challenged by an emergent new cold war which pits the US and NATO against Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and their client states.  If ever there was a need for relevant and timely strategic assessments that can be translated into policy options, the time is now.  For the past two decades, however, CIA’s ability to collect and analyze complex strategic intelligence on key actors has degraded to an alarming level.  CIA analysts no longer have the skills to conduct long-term strategic analyses – the very job for which the Agency was created.  Instead, CIA is primarily focused on tactical counter terrorism operations, which it does very well, but these very specific tactical skill sets are quite different than those required for traditional strategic espionage operations and analysis.  Unfortunately, at present, the CIA has a world-class counter terrorism capability, but can only provide policymakers with a superficial understanding of the world and its complex issues and actors.  It is likely that the new cold war, as well as the international jihad movement will last for, at least, another generation, and the new administration that takes power in January 2017 will have to decide what kind of intelligence capability it requires.  If the US is to resume its international leadership role, however, the choice cannot be between having a world-class counter terrorism capability and a world-class strategic espionage capability.  The new administration will need both.

The Loss of CIA’s Strategic Intelligence Collection and Analysis Capability:

The decline of the Agency’s strategic collection and analysis capability began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. CIA was created to counter the strategic threat posed by the post-WWII rise of the Soviet Union, so, the demise of the Soviet Union removed the Agency’s raison d’etre, and it was forced to begin downsizing and reorienting personnel. The government, as well as politicians from both political parties were more than eager to spend the so-called “peace dividend”, the considerable amount of money that had funded CIA’s anti-Soviet Cold War operations, on their own pet projects. So, CIA stations closed all over the world, CIA’s most experienced case officers and analysts were offered “early out” bonuses in a massive downsizing, and fewer and fewer strategic analyses were written.

For a decade after the Soviet collapse, CIA drifted in search of a new mission, which it finally found after the 9/11 attacks – al Qaeda and counter terrorism. The Agency’s approach, however, wasn’t to add counter terrorism as one of its vital strategic missions, but to make counter terrorism its primary mission.  More importantly, it didn’t attempt to strategically understand its new enemy.  Rather, it chose a tactical approach adopting the military’s “find, fix, and finish” operational concept to kill or capture individual terrorists, but it never attempted to strategically understand the very engine that propelled al Qaeda and the international jihad movement – Salafi-jihadi ideology.

The Agency’s almost total focus on counter terrorism has had dire consequences for its charter as the nation’s premier civilian strategic intelligence agency according to former CIA director Michael Hayden, who expressed his concerns in a March 2016 interview with the Guardian:

  • “It started while I was still in office. I began to notice a problem that the more time goes by, the more our focus on the war on terror has created deficits in other places. Since I have left, the deficit has only grown…We have become extremely focused on current threats and in dealing with them…Much of what we call ‘intelligence analysis’ currently done in American intelligence is focused on specific targets: trying to make sure no one boards a plane with a bomb, for example. There is a natural tendency to focus on the urgent, the immediate, and I do think it comes at the expense of the more long-term, strategic elements.”

Hayden hit the nail on the head when he briefed incoming CIA director David Petraeus telling him:

  • ‘Dave, you realize the CIA’s never looked more like the OSS than it does right now? That’s good. It’s kept America safe. But, Dave, you’ve got to know we’re not the OSS. We’re the nation’s global espionage service and you need to remind yourself and the institution every day that it’s got this broader mission”

Hayden understands the absolute requirement to prevent another 9/11-type attack, but conceded that what concerns him most is what CIA is not doing – developing intelligence on the existential threats to the United States.  He described these existential threats as:

“…states that are ambitious, fragile and nuclear. I put Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and even the Russians in there. Now if that heads south, that’s much worse…Now if you run the timeline out to the 10-year point, it’s China. I’m not saying China’s an enemy of the United States of America. I’m just simply saying that if we do not handle the emergence of the People’s Republic well, it will be catastrophic for the world.”

Hayden is not alone in expressing concern about CIA’s departure from its traditional mission.  In March 2013, the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board issued a report that stated that the CIA and the Intelligence Community had neglected its coverage of vitally important strategic flashpoints such as the Middle East and China, opting to focus on “military support” operations instead.  Its co-chairman David L. Boren stated that “The intelligence community has become to some degree a military support operation”, adding that the deployment of Agency personnel and resources to only counterterrorism assignments “needs to be changed as dramatically as it was at the end of the Cold War.”  Worse, he described a generation of spies that no longer know how to do traditional spy work, stating “So far, nearly all of their experience has been in what I would call military support…Almost none of it has been in traditional intelligence-gathering and analysis.”

Senator Barbara Mikulski, a senior member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, pressed home the same points during her questioning of John Brennan at his Senate confirmation hearing as CIA director in 2013:

  • “I have been concerned for some time that there is a changing nature of the CIA, and that instead of it being America’s top human spy agency to make sure that we have no strategic surprises, that it has become more and more, executing paramilitary operations…I see this as mission creep. I see this as overriding the original mission of the CIA…and more a function of the Special Operations Command.”

CIA’s degraded strategic analysis capability is also well documented in Congressional post-9/11 investigations.  A now declassified Top Secret report issued in February 2002 by the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees’ Joint Inquiry (JI) found that:

  • “Prior to September 11, the Intelligence Community’s understanding of al-Qa’ida was hampered by insufficient analytic focus and quality, particularly in terms of strategic analysisThese analytic deficiencies seriously undercut the ability of U.S. policymakers to understand the full nature of the threat, and to make fully informed decisions.”

And a report by CIA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), published in 2007, found that the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) was primarily tactical, stating:

  • “…Before 9/11…the Center’s focus was primarily operational and tactical. While focusing on operations is critically important and does not necessarily mean that other elements of mission will be ignored, the Team found that this nearly exclusive focus – which resulted in many operational successes – had a negative impact on CTC’s effectiveness as a coordinator of IC counterterrorism strategy”

Also in 2007, John G. Heidenrich, a highly experienced intelligence analyst, issued a critique that couldn’t be more relevant to this paper.  In The State of Strategic Intelligence: The Intelligence Community’s Neglect of Strategic Intelligence, published on CIA’s website, he announced that:

  • During the past decade and a half, since the Cold War, the production and use of strategic intelligence by the United States government has plunged to egregiously low levels. This decline is badly out of sync with the broader needs of the republic, fails to meet the nation’s foreign policy requirements, ill-serves the country’s many national security officials, and retards the developing prowess of its intelligence analysts.”

