Farahat: U.S. Should Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization; Egyptian Government ‘Not Strong Enough’ to Combat Its Ideology

KHALIL MAZRAAWI/AFP/Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, April 4, 2017:

Egyptian author and political analyst Cynthia Farahat, an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum and founder of the Liberal Egyptian party, joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’svisit to the White House.

“President Sisi is the most moderate Muslim leader to rule Egypt since the 1952 coup d’etat,” Farahat said. “He’s certainly very moderate. I don’t think he believes in theocratic forms of Islam. I think he has a very classic liberal-style narrative when it comes to understanding Islam itself.”

“But he’s still not strong enough to combat these ideologies within his country,” she added.

“On a positive note, the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely unpopular inside Egypt as a political group,” she reported. “I would say they’re the most hated group of individuals inside the country.”

Kassam found that an extraordinary declaration, given that the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power and running the Egyptian government just a few years ago.

“It’s a little debated how they got in there to begin with,” Farahat replied wryly. “I have a serious problem believing that the Supreme Council of Armed Forces that was overseeing the elections and engaged in killing Christians on TV channels would uphold a free and fair election. If you don’t respect their lives, you don’t respect their votes.”

Farahat clarified that her assessment of Sisi’s weakness against Islamist forces in Egypt was really a judgment of the government’s overall weakness.

“The only power the Islamists have right now is in controlling Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which is basically the most important Islamic university,” she explained. “They’re the experts on Islamic jurisprudence in Sunni Islam around the world. That’s where the problem is. I would have liked to see President Trump asking el-Sisi to investigate Al-Azhar University.”

She quoted from an investigative report about what the university’s 300,000 students are being taught: “Any Muslim can kill an apostate and eat him, as well as kill infidel warriors. Even if they are young or female, they can also be eaten because they are not granted any protection.”

“High school students learn this!” she exclaimed. “That’s just one example. There are other examples where they say to preserve oneself from the evil of an infidel, any Muslim can gouge their eyes out or mutilate their hands and legs or even sever one arm and one leg.”

“I have a problem with these teachings,” Farahat said. “When Sisi claims that he wants to fight radical Islam, how about investigate what is happening in Al-Azhar? To be honest, he has called upon them numerous times to reform. But someone who goes as far as legitimizing cannibalism will not reform himself. These people need to be investigated for terrorism, specifically that they have a long history in it.”

She said the Muslim Brotherhood has taken “a severe knock” in Egypt since it was deposed by the Sisi government.

“By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood, they say that they were popular. They were never really popular,” she noted. “When you look at their history, they have been operating inside Egypt from the 1920s. Before the so-called Arab Spring, they didn’t even have a million members in a country of 90 million people. The estimates were from 600,000 to 800,000 members of the Brotherhood.”

“They are very unpopular right now. They are so unpopular that if you have the Muslim Brotherhood beard, which is a very short beard with a sign of prayer on the forehead, they’re not allowed to walk in certain areas inside of Egypt, in Alexandria,” she said.

“So they have taken a severe beating. They’re very unpopular. The United States has to designate them as a terrorist organization. I’m currently writing a book just on the terrorism within the Muslim Brotherhood. They were involved in establishing the vast majority of Sunni terrorist groups around the world today. From al-Qaeda to Islamic State to al-Jamaa al-Islamiya – you name it – you can trace it back to the Muslim Brotherhood,” Farahat said.

She estimated that her book on the Muslim Brotherhood should be finished in about six months.

“It will address issues that I talked about in my most recent article for Middle East Quarterly, so you’re welcome to check this out. It has a lot of the evidence of their involvement in terrorism,” Farahat said.

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

LISTEN:

KLEIN – New York Times in Full Panic Mode Over Reports Trump May Designate Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization

AWAD AWAD/AFP/Getty Images

AWAD AWAD/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Feb. 23, 2017:

TEL AVIV – The New York Times this week continued its month-long campaign against designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization amid reports the Trump administration is debating the possibility of issuing an executive order making such a designation.

Declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization would add the U.S. to the growing list of nations to do so, including Muslim countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The Times’ crusade culminated in the newspaper’s publication on Wednesday of an oped written from Egyptian prison by Gehad el-Haddad, the official spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood.  The oped was splashed on the cover of Thursday’s international edition of the newspaper.

In the piece, Haddad whitewashed the Brotherhood as inspired by an “understanding of Islam that emphasizes the values of social justice, equality and the rule of law.”

“We remain committed to our ideals of community development, social justice and nonviolence,” wrote Haddad.

While many Brotherhood wings indeed reject the use of violence as a strategic tactic, preferring instead a sophisticated gradualist strategy to achieve their aims, Haddad failed to mention that the Brotherhood has spawned terrorist organizations – most notably Hamas – that adhere to its philosophy of a world order based on Islam.

Al-Qaeda was founded in part on Brotherhood ideology. The Brotherhood was also a central player in the so-called Arab Spring, revolutions punctuated by violence across the Arab world.

