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.

 

A former CIA clandestine officer’s take on the shariah threat

571726492

Secure Freedom Radio, July 19, 2016:

CLARE LOPEZ, Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, former CIA clandestine officer:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

  • Violence against law enforcement continues – this time in Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Unholy alliance between the US Muslim Brotherhood, Black Lives Matter, and Alinskyite Anarchists
  • Damage done by the US Council of Muslim Organizations and its sister organizations across the Western world

(PART TWO): (podcast2): Play in new window | Download

  • Political agenda of those under the USCMO umbrella
  • Explaining shariah
  • Donald Trump and other GOP leaders’ stance concerning refugee resettlement from Muslim nations

(PART THREE): (podcast3): Play in new window | Download

  • Implications of the failed coup in Turkey
  • How the AKP Party has weakened the Turkish military
  • The Gulenist Movement
  • Aspects of jihad still present in Sufism

(PART FOUR): (podcast4): Play in new window | Download

  • Classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report made public
  • Future implications for the US/Saudi alliance
  • Iran and Hezbollah roles in 9/11
  • Instances of Shia and Sunni cooperation in terrorizing the West

(PART FIVE): (podcast5): Play in new window | Download

  • What to expect from a nuclear Iran
  • Can the MEK Party force regime change in Tehran?
  • Update on Hillary Clinton in regards to Benghazi

Does Erdogan Want To Be Sultan?

9P4ShOV

Democracy is like a train — when you reach your stop, you get off.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 20, 2016:

Last Friday’s failed coup attempt in Turkey, which claimed the lives of over 200 individuals, has left a lot of speculation about the causes of the incident and Turkish President Erdogan’s level of collusion. Erdogan has already stated that the coup attempt “is a blessing from Allah, because it will allow us to purge the military[.]” Reuters reports on the current number of detainees or those suspended by Turkish authorities at around 50,000 people – including military personnel, members of law enforcement, court officials, teachers and civil servants. Erdogan is clearly using this division to further Turkey into a more autocratic system of governance with him at the helm. For example, in a 2015 speech Erdogan addressed the issue of altering Turkey’s Constitution to match his expanded presidential role stating:

“There is a president with de facto power in the country, not a symbolic one. The president should conduct his duties for the nation directly, but within his authority. Whether one accepts it or not, Turkey’s administrative system has changed. Now, what should be done is to update this de facto situation in the legal framework of the constitution[.]”

Erdogan paints himself as an ally to the West, but he’s unquestionably an Islamist using the democratic process to transform a once secular-democratic country of the Ataturk tradition to an authoritarian Islamic state that punishes dissenting opinions.  Journalists, politicians, academics, military figures, and religious leaders alike have suffered under his rule.

Freedom House, an independent organization that monitors freedom and democracy, labeled Turkey as “Not Free” in 2016 – receiving poor rankings in different categories such as legal environment (26/30 with 30 being worst), political environment (30/40 with 40 being worst), economic environment (15/30 with 30 being worst), and press freedom score (71/100 with 100 being worst). Freedom House explains that constitutional protections such as freedom of press and expression are subverted by “the penal code, the criminal procedure code, and the harsh, broadly worded antiterrorism law that essentially leave punishment of normal journalistic activity to the discretion of prosecutors and judges.” For example, in 2015, Turkish authorities charged three Vice News journalists on terrorism related charges.  They have since been released with the help of freedom and human rights organizations.

Erdogan has made it clear that one of his chief rivals in his quest for power is an Islamic cleric named Fethullah Gülen, whom he accused of staging the recent coup attempt. Gülen is often regarded as a ‘moderate’ in the West but shares a similar Islamist ideology to that of Erdogan. Gülen, like the Muslim Brotherhood, goes by the strategy of gradualism or incrementalism to slowly bring about an Islamic state with the implementation of sharia. Gülen has built a vast network of schools and cultural centers around the world to gradually expand Islam’s role within society. This deceptive strategy is revealed in a former Gülen sermon, of which this is an excerpt:

You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.

Because of Gülen’s influence and following within Turkey he is seen as a major threat by Erdogan. Erdogan officially designated Gülen’s movement a terrorist group and vowed to come after its members. Erdogan is now using the failed coup to try once more to extradite Gülen and clampdown on his followers.

Turkey is not only a strategic NATO ally but also holds considerable political clout with the EU in regards to Europe’s Muslim immigration crisis.  For that reason, he is likely to enjoy considerable support from the United States and the EU in spite of his autocratic tendencies.  As Erdogan continues to gain power and advances toward his aspirations of another Ottoman empire ruled by Sharia, the EU can either placate Turkish demands or stand up for their European values. Let’s hope they choose the latter.

***

Also see:

How Serious Is Sweden’s Fight against Islamic Terrorism and Extremism?

Gatestone Institute, by Nima Gholam Ali Pour, July 17, 2016

  • Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.
  • Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? As usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.
  • “As soon as these people… say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.” — Inspector Leif Fransson, Swedish border police.
  • Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

Like all other European countries, Sweden is trying to fight against jihadists and terrorists, but it often seems as if the key players in Sweden have no understanding of what the threats are or how to deal with them.

In 2014, for instance, the Swedish government decided to set up a post called the “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism.” But instead of appointing an expert as the national coordinator, the government appointed the former party leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin. Apart from Sahlin having a high school degree, she is mostly known for a corruption scandal. As a party leader of the Social Democrats, she lost the 2010 election, and as a minister in several Socialist governments, she has not managed to distinguish herself in any significant way. Göran Persson, who was Prime Minister of Sweden from 1996 to 2006, described Mona Sahlin this way:

“People believe she has a greater political capacity than she has. What comes across her lips is not so remarkable. Her strength is not thinking, but to convey messages.”

With such a background, it was no surprise that she was ineffective as National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism. But the fact that she used her high government agency to help her friends came as a shock to the Swedish public. Sahlin had hired her former bodyguard for a position at her agency and signed a false certificate that he earned $14,000 dollars monthly, so that he could receive financing to purchase a $1.2-million-dollar home.

Sahlin also gave the man’s relative an internship, even though the application had been declined. Before Sahlin resigned in May 2016, she said, “I help many of my friends.”

Despite the fact that Sweden has a Ministry of Justice responsible for issues that would seem far more related to violent extremism, Sweden has, for some reason, placed the agency to combat violent extremism under the Ministry of Culture.

While the U.S sees the fight against Islamic extremism as a security issue, Sweden evidently believes that combating violent extremism should be placed in a ministry responsible for issues such as media, democracy, human rights and national minorities. With such a delegation of responsibility, the government seems either to be trying to hamper efforts to combat violent extremism, or it does not understand the nature of the threat.