Of particular importance, however, is a report published in January 2010, by then Major General Michael T. Flynn, in his capacity as the intelligence czar for all intelligence in Afghanistan – the CJ-2 for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).  His highly critical assessment of the performance of CIA and the intelligence community in the active war zone was stunning.  In Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan, he opened by summarizing the assessment with this scathing proclamation:

  • “Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy. Having focused the overwhelming majority of its collec­tion efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, the vast intel­ligence apparatus is unable to answer fundamental questions about the envi­ronment in which U.S. and allied forces operate and the people they seek to persuade.  Ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy about who the powerbrokers are and how they might be influenced, incurious about the cor­relations between various development projects and the levels of coopera­tion among villagers, and disengaged from people in the best position to find answers – whether aid workers or Afghan soldiers – U.S. intelligence offi­cers and analysts can do little but shrug in response to high level decision-mak­ers seeking the knowledge, analysis, and information they need to wage a successful counterinsurgency.”

Perhaps most enlightening from the perspective of this paper, are the adjectives the General used to describe the American intelligence officers about whom he is writing:  “Ignorant”, “hazy”, “incurious”, and “disengaged” – these characteristics are the absolute antithesis of a professional intelligence officer and show how far US national strategic intelligence analysis capability has fallen.  There can be no more serious indictment of an American intelligence agency than its irrelevance in an active war zone in which American men and women are daily paying the ultimate price.

The Emergent New Cold War:

Unfortunately, Hayden’s “ambitious, fragile, and nuclear” states are already on the move, but his timeline for problems with China has moved-up considerably.  China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and their client states now comprise a bloc pitted against the US and Europe in an emergent new cold war, which appears to be deepening on a weekly basis.

In January 2016, US European Command listed Russia as its number one security priority recommending a US military build-up in Europe, and approximately two weeks after that, Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev told the audience of the Munich Security Conference that we have slid into a new period of cold war.  The Polish president agreed with him a few days later stating that Russia was fomenting the new cold war, and at roughly the same time, NATO Supreme Commander, American General Philip Breedlove announced that Russia poses a long-term threat to the US and its European allies.

In the past six months, reports of hostility, geopolitical competition, nuclear threats, and proxy warfare between the actors of the new cold war are overwhelming.  In a development not even seen during the Cold War, Russian intelligence operatives have launched a campaign of thuggery to aggressively and physically assault American diplomatic personnel in Russia and throughout Europe.  American military commanders have warned that Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines are challenging American power in the Atlantic and the Pacific, and the commander of Strategic Command warns that both China and Russia are developing advanced space weapons designed to be “disruptive and destructive counter-space capabilities” targeted at the US.  Moreover, on numerous occasions, Russia and China have intentionally and aggressively used their fighter jets in provocative close intercepts of American military aircraft and warships.  Russia, Iran, and Syria are jointly cooperating against US interests in the Middle East, which CIA director Brennan says is more unstable than at any time in the past 50 years, and the Iranian-backed radical Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr, has threatened to target US troops in Iraq.  In addition, China claims total sovereignty over the entire South China Sea and is creating man-made militarized islands throughout the area including installation of surface to air missiles in order to defend their claim, and it threatens military action against the US if it does so.  Meanwhile, North Korea, China’s client state, frequently conducts illegal nuclear and ballistic missile tests and threatens other provocative military actions.

State of Play – CIA’s Clandestine Service:

CIA’s charter demands that it aggressively collect and analyze intelligence against each and every one of these strategic challenges in order to provide the president and his senior policymakers with the best intelligence with which to plan US strategic responses.

Unfortunately, that would require the reallocation of the majority of CIA’s manpower, budget, and planning that are now dedicated to its primary mission – terrorism.  To make matters worse, CIA’s Clandestine Service is no longer a foreign service in the true sense of the term.  Rather, its counter terrorism officers, most of whom have military special operations backgrounds, live in the US and are temporarily assigned overseas for four to six month tours, or periodically “surge” to foreign locations for special assignments, after which they return home.  As one would expect, their expertise is on terrorist individuals and networks, weapons capabilities, how to integrate and work jointly with US and foreign military forces, and how to conduct clandestine military/paramilitary operations.

In 2005, new CIA director Porter Goss experienced this dilemma first hand.  In a speech he gave to CIA personnel, he admitted that CIA’s clandestine service was no longer a global service with deep experience overseas, but a US-located pool that would occasionally “surge” abroad on temporary assignments.  In the speech, he explained to his clandestine service officers why they needed to actually live and serve in foreign countries:

  • “I have talked much about Field forward. You cannot understand people overseas, much less influence them, from Langley. You cannot develop deep and trusting relationships with individuals and with governments overseas by flying in and flipping out a U.S. passport. We are working to change the ratio so that we have more of our case officers out in the field under new kinds of cover in places where they can do what they need to do for us…. “Surging” CIA officers instead of having an established presence, an expertise, and developed relationships at hand, is a poor formula, in my opinion. When I say we need to be global, this is an admission that we are not in all of the places we should be. We don’t have this luxury anymore.”

New Requirements:

The Agency has been able to sustain its counter terrorism orientation from 9/11 until now, but the targets listed above will require vastly different “old-school” skill sets and expertise.  In the espionage arena, case officers with language capability live and work abroad where they spot, assess, develop, recruit and clandestinely run long-term penetration assets of foreign governments in order to discover their strategic plans and intentions.  This approach requires an in-depth knowledge of the country’s customs and culture as well its geopolitical history, which normally comes from years of experience on the ground, experience that CIA’s counter terrorism operators don’t have.  Cold wars, by their very definition, lack open hostilities between the main actors, so military skill sets and weapons capabilities, except in very unique circumstances, are of little use.

The Future:

The current administration was not concerned with developing a world class espionage capability because it was dedicated to withdrawing from the world stage and concentrating on its domestic agenda.  However, given the fact that the last cold war lasted for 50 years, it is likely that the new cold war will last a long time, as will the international jihad movement, so the next administration will have to deal with these realities.  If it desires to resume America’s leadership role on the world stage it will require world-class capabilities in both espionage and counter terrorism.

The requirement for a world-class strategic espionage and analysis capability is absolutely clear – as the leader of the free world the new president must understand the world he leads in all of its complexity, but he must especially understand his strategic enemies who are attempting to defeat him.

In what organization this rejuvenated capability should reside, however, is not so clear.  As the experience of director Porter Goss reveals, CIA may not be the best location.

Brian Fairchild was a career officer in CIA’s Clandestine Service. He has served in Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Arabian Peninsula, and Afghanistan. Mr. Fairchild writes periodic intelligence analyses on topics of strategic importance.