Haddad’s claim that the Brotherhood espouses an understanding of Islam that pushes for “equality and the rule of law” is contradicted by the very nature of the Brotherhood itself, which is openly committed to the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on Sharia law.

Sharia does not propagate “equality and the rule of law.” Sharia is explicitly anti-democratic and advocates Islamic supremacy over non-Muslims. For example, under Sharia non-Muslims cannot rule over Muslims; a woman inherits half that of a man; non-Muslims cannot inherit from Muslims or marry Muslim women; and churches and synagogues cannot be built taller than mosques.

These Islamic dictates were scrubbed from Haddad’s airy descriptions of the Brotherhood in the Times oped:

We are a morally conservative, socially aware grassroots movement that has dedicated its resources to public service for the past nine decades. Our idea is very simple: We believe that faith must translate into action. That the test of faith is the good you want to do in the lives of others, and that people working together is the only way to develop a nation, meet the aspirations of its youth and engage the world constructively. We believe that our faith is inherently pluralistic and comprehensive and that no one has a divine mandate or the right to impose a single vision on society. …

We remain committed to our ideals of community development, social justice and nonviolence.

Haddad’s propaganda piece was preceded on Monday by a Times article reporting on the alleged dangers of the Trump administration labeling the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

That article, titled, “Trump Talk of Terror Listing for Muslim Brotherhood Alarms Some Arab Allies,” warned that “of all the initiatives of the Trump administration that have set the Arab world on edge, none has as much potential to disrupt the internal politics of American partners in the region as the proposal to criminalize the Muslim Brotherhood, the preeminent Islamist movement with millions of followers.”

The piece continued:

In Morocco, it would tip a delicate political balance. In Jordan, it could prevent American diplomats from meeting with opposition leaders. In Tunisia, it could make criminals of a political party seen as a model of democracy after the Arab Spring.

The Times article quoted Issandr El Amrani, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, warning that designating the Brotherhood a terrorist organization “could destabilize countries where anti-Islamist forces would be encouraged to double down. It would increase polarization.”

The International Crisis Group is funded by billionaire George Soros and his son, Alexander Soros. Both George and Alexander Soros sit on the group’s board of trustees.

Toward the end of the piece, Times reporter Delcan Walsh briefly mentions the Brotherhood’s ties to violence.

He writes:

By nature secretive, the Brotherhood takes different forms around the world. In some places, its members have condoned or committed violent acts. Its Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, carries out suicide bombings; in Egypt, angry young supporters have been accused of attacking Mr. Sisi’s security forces.

However, that paragraph was followed by the following disclaimer: “But that does not make terrorists of the many millions of people who support the Brotherhood’s political ideology across many countries.”

The Times advocacy this week on behalf of the Brotherhood is part of a larger lobbying effort that has in recent weeks included numerous pro-Brotherhood articles and an editorial board piece published earlier this month, “All of Islam Isn’t the Enemy.”

In the editorial, the newspaper warned designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization “would be seen by many Muslims as another attempt to vilify adherents of Islam.”  The paper claimed that the possible designation “appears to be part of a mission by the president and his closest advisers to heighten fears by promoting a dangerously exaggerated vision of an America under siege by what they call radical Islam.”

A February 7 article warned, “Officially designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization would roil American relations in the Middle East. The leaders of some American allies — like Egypt, where the military forced the Brotherhood from power in 2013, and the United Arab Emirates — have pressed Mr. Trump to do so to quash internal enemies, but the group remains a pillar of society in parts of the region.”

“Critics said they feared that Mr. Trump’s team wanted to create a legal justification to crack down on Muslim charities, mosques and other groups in the United States,” added the Times. “A terrorist designation would freeze assets, block visas and ban financial interactions.”

A Times article on February 1 was titled, “Trump Pushes Dark View of Islam to Center of U.S. Policy-Making.”

The article lamented a worldview that “conflates terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State with largely nonviolent groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots and, at times, with the 1.7 billion Muslims around the world.”

A January 26 editorial titled “‘I Think Islam Hates Us’” informed readers the Trump administration “reportedly is considering designating the Muslim Brotherhood, which is involved in Muslim politics in a number of countries, as a terrorist organization. Some experts see the move as a chance for the Trump administration to limit Muslim political activity in the United States.”

The Times’ advocacy for the Brotherhood is particularly noteworthy since it separately posted a full Arabic document from 1991 in which an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood member set forth a strategy for “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within,” with emphasis on operations inside the U.S.

Addressing the Brotherhood’s support for the electoral process and purportedly becoming a political organization, an extensive report on the Brotherhood by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at Israel’s Center for Special Studies explained the group’s use of some tools of democracy to advance the aim of achieving a world ruled by Sharia law, which is by definition anti-democratic.