The lack of understanding of violent extremism, combined with politicizing the problem, has been evident, for instance, in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. After the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the city councilor responsible for safety and security in Malmö, Andreas Schönström, said that European right-wing extremism is a bigger threat than violent Islamism. And on June 5, 2016, Jonas Hult, Malmö’s security manager, wrote: “The right-wing forces in Malmö are the biggest threat.”

With such statements, one would think that perhaps Malmö is a city filled with neo-Nazi gangs. Not so. Malmö is a city that usually ends up in the news because of Islamic anti-Semitism or extremist activists working to destroy Israel. There have been no reports of any neo-Nazi movements in Malmö in the recent past.

When supporters of Pegida (an anti-Islamic migration political movement in Europe) came to Malmö, they had to be protected by the police due to thousands of extremist activists and Muslims protesting the presence of Pegida. Of Malmö’s residents, 43.2% were either born abroad or their parents were.

Further, the Social Democrat politicians have held local municipal power in Malmö since 1919. To say that Malmö is somehow a place where right-wing extremism is a threat is simply not based on facts. Instead of seriously combating violent extremism, many in Sweden have chosen — possibly imagining it easier — to politicize the problem.

Sweden also has not yet reached the point where the authorities distance themselves from violent extremism. The association Kontrakultur (a cultural and social association in Malmö),receives about $37,000 annually from the municipal cultural committee of Malmö. On its website, Kontrakultur writes that it cooperates with an organization called Förbundet Allt åt alla (“The Association Everything for Everyone”). This organization, in turn, according to the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism, consists of violent extremist activists.

The idea that municipal funds should in no way go to organizations that cooperate with violent extremists is something not yet rooted in Sweden. In June 2016, for example, a 46-year-old Islamic State jihadi arrived in Malmö. He was taken into custody by the police for speedy deportation. But when he applied for asylum, the Swedish Migration Agency took over the matter to examine his asylum application, and ordered the deportation stopped. Inspector Leif Fransson of the border police described the situation:

“As soon as these people throw out their trump card and say ‘Asylum’, the gates of heaven open.”

In August 2015, the Swedish government submitted a document to Parliament outlining the Swedish strategy against terrorism. Among other things, the document stated:

“It is important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism and terrorism.”

Under the headline “Gender Perspective” in a committee directive from the Swedish government on the mission of the National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism you can observe:

“The violent extremist environments consist mainly of men, and in the extremist movements there are individuals who oppose gender equality and women’s rights. It is therefore important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism, and that norms that interact and contribute to the emergence of violent environments are effectively counteracted.”

Perhaps the Swedish government has a secret plan to convince jihadists to become feminists? But as usual, Swedish politicians have chosen to politicize the fight against extremism and terrorism, and address the issue as if it were about parental leave instead of Sweden’s security.

Mona Sahlin, who was Sweden’s “National Coordinator Against Violent Extremism,” until she resigned in May amid corruption allegations, is shown posing with Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan in July 2010. The Swedish government’s directives to her agency stressed that it is “important that there is a gender perspective in efforts to prevent violent extremism.” (Image source: Social Democratic Party)

There is no evidence that “gender perspective” is relevant or useful in the fight against extremism and terrorism, yet we see that the Swedish government, in several documents related to terrorism and extremism, evidently believes that “gender perspective” is what should be used in the fight against those threats. This gives just some idea of how strenuously Sweden wants to disregard the problem, or even ask experts for help.

One might argue that this is because Sweden has never been exposed to Islamic terrorism or that extremism is not something that concerns the nation. Sweden has, however, had experience in facing Islamic terrorism. On December 11, 2010, a jihadist blew himself up in central Stockholm. Taimour Abdulwahab did not manage to hurt anyone, but Sweden got a taste of Islamic terrorism and has every reason to want to defend itself against more of it.

Islamic extremism is, unfortunately, becoming more widespread, especially in Sweden’s major cities. Gothenburg, for example, has been having major problems with it. In November 2015, there were reports that 40% of the 300 Swedish jihadists in Syria and Iraq came from Gothenburg. The only country that has, per capita, more of its citizens as jihadists in Iraq and Syria than Sweden, is Belgium.

As facts accumulate, there is much information indicating that Sweden has huge problems dealing with Islamic extremism and jihadism. The Swedish Security Service (Säpo), in the beginning of 2015, published a press release using the words “historic challenge” to describe the threat from violent Islamism. Already in May 2015 the head of Säpo, Anders Thornberg,expressed doubts that the agency could handle the situation if the recruitment of jihadists in Sweden continued or increased.

Experts in Sweden’s security apparatus have clearly expressed that violent Islamism is a clear and present danger to the security of Sweden, but the politicized debate about Islamic terrorism and extremism does not seem capable of absorbing this warning.

This general politicization, combined with the failure to prioritize the fight against terrorism and extremism, is the reason Sweden is, and continues to be, a magnet for extremists and terrorists. Jihadists who come to Sweden know that there are many liberal politicians looking for invisible “right-wing extremists”, and that there are feminists who think what is really important is using “gender perspective” in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jihadists also know that there are large gaps in the Swedish bureaucracy and legislation that can be exploited. These are the policies that have been created by Swedish politicians. One can therefore only question if Sweden seriously wants to fight the threats of terrorism and extremism.

Nima Gholam Ali Pour is a member of the board of education in the Swedish city of Malmö and is engaged in several Swedish think tanks concerned with the Middle East. He is also editor for the social conservative website Situation Malmö. Gholam Ali Pour is the author of the Swedish book “Därför är mångkultur förtryck“(“Why multiculturalism is oppression”).

***

Published on Jul 13, 2016 by Gad Saad

We discuss a broad range of issues dealing with Sweden’s current reality, as shaped by stifling political correctness, pathological virtue signalling, and breathtakingly lax open border immigration policies.

Ingrid’s articles at the Gatestone Institute: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/aut…

 

28 Pages Tie ‘Moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood To 9/11

1

CounterJihad, by Paul Sperry, July 19, 2016:

Washington has assumed the Muslim Brotherhood is, as President Obama’s intelligence czar put it, a nonviolent group “largely secular” in nature.  It has even invited Brotherhood figures into Muslim outreach powwows at both ends of Pennsylvania. But the newly declassified 28 pages detailing Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks casts serious doubt on the assumption that the Brotherhood is a benign organization.

In fact, the now-largely uncensored section of the congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11 reveals that U.S.-stationed Saudi intelligence officers who aided the hijackers in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks were in contact with senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, suggesting the Saudi-funded Brotherhood was part of the support network for the hijackers and involved in the 9/11 conspiracy.