 

Time for political elites to stand up to sharia

AP Photo | Francois Mori

AP Photo | Francois Mori

Conservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 15, 016:

Our political class, which includes both parties, spent an entire month debating gun control and turning a blind eye to the combatants behind those guns and how we have willfully allowed them into our country and have promoted their Muslim Brotherhood lobbyists at the highest levels of government. Last night, in Nice, France, a Tunisian-Muslim immigrant murdered 84 people in a Jihad attack that mainly involved a truck. He also reportedly got out of the car, shouted “Allah Akbar,” and began shooting into the crowd with a firearm he took from the truck, which was loaded with grenades and firearms. France has stricter gun laws than even what Democrats [publicly] want implemented in our country, yet they are suffering even more at the hands of Islamic jihad. What will it take to end the willful blindness on the part of political elites?

The willful blindness of sharia-based Islam – the glue that binds together all jihadists – is endemic of both political parties. Here is the preamble of the “counter-terrorism” legislation Republicans wanted to pass before conservatives rebelled against the effort:

The preeminent terrorist threats to the United States are radical Islamist terrorist networks such as al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and their allies and affiliate networks, as well as lone-wolf supporters and sympathizers in the United States and around the world.

 

This is beyond tone-deaf. It’s willful blindness. The Islamic State was created in 2013, long after the modern era of Islamic jihad. We are not at war with networks or tactics; there is a clash of civilization and it is rooted in Sharia-Islam and the dictates of the Hadith, as practiced by millions of Muslims and rooted in a number of nation-states from Iran to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and even the government we established in Afghanistan. It is that motivation that has inspired so many Muslims living in the West to either support jihad or, worse, actually pursue it.

Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group.

Western leaders have always sought to isolate and decompartmentalize the problem. The jihadists in the Caucuses were “Chechnyians,” the savages in Israel were “Palestinians.” The West sought to legitimize and validate their grievances as rooted in geographical political disputes. In fact, they were all rooted in Jihad as dictated by the Hadith. The West blamed Israel for suffering from suicide bombings and vehicular attacks for years. Tragically, we now see that those tactics have made their way to the West – tactics employed by the same enemy with the same ideology.

This willful blindness of focusing myopically on ISIS and Al Qaeda while downright promoting the Islamic supremacist ideology behind it affects our immigration, homeland security, and national security/military policies. For if we are unwilling to acknowledge the enemy and its threatening doctrine, we will pursue dyslexic policies in those three realms.

It is this willful blindness that has led CIA Director John Brennan to conclude this week that “Saudi Arabia is among our closest counterterrorism partners.”

It is this willful blindness that has allowed our military leadership to throw our soldiers into Islamic civil wars to fight one sharia-adherent group of Muslims on behalf of other sharia-adherent Muslims, while shunning true reformist leaders in places like Egypt and Libya who would actually fight Islamic supremacism.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed Islamic supremacist groups with ties to Hamas to become the leaders of American Muslims, obtain security clearances and meet with Congress 325 times in one year.

It is this willful blindness that has allowed countries like France to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East who subscribe to the underlying ideology shared by Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice terrorist. And it is this appalling willful blindness that has caused our political leaders to learn nothing from the mistakes of Europe and instead, follow blindly in their footsteps.

What paves the road for endless numbers of Muslims in the West who make the ultimate decision to engage in violent Jihad is the climate of civilization jihad that is rooted in the mosques, schools, and political organizations, mainly run by Muslim Brotherhood groups. The notion that we would allow more individuals into our country who subscribe to this ideology is maniacal and suicidal. There are certainly no constitutional mandates on prospectively bringing in any group of immigrants, and as I explore in two chapters of Stolen Sovereignty, our Founders and early political leaders up until just two generations ago all agreed to only admit those who completely shared our political values. This was the essence of Teddy Roosevelt’s message right before he passed away:

But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . .We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

 

The guiding principle of our immigration policy was to only admit those who unquestionably adhered to our values system. Our contemporary guiding principle is to admit anyone and everyone – in large numbers over short periods of time – from cultures that clash with ours unless they have a card identifying them up front as a member of a known terror group. When our early political leaders in both parties promoted policies that weeded out those immigrants who didn’t share our values, they were dealing with Europeans from Western Civilization. They could have never imagined an ideology that is the complete antithesis of constitutional republicanism being invited in and championed by the political elites on such a large scale. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was the famed Nuremberg prosecutor, best encapsulated the incompatibility of Sharia with western civilization in a statement published in 1955:

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

In the irony of all ironies, this very statement from Justice Jackson has been purged from our counterterrorism training for federal law enforcement, at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood’s CVE agenda.

As it states in the Bible, the truth is not in the heaven or in a far off land; it “is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it [Deuteronomy 30:14].  We don’t need to conjure up unconstitutional or novel ideas or focus on trucks, guns, and tactics in order to secure this nation. We need to simply recognize the incontrovertible truth and employ basic common sense and stop self-immolating.

cr audio

Newt livechat on Nice

Nice Attack: Cut Down the Black Flag, Target Sharia

hqdefault-1 (1)

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson explains what must be done to stop this constant terror.

CounterJihad, July 15, 2016:

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson, currently the Executive Vice President for the Center for Security Policy, has an answer to the problem of constant terror attacks.  First, though, he dismisses the strategy of attempting to prevent attacks by adding additional levels of security.  “Even in a police state, you couldn’t secure every gathering,” Hanson said, noting that this was just a simple delivery truck like any other.

“You have to look at the people who are conducting these terror attacks,” he told “FOX & Friends.”  A focus on methodology won’t work, as the truck attack plainly shows:  “It’s not guns, it’s not bombs, it’s not trucks,” but rather “the ideology of sharia and jihad that motivates them to kill.”

Hanson is the author of Cut Down the Black Flag:  A Strategy To Defeat the Islamic State.  Unsurprisingly, he believes that destroying the caliphate is an important part of the solution.  However, he argues that the caliphate is only a symptom — albeit a major one — of the real problem. “You start in the Islamic State.  You start with their caliphate, and you cut down their black flag there.  But… that’s not going to solve the problem, that treats a symptom.  The ideology of sharia, which calls for a holy war of jihad, is something we need to deal with.”

Citing a poll that sharia law enjoys large-scale support among Muslims worldwide, Hanson crossed into disputed territory.  CounterJihad has reported on this controversy before.

The central issue to empirical science is the ability of others repeating the experiment to replicate your findings.  If you replicate the same findings using the same methods, that’s telling.  If you replicate the same findings with both the same and different methods, that’s even more suggestive that you’re on to something.  Every poll of Muslim populations, regardless of its methodology, shows strong support for sharia.