Drawing from founding Brotherhood documents and original literature by Brotherhood leaders, the Center explained:

Unlike the militant factions of other Islamist movements, which completely rule out democracy on the basis of it being a Western, pagan, and ignorant idea, the Muslim Brotherhood does use the term “democracy.” In its view, however, it has two main connotations: a tactical, instrumental means of taking over countries through the use of the democratic process, and an “Islamic democracy” based on Sharia law (i.e., Islamic religious law) and a model of internal consultation within the leadership.

[Brotherhood Founder Sheikh Hassan] Al-Banna listed seven stages to achieve these objectives, each to be carried out in a gradual fashion. The stages are divided into social and political: the first three are based on educating the individual, the family, and the entire society of the Muslim world to implement Sharia laws in every aspect of daily life. The next four stages are political in nature, and include assuming power through elections, shaping a Sharia state, liberating Islamic countries from the burden of (physical and ideological) foreign occupation, uniting them into one Islamic entity (“new caliphate”), and spreading Islamic values throughout the world.

The defining works of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader, ideologue and theorist Sayyid Qutb, considered the Brotherhood’s intellectual godfather, greatly influenced Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda doctrine.

An extensive March 23, 2003, article in the New York Times magazine by Paul Berman dissected Qutb’s writings as they relate to terrorist ideology.

In the article titled “The Philosopher of Islamic Terror,” Berman documented the centrality of Qutb’s influence on al-Qaeda:

The organization (al-Qaeda) was created in the late 1980’s by an affiliation of three armed factions – bin Laden’s circle of ”Afghan” Arabs, together with two factions from Egypt, the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the latter led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s top theoretician. The Egyptian factions emerged from an older current, a school of thought from within Egypt’s fundamentalist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, in the 1950’s and 60’s. And at the heart of that single school of thought stood, until his execution in 1966, a philosopher named Sayyid Qutb – the intellectual hero of every one of the groups that eventually went into Al Qaeda, their Karl Marx (to put it that way), their guide.

 Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Pete Hoekstra: Obama-Clinton Foreign Policy ‘Not Only Engaging with Radical Jihadist Groups Overseas,’ but Allowing Them to ‘Spread Their Doctrine Around the United States’

T.J. Kirkpatrick-Pool/Getty Images

T.J. Kirkpatrick-Pool/Getty Images

Breitbart, by John Hayward, Oct. 4, 2016:

Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Breitbart News Daily Tuesday morning to discuss his Washington Examiner op-ed, “Obama Rolls Dice on Foreign Policy in Secretive Presidential Decree.”

Hoekstra told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow that a presidential directive is “developed by an inter-agency group within the executive branch, usually headed by the State Department, and it then outlines U.S. foreign policy in whatever area it was tasked to study.”

“In this case, back in 2009 and 2010, this group got together, and they articulated a new policy for the United States government towards the Middle East, especially toward various Muslim groups in the Middle East,” Hoekstra continued. “This directive, we believe, specifically directed U.S. government agencies – State Department employees, ambassadors, and those types of things – to begin engaging with radical jihadist groups, believing that if we would engage with radical jihadist groups, they would change their behavior toward the United States.”

“It led to the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. It led to the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. Libya obviously ended up with catastrophic results, and we almost lost Egypt at the same time,” he recalled.

Marlow found it remarkable that so little was being made of Hillary Clinton’s role in crafting Obama’s disastrous foreign policy in the current election cycle.

“You’re absolutely right,” said Hoekstra, elaborating:

Take a look. When President Obama – we completed this study at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, where I now spend my time – in 2008, 2009, when this President and Hillary Clinton took over the government, there were roughly 3,300 people per year who were losing their lives as a result of radical jihadism. Today, that number is approaching almost 30,000 people per year. Iraq is a failed state. Syria is a failed state. Yemen is a failed state. Libya is a failed state. And Afghanistan is a failed state.

“The media doesn’t want to talk about it,” he observed. “Obviously, Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to talk about it because their role in national security has destabilized the Middle East and northern Africa. It has led to increasing deaths in massive refugee flows throughout the Middle East, Europe, and again Northern Africa.”

When Marlow observed that regime-change philosophy under both Bush and Obama has been criticized by some conservatives, Hoekstra noted there were some important differences between the two administrations:

Under the Bush administration, at least we removed dictators who were hostile to the United States – Afghanistan and Iraq.

Egypt and Libya, we actually removed a President Mubarak who for – what, 20 or 25 years? – had done everything the United States had asked him to do to maintain stability in the Middle East.

In Libya, we had a wonderful experience where Qaddafi actually flipped sides, turned over his nuclear weapons, paid reparations, and joined us in the fight against radical jihadists. And after eight years of doing everything America asked him to do, Hillary Clinton declared that he needed to go. The United States, along with NATO, we removed Qaddafi, and it has now been a failed state.

The other thing is, which you’ll see on this, is not only are we engaging with radical jihadist groups overseas, in this regime change, we’re also allowing some of these same people to come into the United States, providing them access to the White House, providing them access to the State Department, and allowing them to go around the country and make speeches, and spread their doctrine around the United States.