For example consider page 416 of the Joint Inquiry report, a page that until last week had been completely blacked out for 14 years.  This page states that Saudi intelligence agent Omar al-Bayoumi, who assisted two of the Saudi hijackers with financing, housing and flight schools, was at the same time associating with several leaders of a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas charitable front known as the Holy Land Foundation.

“The FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under FBI investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas,” the report said. The Justice Department said the Holy Land Foundation was also a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.  The connection was later proven in Federal court.

Federal investigative sources tell CounterJihad that one of the Holy Land Foundation contacts was Mohammad el-Mezain, who in 2009 was convicted of providing material support to Hamas suicide bombers and other terrorists in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorist-financing case in US history. Bayoumi met with El-Mezain in San Diego, where he was handling two of the Saudi hijackers who went on to attack the Pentagon. Before his arrest, El-Mezain headed Holy Land Foundation’s San Diego office and also served as a leader in a local mosque attended by the hijackers.

El-Mezain, a hardcore Muslim Brother now serving out a 15-year federal prison sentence on Terminal Island in Los Angeles, was also in contact at the time with al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki.  Awlaki, later killed in a US drone strike, privately counseled the hijackers on martyrdom and jihad at a small, non-descript Saudi-funded mosque in San Diego, and later at a Saudi-built mosque in Falls Church, Va., where the hijackers followed him.

I have obtained Saudi Embassy travel itinerary showing Awlaki and El-Mezain acted together as tour guides on Saudi pilgrimages to Mecca.

The pair also once lived in the same small Colorado apartment complex together. Federal investigators tell me El-Mezain likely met Awlaki (aka Aulaqi) in Fort Collins, Colo., around 1990, when the two were neighbors and attended the same local mosque. Authorities have traced El-Mezain’s address at the time to 500 West Prospect Rd. in Fort Collins. Awlaki also listed an address then at 500 West Prospect Rd. El-Mezain occupied Apt. 19C, while Awlaki rented Apt. 23L.

El-Mezain also happens to have been a major fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Washington-based Hamas front group that claims to be a “civil-rights organization.” The Justice Department implicated CAIR and its founder in the Holy Land Foundation case as unindicted co-conspirators, while identifying CAIR as a US front for the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch Hamas.

El-Mezain co-founded the Holy Land Foundation with Hamas terrorist Ghassan Elashi, who was also a founding CAIR director. Elashi is serving a 65-year prison term for funneling more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers and other Palestinian terrorist leaders. El-Mezain and Elashi are both related to fugitive Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

Elashi attended a secret Hamas meeting in Philadelphia in 1993 with Nihad Awad, the current executive director of CAIR, whom both the FBI and NSA have investigated and monitored for alleged terrorist activities. The next year, CAIR was formed.

CAIR is mentioned by name in secret Brotherhood documents as part of a 1994 agenda of a secret US “committee” to support Hamas — the smoking gun linking CAIR directly to the Hamas network inside America.  Those documents are reproduced in the appendix of Muslim Mafia:  Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.

Does this tie CAIR into 9/11 along with the Holy Land Foundation? According to Muslim Mafia, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad once hosted the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, now a convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist, at his apartment in Santa Clara, California.  Ahmad also helped raise money for al-Qaida kingpin Ayman al-Zawahiri through his Santa Clara mosque, which was founded by senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Before the 9/11 attacks, Bayoumi and another Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers in San Diego, Osama Bassnan, were investigated for ties to the Blind Sheik and who hosted a party for him. It’s not immediately known if Ahmad also attended that party, or if he had any contacts with the 9/11 hijackers or their Saudi handlers.

Attempts to reach Ahmad and Awad for comment were unsuccessful.

The nexus between the Saudis, the 9/11 hijackers and the Muslim Brotherhood runs even deeper.

Sources tell me that a still-redacted section of the Joint Inquiry report reveals that El-Mezain was also linked to 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui “through a member of the Muslim Brotherhood,” who attempted to post bond for Moussaoui’s roommate. Moussaoui recently testified in a deposition that he got help and funding directly from Saudi royals during his stay in America.

There’s yet another direct tie between al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood: the former head of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s shura council was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Abdurahman Alamoudi, who infiltrated both the Clinton and Bush administrations, is now serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism.

In 1996, Alamoudi — who founded the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque — told a Muslim audience in Illinois: “Either we do it now or we do it after a hundred years, but this country will become a Muslim country.”

As the White House and Homeland Security continue to conduct outreach with Muslim Brotherhood front groups, declassification of 9/11 investigative documents reveal that these very same groups may have played a role alongside several Saudi government conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. They also reveal that the hijackers got help obtaining housing and IDs, along with other support, while attending several Muslim Brotherhood-controlled mosques in California, Arizona, Florida, Virginia and other states.

This terrorist support network is still in place inside America.

Also see:

Teenager who terrorized German train appears in Islamic State video

16-07-19-Muhammad-RiyadLong War Journal, by Thomas Joscelyn, July 19. 2016:

Amaq News Agency, a propaganda arm of the Islamic State, has released a short video featuring a teenager identified as “Muhammad Riyad.” According to Amaq, Riyad was responsible for yesterday’s attack on a train in the German city of Würzburg.

Riyad brandishes a knife throughout the 2 minute video. He calls on all Muslims to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, saying that the Caliphate has now been resurrected in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The teenager adds the Muslims can join one of the Islamic State’s so-called provinces around the world, including in Libya.

At least several people were wounded when the assailant attacked them with an axe and knife, leaving a bloody scene on the floor and seats of the train. German media reported that the terrorist shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” as he struck, according to BBC News.

Press reports have identified the attacker as a 17 year-old Afghan refugee, but offered few other details.

Earlier this morning, Amaq also released a written statement saying the assault was the work of an Islamic State “soldier.” Citing an “inside source,” Amaq reported: “Individual who carried out the axe attack in Germany was a soldier of the Islamic State who executed the operation in response to calls to target nations in the coalition fighting the Islamic State.”

Nearly identical language was used in Amaq’s claim of responsibility for the July 14 massacre in Nice, France. In addition, the Islamic State’s media arms often refer to the jihadists who strike in the group’s name as “soldiers.” [See LWJ report, Islamic State claims its ‘soldier’ carried out Bastille Day attack in Nice, France.]

The video released by Amaq was obviously recorded before the train’s passengers were slashed. Riyad speaks directly into his own digital camera. The fact that Amaq was able to release the video within one day of the incident suggests that Riyad was in touch with the Islamic State’s media operatives, or knew someone in the Islamic State’s network who could send it to Amaq.

Some accounts were quick to argue that the axe and knife assault was the work of a so-called “lone wolf.” But that hasn’t been established. The crude operation did not require any real expertise or sophisticated planning, but the Islamic State’s video shows that Riyad had at least one tie to the group, even if it was only a digital one.