Last summer, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll that found 51% support for shariaamong American Muslims.  There were critics who pointed out that this poll was an online poll, and one that only surveyed those who opted in.  However, the Pew polling service found that half of American Muslims are recent immigrants, chiefly from countries in which their global survey of support for sharia tops 80%.  Three of the leading countries for Islamic immigration to the United States are Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  The figures for those countries are 91%, 84%, and 99% respectively.

When you find the same thing no matter how you study the question, you’re probably finding something that’s really there.

Hanson’s solution of targeting sharia also enjoys strong support from the American people.  A recent poll conducted by a firm out of Atlanta found that more than seven in ten American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for the ideological belief in enforcing sharia law.  More than 80% of those who agreed say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the United States.

The popularity of the solution does not mean that it will be enacted, at least not for the next few months.  A recent survey of US President Barack Obama’s calendar shows that he never met with former National Director of Intelligence LTG(R) Michael Flynn.  He and his administration’s top officials did meet with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been proven in Federal court to be linked to the Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas.  In fact, CAIR has had hundreds of White House meetings.

Both of President Obama’s likely replacements have described the France attacks as acts of war, and both seem clearer-eyed than President Obama about the nature of the threat.  However, asked which one was more likely to take the threat seriously, Hanson gave the nod to Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton would be too hamstrung by political correctness, he argued.  Only Trump was likely to move strongly against Islamic terror.

***

Prince Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud Drops Bombshell at Iranian Opposition Rally

2815008073

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, July 13, 2016:

At the annual gathering of Iranians outside of Paris, France on 9 July 2016, where some 100,000 showed up to express support for regime change in Tehran, one of the guest speakers dropped a bombshell announcement. Even before he took the podium, Prince Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud, appearing in the distinctive gold-edged dark cloak and white keffiyeh headdress of the Saudi royal family, of which he is a senior member, drew commentary and lots of second looks. The Prince is the founder of the King Faisal Foundation, and chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, and served from 1977-2001 as director general of Al-Mukhabarat Al-A’amah, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence agency, resigning the position on 1 September 2001, some ten days before the attacks of 9/11.

He took the podium late in the afternoon program on 9 July and, after a discourse on the shared Islamic history of the Middle East, launched into an attack on Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose 1979 revolution changed the course of history not just in Iran, but throughout the world. His next statement sent a shock wave through the assembly: Bin Faisal pledged support to the Iranian NCRI opposition and to its President-elect Maryam Rajavi personally. Given bin Faisal’s senior position in the Saudi royal family and his long career in positions of key responsibility in the Kingdom, it can only be understood that he spoke for the Riyadh government. The hall erupted in cheers and thunderous applause.

Iranians and others who packed the convention center in Bourget, Paris came for a day-long program attended by representatives from around the world. Organized by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the event featured a day filled with speeches and musical performances. A senior-level U.S. delegation included Linda Chavez, Chairwoman of the U.S. Center for Equal Opportunity; former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; former Governor of Pennsylvania and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; Judge Michael Mukasey; former Governor of Vermont and Presidential candidate Howard Dean; and former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, Fran Townsend.

The NCRI and its key affiliate, the Mujahedeen-e Kahlq (MEK), were on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list until 2012, having been placed there at the express request of Iranian president Khatami. Iranian university students formed the MEK in the 1960s to oppose the Shah’s rule. The MEK participated in the Khomeini Revolution but then was forced into exile when Khomeini turned on his own allies and obliterated any hopes for democratic reform. Granted protection by the U.S. under the 4th Geneva Convention in 2004, remnants of the MEK opposition have been stranded in Iraq, first at Camp Ashraf and now in Camp Liberty near Baghdad since U.S. forces left Iraq. Completely disarmed and defenseless, the 2,000 or so remaining residents of Camp Liberty, who are desperately seeking resettlement, come under periodic deadly attack by Iraqi forces under Iranian Qods Force direction. The most recent rocket attack on July 4th, 2016 set much of the camp ablaze and devastated the Iranians’ unprotected mobile homes. The MEK/NCRI fought their terrorist designations in the courts in both Europe and the U.S., finally winning removal in 2012. The NCRI’s national headquarters are now located in downtown Washington, DC, from where they work intensively with Congress, the media, and U.S. society to urge regime change and a genuinely liberal democratic platform for Iran.

Given the Obama administration’s close alignment with the Tehran regime, it is perhaps not surprising that the NCRI and Riyadh (both feeling marginalized by the U.S.) should find common cause to oppose the mullahs’ unceasing quest for deliverable nuclear weapons, aggressively expansionist regional agenda, and destabilizing involvement in multiple area conflicts, especially its extensive support for the murderous rule of Bashar al-Assad. Nevertheless, the implications of official Riyadh government support for the largest, most dedicated, and best-organized Iranian opposition movement will reverberate through the Middle East.

Although not openly stated by bin Faisal, the new NCRI-Riyadh alliance may be expected to involve funding, intelligence sharing, and possible collaboration in operations aimed at the shared goal of overthrowing the current Tehran regime. The alignment doubtless will change the course of events in the Middle East, and while Saudi Arabia can hardly be counted among the liberal democracies of the world, the woman-led NCRI movement declares a 10-point plan for Iran that does embrace the ideals of Western Civilization. The impact of the Saudi initiative will not be limited to Iran or the surrounding region but at least as importantly, surely will be felt internally as well, among a young and restless Saudi population that looks hopefully to the rule of King Salman and his 30-something son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud.

@ClareMLopez Ms. Lopez manages the Center’s counterjihad and shariah programs, bringing with her also an expertise on Iran, Hizballah, and southern border issues. From 2010-2014, she was a Sr. Fellow with the Center. Lopez began her professional career as a CIA operations officer and later applied her national security expertise as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher in various contract positions within the defense sector. She has been an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students and lectures widely on Iran, Islam, and the Muslim Brotherhood around the country. Earlier an advisor to EMP Act America, in February 2012 Ms. Lopez was named a member of the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security, which focuses on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) threat to the nation and is a member of the Center’s Secure the Grid Coalition.

Also see:

The Qur’an Test in Dhaka

bangla-2

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 4, 2016:

As Ramadan draws to a merciful close, we have in Bangladesh yet another Islamic jihad massacre, followed by the now drearily familiar attempts to obscure the Islamic character of the massacre, and to keep the public ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. But with this particular mass killing it will be harder for the political and media elites to cover up the attackers’ motives and goals, since they subjected their victims to an increasingly familiar feature of jihad attacks: the Qur’an test.