So this PSD-11 had nothing to do with national security. There’s no sources or methods. It’s just a strategy. But obviously, this is something that we think the Obama administration ought to make public, and I doubt that they will make it public because the results of this policy have not been very good.

Hoekstra suspected this dramatic change in U.S. foreign policy was “probably a creation of Ben Rhodes, the person who worked for the President as an assistant national security adviser”:

This was the whole spin back in 2009, 2010, that there’s this Arab Spring moving through the Middle East, the forces for democracy and reform, free markets, and those types of things.

As David Ignatius – a liberal columnist – wrote, this is really a gamble, a roll of the dice as he described it, by the Obama administration, embracing these forces of change in the Middle East with the expectation that positive things would happen.

Well, if they would have peeled back the layers on these groups at all, they would have recognized it was not a roll of the dice; it was a high-risk, high-gamble, and it didn’t pay off. So the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton, decided to throw out 30 years of foreign policy that brought some stability to the Middle East, and the result was, they failed. And the results have been horrendous.

Concerning the seven major Obama foreign interventions Hoekstra covered in his Washington Examiner piece, he said, “The only one that has any tentative success, you could argue, would be Tunisia – but even there, Tunisia is close to the tipping point, in terms of going in the wrong direction.”

LISTEN:

New ISIS Military Commander Was Trained by State Department as Recently as 2014

new-isis-commander-gulmorad-halimov-trained-by-state-department-sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016:

Gulmurod Khalimov, the new ISIS military commander whom the U.S. just days ago announced a $3 million bounty for, was trained by the State Department in an anti-terror program as recently as 2014 while serving in the security service of Tajikistan.

He replaces former ISIS commander Tarkhan Batirashvili, aka Umar al-Shishani, who was also trained by the United States as part of the Georgian army and who ISIS claimed was killed fighting in Iraq this past July.

The State Department confirmed Khalimov’s U.S.-provided training to CNN in May 2015:

“From 2003-2014 Colonel Khalimov participated in five counterterrorism training courses in the United States and in Tajikistan, through the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security/Anti-Terrorism Assistance program,” said spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala.The program is intended to train candidates from participating countries in the latest counterterrorism tactics, so they can fight the very kind of militants that Khalimov has now joined.

A State Department official said Khalimov was trained in crisis response, tactical management of special events, tactical leadership training and related issues.

Unironically, the State Department spokeswoman said that Khalimov had been appropriately vetted:

“All appropriate Leahy vetting was undertaken in advance of this training,” said spokeswoman Jhunjhunwala.

At that time, Khalimov appeared in a video threatening the United States:

“Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he says.Then, he threatens, “we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you.”

Khalimov and Batirashvili are hardly the first terrorist leaders operating in Syria to have been trained by the United States.

In August 2014, the Washington Post reported that fighters who had been trained by Western forces, including the U.S., in Libya had found their way to terror groups at the beginning of the Syrian conflict:

Some European and Arab intelligence officials also voiced their worries and frustration about what they call the mistakes the United States has made in handling the uprisings in Arab states. “We had, in the early stages, information that radical groups had used the vacuum of the Arab Spring, and that some of the people the U.S. and their allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,” a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview. He said that often his U.S. counterparts would say things like, “We know you are right, but our president in Washington and his advisers don’t believe that.” Those groups, say Western security officials, are threats not only in the Middle East, but also in the United States and Europe, where they have members and sympathizers.The official’s account has been corroborated by members of the Islamic State in and outside the Middle East, including Abu Yusaf, the military commander. In several interviews conducted in the last two months, they described how the collapse of security during Arab Spring uprisings helped them recruit, regroup and use the Western strategy — to support and train groups that fight dictators — for their own benefits. “There had [also] been … some British and Americans who had trained us during the Arab Spring times in Libya,” said a man who calls himself Abu Saleh and who only agreed to be interviewed if his real identity remained secret.

Abu Saleh, who is originally from a town close to Benghazi, said he and a group of other Libyans received training and support in their country from French, British, and American military and intelligence personnel — before they joined the Al Nusra Front or the Islamic State. Western and Arab military sources interviewed for this article, confirmed Abu Saleh’s account that “training” and “equipment” were given to rebels in Libya during the fight against the Gadhafi regime.

Abu Saleh left Libya in 2012 for Turkey and then crossed into Syria. “First I fought under what people call the ‘Free Syrian Army’ but then switched to Al Nusra. And I have already decided I will join the Islamic State when my wounds are healed,” the 28-year-old said from a hospital in Turkey, where he is receiving medical treatment. He had been injured during a battle with the Syrian Army, he said, and was brought to Turkey with false documents.  “Some of the Syrian people who they trained have joined the Islamic State and others jabhat al Nusra,” he said, smiling. He added, “Sometimes I joke around and say that I am a fighter made by America.”

This problem of a terror “boomerang” also goes back to the Bush administration, as seen when Islamist rebels took over a large portion of Mali in 2013.