In mid-June, Amaq released a similar video from another Islamic State loyalist, Larossi Abballa. The production was recorded at the scene of a brutal double murder in Magnanville, France, which is less than 40 miles north of Paris. Abballa stabbed a police officer and his partner to death, recounting the horror show for the Islamic State’s audience and the rest of the world. The couple’s son was saved when French forces stormed the home.

Abballa was arrested in 2011 on terror-related charges after he traveled to Pakistan to meet with one or more al Qaeda operatives. He was convicted by a court and sentenced to a few years in prison. He was ultimately freed and pledged allegiance to Baghdadi.

Like Riyad, Abballa was killed at the scene of his terrorist assault.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

***

***

From Vlad Tepes: A German priest manages to speak quite a bit about the attack without saying anything at all.Gates of Vienna has a post on this guy featured in the video, and another priest who actually seems willing to see and speak on the real.

Why is Virginia a Haven for Would-be Jihadists?

jihad bby Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
July 18, 2016

What is it about Virginia?

Already this year, six men from the “Cavalier State” have been arrested on terror-related charges – two of them in July alone. Another man has joined the Islamic State in Syria. Two of those charged were stopped from making a similar trip.

These most recent arrests, one on July 3, the other on July 8, were based on charges of planning to provide material support to ISIS. Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, a former member of the National Guard who was arrested July 3, allegedly discussed planning an attack against U.S. military in the homeland inspired by fellow Virginian Nidal Hasan’s 2009 shooting at Fort Hood. According to court documents, Jalloh quit the Guard and later attempted to obtain funds and weapons for a domestic attack after being inspired by Anwar al Awlaki’s videos on YouTube.

Five days later, Virginia law enforcement arrested Haris Qamar, following an extended FBI sting operation. According to an FBI affidavit, Qamar made statements to an informant such as, “By-bye, DC, stupid a— kufar [infidels], kill ’em all,” and posted to his Twitter account a prayer for “strength to the mujahedeen to slaughter every single US military officer.”

Earlier arrests this year – two in June and one in January – involved men planning to join the jihad in Syria, rather than waging domestic battles. In one case, Mohamad Jamal Khweis, who had already joined the Islamic State, surrendered to Kurdish forcesin Iraq in an apparent effort to escape the hell of life in the new caliphate. Now awaiting sentencing in the United States, he faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Why does this keep happening in Virginia? What makes its young Muslims more susceptible to the radical messages from Awlaki and ISIS social media?

Virginia has proved to be an active center for radical Islamist activity over the years and has bred more than its share of terrorists since 9/11. It was at the Hamas-linkedDar al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, for instance, that terrorist icon Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni-American whom counter-terrorism officials say inspired hundreds of other Muslims to take arms in violent jihad, once served as imam. Among his disciples: Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted in 2005 of collaborating with al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush; and several of the 9/11 hijackers.

And it was in Virginia that, in the still fragile and bewildered aftermath of 9/11, “Beltway snipers” John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo shot and killed more than 12 people, including an FBI analyst, in October 2002.

While internet and social media remain powerful weapons in the terrorist recruitment arsenal, personal connections remain the most potent tool. Honor student Ali Shukri Amin, charged with soliciting donations for ISIS, is also suspected of helping another Virginian, Reza Niknejad, travel to Syria.

While none of the recent cases implicate specific mosques, the influence of Dar al Hijrah and some of its imams appears to have been widespread.

To some extent, this could be thanks to its current imam, Shaker Elsayed. In 2002, hetold a conference hosted by the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle for North America that deciding whether suicide bombers were martyrs was “an in house business” for Muslims.

In a dramatic speech available online since 2013, Elsayed rants against the West and calls for “the power of faith” and “the power of armament.” In the post-9/11 world, he observes, even world leaders have “bowed down” to the Western pressure. “We the Muslim masses should never bow down except to Allah!” he says, “and this will give us our dignity back.”

But other Virginia religious leaders have gone further. Ali al-Timimi, a cancer researcher, was the “spiritual leader” of a group of 11 men convicted of terrorism in 2003 and 2004, Al-Timimi is now serving a life sentence for recruiting Muslims to travel to Pakistan and train for holy war.

Shortly after 9/11, according to the New York Times’ coverage of his trial, al-Timimi invited a group of young Muslim men to dinner, where he told them they had a religious duty to fight with the Taliban against American forces. Prosecutors described that statement as “treason,” calling al-Timimi a “purveyor of hate and war.”

More than 10 years after his conviction, al-Timimi remains a figurehead among radical groups in Virginia and the Capitol district. The Peace and Justice Foundation, which defended al-Timimi and his followers, refers in online documents to a government conspiracy, while numerous web sites offer recordings of al-Timimi’s lectures. In addition, a Facebook page devoted to his appeal with more than 2,000 “likes,” has built a community in his support. (Followers even raised $12,000 for his mother’s medical care.)

The Saudi-sponsored Islamic Saudi Academy, which shut down abruptly last month,faced criticism for its textbooks that promote Wahhabism, an extreme version of Islam practiced by the Saudis. The textbooks contained passages “that extolled jihad and martyrdom, called for victory over one’s enemies, and said the killing of adulterers and apostates was ‘justified,'” the Washington Post reported. Those passages were found in school textbooks two years after U.S. officials, shocked by the texts in use in 2006, ordered they be revised. Pre-revision books included statements like, “It is said: the apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews. The swine are the unbelievers of Jesus’ table, the Christians.”

The school’s 1999 valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was convicted in 2005 for supporting al-Qaida and planning to assassinate the president. (Notably, he also taught Islamic Studies at Dar Al Hijrah.)

As Seamus Hughes of the Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center or Cyber & Homeland Security told Fox News, “Northern Virginia has a disproportionate number of people that are drawn to this.”

Ramy Zamzam is a poster child for this observation. He was among five young men who disappeared from their northern Virginia neighborhood in late 2009, only to be arrested by Pakistani authorities who caught them trying to cross into Afghanistan to join jihadists there.

“We are not terrorists,” he said outside a hearing. “We are jihadists, and jihad is not terrorism.”

Muslim groups expressed their horror over the incident and promised a program aimed at de-radicalization.

It’s not clear that any such plan ever emerged. If it did, it’s clearly not working.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

Declassified Pages Link Muslim Brotherhood to 9/11 Network

Hamas supporters march in Gaza (Photo: Video screenshot)

Hamas supporters march in Gaza (Photo: Video screenshot)

Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 18, 2016:

The recently-declassified 28 pages from the official U.S. report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks implicates the Muslim Brotherhood — including Hamas — as being part of the Saudi-linked Islamist network in America that assisted the 9/11 hijackers and Al-Qaeda in general.