After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”

Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”

Unfortunately for Hasina and Rashid, however, the killers themselves made it abundantly clear what they were all about. According to Rezaul Karim, the father of a young man who was held hostage inside the Holey Artisan Bakery for more than ten hours, “The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”

A Qur’an test for determining who was tortured and who wasn’t? That certainly seems to have something to do with Islam. Nor is this the first time that Islamic jihadis have employed this tactic. In September 2013, Islamic jihadis murdered 68 people at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. According to the Daily Mail, “the attack saw men, women and children slaughtered if they could not recite the Koran or name the mother of the [Islamic] Prophet Mohammed.”

In June 2014, again in Kenya, in the coastal town of Mpeketoni, Muslims murdered people who could not pass an Islam quiz. In November 2014, Muslims hijacked a Kenyan bus and murdered 28 non-Muslims who couldn’t recite Qur’an verses.

Then in April 2015, Islamic jihadists murdered 147 people at Garissa University College, once again in Kenya. The jihadis here again ordered their captives to recite passages from the Qur’an. Then, screaming “Allahu akbar,” they gunned down those who could not.

The practice wasn’t limited to Kenya. In November 2015, Muslims firing guns and screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed the luxury Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and took 170 people hostage. Those hostages who could recite Qur’an verses were freed. Around 27 others who could not expatiate on the glories of Allah and the torments awaiting unbelievers were massacred.

And now this test has come to Dhaka, and its import is plain. Those who insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that we must look elsewhere to discover the terrorists’ motives and goals, should kindly explain why the textbook for this sinister and murderous little exam is always and everywhere the Qur’an. Terrorists never demand that their captives recite, on pain of death, passages from the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita, or Das Kapital.

Not coincidentally, the Qur’an is singular among books that are by some considered holy in containing clear, open-ended and universal commands to believers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5; see also 9:29, 47:4, 8:60, 8:39, 8:12, etc.). What the political and media elites would have us believe is that Islamic jihadis misunderstand the clear import of those passages, foolishly assuming that “kill the idolaters” means something like, say, “kill the idolaters,” when every right-thinking person knows that if only one understands the nuances of classical Arabic, it really means “give the idolaters a hug.” They would further have us believe that any Muslim who actually goes out to kill those whom he deems to be idolaters is gravely misunderstanding the message of the Qur’an and Islam.

The time for these comforting fictions is long past. Sheikh Hasina and Qasim Rashid (to whom Megyn Kelly recently accorded a platform for his slick falsehoods) are just two exponents of a years-long campaign of deception and lies that now must be decisively repudiated. If authorities don’t drop their politically correct fantasies and address the jihad threat realistically, we will be seeing the Qur’an test administered inside the U.S. before too long. Instead of studying to pass, Americans should be making it abundantly clear to those administering such tests, and to the deceivers running interference for them in government and media, that their days of perpetrating their evils unchallenged are rapidly drawing to a close.

***

Also see:

VIDEO — Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

stop-global-islamization (1)Gatestone Institute, June 30, 2016:

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

Florida: America’s Jihad Playground

20120913_adnan_el-shukrijumah_606

The hate preachers and terrorists running wild in our midst.

Front Page Magazine, by Michelle Malkin, June 16, 2016:

The home of the “Happiest Place on Earth” has been breeding killer jihadists and Muslim zealots for years.

Omar Mateen, the cold-blooded mass murderer who gunned down 49 people at an Orlando gay nightclub and wounded 53 more before police took him out late Sunday, may have worked alone. But he operated in the larger context of a teeming, terror-coddling paradise.

While tourists from around the world soak up sunshine and dreams at Disney World, Islamic extremism festers around them.

Schools: The Muslim Students Association, founded by the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose stated purpose is to wage “grand jihad” on America, is active at the publicly funded University of Central Florida in Orlando. The group defiantly brought un-indicted terror co-conspirator Siraj Wahhaj to campus. He’s the black Muslim convert and inflammatory imam tied by federal prosecutors to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and New York City landmarks bombing plots.

Wahhaj served as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheik), called for replacement of America’s “constitutional government with a caliphate” and roots for our nation to “crumble” so Muslims can take over. UCF funded a Muslims “da’wa” (conversion) seminar and with an endowment by the Saudi-supported International Institute of Islamic Thought sought to create an Islamic Studies chair to “help the Ummah regain its intellectual and cultural identity and re-affirm its presence as a dynamic civilization.”

The IIIT, also a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, donated at least $50,000 to a “think tank” run by Sami al-Arian that served as a front group for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While al-Arian, a Muslim Brotherhood member dating back to the 1980s, served as a computer science professor at Tampa’s University of South Florida, he toured the country raising money for terrorism overseas. Investigative reporters and the feds caught al-Arian on tape inciting his attendees against, America, Israel “and their allies until death.” The left-wing academic pleaded guilty to a terror-fundraising conspiracy charge in 2006.

Al-Arian brought Palestinian-born Ramadan Shalah to teach at USF and head his “think tank” for a spell. Shalah left the school in 1995 and resurfaced as head of Syria’s Islamic Jihad. He remains one of the FBI’s most wanted indicted terrorist fugitives.

Apologist officials at USF, first exposed by counter-jihad researcher Steve Emerson as America’s “Jihad U,” turned a blind eye to the terror helpers among them.

Mosques: Mateen’s homicidal hatred for gays didn’t exist in a vacuum. Mateen’s neighborhood mosque in nearby Fort Pierce, Florida, was also the house of worship of Moner Abu-Salha, an American jihad recruiter and suicide bomber who blew himself up in Syria last year. The Palm Beach Post reported this week that Abu-Salha had posted videos of an imam’s death-to-gays rant on Facebook.

Marcus Dwayne Robertson (a.k.a. Abu Taubah), a former U.S. Marine turned career criminal and bodyguard to the Blind Sheik, headed another mosque, Masjid Al-Ihsaam, in Orlando. He also founded the Orlando-based Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary in 2008 and railed against gays and non-Muslims. Mateen was enrolled in Taubah’s course.

Just weeks before the Pulse nightclub massacre, another Orlando mosque, the Husseini Islamic Center, hosted a guest imam who had preached that “gays must die” and that Muslims should not “be embarrassed about this … let’s get rid of them now.”

Also in Orlando, the al-Rahman mosque led by Imam Muhammad Musri made headlines in 2010 after holding a fundraiser for the terrorist group Hamas.