As the Financial Times reported:

To the dismay of the US, junior Malian officers trained as part of $620m pan-Sahelian counter-terrorism initiative launched in 2002 to help four semi-desert states resist Islamic militancy took part in a coup in March last year. Others among them defected to the Tuareg revolt that eventually led to a coalition of Islamist militias, allied with Algerian militants from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, capturing the northern two-thirds of Mali.Potentially, these US-trained officers are now using US counter-insurgency know-how against France’s intervention force.

“It is a great failure,” says Dr Berny Sèbe, an expert in Franco-African relations at the University of Birmingham. “Some of them defected. Others organised a coup.”

In two of the three other Sahelian states involved in the Pentagon’s pan-Sahelian initiative, Mauritania and Niger, armies trained by the US, have also taken power in the past eight years. In the third, Chad, they came close in a 2006 attempt.

And back in Syria, as I’m chronicled repeatedly here at PJ Media, “vetted moderate” forces armed and trained by the U.S. have defected to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

July 7, 2014: U.S. ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Brigades Surrender Weapons, Pledge Allegiance to Islamic StateNov. 2, 2014: U.S.-Armed ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Groups Surrender, Defect to Al-Qaeda

Nov. 24, 2014: More Defections of ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Rebels to ISIS

Dec. 2, 2014: US-Backed Syrian Rebels Ally with al-Qaeda in South, Surrender CIA-Supplied Weapons in the North

Sept. 22, 2015: Report: U.S.-Trained, ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Leader Defects to Al-Qaeda, Turns Weapons Over to Terror Group

Given these repeated instances, one might begin to question the quality of the U.S. government’s vetting capabilities.

Fact Check: Were Obama and Hillary Founders of ISIS? You Bet

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, Aug. 12, 2016:

Even the left-stream media is now acknowledging that Donald Trump “has a point” when he blasts Hilary and Obama for creating ISIS.

“Hillary Clinton is vulnerable. ISIS did gain strength during her time as Secretary of State,” said ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt tried to give Mr. Trump an out. “I know what you meant,” he suggested. “You meant that he [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

“No,” Trump replied. “I meant, he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Trump is correct – and quite literally, so.

First, a document. Then some history.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now have an August 2012 defense intelligence report on the civil war in Syria and the situation in Iraq that openly states that the policy of the United States and its allies was to support the Salafist opposition to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

That opposition, at the time spearheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), soon morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS.

The report appears to have originated from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq, well before their intelligence product was tarnished by political interference from top commanders in 2014 aimed at diminishing the threat from ISIS.

Here’s what the report, originally stamped SECRET, actually says:

 AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al- Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime…

Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… [emphasis mine]

There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want…

It is no secret that the United States was supporting the Syrian opposition in 2012 and even until very recently. In December 2012, thanks in large measure to the active lobbying of Mrs. Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, Obama declared that the United States considered the opposition as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

What was secret until the release of this August 2012 defense intelligence report is that the United States knew that the Syrian opposition was dominated by al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, groups that merged and morphed into what today we call ISIS.

So Donald Trump is literally correct. Obama and Hillary created ISIS. They figure among the founding fathers of the world’s most brutal terrorist organization. They deserve ISIS Most Valuable Player awards for their efforts.

Some of America’s enemies, such as Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, have also accused the United States of creating ISIS – but as a tool for encroaching on Iran’s efforts to dominate the Muslim world. In fact, Obama and Hillary’s policies have simultaneously favored Iran and its rise to regional dominance, standing aside as Iran filled the vacuum in Iraq with its own militias and allowing Iranian troops and weapons to flow onto battlefields in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and beyond.

Other documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the United States was also complicit with arms shipments from Benghazi to the jihadi rebel groups in Syria.

These particular shipments were distinct from the more publicized case of al Entisar, a Libyan fishing vessel that arrived in Iskanderiyah, Turkey, crammed with weapons in late August 2012.

The shipments described in this recently declassified document were sent directly to small Syrian ports under rebel control and included RPG grenade-launchers, sniper rifles, and ammunition for 125mm and 155mm howitzers.

As I revealed two years ago, the U.S. backed arms shipments to ISIS and its allies in Syria appear to have been run out of the White House by then-counterterrorism advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan. Running the clandestine arms shipments outside official channels allowed Obama and his allies – including Mrs. Clinton, who supported the arms shipments – to withhold that information from Congress.

Deflecting attention from these arms shipments is precisely why Obama and Hillary hatched their “blame-it-on-a-YouTube-video” narrative as the cause of the Benghazi attacks. It was a deliberate deception to trick the American people and cover-up their misdeeds.

Obama’s disastrous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in December 2011 clearly enhanced the ability of AQI and ISI to seize control of large portions of Iraqi territory and certainly contributed to the birth of ISIS. It also opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.

But as the August 2012 defense intelligence report states, that was the plan all along. Obama and Hillary wanted to create an ISIS-controlled enclave in Syria, “in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

Donald Trump was right. Again.

Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Deception: the Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi, released on July 19 and is now in its 4thprinting.