On page 7, the report discusses how a suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Omar Al-Bayoumi, may have assisted two 9/11 hijackers and had links to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. It then states:

“In addition, the FBI determined that al-Bayoumi was in contact with several individuals under investigation and with the Holy Land Foundation, which has been under investigation as a fundraising front for Hamas.”

The Holy Land Foundation was later successfully prosecuted and identified as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s wing in the United States. It was set up to finance Hamas, the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing, which is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

(The Brotherhood more broadly is not designated as such, but over 80 members of Congress have endorsed recently-proposed legislation to change that.)

During the course of the Holy Land trial, numerous Brotherhood entities and members were identified. The Justice Department put together a long list of unidentified co-conspirators. The list specifically named Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) as Brotherhood “entities.”

On page 8, a second suspected Saudi intelligence officer, Osama Bassnan, a known supporter of Osama Bin Laden, is mentioned. Bassnan admitted to an FBI asset that he assisted the 9/11 hijackers more than Omar Al-Bayoumi did. Multiple people from the Muslim-American community warned the U.S. government that they believed Bassnan was a secret Saudi agent.

The report states that the FBI had linked Bassnan to the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorist who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Abdel-Rahman is currently serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison. His release is a top objective of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When Mohammed Morsi, an Islamist and member of the Brotherhood, was president of Egypt, he demanded Abdel-Rahman’s release.

When you connect the dots, you’ll see the error of the West’s distinguishing between violent and (ostensibly) non-violent Islamist groups. They use the same international network and are often inseparable operationally, linking back to the same addresses, fronts, preachers, financiers, state sponsors, etc.

The information in the declassified pages should teach us the only workable policy is one that broadly targets the Islamist ideological movement  — including its state sponsors.

Also see:

Dallas & Baton Rouge Ambush of Police Reveals Dangers of Marxist Left in America

President Obama with Attorney General Lynch (far left), DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson (right of President), Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett (far right), and Black Lives Matter leader Brittany Packnett (left of President)

President Obama with Attorney General Lynch (far left), DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson (right of President), Presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett (far right), and Black Lives Matter leader Brittany Packnett (left of President)

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, July 18, 2016:

On June 12, 2016, UTT published an article after the jihadi attack in Orlando, Florida making it clear the marxist/anarchist movement is working with and in support of the jihadi network, and are a threat to the Republic all on their own as well.

“The way is paved for the jihadi organizations by socialist and marxist collaborators who work daily to push law enforcement back on their heels…Everything we are witnessing now is a preparation of the battlefield by our enemy and their collaborators…imagine multiple riots similar to the events in Baltimore, Maryland, where uncontrolled thugs burn, loot, shoot, and destroy American towns.”

Reuters calls Black Lives Matters a “civil rights movement” which is also what it calls Hamas front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

From Dallas, Texas to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as well as Tennessee, Minnesota and elsewhere across America, Marxist/Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panther Party, Code Pink, La Raza, and literally hundreds of others are working to violently disrupt normal policing operations of communities, attack police, and kill police.

Why are they doing this and why are our leaders and the media not speaking honestly about it?  Why are leaders asking police to show “restraint” in the face of deadly attacks?

Because all of this puts law enforcement on the defensive and is a part of the Marxist revolutionary movement which helps it and its friends in the Jihadi Movement gain momentum.

As major media outlets parade “experts” out who say jihadis in Orlando, Nice, and elsewhere are not “true Muslims – contrary to the facts – so too are they portraying terrorists/anarchists from Black Lives Matter and other groups as having legitimate civil rights concerns when their stated aim is revolution, civil unrest, and the killing of law enforcement officers.

Facts

  1.  On average, 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012, according to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports. Using FBI and CDC statistics, Professor Richard R. Johnson (University of Toledo) calculated 112 black men, on average, suffered both justified and unjustified police-involved deaths annually during this period.
  2. This equals 2.5 percent of these 4,472 yearly deaths. For every black man — criminal or innocent — killed by a cop, 40 black men were murdered by other black men.
  3. Twelve percent (12%) of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers.  Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers.
  4. Over the last decade, black males made up 40 percent of all cop killers, even though they are six percent of the population.

How does this fit into the larger threat to our nation?

Black Lives Matter is working hand in hand with Hamas and other jihadi/terrorist groups.

Black Lives Matter is a piece of a much larger Marxist/Socialist threat which works to weaken the society and prepare the battlefield for other enemies as well propel it’s own agenda.

Americans should see the Marxist organizations clearly for who they really are and the threat they present to the community.

Also see:

What happened in Turkey? And what comes next?

AEI, by Michael Rubin, July 17, 2016:

On Friday, as Turks were out and about to mark the start of the evening, elements of the Turkish military sought to stage a coup. There was reason to see such violence coming. Last March, we speculated here at AEIdeas about the possibility that a coup might be brewing. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president and strongman, has only grown increasingly dictatorial and erratic since.

tayyip

What really happened, though, remains unclear, and conspiracies swirl. Below are five questions to consider as Turkey teeters on the precipice:

  • Why is this coup different from others? The coup was unlike any coupTurkey had ever witnessed, and Turkey has seen four over the past decades. The Turkish military has timed past coups for the early morning hours (in 1980, the coup began at 5 am on Sunday) in order to detain sleeping political leaders at their homes). It has closed airspace and shutdown the media. In each of the past coups, the coup leaders themselves made the announcement. On Friday evening, however, a Turkish anchor made the announcement after being handed a note by low-ranked soldiers.
  • Who is responsible? There are three main suspects. The smoke had not cleared before Erdoğan blamed Fethullah Gülen, an Islamic cleric and former Erdoğan ally. Gülen preaches peace and tolerance, although his critics believe he has a hidden agenda. My own views are more conflicted. Erdoğan could never have consolidated power the way he did without the assistance of Gülen’s allies, but once Erdoğan turned on Gülen in 2013, the Pennsylvania-based cleric recognized the danger of Turkey with its constitutional checks-and-balances dismantled. Regardless, Gülen denies any role in Friday’s events. Nor has he ever had a powerbase in the military. Indeed, the Turkish General Staff has long vetted officer candidates to prevent Gülen’s followers from rising through the ranks.

The second are traditional Kemalists, those who follow the secular and pro-Western principles laid out by modern Turkey’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. While Erdoğan has eroded both the Turkish military’s power and promoted Islamists within its ranks, it is possible that secularists in the military acted alone without the coordination of the top, Erdoğan-appointed brass. Erdoğan has made no secret of his desire to transform Turkey into a religious republic. As he consolidated power, Kemalists may have calculated that this was their last, best chance to save the old Turkey. If so, the units involved may have counted on popular support to overcome gaps in their plan. After all, the military traditionally polls as the most trusted public institutions in Turkey while the public trusts the political class far less.