In Tampa, Sami al-Arian founded the al-Qassam mosque named after an infamous Syrian terrorist. Last fall, the mosque — owned by the North American Islamic Trust, an un-indicted terror co-conspiracy organization — invited an exiled Muslim Brotherhood instigator and Hamas cheerleader to speak.

In South Florida, the Darul Uloom Institute mosque in Pembroke Pines counted al-Qaida jihad pilot Adnan el-Shukrijumah (allegedly killed in a raid in Waziristan by the Pakistan military in 2014) and convicted jihadist Imran Mandhai — who plotted with fellow mosque attendees Hakki Aksoy and Shueyb Jokhan to blow up power stations, synagogues and a National Guard armory — among its worshipers.

Shukrijumah’s brother still lives in Broward County near the Darul Uloom mosque and has posted social media videos condemning “moderate” Muslims, blaming 9/11 on Jews and promoting the caliphate. Darul Uloom’s imam is a gay-bashing, Christian-bashing, Jew-bashing bigot who has publicly stated that at least one of the 9/11 hijackers prayed at his mosque.

Jails: Florida’s prisons and penitentiaries are unfettered cesspools for jihad radicalization and recruitment. Convicted al-Qaida dirty bomb plotter Jose Padilla (a.k.a. Abdullah al Mujahir) was introduced to Islam while serving time for an armed road rage incident in Sunrise, Florida. The above-named Abu Taubah radicalized nearly 40 fellow inmates while behind bars on a weapons conviction. He was freed last summer by U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell after time served despite prosecutors’ pleas to add 10 years to his sentence based on enhanced terror charges.

Gun-grabbers and bleeding hearts, wake up and stop playing Mickey Mouse politics. The problem isn’t weapons. It’s the weaponized Muslim hate-mongers and jihad enablers operating openly in our midst.

Also see:

Special Report Panel Trashes ‘Single Dumbest Editorial in the History of the New York Times’

goldbergWashington Free Beacon, by Jack Heretik, June 15, 2016:

The All-Star Panel on Fox News’ Special Report Wednesday tore apart an editorial from the New York Times which partially blamed the terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida on Republicans.

Host Bret Baier first read a portion of it:

Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians, who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish,’ continuing, ‘as the funerals are held for those who perished on Sunday, lawmakers who have actively championed discriminatory laws and policies and those who have quietly enabled them with votes should force themselves to read the obituaries and look at the photos.

The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack but they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots.’

Jonah Goldberg, a senior editor at National Review, didn’t mince words.

“I’m reluctant to say this, but that might be the single dumbest editorial in the history of the New York Times,” Goldberg said. “It’s like a pinata, you can hit it from any angle and get some reward.”

“First of all, the guy was a registered Democrat, right, he swore allegiance to ISIS and somehow it’s Republican opposition to gay marriage that is somehow associated with this? I know for a fact that a lot of the founders of the Nazi party were gays. Should we revisit the issue of Nazism based upon the fact that they were homosexuals?” Goldberg said.

“It’s one of these examples how from the top down, from Barack Obama to a lot of the mainstream media, they don’t want to actually talk about this for what it is, which is a terrorist attack, a guy motivated and inspired by radical Islamic terrorism. Instead, they want to move the conversation back to comfortable topics like gay rights and gun control, and it is just a giant con.”

Mara Liasson, the national political correspondent for National Public Radio, also had comment about the article.

“Some people have called Donald Trump a cartoon caricature of the left’s version of what a Republican politician is. This is the cartoon caricature of what people would say about a liberal editorial page,” Liasson said.

The Daily Caller’s Tucker Carlson also chimed in and took on what he believes was part of the terrorists’ reasoning after taking a swipe at Anderson Cooper.

“This is really kind of the Anderson Cooper position, which is, ‘if you have a problem with gay marriage, you inspired this attack.’ No,” Carlson said.

“This is not an American form of homophobia, this is a Middle Eastern form. So why is it America’s fault?” Carlson said. “What you’re seeing in this is very recognizable if you have talked to liberals or listened to the president, it’s ‘this is America’s fault.’ No, actually it’s not.”

Also see:

Former FBI Instructor John Guandolo: FBI Has No Strategic Plan to Deal with Islamic Terror Threat: ‘Average Law Enforcement Officer Knows Less Than Citizens That Are Paying Attention’

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, June 1, 2016:

Former FBI agent, counter-terrorism instructor, and founder of UnderstandingTheThreat.com John Guandolo appeared on Monday morning’s edition of Breitbart News Daily with SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon to talk about the Orlando jihad attack.

Following up on a caller who wondered how the FBI could have interviewed shooter Omar Mateen three times without concluding he was a serious threat, Bannon asked Guandolo if the FBI counter-terrorist unit was “incompetent,” or “hamstrung” by political correctness.

“It’s a combination of both, actually,” Guandolo replied. “You’ve got the agents busting their butts on the street level, but you’ve got the leadership of the FBI who refuse to look at this strategically.”

“And it is because, on orders from the White House — I know even under Director Mueller’s tenure there, before Director Comey — they were forced to work with organizations like the Islamic Society of North America and others, Muslim Public Affairs Council, which are Hamas — Muslim Brotherhood organizations,” Guandolo charged.

He also mentioned CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which he described as a “Hamas group.”

“They were created by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which was Hamas in the United States, “ Guandolo explained. “So they’re not merely a Muslim Brotherhood group. Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and CAIR was the full Hamas organization created in the United States.”

He said the government has not “identified the larger threat,” which is that “the teaching these guys are getting is all from the Islamic centers.”

“The majority, eighty-plus percent of the Islamic centers’ mosques in the United States are teaching this,” he said. “All of the major Islamic organizations, per evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial in American history, demonstrates clearly that these groups are jihadi organizations.”

Guandolo said the FBI has a “responsibility to the nation to address the threat, regardless of the public outcry, or the political implications.”

“That’s their job. That’s the FBI’s job, and they have to do it, and the leadership has to get on board,” he insisted. “Nowhere in the FBI is there a room at headquarters where six people sit with a whiteboard and think strategically about this threat.”

He said this was partially because “there are fires every day — in other words, they’re running around putting out fires from all the threats that are coming in, and the problem is, just like the Director himself has publicly said, they have over a thousand open cases on guys like this guy, Omar Mateen, and the regulations that have been put on them since 9/11 hamstring them.”

Guandolo said there have been some “tough questions” asked by congressional oversight committees, but “nothing has been done.” His recommendation for reform begins with understanding that “the primary work for understanding the threat that we do is at the state and local level.”