Also see:

Hillary Emails: State Discussed ‘Cooperating,’ ‘Increased Investment’ With Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood Government

AP Photo/Elise Amendola

AP Photo/Elise Amendola

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, Feb. 28, 2016:

TEL AVIV – 1,500 pages of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails provide insight into the level of support the U.S. was considering in 2012 for Egypt’s newly elected Muslim Brotherhood government.

On August 30, 2012, Robert D. Hormats, the under-secretary of state for economic affairs, wrote to Clinton’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan to update him on a meeting he held with Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Supreme Adviser Khairat al-Shater.

Shater was later sentenced to life imprisonment and then to death for multiple alleged crimes, including inciting violence and financial improprieties.

The email reveals Hormats and other U.S. diplomats discussed  methods of cooperation with Shater, including an increase in American direct foreign investment.

Hormats wrote:

Anne Patterson, Bill Taylor, and I met with Muslim Brotherhood Deputy Supreme Guide Khairat al-Shater. He discussed broad principles of economic development based on 100 large infrastructure projects (over a billion dollars each) as part of Morsi’s Nadah (Renaissance Plan) Plan; ways of cooperating with the US to obtain support for these projects and for SMEs; and his hope for an IMF agreement and increased foreign direct investment from the US, the West, and the Arab world. He also noted that it was a priority for the GOE to build a true democratic system based on human rights and the rule of law.

Patterson, the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt at the time, was known for her repeated engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Taylor was the U.S. Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions; that is, the U.S. envoy to the new leadership that emerged in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring.

Hormats’ meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood were not secret. But the emails reveal the scope of his discussions with the group about possible future investment.

In September 2012, the New York Times reported that Hormats had led a delegation of businesses to Egypt to discuss possible private investment.

That same month, the State Department published a document that received little news media attention. It revealed that in August and September 2012, “Hormats visited Egypt to negotiate possible bilateral debt relief,” but the document did not provide further details.

After the toppling of Egypt’s longtime president Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi served as president from June 30, 2012 to July 3, 2013, when he was removed from office amidst widespread protests and a military coup. After Mubarak was removed from office, the Obama administration pledged $1 billion in assistance to bolster Egypt’s transition to democracy.

Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta each visited Cairo and met with Morsi during his tenure as president.

The meeting that Hormats describes in the email took place while the U.S. was negotiating an aid package to help relieve Egypt’s debt crisis amid concerns from U.S. lawmakers about funding the Muslim Brotherhood.

The email was sent a week and a half before protesters besieged the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on September 11, 2012, the same day the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi came under attack.

Following the attacks, Obama stated of Morsi’s government, “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy.”

With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Islamic Timelines Fueling Jihad

boom-timeline-bicubicGates of Vienna,  December 9, 2015,  by Sonia Bailley:

Summary: With the convergence of two Islamic timelines (al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the caliphate has been re-established.

These two Islamic timelines, in addition to two Muslim Brotherhood documents — all of which were ignored by Western leaders — are mobilizing jihadists worldwide. The Muslim Brotherhood’s primary mission of dawah, which shakes the identity and faith of Westerners, making them more vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission, has reached its goal and is ready to be superseded by the next jihad phase, that being all-out war, or violent jihad. All Islamic groups are working together to wage violent jihad on the West. Their intention to do so began ever since the first caliphate was abolished in 1924.

All-out war with the West has begun. With the culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse. More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West, and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any discussion or analysis of Islam.

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Coughlin attributes the recent escalation in worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks to the convergence of these two Islamic timelines culminating in December, and to the collaboration of leftists with Islamic organizations that include the Muslim Brotherhood[2], which was listed as a terrorist group in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why has the media neglected to raise the alert and publish these Islamic timelines, known for over ten years, as front-page bold headlines in every major newspaper? Al Qaeda’s timeline is hell-bent on waging violent jihad on the West. The OIC’s timeline to criminalize speech deemed offensive to a Muslim, even when that criticism speaks the truth about Islam, is already underway in some European countries as hate speech laws that abridge our right to free speech and expression. Deadlines are quickly approaching, while Islamic terror attacks are escalating worldwide.

In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec as Bill 59[3] (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against non-believers.

What applies to one religion should equally apply to all, but it doesn’t. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed warrants a death sentence, whereas a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 colored condoms (Eggs Benedict), a photograph of Christ on the crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine (Piss Christ), and a painting of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung and clippings of porno magazines (Black Madonna) all warrant center stage at the Museum of Modern Art. The same rules do not apply for Muslims whose religion is always protected from discussion, analysis, or criticism.[4]

Lynch’s promise conforms to UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called for the killing of his dissenters and insulters.

Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.

None of these topics are up for discussion or analysis, as they are considered blasphemous and shed a negative light on Islam — despite the fact that they were all committed in the name of Islam, described in the history of Islamic conquest, and mandated by Islamic doctrine. Mentioning Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year old girl, or female genital mutilation considered praiseworthy and recommended in Islam, is also considered offensive and not to be discussed.

Discussing the truth about Islam is diametrically opposed to Islam. It would enable its enemies to defeat it, as well as lure away potential converts to Islam. Islam obligates every Muslim to invite non-Muslims to the true path of Islam (dawah) through interfaith dialogue or bridge-building. According to Sayyid Qutb, the revered Muslim Brotherhood theorist and founding father of modern jihad, the bridge does not allow for people on both sides of the bridge to mix, but rather only for the non-believers to come over to Islam,

The aim of Dawah, as Coughlin points out in his new book, Catastrophic Failure — Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, is “to destroy our faith in God, our government, our legal system, our leadership, and our society” while strengthening the belief in Islam, so that we become defeated in mind and vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission.

That is the primary mission of the Muslim Brotherhood, since the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 by Turkey’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Founded four years later in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood spent decades writing about reviving the Islamic faith through dawah, particularly for America.

America was viewed by the Muslim brotherhood as a powerful country devoid of human values, and therefore susceptible to dawah that would shape and direct this great country towards Sharia. Practising dawah enables the Muslim brotherhood to “destroy Western civilization from within”, as reflected in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the group in North America.

The sole purpose of dawah is preparing for jihad. Jihad will never end until the entire world shuns its false religious practices, accepts the one true religion of Islam, and unites under a global caliphate governed by Sharia. After all, “it is the nature of Islam to dominate and not be dominated, and Islam must impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet,” according to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.

Coughlin often refers to a key Pakistani book that analyzes the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad, The Quranic Concept of War (1976) by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army. Malik writes that when the non-believer becomes demoralized as his faith and identity are being destroyed, yet still refuses to convert or submit, then it becomes time to unleash the next phase of all-out kinetic jihad. It is this violent phase that instills terror into the non-believer’s heart. It is al Qaeda and other jihadist groups launching violent terrorist attacks on the West.

It should be emphasized that Malik’s radical views on the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad were endorsed as national policy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — a country that implements the death penalty for those who insult Islam. It was Pakistan that introduced the first anti-Islam UN draft resolution in 1999. It was Pakistan that co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN Resolution 16/18 with none other than the U.S. Under the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. helped usher in a resolution that violates the very foundation of who we are as a nation, the First Amendment, the right to free speech and expression.

UN Resolution 16/18 also violates Article VI of the Constitution, which, as Coughlin writes, “states the supremacy of the Constitution and its laws, while Sharia states the same about its own laws.” Sharia is incompatible with the Constitutional rule of law or form of government in the U.S.; they cannot co-exist, as Islamic law dictates that man-made laws cannot be passed if they contradict the undisputed rules of Islam. In most of the Muslim world, Sharia is the law of the land. Coughlin writes that Sharia subordinates national security interests and undermines the Article VI requirement to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.

Discovered in 2004, the Explanatory Memo, which describes how to take over North America, has been collecting dust in U.S. national security agencies for over ten years. The same can be said for the Muslim Brotherhood’s worldwide twelve-point strategy for Islamic policy, better known as The Project, which was written in 1982 and discovered shortly after 9/11. Both revealing documents, which direct Muslim Brothers to infiltrate and undermine the government and all U.S. institutions (which has already been done), have been relegated to nothingness, as have the death-to-the-West timelines of al Qaeda and the OIC, rather than be taken seriously as major threats to Western civilization, and dealt with accordingly.

Muslim Brotherhood groups, as well as other Islamic groups, such as the OIC and al Qaeda (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and forerunner to ISIS), have been patiently planning for decades to restore the caliphate. It was finally re-established last year, as per Phase Five(2013-2015) of al Qaeda’s timeline.

Despite the fact that most Muslim Brotherhood organizations appear moderate, they are becoming more confrontational and violent against the West at the urgings of al Qaeda, who feel that the time is ripe to leave the non-violent preparatory phase of dawah and wage a more violent jihad.

Coughlin writes that it was the Muslim Brotherhood, at the urging of al Qaeda, who brought on the 2011 collapse of Arab regimes (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen). The purpose was not to promote Western freedom, as people were made to believe, but rather to do the very opposite by replacing these Westernized regimes with more Sharia-compliant ones. The events were naively portrayed by the media as the Arab Spring. That marked Phase Four (2010-2013) of al Qaeda’s timeline, and was right on schedule.

The call to violent jihad has become even stronger with the re-emergence of the caliphate, which, under Sharia, legally obligates Muslim to wage offensive jihad in non-Muslim lands through the authorization of the caliph (ruler of the caliphate). Offensive jihad first appeared in 632 AD when the first caliphate appeared, resulting in the eventual conquest by Islamic armies of Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Spain.

Today, nearly a quarter of U.S. Muslims believe that violent jihad is justified in establishing Sharia and is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam, and 51% agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (according to a June poll of 600 Muslims living in the U.S.).

9/11 was referred to as “The Awakening” in Phase One (2000-2003) of Al Qaeda’s timeline, which was hatched well over 20 years ago. And events are playing out exactly as planned by Al Qaeda, despite Coughlin’s warnings to senior Pentagon officials and Congress members to name the enemy as he names himself in order to understand and defeat him. “What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, and not whether he is correct about them.”

Coughlin taught that we must identify the enemy (jihadist or Islamic terrorist) according to his fighting doctrine (Islamic law of jihad) that he himself says he is following, fighting for, and implementing. For that reason, the Pentagon dismissed Coughlin in 2008. Three years later, at the request of 57 Muslim groups, hundreds of documents and presentations from military training and counter-terrorism material critical to the national security of the U.S. were discarded for being offensive to Islam or Islamophobic, that is, containing references to Islam or jihad. Those documents were reviewed and tossed away by those same groups.

The U.S. military and law enforcement are no longer capable of defining the enemy, as their course material no longer teaches the truth about Islam and jihad. The fact of the matter is that Islamophobia prohibits any reference to Islam or jihad, not because it is offensive, but because it is informative: because it exposes the truth about the enemies and their fighting doctrine — information that would help us win the war against them.

With the help of leftists who blame Islamic terrorism on everything but Islam, including climate change, Muslim Brotherhood groups in North America are — besides infiltrating the Obama regime, including all its national security and intelligence agencies — progressively destroying the identity and soul of non-believers by slowly instituting Sharia standards to make Islam supreme: revising school history books in accordance with Islam, forcing people to eat or purchase only unlabelled halal products, allowing Muslim students to skip music or mixed-gender gym classes, removing Christian symbols considered offensive to Muslims, closing down major streets for Islamic prayer, and now imposing hate-speech laws to censor and criminalize any discussion or criticism of Islam.

None of this would be possible without the aid of leftist organizations doing the leg work for Muslim Brotherhood groups. There is cause for great concern when one such organization, the highly influential Arab Sp — the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that helps shape the course of international relations and security policies — cooperates with the OIC by refusing to call the Islamic State Islamic.

The OSCE — as well as President Obama himself, along with other world leaders — believes that doing so wrongly links Islam with terrorism, despite the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS names itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its acts to Allah.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the OIC are working cooperatively with and in parallel to one another, fueling the jihadist frenzy worldwide, Coughlin recently asserted on Canada’s CFRA radio. The Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts are synchronized with those of al Qaeda’s and the OIC’s to ultimately re-establish the supremacy of Islam and gradually enforce Sharia worldwide through a more violent jihad.

The OIC continues going to great lengths to take the Islam out of the Islamic State. After proclaiming last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam, OIC Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani has recently upped the ante by announcing at a UN General Assembly the establishment of a Messaging Center to counter “extremist discourse and propaganda”, meaning, any discussion critical of Islam.

Equally important, Coughlin adds, is the active alliance of hard-left groups with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, heightened by the possibility of a nuclear armed caliphate. He warns that this is just the beginning.

As the holiday season approaches, numerous large-scale attacks in major Western cities will take place. With the final anniversaries of the two Islamic timelines quickly approaching, with one culminating this week, our submissive, politically correct and culturally sensitive politicians are still doing absolutely nothing. The clock is ticking…

Notes:

1. It is interesting to note is that Islamophobia is a term coined and promoted by a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (International Institute for Islamic Thought, IIIT) back in the early 1990s to render the West impotent to defeat the enemy.
2. Some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoots (al Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) have been declared foreign terrorist groups by the U.S. and Canada, while other offshoots, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that deals with social justice and civil rights, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were among the unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history in 2008: the Holy Land Foundation, the U.S.’s largest Islamic charity in Texas funneling millions of dollars to Hamas and other jihadist organizations.
3. Rest assured that the architect of Quebec’s Bill 59, Jacques Frémont, Emeritus University Law professor at the University of Montreal, will soon bring his Sharia-compliant blasphemy laws to Ottawa where he was recently named next president of the University of Ottawa. Frémont is also president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which will soon initiate hate-speech lawsuits against those who express anything deemed offensive to a Muslim (decided upon by the tribunals). It is of interest to note that Frémont is also the former director of a George Soros-funded progressive-leftist group called Open Society Foundations.
4. Is it any wonder why there are no UN resolutions to criminalize speech when it comes to advocating jihad against non-Muslims? To criminalize Muslims who deliver virulent mosque sermons that criticize and condemn to death Jews and Christians, portrayed as sons of apes and pigs, as mandated in Islamic doctrine? To criminalize Muslims who kill, torture, and terrorize non-Muslims worldwide to the point of genocide, such as the Yazidis and Christians in the Middle East, as well as other Muslims who are not considered Muslim enough by the perpetrators? To outlaw the Muslim slave and sex slave trade industry that continue to this day in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, and in other countries where Islam has become more prevalent, as mandated by the Koran that specifically allows taking slaves as war booty from non-Muslims? Regardless, UN Resolution 16/18 is a hot item on the UN Resolution menu, as far as UN Resolutions go, with defamation of Islam being the prime concern amongst voters.