The third possibility might be that Erdoğan himself sparked the coup as a sort of Reichstag fire. Sustaining this theory is the sheer incompetence of the coup plotters, as well as the fact that Erdoğan apparently had lists of thousands to detain compiled ahead of time. That he called the coup plot a “gift from God” only feeds the conspiracy further. So too does the fact that Erdoğan’s supporters were armed and ready to go immediately after his televised call to take to the streets. Turks know that there is little spontaneity in their politics. For example, after Erdoğan blew up at Shimon Peres in Davos in 2009, thousands greeted him at the airport waving Palestinian flags, the metro hours having been mysteriously extended for that day only. Even in a city as bustling as Istanbul, it would normally be hard to find thousands of Palestinian flags at 3 a.m.

  • What is Erdoğan’s end goal? Whether or not Erdoğan planned the coup himself in an orgy of Machiavellianism, one thing is certain: He is now the winner and will consolidate power even further. What Erdoğan’s end goal is remains open for debate, however. Eight years ago, it appeared he aspired to be the Turkish equivalent of Russian President Vladimir Putin. More recently, Turks have suggested that his goal was grander, thinkcaliphate or Islamic republic. Whatever Erdoğan seeks, separation of powers does not appear on his agenda.
  • What’s next for Turkey? Erdoğan is on the warpath. He believes he has acarte blanche to target enemies at home and perhaps abroad as well. Turkey already has the high proportion per capita of imprisoned journalists. Expect prisons to become more crowded. The danger is that Turkish society is still divided. Erdoğan has never won more than 50% of the vote. The Kurdish insurgency is only growing more virulent. The terrorist attacks that have rocked Turkey in recent months may only be the tip of the iceberg. Here’s my biggest fear: The closing of Turkey’s political space may herald a new era of political assassination inside Turkey. Elections were once the escape valve but, with Turks no longer able to campaign openly and with atrocity fanning the flames of animosity even further, opponents, ideologues, and those who feel they must rectify personal or political grievance may turn to the gun. Not only will Erdoğan be a target, but also the heads of all major political parties, newspaper editors, television anchors, and civil society leaders.
  • What does it mean for the United States? It’s time for some serious introspection in Washington. If the coup attempt caught the State Department and intelligence community by surprise, it’s responsible to ask why? Are diplomats talking to themselves or Turks? Are their contacts relevant and broad, or are they trapped in an elite circle? Likewise, what are the base assumptions that blinded US intelligence? Erdoğan’s actions will challenge US policy in other ways. When President Obama declared that all parties should support Erdoğan, it is doubtful he meant to give the Turkish leader a green light to imprison thousands of opponents. And even though Obama came out against the coup plot, the Turkish government has redoubled anti-American incitement in recent days.

Turkish media suggests that the United States must have had a hand in the coup attempt because Gülen resides in Pennsylvania. Erdoğan has renewed calls for Gülen’s extradition, and appears willing to tie US use of the Incirlik air base to his demand. In effect, this means, Erdoğan is holding the fight against the Islamic State hostage to his domestic political aims. Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, equivocates.

Let us hope Obama and Kerry are students of history. When Jimmy Carter considered acquiescing to Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s demand to extradite the shah who, like Gülen, came to the United States seeking medical treatment, the result was not peace but rather a sense that blackmail was an effective tool.

***

Also see:

A Multi-Culti Thomas Jefferson

506px-Liberty_Bell_2008

Islamists and progressives both want the Founders to have said something different than what they really said.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 16, 2016:

When reflecting on the rich history of the city of Philadelphia, one might think of William Penn, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.  The timeless principles of freedom and liberty speak not only to the Philadelphian but also more broadly to the American.  Because of Philadelphia’s significance and contribution to America, its history has become a major target of revisionism.  Despite having different motivations, Liberal-progressives and Islamists both share the common goal of turning our founding fathers into advocates of multiculturalism.

For Islamists it’s all about making the founding fathers supportive of Islam, and of course they mean political Islam.  Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. is helping create that narrative by hosting an event in Philadelphia’s City Hall July 26, with Denise Spellberg, author of the controversial book titled Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders.  David F. Forte, Cleveland State University professor of law, lays out two important themes asserted in the book that reveal Spellberg’s prejudices: 

1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.

The ‘Islamophobia’ campaign has propagated a lot of nonsense, from ‘Islamophobia’accelerating global warming to the rewriting of a more ‘inclusive’ American history as Spellberg’s book seems to indicate.  To think that Jefferson and the founding fathers included political Islam when they championed religious liberty is ridiculous.  Religious liberty and Islamic law are incompatible because Islamic law prohibits and punishes beliefs that are in opposition to Islam.  This multiculturalist narrative Spellberg is trying to sell is similar to that advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood linked Congressman Keith Ellison (first Muslim Congressman).  Ellison was the one who took his oath of office by swearing in on the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, and tries to insinuate that because Jefferson owned a Quran it helped mold his views on religious liberty and toleration.  A 2007 Seattle Times article reports Ellison’s take on swearing in on the Quran:

“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”

In reality, Jefferson not only had some unflattering things to say about Islam but also got a taste of radical Islam from a conversation with the Ambassador of Tripoli at the time:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Besides Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. who are some of the other supporters of the event with Spellberg in Philadelphia?  Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the backers of the event. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America is dedicated to “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.”  CAIR has even given Spellberg an awardthat epitomizes her work that’s being used for the Islamist cause:

I-CAIR Faith in Freedom Award from the Council American-Islamic Relations, Cleveland, Ohio Chapter, “For promoting a better understanding of the history of religious freedom in America and for writing Muslims back into our nation’s founding narrative through the extraordinary and illuminating scholarly work, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders,” May 11, 2014.

Militant Islam Monitor.org provides information about some of the other event sponsors such as:

…They include Emerge Pac, the Universal Muslim Business Association, Masjid Masjidullah and ICPIC. The Islamic Cultural Preservation And Information Council which receives funding from the PA Council on the Arts among others.http://icpic.co/. EmergePac is a subsidiary of EmergeUSA which is headed by stealth Islamist lawyer Khurrum Wahid.”Emerge USA, despite its patriotic sounding name, has an extremely radical agenda based on terrorism and bigotry shrouded in the guise of political advocacy. The main individual behind Emerge USA is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. They include members of al-Qaeda and financiers of the Taliban. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.

The contact for the event is Imam Salaam Muhsin, who recently spoke at CAIR-Philadelphia’s Interfaith Press Conference after the Orlando massacre.  The sponsors have a long list of Islamist ties to say the least.  On the event/luncheon flyer it is also noted that it occurs during the week of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, advertising for their liberal fan base.  This progressive/Islamist alliance is working together to reinterpret our nation’s founding fathers (and founding documents) in order to change the American narrative to fit their multiculturalist vision for the U.S.  For the Islamists it’s all about using multiculturalism to insert political Islam/Sharia into society under the guise of religious liberty.