“The federal level has demonstrated that there is no strategic understanding of this threat, of the Islamic threat,” he declared, repeating that there was no grand strategy under consideration by our $4.2 trillion government. “That’s why we’re losing the war… we crushed the enemy on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military did what they were supposed to do. The soldiers, the Marines, the sailors, the airmen, they did their job. And yet, we came away with losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, because we didn’t understand the enemy. We don’t understand that they don’t intend to win the war with guns and blowing themselves up, but that that’s a tactic in a much larger strategy.

“And yet, they came away defeating us in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that we crushed them on the battlefield, because the average four-star general, the average senator, the average head of the intelligence agency, pick which one — at the federal level has not a clue about the strategic workings, and inner workings, the doctrine, the sharia, that drives every one of these guys.”

He warned against underestimating “the catastrophic failure of our leadership at the federal level.”

“My experience in training and teaching federal agents, state law enforcement, local law enforcement all over the country, thousands of them — the average law enforcement officer knows less than citizens that are paying attention,” Guandolo said. “I can talk about that objectively, because we share a questionnaire when we start the training. I mean, the knowledge level is zero. The lower you go – in other words, federal, state, local – there’s a higher chance at the local level that a local police officer will have a better understanding of the problem than an FBI counter-terrorism agent.”

He recommended an article posted at his UnderstandingTheThreat.com website about “how bad it’s going to be, and unfortunately, what happened in Orlando is nothing compared to what is coming our way.”

“The Islamic movement has been focused, since prior to 9/11, on primarily the Islamic world. They’ve been focused, as you’ve seen, in Syria, and in Libya, in eastern Africa, in the Middle East. They’ve been focused on getting Islamic countries to adhere to sharia and begin imposing sharia outside of its borders,” Guandolo explained, referring to the Islamic legal code.

“That’s the focus. What we’re watching right now is the turn toward the West,” he said, citing terrorist attacks popping up in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, which have all been “individual acts of jihad,” until now.

“What you’re gonna see is, multiply Orlando, and Beslan, and Mumbai – and, by the way, since they’re working with the Marxist-socialist collaborators like Black Lives Matter and others, many Soros-funded groups and other groups, you’re gonna see a national level, where the violence will raise significantly, and you’ll see things precipitated by other events,” Guandolo warned.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Dallas College ‘Not Aware’ of CAIR’s Terror Ties Before Bumping Anti-Terror Class

514a0319-f1be-4180-a37c-319d1931e6c7Guandolo, a veteran of the FBI’s Washington field office, said, “these terrorist groups simply want to end all discussion about jihad.”

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, June 8, 2016:

A Dallas community college that backed out of hosting a counterterrorism training program for local law enforcement last week under pressure from the Council on American-Islamic Relations says it was “not aware” that the Muslim muscle group was under FBI investigation for ties to foreign terrorist groups.

CAIR gloated in a press release that it forced the “cancellation” of the accredited program presented by former FBI agent John Guandolo: “The Dallas-Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-DFW) today welcomed a decision by Cedar Valley College in Lancaster, Texas, to cancel a June 3 ‘training’ event for law enforcement officers being offered by notorious Islamophobe and anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist John Guandolo.”

The press release, which was picked up by several media outlets including a major British newspaper, called the one-day seminar a “hate event,” since it dealt with jihad and Islamic laws of warfare that terrorists use to justify violence.

In an interview, Cedar Valley College President Jennifer Wimbish said the event was relocated, not cancelled.

“Cedar Valley College was asked to provide facilities for the program mentioned, which is geared toward law enforcement personnel in the area,” she said. “It is accurate to say that we received community feedback about the event, after which we talked with the program’s organizers, who then decided to relocate the training to an alternate site.”

“Specifically,” she added, “CAIR-DFW contacted CVC with concerns about the event.”

Wimbish declined to answer whether she knew CAIR was involved in terrorist activities. But in a separate interview, her spokesman Henry Martinez admitted that they were “not aware” of CAIR’s ties to foreign terrorist groups or banishment by the FBI.

The FBI has officially banned outreach with the Dallas chapter of CAIR, as well as the national office of CAIR in Washington, because CAIR was implicated in a major terrorism case that actually originated in the Dallas area — “US v. Holy Land Foundation,” which ended in convictions of senior U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas leaders and CAIR’s designation as an unindicted co-conspirator.

At trial, FBI agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a “front organization” for the terrorist group Hamas. CAIR and its founder remain on the Justice Department’s co-conspirator’s list, despite repeated requests to have the court remove their names. Assistant U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks argued “CAIR’s … conspiratorial involvement with Hamas” is “ongoing.” The award-winning prosecutor said CAIR was founded “to support Hamas.”

CAIR has also been implicated in a separate terrorism case in Virginia, “US v. Sabri Benkahla.”

“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg in the 2007 terrorism case involving CAIR, “CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”

The FBI says it won’t restore ties to CAIR until, as the associate FBI director Richard C. Powers informed Congress, “we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas,” which has been a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist group since 1995.

In his letter, Powers singled out current CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad as one of the non-profit group’s executives who is associated with Hamas. Awad, a Palestinian immigrant, has been the target of recent NSA and other counterterrorism surveillance.

In other words, CAIR and its leadership are under active criminal investigation for terrorism — a fact that most of the hosts of counterjihad training events don’t know prior to CAIR pressuring them to cancel such events.

Read more

New York Post columnist and author Paul Sperry is a media fellow at the Hoover Institution.

***

Also see:

Kyle Shideler discusses Saudi role in 9/11 and Obama’s new liaison to the Muslim-American community

882707322

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Welcome back. We’re joined by Kyle Shideler, my colleague at the Center for Security Policy where he directs our Threat Information office. Really a go-to resource on the challenges that we’re facing from the jihad, both of the violent kind and the civilisation kind, among others. Kyle is an expert in these matters. He previously served as a director of research and communications at the highly esteemed Endowment for Middle East Truth. And has been a contributing author to, among other things, its books, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. Kyle, welcome back. It’s good to have you with us.

KYLE SHIDELER:

It’s a pleasure to be here, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Let me ask you about Saudi Arabia. It’s been getting a lot of attention, much of it critical of late, as you know, in particular in connection with the possible declassification at long last of twenty-eight pages of a congressional report looking into its involvement as an official government operation in the 9-11 attacks. Kyle Shideler, you know a lot about the Saudis. Give us a sense of the likelihood that the Saudis were doing such a thing.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, the Saudis were almost certainly – they had some level of involvement. What exactly that is remains to be seen. And obviously, if we were able to access these twenty-eight pages, these classified pages, we would know a lot more. What we do know, of course, is that the Saudis, for a long time, played a role in the sort of support and finance function of organisations which then supported al-Qaeda. We’re talking about organisations like the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, which was the sort of Wahbabist organisation that the Saudis used to fund mosques and fund Islamist organisations which then, in turn, funnelled money to al-Qaeda. So the Saudis played a most key role in creating the infrastructure which then undergirds all of what al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups were able to accomplish.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

We’re visiting with Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office he directs at the Center for Security Policy. And Kyle, you were just touching on an incredibly important point, it seems to me, and that is that what the Saudis have been doing for a long time, whether it’s through this so-called WAMY, the World Association of Muslim Youth, or organisations like the North American Islamic Trust, has been building mosques which in turn create, as you say, a kind of support network for jihadists of the violent stripe as well as the sort of pre-violent kind, as I call it, the civilisation kind. How do they do that? I mean, what is the funding mechanism and what are the orders of magnitude of what they’ve put into this enterprise?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, we’re talking about billions and billions of dollars. They do it through a variety of different ways. Obviously, they have a sort of international structure, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, and other groups like that, which are moving money around to various other Islamic entities which then are, in turn, controlling and building the mosques. You mentioned the North American Islamic Trust, which is a good example of that. The North American Islamic Trust is an organisation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. We know that because of documents that were submitted at the Holy Land Foundation trial. But it’s real job is to hold the deed to US mosques. And so that then enables them, that is the Muslim Brotherhood and other Saudi-supported radicals, to use those mosques for their recruitment for their indoctrination of people who will come to be jihadists. By moving them through stages of indoctrination and recruitment. And so that’s what we saw in the lead up to 9-11. We saw individuals like, for example, Anwar al-Awlaki who worked out of dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church. And individuals like this still, to this day, play a very key role in recruiting and indoctrinating individuals to jihad terrorism.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

When you see what the Brotherhood has been doing, Kyle, it’s unmistakable that it’s about jihad, of course, but what does that tell us, what’s the relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood, obviously the supporting of their activities is going on, but I had thought at one point that the Saudis had actually declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, had they not?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, they had. The on-again, off-again relationship between the Saudis and the Muslim Brotherhood is one of these things that, as Westerners, we’re perhaps often befuddled by. Prior to 9-11 and certainly prior to the takeover of Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis had largely used the Brothers as part of a transmission chain for the moving of this money and this radical material, shariah-adherent material, around the world. But following the takeover in Egypt, the Saudis became very concerned that they themselves would become a target. This is the sort of relationship that the Saudis have always had with Islamists. It’s because despite their own support for these causes abroad, they are not interested in seeing those same forces turned back on them and risking their control of the Arabian peninsula.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s kind of, I guess, a protection racket. They wind up supporting these guys with the condition that they wage their jihad someplace else, not in the kingdom. Let me ask you about one of the most prominent Muslim Brothers that we know about, Kyle, a fellow by the name of Jamal Barzinji. Give us a sense of his background and his involvement with the, well, with the Brotherhood for sure, but also perhaps with the Saudis.

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, Barzinji passed away in September of last year, but during his time in America, he was the co-founder of the International Institute of Islamic Thought located in Fairfax, Virginia, and it’s a very prominent Muslim Brotherhood think tank. They really kind of provide some of the intellectual backbone for the civilisation jihad project that the Muslim Brotherhood carries out in the United States. In fact, one of their – they introduced the term civilizational battle to talk about this idea of a conflict between civilisations at the ideological rather than at the military level. Additionally, Barzinji was the founder or one of the founding members of the Muslim Students Association which was the first Muslim Brotherhood organisation in the United States. He was the general manager of the North American Islamic Trust. He was a member of the shura council of the Islamic Society of North America. And he was a director of the SAFA Group, which was a network of charities and companies in northern Virginia that was raided by federal authorities for funding Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He was also a member of a number of other Brotherhood organisations as well.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Yeah, so this is quite a pedigree. What do you make, Kyle Shideler of the Threat Information office, then of the fact that the White House, which has been quite embracing of Muslim Brotherhood operatives and organisations here and abroad for some time now, has decided to pick, of all people, Jamal Barzinji’s grandson, Zaki, to be its head of public outreach to this Muslim community?

KYLE SHIDELER:

Well, you might say to yourself perhaps the son didn’t follow in the footsteps of the father. Which would, one, indicate to me that you don’t understand the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood because it is very much a family enterprise, but you would also need to know that Zaki Barzinji was himself the former president of the Muslim Youth of North America, which is another Brotherhood-oriented organisation that was named in the explanatory memorandum of the Brotherhood when it was found in that house of that Hamas operative in Virginia and entered into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial. So this is an individual who was a leader of a group, a named group, that the government is well aware is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and yet he is being selected to represent the US government to Muslim-Americans in this country. And that sends a terrible message. But it has been a message that the Obama White House has sent uninterrupted since he took office in 2009.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

It’s nonetheless staggering. Kyle Shideler, we thank you so much for the work that you do birddogging these various organisations and their influence operations, their subversion, their civilisation jihad here in the United States as well as elsewhere around the world. Keep it up my good friend and come back to us again very soon. Next up, we’ll be speaking with Gordon Chang, who will talk about the latest North Korean missile launch and president Obama’s appalling visit to Hiroshima. Right after this.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Also see:

No Posting for an extended period

Hospice-banner

I am now the primary caregiver of my son-in-law who is in the end stages of his life after dealing with brain cancer for two years now. My poor daughter has been doing a wonderful job up until now but she needs a break. My old nursing skills are coming in handy now and with the help of our local Hospice we will try to give Drake the comfort and support he needs. I will be back to blogging in what could be weeks or months. Thank you all in advance for your prayers and well wishes. We are going to need them.

Islam and Liberal Principles

Published on Apr 27, 2016 by Political Islam

Bill Maher is a self-declared liberal who has the courage and sense to condemn Islam’s brutality against women. And Mr. Maher gets the same response from liberals that I get. He is called a bigot. But, look at what Islam does to liberal principles. I used Wikipedia to get this list:

Freedom of speech: Sharia does not allow anybody to say anything negative about Mohammed and Allah.

Freedom of press: Mohammed cartoons.

Freedom of religion: An apostate from Islam can be killed. Even an atheist wants people to be free to choose what they believe.

Civil rights: all non-Muslims are Kafirs, who are third class subjects under Sharia law.

Democratic society: A Kafir does not have the same rights as a Muslim under Islam.

Secular governments: Secular is not Sharia. Islamic government is a theocracy.

Why do liberals and progressives defend an Islam that will destroy all they find so valuable?