An Award-Winning Documentary About Islamic Terrorists Becomes Hate Speech

video grabIPT, by Steven Emerson
Investor’s Business Daily
July 15, 2016

At what point over the past 20 years did citing statements and literature by Islamic terrorists become banned “hate speech?”

A documentary that I produced in 1994 for PBS concerning civilizational jihad won numerous awards, yet YouTube in recent days removed a video posted by CounterJihad that covered the very same topic in much more limited scope.

Both my film, “Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America,” and CounterJihad’s “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilizational Jihad” expose the Islamification of the West waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organizations in the U.S. The Brotherhood, born in Egypt in 1928, is the fountainhead of nearly every deadly Islamist organization on the planet today.

I quoted Abdullah Azzam, the Muslim leader most responsible for expanding the jihad into an international holy war, speaking in Brooklyn, N.Y.: “The jihad, the fighting, is obligatory on you wherever you can perform it. And just as when you are in America you must fast – unless you are ill or on a voyage – so, too, must you wage jihad. The word jihad means fighting only, fighting with the sword.”

CounterJihad quotes from a Brotherhood governing document: “The (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers.”

YouTube in its “hate speech” policy explains that it refers “to content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as: race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation/gender identity.”

Neither project did any such thing.

All that’s changed over the past two decades is the ability of Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to successfully exert their will on a very sensitive and politically correct media and cultural elite.

YouTube eventually reposted CounterJihad’s video, but the exercise is telling.

CAIR and its cohorts — including the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Circle of North America — spend millions to portray all Muslims as the real victims of every Islamic terrorist massacre against innocent Westerners.

After every Islamist terror attack, they rush to the microphones to blame U.S. foreign policy for inciting the sadistic killers, often before law enforcement confirms anything. They reinforce recruitment propaganda that says the West has engaged in a “war with Islam” and therefore deflect responsibility from the murderers themselves.

Their latest stunt is a report on the contrived term “Islamophobia,” which suggests that those who fear Islamic terrorism are racist and behave irrationally toward Muslims.

They have become incredibly effective at inflaming tensions between Muslims and Westerners, who by and large harbor no ill will toward each other.

Their “war on Islam” and claims of Islamophobia distract from the underlying agenda of Islamic terrorists.

They intend to establish a global empire known as a Caliphate governed by Sharia law. They are engaged in a full-scale overt and covert war to cripple every Western ideal that stands in their way.

CAIR sabotages prospects of unification by telling Muslim Americans to not cooperate with law enforcement. They assist in raising money for radical mosques and their fiery imams in the U.S. through their actions. They preach solidarity with their Middle Eastern terrorist overseers.

CAIR’s roots are firmly planted in a Hamas-support network in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood. Every statement it issues includes that asterisk at the end, although one would be hard-pressed to find anyone working in the media brave enough to cite it.

San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook and Orlando gunman Omar Mateen found resonance in the videos of the late al-Qaida ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki, which indoctrinated them with radical Islamist teachings and instructed them to become martyrs. The jihadists behind the carnage in Brussels and Paris were all directed and influenced by ISIS.

Let’s stop the nonsense.

By portraying all non-Muslims as enemies, CAIR and its allies fail to educate anyone about the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

If CAIR and its fellow travelers were truly concerned about Muslims in the U.S., they should reject assaults on the values of Western culture and condemn those who exploit Islam as the inspiration for horrific murders.

That’s not hate speech. It is a truth that was just as valid 20 years ago as it is today.

Steven Emerson is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

Paul Sutliff on the Islamic “Long March Through the Institutions”

Huma and Hillary

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlo, July 16, 2016:

This is the first part of a two part interview with author and educator Paul Sutliff. Paul discusses infiltration of the US government by Muslim Brotherhood entities in this segment.

This is the second part of the interview with Paul Sutliff. Paul explains the US Government’s use of the office of Countering Violent Extremism to assist the Muslim Brotherhood, and of all things, fund mosques.

Paul recently appeared as a guest on Blog Talk Radio discussing the CVE and Islam in the United States.

The Rebel has published several articles on the Countering Violent Extremism policy previously from a more academic point of view, featuring interviews with retired US Army intelligence officer, Stephen Coughlin.

Rather than reducing the level of terrorism, these so-called “Countering Violent Extremism” policies seem to be part of the strategy of Islamic infiltrators to increase the influence of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, in tandem with UN resolution 16/18. 

Paul is the author of two booksCivilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam, and Stealth Jihad Phase two. American Colleges.

Paul’s website is here.

CAIR Chief’s Reflexive Terror Denial Stands Apart

Nihad-AwadIPT News, July 15, 2016

Before the bodies of all the victims had been removed from the streets of Nice, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad insisted that religion had nothing to do with the terrorist attack that killed at least 84 people.

A French resident of Tunisian descent rammed a truck into a crowd of revelers gathered to watch fireworks commemorating Bastille Day. The truck traveled as much as two kilometers, leaving twisted bodies in its wake.

French President Francois Hollande described the “undeniable terrorist nature” of the attack, which was further established by the presence of guns and explosives inside the killer’s truck.

“All of France is under the threat of Islamic terrorism,” Hollande said. “Our vigilance must be relentless.”

To Awad, this was reckless and inflammatory.

“French President #Hollande is pouring oil on the fire by describing the #Nice crime as Islamic terrorism and subjects France’s Muslims to danger,” Awadwrote, in Arabic, on Twitter. “What is Islamic about this crime?”

Plenty of analysts have shown exactly how terrorist groups like ISIS are deeply rootedin Islamic theology. As IPT Shillman Senior Fellow Pete Hoekstra noted, Islamist terrorists have been calling for such attacks for years, and al-Qaida specifically suggested this kind of attack in 2010, using a mock Ford-150 ad: “With the right tools and a little effort, the truck can be turned into a killing machine from a Wes Craven horror film,” an article in al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine said.

That seems to be a pretty good description for what happened in Nice.

ISIS spokesman Abū Muhammad al Adnānī ash Shāmī made a similar suggestion in a2014 statement: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war … kill him in any manner or way however it may be … Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.” [Emphasis added]

Awad’s denial does nothing to discredit these ideas or the Islamic theology underpinning them. In another tweet, he claimed such talk was “blaming all Muslims for the heinous #Nicemurders.#Don‘tCallTerroristsJihadists.”

Compare Awad’s reaction with other Muslim voices. He doesn’t win points for courage.

Writing in the Telegraph, former Islamist Maajid Nawaz begged Muslims and non-Muslims alike to stop pushing the counter-productive “nothing to do with Islam” message. “Your good intentions towards us Muslims are only making the problem worse,” he wrote.

Terrorist groups like ISIS successfully recruit new members in part because “we have allowed hardline Islamism to permeate our communities and mobilise the vulnerable,” Nawaz wrote. “To stop it we have to make it less attractive, and that is a long-term struggle, similar to those against racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism.”

He could have been speaking directly to Awad when he added, “please stop denying the nature of jihadism. Please stop ignoring the narratives which drive these attacks. Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformist Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam against all the odds.”

Nawaz also called out the hypocrisy of critics who don’t think images of the carnage in Nice should be shown.

Speaking on Fox News Channel, American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser explained that “intoxicant of theocratic Islam, the sharia state” must be confronted for the terror to wane. That starts by “looking at the schools of thought of jihadism, Wahabism and Salafism. And the fact that most Americans don’t even know what those terms are is a crime.”

Unable to argue on the merits, Awad and his CAIR colleagues tend to dismiss Jasseras a sellout and simply ignore reformist voices like Nawaz’s.

But even Hamza Yusuf, founder and president of Berkeley’s Zaytunah College, an Islamic institution, acknowledges there is an Islamic root for the recent wave of terrorism. In an essay he titled “The Plague Within” – which he posted after terror attacks in Orlando, Baghdad, Bangladesh and elsewhere that were carried out during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan – Yusuf likened radical interpretations of Islam to “brain-eating amoebas.”

Citing another cleric, Yusuf said the plague is “the bitter harvest of teachings that have emanated from pulpits throughout the Arabian Peninsula, teachings that have permeated all corners of the world, teachings that focus on hatred, exclusivity, provincialism, and xenophobia. These teachings anathematize any Muslim who does not share their simple-minded, literalist, anti-metaphysical, primitive, and impoverished form of Islam, and they reject the immense body of Islamic scholarship from the luminaries of our tradition.”

While Yusuf still seems to balk at the phrase “Islamic radicalization,” he still called for action from scholars and others to counter the ideology driving the terrorism: “What we do not need are more voices that veil the problem with empty, hollow, and vacuous arguments that this militancy has little to do with religion; it has everything to do with religion: misguided, fanatical, ideological, and politicized religion. It is the religion of resentment, envy, powerlessness, and nihilism.” [Emphasis added]

Yusuf has spoken at CAIR fundraisers, and the organization spotlighted a message of his just last year.

These are but a few examples of Muslims who are trying to wage a battle of ideas within Islam in hopes of discrediting the ideology that fuels shooting massacres in Orlando and Paris, bombing massacres in Turkey, Belgium Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and now a vehicle massacre in Nice.

With the possible exception of Maajid Nawaz, none of them has the profile and bully pulpit Awad and his organization enjoy. Reporters quote them all the time and television news airs their views almost every day.

The message so far – don’t talk about religion when religious zealots kill – is a wasted opportunity of immeasurable proportions.

28 Pages Suggest Huma-Connected Group Funded Terrorism

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Breitbart, by Lee Stranahan, July 15, 2016:

The declassified “28 Pages” released by Congress Friday afternoon concerning 9/11, terror funding, and Saudi Arabia contains a bombshell piece of information: The World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) is specifically named as having connections to terror funding and support for a number of worldwide terror groups.

As Breitbart News has reported exclusively, the “Abedin family business” is an academic group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs that is based in the London offices of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth and its parent organization, the Muslim World League.

Huma Abedin, born in the United States but raised in Saudi Arabia, has worked closely with Hillary Clinton since 1996 and is now Hillary Clinton’s closest aide and the vice-chairwoman of her presidential campaign. Abedin, who is married to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, is also at the heart of the Clinton email scandal.

Page 24 of the 28 Pages report discusses Osama bin Laden’s half-brother and says in part:

According to the FBI. Abdullah Bin Ladin has a number of connections to terrorist organizations. He is the President and Director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is “closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provided logistical support to individuals wishing to to fight in the Afghan War.” In 1998, the CIA published a paper characterizing WAMY as a NGO that provides funding. logistical support and training with possible connections to the Arab Afghans network, Hamas, Algerian extremists and Philippine militants.

Although the 28 Pages make no mention of Abedin at all, the information in the 28 Pages lays out a timeline of events during the planning and execution of the 9/11 terror attack that shows that, at all times, Huma Abedin was working for both Hillary Clinton and the WAMY organization the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs.

In the past, all efforts to vet or ask basic questions about Abedin have been shut down by the mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison.

A footnote on page 24 of the 28 Pages is inconclusive but doesn’t rule out the possibility that WAMY’s senior leadership may have supported terrorism.

According to the FBI’s November 8th, 2002 response, although several officials in WAMY support Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, the intelligence is insufficient to show whether the organization as whole and its senior leadership support terrorism.

Although the footnote makes it clear that the depth of WAMY’s full support for terrorism wasn’t fully known in 2003, the matter is clearly a subject that should have been both investigated and discussed, especially given the connection between New York Senator Clinton, and one of her top aides at the time, to the group.

Further, it’s very clear that WAMY supports the Wahhabist strain of Islam that is both the state religion of Saudi Arabia and is behind nearly every terrorist group today, including al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban.

As Breitbart News previously reported exclusively, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she even admitted that Saudi Arabia was using the Muslim World League and WAMY to fund terrorism, writing in a 2009 memo:

Saudi Arabia has enacted important reforms to criminalize terrorist financing and restrict the overseas flow of funds from Saudi-based charities. However, these restrictions fail to include &multilateral organizations such as the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Muslim World League (MWL) and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY.) Intelligence suggests that these groups continue to send money overseas and, at times, fund extremism overseas.

For decades, the Saudis have spent millions of dollars promoting Wahabbism through organizations like WAMY, its parent the Muslim World League, and other “charities” that promote Da’wa or Islamic evangelism throughout the world via activities such as building mosques.

The mainstream media has either ignored these clear connections between Huma Abedin and Saudi NGOs or, worse, smeared the people making the charges, most notably the Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Further, the fact that the Bush administration’s compliance with the Saudi’s request to bury the information that is damaging to The Kingdom raises new questions of what influence the Saudis has on President Bush.

Breitbart News reported exclusively that just a month after 9/11, Newsweek claimed that the Muslim World League — the parent organization of WAMY with connections to Huma Abedin — was removed from a list of terror funders under pressure from Saudi Arabia.

The 28 Pages were available to members of Congress to read, although only under the right security conditions.

It is not known whether Sec. Clinton, then the Senator for New York, ever read the 28 Pages.

DEVELOPING…

***

Also see: