New Center Monograph Warns Of ‘Gateway’ Group For Violent Jihadists: Tablighi Jama’at

photoshop-ccscreensnapz002Center for Security Policy, October 26, 2016:

(Washington, D.C.): Fifteen years after 9/11, one reality should be self-evident: No matter how many jihadists are killed as a result of U.S. and allied kinetic actions, our Islamic supremacist enemies’ ranks seem to be continuously replenished by an inexhaustible pipeline. While it is undeniable that most jihadis are nurtured in Muslim communities, families, madrassas, and mosques, the final indoctrination that propels an Islamic terrorist on the pathway to mayhem often takes place among Muslim scholars especially dedicated to the teaching and training of those showing the most promise in devotion to the faith.

Preeminent among such incubators of indoctrination is a global Islamic missionary and revival movement known as Tablighi Jama’at (TJ). Founded in the 20th Century on the Asian subcontinent, TJ claims more than 70 million followers in 80 countries around the world. The group strictly enforces a no-violence policy among its missionary membership.

Those imbued with Tablighi Jama’at’s adherence to the jihadist doctrine of Sharia, however, are ripe for recruitment by groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State, that – in light of Mohammed’s example and the teachings of Islam’s sacred texts – have no such compunction against the use of terrifying force. Indeed, TJ-affiliated members, students, teachers and mosques have been at least loosely-connected to a number of U.S. terror attacks, including in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida in 2016.

In this video, the Center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis, Clare Lopez, who serves as the editor-in-chief of the “Terror Jihad” collection and its companion, the “Civilization Jihad Readers Series,” introduces the Center’s new monograph

If the terrorist pipeline to which Tablighi Jama’at contributes is ever to be severed, it is imperative that U.S. policy-makers and the American people understand the contribution this ostensibly “non-violent” missionary group makes at the intersection of Islamic indoctrination and jihadist terror. To that end, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the second monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series,” Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad, by Ilana Freedman.

This publication, like Freedman’s first in the series, Jihad! The Threat of ISIS in America, brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and solid analysis to help explain how it is that indoctrination in the Islamic canon can and does all too often lead to an absolute conviction of Islamic supremacism, and thence to violence.

In unveiling this new product, the Center’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, observed:

For far too long, the West has given a pass to Tablighi Jama’ati missionaries, on the theory that – like the Muslim Brotherhood – their ostensibly non-violent practice of Islamic supremacism poses no threat to our civilization and security. Ilana Freedman powerfully debunks this theory, exposing the dangers associated with it and making the case for treating TJ as the toxic enabler of jihad that it is, both elsewhere and here.

 Tablighi Jama’at: Gateway to Jihad is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback It can also be viewed and downloaded for free in PDF format: gatewaytojihad

Star Spangled Shariah: Clare Lopez on the USCMO

star-spangled-shariah-606x354

Powerpoint presentation from 3/13/16:

Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter by James Simpson

***

Tomi Lahren – What is the common thread between BLM and radical Islamic terror?

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

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

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

emisco-isis

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey Sept. 26, 2016:

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

bulentsenayThe forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Professor Bülent Şenay speaks under color of some authority, which makes his observations something more than just the comments of a professor. The professor sits on the OSCE Human Rights Advisory Council, is a founding member of the Governing Board of EMISCO, and was the Diplomatic Counsel¬or for Religious and Cultural Affairs at the Turkish Embassy in The Hague from 2008 to 2012. In September 2013, Professor Şenay oversaw the drafting of a declaration that defined Islamophobia as “a groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims” that is “detrimental to international peace” such that there “should be recogni¬tion of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations.” The declaration was written for the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media” in Istanbul, which was co-sponsored by Turkey’s Directorate General of Press and Information and the OIC. At the conference, Turkish President Erdoğan stated that “Islamophobia” is a “kind of racism” that is “a crime against humanity.” In 2014, Şenay felt comfortable chiding the Western audience by saying, “if I were to present a particular favor, this would be the title, ‘A New Cultural ISIS — International Strong Ignorance Syndrome’” as he presented his briefing with the title, “Is¬lamophobia in the 21st Century: International Strong IgnoranceSyndrome in Europe (ISIS).” In doing so, Şenay was suggesting that the extremism was in the reactions of the West, not in the acts of ISIS.

***

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE today by Vlad Tepes

Some may remember Stephen Coughlin’s intervention at a 2015 OSCE meeting where they openly admitted that hate speech should be a criminal matter and that the truth can indeed be hate speech.

Stephen went back to the OSCE “Human Development Implementation Meeting” today and spoke again to this committee, who seem bound and determined to use the language of cultural-Marxism to turn free societies into totalitarian Marxist and communist ones.

***

Clare Lopez on Islamic antisemitism at the OSCE – Turkish response follows by Vlad Tepes

This is Clare Lopez’s presentation at the OSCE, the European body that seeks to criminalize criticism of Islam as hate speech, today in Warsaw.

According to those watching the conference via live stream, this odd set of remarks by the Turkish delegate was a response to Clare’s presentation, as well as the rest of the interventions by Center for Security Policy personnel.

***

Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff OSCE Human Dimension Implementation meeting Warsaw 2106

***

Tundra Tabloids:

At the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe in Warsaw Poland, Atheists Ireland spokesman denounces the term “Islamofauxbia” as a fraudulent term.

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Dave Petties OSCE presentation September 27 2016

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Stephen Coughlin OSCE Sept 27

Iran’s nuclear timetable … right now!

iran-nuclear-missileWND, by Jerome R. Corsi, Sept. 5, 2016:

NEW YORK – Amid the disclosure this week that the Obama administration has allowed Iran to continue secret efforts to enrich uranium and stockpile the heavy water needed to produce a plutonium nuclear weapon, a leading expert on the Iranian nuclear program remains concerned that Tehran could build a deliverable atomic bomb now.

“I believe Iran already has a nuclear weapons capability,” Clare Lopez, a former CIA career operations officer who serves as the vice president for research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, told WND.

Lopez noted that five years ago the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report on Iran’s nuclear program that listed the various technical components in a nuclear weapon that Iran had under development.

“We know for a fact that Iran already has the nuclear-capable missiles, including nose cones configured to carry nuclear weapons,” she said. “We also know that the IAEA years ago reported that Iran was working on forming the hemispheres of a bomb, as well as experiments testing the explosive charges required to set off a nuclear reaction implosion sequence.”

On Tuesday, Iranian officials announced the country is preparing to launch into space three new satellites, prompting U.S. defense experts to speculate the Iranian satellite program is a cover for pursuing illicit intercontinental ballistic missile technology the Islamic Republic could use to deliver a nuclear weapon over long distances.

Help from North Korea

Lopez pointed out that Iran could easily obtain nuclear weapons technology from North Korea.

“We have documented evidence Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials have attended North Korean ballistic missile and nuclear tests,” she stressed. “Further, North Korea has offered for sale virtually any technology the country has ever developed.”

On March 10, 2016, retired Admiral William E. Gortney, former commander, United States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, testified about North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“North Korea’s recent hostile cyberspace activity, nuclear testing, and continued ballistic missile development represent a dangerous threat to our national security,” Gortney told the committee in his prepared remarks. “North Korea’s recent nuclear test and satellite launch demonstrate Kim Jong Un’s commitment to developing strategic capabilities, as well as his disregard for United Nations Security Council resolutions.

He said the North Korean communist regime’s “efforts to develop and deploy the road-mobile KN08 ICBM have profound implications for homeland missile defense, primarily because the missile obviates most of the pre-launch indicators on which we have traditionally relied to posture our defenses.”

“While the KN08 remains untested, modeling suggests it could deliver a nuclear payload to much of the continental United States,” Gortney continued.

The Washington Free Beacon reported in March 2015 Iran is believed to be hiding the development of nuclear weapons technology at a mountain military base in North Korea near the Chinese border as part of a technical cooperation pact signed by Iran and North Korea in September 2012.

Iran ICBM capable by 2020

Gortney also testified that he remained concerned about Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“Iran poses multiple significant security concerns to the United States, and I remain wary of its strategic trajectory. Last year’s conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was a welcome development, but, Iran’s continuing pursuit of long-range missile capabilities and ballistic missile and space launch programs, in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, remains a serious concern,” Gortney said.

“Iran has successfully orbited satellites using a first- generation space launch vehicle and announced plans to orbit a larger satellite using its ICBM- class booster as early as this year,” he continued. “In light of these advances, we assess Iran may be able to deploy an operational ICBM by 2020 if the regime chooses to do so.”

Lopez also explained she was concerned that North Korea might share with Iran the technology necessary to launch successfully an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the U.S., even before Iran had an ICBM capable of hitting the continental United States.

On April 24, WND reported that North Korea now has two satellites orbiting over the United States capable of performing a surprise EMP attack at an altitude and trajectory that evade U.S. National Missile Defenses.

An EMP could be triggered by a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude. The pulse could knock out the U.S. national electrical grid system and all life-sustaining critical infrastructures, including the Internet.

Justice Against State Sponsors of Terror—But Not Iran?

2016-07-18t111421z_2_lynxnpec6h0qu_rtroptp_4_iran-politics-backlash-e1469297327697Daily Caller, by Clare Lopez, Sept. 6, 2016:

When the House of Representatives returns from summer recess on 6 September, among the urgent things it must consider is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) bill. It passed the Senate in May and is now before the House Judiciary Committee. In lining up support for the bill, JASTA sponsor Sen. John R. Cornyn (R-TX) and backers like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) appealed to the understandable angst of New Yorkers and others who suffered through the horror of the 9/11 attacks. JASTA aims to limit sovereign immunity for nations and officials accused of being responsible for terrorism inside the United States.

The Iran Lobby, which went into hyperdrive to support the Obama-Kerry nuclear deal with Iran, is now gleefully ramping up support for JASTA as a measure to hold Saudi Arabia to blame for 9/11, hoping it will allow Tehran to continue to evade responsibility for its own documented role in the devastating attacks 15 years ago. The bill’s sponsors also ignore the fallout of JASTA’s curtailing of sovereign immunity: Saudi Arabia may be sued, but the United States will be also sued for claims of terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and a host of other battlefields.

Admittedly, the House of Saud has come late to the counterterrorism battle—and only after its own rule was threatened. There is no doubt that the Saudi government and individuals used their oil billions to fund the Global Islamic Movement by constructing mosques, publishing textbooks, and supporting orthodox Al-Azhar and other top graduates as imams in Islamic Centers across the United States and elsewhere. Riyadh also backs the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood and its swarm of front groups. But when jihad terror took aim at the Saudi royals themselves—with the 2003 bombings, al-Qa’eda attacks, Iranian instigation of unrest in the Shi’ite eastern provinces, and strikes by the Islamic State—their minds concentrated rather wonderfully.

The feared Saudi Mukhabarat security service cracked down hard on internal jihadis, instituted close surveillance of domestic mosques, and arrested imams preaching sedition and violence. Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, a prominent Shi’ite cleric, was executed in January along with 46 others convicted of sedition and promoting terrorism. In 2014, Saudi Arabia even designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Clearly shaken by surging aggression from Iran and the Islamic State, Saudi Arabia formed a coalition of 34 Muslim states, declared support of President Abdul Fatah al-Sisi’s Egyptian regime, announced its support for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (a democratic opposition group), and are now in talks with Israel. Their U.S.-educated Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is also shaking things up internally and abroad.

So much for Saudi Arabia’s transformation. It is Iran that continues a nuclear weapons program at a breakneck pace that was supposed to have been halted in its tracks. It is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps/Qods Force with thousands of foreign Shi’ite mercenaries who fight as a Shi’a ‘Liberation Army’ to defend Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Yemen proxies. It is Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah who boasts about funds he gets from a topped-off Iranian treasury. And it is IRGC motorboats that harass U.S. Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and dare to seize and film U.S. Navy personnel.

Recently, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, fresh from diplomatic successes that saved his country’s nuclear program, took a victory lap around a clutch of Latin American countries. They included Cuba and Venezuela, known for their hostility to the U.S. and for helping to expand the Hizballah footprint. Even the schizoid Department of State belatedly recognized Iran’s hostility, and in mid-August issued a warning to Americans traveling to Iran because of the risk the mullahs might kidnap them for more ransom.

Under the nuclear deal umbrella, egged on by the Iran Lobby, and given carte blanche by a slavish media, the Obama administration is racing to complete its blueprint for a Middle East subordinated to Iran’s nuclear-powered hegemony. Even former senior U.S. military commanders are becoming uneasy with the chaos, compounded by the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region on earth.

While the Saudis remain adversaries in the global jihad, that should not inhibit a necessary partnership with the Riyadh government. We and they continue to face the menace of a nuclear-capable Iranian regime whose apocalyptic beliefs include accelerating the return of the 12th Imam to usher in Armageddon and the End Times.

Obama’s desire to burnish his legacy must not be allowed to complete the withdrawal of all American influence and power in a region so desperately in need of sober leadership.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

Freed-Up Frozen Funds, Sanctions Relief and Ransoms Only Aid Iran’s Global Crime Syndicate

hCNS News, by Clare Lopez, Aug. 10, 2016:

“As long as Iran has money, Hizballah will have money,” Hizballah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah boasted in a late June 2016 interview. “We are open about the fact that Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, are from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added to Hizballah’s official Al Ahed newspaper.

Well, not quite everything.

In the past, Hizballah’s annual income from Iran was estimated at $100-200 million annually, with more received after the devastating 2006 war with Israel. More recently, however, as sanctions bit down on the Iranian economy even as the mullahs ramped up Iran’s nuclear weapons development and poured resources into the battle to save its Damascus proxy regime, the amounts Tehran could provide to Hizballah declined. Hizballah itself was called upon by Tehran to provide fighters, funding, and weapons to the Syrian effort. At least partly as a result, the time since 2011 has been marked by an expansion of Hizballah’s already-extensive global crime network. While Hizballah long has relied on a worldwide network of Shi’ite Lebanese businesses, criminal syndicates, and other supporters for financial and operational support, the urgent need to bolster its own funding efforts has pushed Hizballah increasingly into scaling up its narcotrafficking and related criminal activities—naturally with the full knowledge and approval of its Iranian masters.

Since its creation by Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the early 1980s, Hizballah has been involved in the local drug trade, built on traditional smuggling operations across the Middle East. Then the Lebanese civil war sent a Lebanese diaspora to the Western Hemisphere in which Hizballah operatives easily blended. Its first foothold was in the lawless Tri-Border area of South America, where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. Partnership with Colombian cocaine traffickers and willing collaboration from Venezuela gave Hizballah a new revenue stream as well as a base of operations with hemispheric proximity to Tehran’s number one ‘Great Satan’ enemy.

It’s no exaggeration to say that the drug trade is now Hizballah’s number one source of income. Collaboration between Iran, the IRGC, Qods Force, Hizballah, narcotrafficking cartels, and organized crime has grown exponentially in recent years, according to Michael Braun, retired senior official for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In June 2016 testimony to the House Financial Services Committee, Braun reported that Hizballah today is smuggling “hundreds of tons of cocaine from the Andean Region of South America into Venezuela” and from there onto ships destined for European markets via West and North Africa.

Operation Smokescreen was the name given to a Hizballah cigarette-smuggling operation run out of Charlotte, North Carolina, with links across the U.S. and in both Canada and Lebanon. Describing the complex network of banks, criminal operations and front companies that garnered tens of millions of dollars in profit for Iran’s terror proxy, law enforcement spokesmen identified a restaurant, painting business, tobacco shops, and credit card, mail and visa fraud, all as part of this Hizballah operation that was shut down in 2002.

In December 2011, DEA unraveled a large Florida-based criminal used car operation whose known profits netted Hizballah close to $500 million through the sale of counterfeit currency and bulk cash smuggling, some of which was also used to procure “a long list of sophisticated weapons.”

And finally, in January 2016, Customs and Border Protection (CPB), DEA, and international law enforcement partners busted yet another narcotics trafficking and money laundering operation dubbed Project Cassandra. Once again, the direct involvement of Hizballah operatives—always under the authority and supervision of the Iranian IRGC, Quds Force and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)—was uncovered. A South American network of drug cartels called the Business Affairs Component (BAC), set up by Hizballah terror chieftain Imad Mughniyeh (assassinated in 2008) as a criminal division of Hizballah’s External Security Organization, managed this drug trafficking operation and laundered the proceeds through the Black Market Peso Exchange (a drug money laundering system). Managed by senior Hizballah operatives, some of whom are Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) figures, the BAC was moving cocaine and money to Europe, Iraq, Lebanon and the U.S. The arrest of SDGT Mohamad Noureddine in connection with Project Cassandra may have put a temporary crimp in some of Hizballah’s drug trafficking, but officials point to an actual expansion of such operations since a nuclear deal was made with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that took effect in July 2015.

U.S. willingness to deal directly with the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world has emboldened both Tehran and Hizballah. The JCPOA was only supposed to be about Iran’s nuclear industry, but its criminal, narcotics and terror industries got the message, too: individual U.S. agencies do their best, but the mullahs still have top cover.

Billions in freed-up frozen funds, sanctions relief, and ransoms paid for American hostages don’t hurt either.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

New ‘Terror Jihad Reader Series’ Lays Bare The True Nature And Danger Of The Islamic State

2623784173CENTER LAUNCHES NEW ‘TERROR JIHAD READER SERIES,’

LAYS BARE THE TRUE NATURE AND DANGER OF THE ISLAMIC STATE

Center for Security Policy, August 2, 2016:

As the savage attacks claimed by the Islamic State (IS) seem to follow on one another at an ever-increasing pace, too many still do not understand what this group is, where it came from, who its leaders are, and most important of all, why they do what they do. Whether the IS-controlled territory called “The Caliphate” survives in its current form or not, the totalitarian ideology Islamic supremacists call Sharia and the jihad it impels will cause adherent fighters, followers and supporters around the world to fight on and, unless decisively defeated, to continue to metastasize.

In the absence of such a defeat, the Islamic State continues to add new groups to its growing franchise. And individual jihadists from nearly every continent continue to step forward to pledge allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as they carry out murderous attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, too many at the top levels of U.S. national security, the media, academia and other elites still fail to understand this enemy, typically approaching it as a mere “terrorist organization” or purveyor of “violent extremism.” In particular, unless and until there is a much better appreciation for the phenomenon that is spawning and intensifying Islamic supremacism as practiced by IS, Americans and other freedom-loving peoples will be in mortal peril.

In the hope of enabling such an appreciation, the Center for Security Policy is pleased to present the first monograph in its “Terror Jihad Reader Series”: Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America, by Ilana Freedman. This publication delves into IS’ inspirational Islamist identity and describes the real threat it consequently poses to the United States. Ms. Freedman brings to bear her rigorous scholarship and sober analysis in order to define this enemy accurately and illuminate its abilities, intentions and motivations.

Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez introduces the Center’s new book

Speaking on the timeliness of this critical new book, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney noted:

For much of the past fifteen years, the United States has been preoccupied with the threat posed by al Qaeda (AQ). More recently, attention has preponderantly shifted to what began as an AQ splinter group, the Islamic State. Ilana Freeman’s new monograph, Jihad!, makes plain why the object of this new focus needs both to be better understood, utterly crushed and recognized as just one part of the global jihad movement – which must get the same treatment. It should be considered required reading, especially for those who seek to be our next Commander-in-Chief and charged with protecting this country against such enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Jihad! Understanding the Threat of the Islamic State in America is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at Amazon.com. As with all of the Center’s other publications, this one can also be downloaded for free at www.SecureFreedom.org.

SafariScreenSnapz006

For additional information about the stealthy counterpart to the violent jihad addressed by the Terror Jihad Reader Series, see the Center for Security Policy’s “Civilization Jihad Reader Series.”

PDF of the newly released monograph

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

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

2815008073

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Ramadan Jihad Massacre at Orlando Gay Club

52fb1969-043f-43e8-aa59-0e580990385aTown Hall, by Clare Lopez, June 13, 2016:

“First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people,” goes the jihad rallying cry. This year’s warning came first, as it always does, from an Islamic terror spokesman, the Islamic State’s Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. On 21 May 2016, he released a statement entitled, “That They Live by Proof,” that called for Ramadan attacks against “kuffar everywhere,” but specifically called on Muslims to target “civilians…[in] America and its allies of the Jews, Crusaders…and against all of Your enemies.”

Ramadan began on 6 June this year and runs until 6 July. The first to be attacked were in Israel, on 8 June, at the Sarona Market, an upscale food and retail center in central Tel Aviv. Two gunmen killed at least three and injured another five before being captured by police and taken into custody. That the next target was a gay nightclub in Orlando, FL should have surprised no one. Homosexuality is a capital punishment crime under Islamic Law (shariah). This is why the Islamic State is seen throwing gays off the tops of tall buildings—they believe they are obeying the will of Allah. Within Islam, there is broad consensus among authoritative scholars, based on widely-cited hadiths, about the obligation to impose the death penalty on gays. Further, mainstream Islamic doctrine obligates Muslims to take personal responsibility for the enforcement of shariah in the doctrine of “enjoin the good, forbid the evil” that derives directly from the Qur’an.

As if any more warning were needed, the United West warned in April 2016 about the Hussein Islamic Center in Sanford, FL that invited one Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar, to speak during the 2016 month of Ramadan. Sekaleshfar, a Shi’ite cleric, has posted a number of his earlier lectures online. In one of them, from 30 December 2013, he spoke explicitly about the shariah obligation to impose the death sentence on homosexuals: “Death is the sentence. We know there’s nothing to be embarrassed about this, death is the sentence … We have to have that compassion for people, with homosexuals, it’s the same, out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.” Please note that as a scholar of Shi’ite jurisprudence, Sekaleshfar cites here to the exact same shariah that holds homosexuality to be a capital crime in the Sunni schools of jurisprudence.

The Muslim killer at the Pulse night club in Orlando, FL has been identified as Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, an American citizen born in New York of Afghan immigrant parents. He was married for a time, but his ex-wife said he became increasingly abusive and beat her (indeed, as commanded in Qur’anic verse 4:34). Some years ago, Mateen made the pilgrimage to Mecca known as the umrah, which takes place at other times of the year from the hajj. He is reported to have made a 911 call before the attack, in which he pledged bayat to the Islamic State. He also is reported by eyewitnesses to have been yelling “Allahu Akbar,” as indeed required for an Islamic jihad attack. The Islamic State subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack via its Amaq News Agency while jihadis celebrated on social media. In other words, in every respect, Mateen seems to have been a devout, practicing, shariah-adherent Muslim, possibly connected in some way, formal or otherwise, to the Islamic State.

Unfortunately, the FBI didn’t seem to understand any of that when it questioned Mateen in 2013 and again in 2014 because of reports he’d been associated with Islamic terrorists, including one who carried out a suicide bombing in Syria. According to media reporting, the FBI even opened an investigation into Mateen but later closed it when they failed to understand the indicators and warnings his profile should have presented to them. As now-retired Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney has tried so hard to warn, because of the Great Purge throughout the ranks of U.S. national security agencies, officers like him were forbidden to pursue Islamic terror leads or learn or use accurate language to describe jihad or shariah as motivating ideologies for Islamic terror. In his new book, “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad,” Haney explains how the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of U.S. defenses and successful influence operations have effectively neutered U.S. law enforcement efforts against jihadis like the San Bernardino shooters or Mateen. In place of evidence-based investigations, the Obama administration willingly worked with Muslim Brotherhood advisors to implement the ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ policy that explicitly avoids anything that would connect Islamic doctrine, law or scriptures to Islamic terror. As Muslim Brotherhood front groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) or the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) begin to step forward in coming days, as they already have begun to do, ostensibly to condemn the Orlando Jihad Massacre, they too, must be held to account to repudiate the explicit elements of Islamic doctrine that hold homosexuality to be a death sentence crime

On a final and very disturbing note, Mateen has now been identified as having been an employee of a Florida-based security firm, G4S, that, according to Judicial Watch, has a DHS contract to transport illegal aliens from the Mexican border inland to resettlement throughout the U.S. He worked for G4S since 2007 and was currently employed at the time of this shooting.

The Orlando Ramadan Jihad Massacre is the largest mass shooting ever to take place on U.S. soil. Before there is another or possibly worse attack, U.S. national security leadership must face up to the reality of the Islamic jihad assault that has been launched against us. A new national security strategy must be written and implemented that identifies the enemy threat doctrine as Islamic Law – shariah – and takes immediate, pro-active steps to counter its jihadist, supremacist elements and deny them any further ability to operate in the United States.

Misrepresenting the Threat of Islam

7a9d40b9-13de-40a6-8bd1-9dc11badf8eaAIM, by James A. Lyons and Clare M. Lopez

One of the worst things that political and military leaders of a country at war can do is to misrepresent, or not understand, the threat doctrine and objectives of the enemy. Like it or not, America has been at war since November 1979 when Iran took over our embassy in Tehran.

On 15 May 2016, The Washington Post carried an article by retired General David Petraeus, which was his attempt to offer some insights for our next President on how to combat the current threat posed by the Islamic State (IS). He also attempted to address the broader Islamic jihadist ideology that animates them! In so doing, there is an unstated presumption throughout the article that “Islam is a religion of Peace” that has been hijacked by Islamic extremist groups, e.g., Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, al-Nusrah, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

General Petraeus fails to mention that the so-called “violent extremist groups” are all part of the Global Jihadists Movement (GJM). They, in fact, are carrying out the core principles of Islam as specified in the Quran, Shariah and the hadiths. Muslims do not consider Islam to be a “religion.” They call it a “complete way of life.” Clearly, our leaders need to understand that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, governed by an alien legal system called Shariah that obligates all Muslims to carry out jihad to conquer the world and subjugate it to Islamic Law. Jihadists plan to accomplish this by capturing our “soul” through the use of terror. Not understanding this is how we find ourselves in our current predicament.

To be clear, the doctrine of Shariah is not espoused by all Muslims. However, as pointed out by Andrew Bostom in his 15 March 2016 article in PJ Media, Shariah supremacism with its hateful bellicosity and bigotry remains regrettably the predominant mindset of the world’s Muslims. He states, based on the latest available information, that 77% of Muslims from the five largest Sunni Muslim populations and 83% of Shiite Iranians want Shariah as the law of the land. Furthermore, 91% of liberated Iraqis and 90% of Afghan Muslims support Shariah as well. So much for Muslim help!

Read more

Clare Lopez: Gulen and the Gulenist Movement

Center for Security Policy, May 10, 2016

Clare M. Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, is the co-author of the recently published book “Gülen and the Gülenist Movement: Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Cult and its Contributions to the Civilization Jihad.” Fethullah Gülen is the head of a vast political network in Turkey that promotes theocracy and has infiltrated the Turkish state. Gülen lives in the U.S. where he has established a significant number of charter schools. Her remarks included commentary on Gülen’s erstwhile ally, now opponent, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

gulen-widget

click the image for more

Also see:

EXCLUSIVE- A Buried Envelope & Buried Questions: Your First Look Inside Declassified Document 17

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Tour of Al Janadriyah Ranch

Clare Lopez posted this article on her facebook page with this comment:

Fascinating account of evidence, some known, some not-so-much, about Saudi involvement in 9/11 attacks (in addition to collaborating w/Iran to put a mark in hijackers’ ppts so Iranian border guards wouldn’t stamp them as they traveled in & out – see www.iran911case.com, Exhibit #4; in addition to Riyadh allowing Iran-directed Hizballah terror operative Imad Mughniyeh to recruit hijackers in Saudi Arabia in Oct 2000 – see 9/11 Commission Report, pg. 240; in addition to the ‘Golden Chain’ including wealthy Saudis who were allowed to funds AQ & UBL pre-9/11…etc.

***

9/11 Commission Work Plan Reveals FBI Found al Qaeda Member’s U.S. Pilot Certificate Inside Envelope of Saudi Embassy in D.C.

Investigators Sought to Examine Possible Political Influence on Examination of Saudi Government, Royal Family Links

28pages.org, By Brian P. McGlinchey, April 19, 2016:

As President Obama prepares to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, his administration is under increasing pressure to declassify 28 pages that, according to many who’ve read them, illustrate financial links between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers.

Meanwhile, a far lesser-known document from the files of the 9/11 Commission—written by the same principal authors as the 28 pages and declassified last summer without publicity and without media analysis—indicates investigators proposed exploring to what extent “political, economic and other considerations” affected U.S. government investigations of links between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.

Drafted by Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson as a set of work plans for their specific parts of the 9/11 Commission investigation, the 47-page document also provides an overview of individuals of most interest to investigators pursuing a Saudi connection to the 2001 attack that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Included in that overview is a previously unpublicized declaration that, after the capture of alleged al-Qaeda operative Ghassan al-Sharbi in Pakistan, the FBI discovered a cache of documents he had buried nearby. Among them: al-Sharbi’s U.S. pilot certificate inside an envelope of the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.

Declassified in July 2015 under the authority of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) appeal, the document is the seventeenth of 29 released under ISCAP appeal 2012-48, which focuses on FBI files related to 9/11. One of two documents in the series identified as “Saudi Notes,” we’ll refer to it as “Document 17.”

Dated June 6, 2003, Document 17 was written by Lesemann and Jacobson in their capacity as staff investigators for the 9/11 Commission, and was addressed to 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, Deputy Executive Director Chris Kojm and General Counsel Dan Marcus.

Commission Investigators Posed Two Questions That Linger Today

Lesemann and Jacobson had previously worked together on the 2002 joint congressional 9/11 intelligence inquiry and authored the classified, 28-page chapter on foreign government financing of the attacks. Document 17 outlines how the two investigators proposed to extend their earlier research. The plans include many questions Lesemann and Jacobson felt the investigation should answer.

Two of those questions seem strikingly relevant today, as a declassification review of just 28 pages said to implicate Saudi Arabia in the 9/11 attacks has inexplicably taken three times as long as the entire joint inquiry that produced them, and while a growing number of current and former officials who are familiar with the pages emphatically assert there’s no national security risk in their release.

Lesemann and Jacobson, already veterans of investigating 9/11 with the congressional inquiry, asked:

Document 17 Two Questions

They are two questions Lesemann wouldn’t be permitted to answer: Zelikow fired her first. Her termination had an apparent Saudi aspect of its own: Impatient with Zelikow’s neglect of her repeated requests for access to the 28 pages, she circumvented him to gain access on her own. When Zelikow discovered it, he promptly dismissed her.

Organizationally set apart from dozens of other questions as among the more important, overarching lines of inquiry for their particular avenue of the commission’s work, the significance of the questions’ presence in Document 17 is amplified by the absence of corresponding answers in the commission’s final report.

At some point—perhaps after Lesemann’s determined interest in Saudi links to 9/11 led to her dismissal—someone apparently determined a public study of those questions was beyond the scope of work.

Zelikow’s appointment over the commission was controversial, given his previous friendship with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and the fact he’d served on the Bush administration’s transition team. That history and, once appointed, his ongoing contacts with Bush political advisor Karl Rove, led some to question whether he was willing or able to achieve the high level of impartiality so essential to his role.

The Bush administration’s lack of cooperation with Saudi-related 9/11 inquiries is well-documented. According to Philip Shenon’s book, The Commission:

(Commission member and former Secretary of the Navy John) Lehman was struck by the determination of the Bush White House to try to hide any evidence of the relationship between the Saudis and al Qaeda. “They were refusing to declassify anything having to do with Saudi Arabia,” Lehman said. “Anything having to do with the Saudis, for some reason, it had this very special sensitivity.” He raised the Saudi issue repeatedly with Andy Card. “I used to go over to see Andy, and I met with Rumsfeld three or four times, mainly to say, ‘What are you guys doing? This stonewalling is so counterproductive.”

The Bush family has a multi-generational relationship with the Saudi royal family, with ties that are both deeply personal and deeply financial. Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the Saudi ambassador to the United States on 9/11, and is considered a personal friend of George W. Bush.

With many investigatory leads pointing toward the Saudi embassy in Washington, some feel Bandar merits thorough investigation—or that he may even be directly implicated in the 28 pages that Bush controversially redacted.

Saturday, appearing on Michael Smerconish’s CNN program to discuss a Saudi threat to divest itself of some $750 billion in U.S. Treasury securities if Congress passes a law clearing a path for 9/11 victims’ lawsuit against the kingdom, former Senator Bob Graham said, “I believe that there is material in the 28 pages and the volume of other documents that would indicate that there was a connection at the highest levels between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers.”

Asked by 60 Minutes if the 28 pages name names, commission member Lehman replied, “Yes. The average intelligent watcher of 60 Minutes would recognize them instantly.”

(If you watched the impactful prime time 60 Minutes segment on the 28 pages that aired last week and don’t remember Lehman’s intriguing statement, it’s because 60 Minutes oddly relegated perhaps their most newsworthy quote of all to this web extra.) There are many more examples of the U.S. government’s thwarting of Saudi-related inquiries, both outside and inside the work of the 9/11 Commission.

A Buried Flight Certificate

The FBI’s 2002 discovery of a U.S. pilot certificate or “flight certificate” inside a Saudi embassy envelope was news to Graham, who co-chaired the joint congressional inquiry that produced the 28 pages. 

al-sharbi-excerpt-document-17“That’s very interesting. That’s a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy,” said Graham, who has been championing the declassification of the 28 pages and a perhaps hundreds of thousands of pages of other documents since 2003.  

Since people often re-use envelopes and citizens of any country may have legitimatereasons for correspondence with the embassies of their government in foreign countries they live in, the Saudi embassy envelope isn’t by itself conclusive of anything. 28Pages.org couldn’t find any other history of the FBI’s find or of the government’s evaluation of its significance.

Al-Sharbi is one of 80 remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay. His public record includes his graduation from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, reported association with other al-Qaeda members and alleged attendance at training camps in Afghanistan.

He is also among the individuals identified in FBI agent Kenneth Williams’ July 2001 electronic communication, sometimes called the “Phoenix EC” or “Phoenix Memo.” With it, Williams attempted—unsuccessfully—to alert the rest of the bureau about suspicions that Middle Eastern extremists were attending flight schools with ill intent, and to recommend a nationwide investigation of the phenomenon.

While those aspects of al-Sharbi’s story have been widely discussed, the FBI’s reported discovery of his flight certificate inside a Saudi embassy envelope buried in Pakistan has not.

Read more

Help Release the 28 Pages: Use Our Guide to Call Congress Today

Knowledge is power: Share this post on social media

Follow 28Pages.org on Facebook and Twitter

Also see:

Cruz adviser points finger at Saudis for 9/11

911-world-trade-center

WND, by Garth Kant, April 19, 2016:

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, but evidence keeps mounting to support it.

“Make no mistake: Support to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks was official Saudi government policy.”

That is the bombshell comment made to WND by Clare Lopez, the vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy. She is also a member of the national security advisory team for GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz.

The accusation is staggering because, if true, it would mean it was official Saudi policy to help conduct what was, essentially, a military act of war against the U.S., a supposed ally.

WND reported a year-and-a-half ago concerns by lawmakers that some members of the Saudi government did, in fact, assist the hijackers.

But an article in the New York Post on Sunday by former WND Washington Bureau Chief Paul Sperry, based on well-placed government sources, directly ties Prince Bandar bin Sultan to the 9/11 conspiracy. Bandar was Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005.

If Bandar was involved, it would likely mean support for the 9/11 attacks went to the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Lopez takes Sperry’s revelation a shocking step further by declaring support for the “9/11 attacks was official Saudi government policy.”

Sperry also reported, “[T]he kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government.”

“After he (Bandar) met on Sept. 13, 2001, with President Bush in the White House, where the two old family friends shared cigars on the Truman Balcony, the FBI evacuated dozens of Saudi officials from multiple cities, including at least one Osama bin Laden family member on the terror watch list. Instead of interrogating the Saudis, FBI agents acted as security escorts for them, even though it was known at the time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens,” reported Sperry.

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Former President George W. Bush, Former Saudi King Abdullah

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Former President George W. Bush, Former Saudi King Abdullah

Lopez told WND, “The involvement of (then-Saudi ambassador to the U.S.) Prince Bandar as well as the passport issue, above all, make that abundantly clear. They may have gambled on the personal relationship between Bandar and President George W. Bush – as well as a very different energy situation at that time – to evade accountability for their role in the 9/11 attacks, but those days are over.”

The passport issue Lopez referenced was from testimony in a court case that she said “talked about the mark that the Iranian and Saudi governments collaborated to have placed in the Saudi hijackers’ passports, so that when they crossed the Iranian border on their various pre-9/11 training trips, the Iranian border guards would not stamp them. This allowed these hijackers eventually to obtain U.S. visas in ‘clean’ passports.”

That testimony was made by Janice L. Kephart, former immigration counsel to the 9/11 Commission, in the December 2011 ruling in the Havlish case by U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels in Manhattan that, according to the court record, “Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.”

What makes the remarks by Lopez and Sperry so timely is the growing bipartisan pressure on President Obama to release classified information from the 9/11 Commission findings that reportedly implicates the government of Saudi Arabia in supporting the 9/11 hijackers and helping them execute the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

For what it called reasons of “national security,” the Bush administration removed 28 pages of the bipartisan “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” that was published in 2002.

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Republicans and Democrats, including lawmakers who have read the redacted pages, are calling on Obama to release the information. Obama is resisting, apparently because that could seriously rupture diplomatic relations with the Saudis at a time when they are officially portrayed as U.S. allies in fighting ISIS.

Already, the Saudi government is threatening to dump billions of dollars in American assets if Congress passes a bipartisan bill that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments.

That legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and is even supported by Democratic Party presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Lopez told WND the prospect that the Saudis supported the Sept. 11 attacks is “not shocking at all” because the country “is birthplace of Islam, whose doctrine commands Muslims to conquer and subjugate the Dar al-Harb” (regions where Islam does not dominate).

The Middle East expert continued, “Saudis are guardians of the ‘Two Holy Places,’ in Mecca and Medina, the stewards of the annual hajj. They, along with ISIS, are the truest of the true believers.”

WND asked: If Bandar was involved in supporting the 9/11 hijackers, as the sources claim, what should the U.S. response be?

“Release the 28 pages (redacted from the 9/11 Commission report), inform Saudis that we hold them responsible for their role. They must come clean, pay reparations and we will go from there. Allow them an out, in that leadership now is not same as leadership then.”

She added, “It is not just Prince Bandar. So much more.”

Lopez said it was worth recalling that the 9/11 Commission report stated on Page 240 that in October 2000 “a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia, to coordinate activities there.”

“This,” she said, “is a much-redacted version of what really happened: Imad Mughniyeh (a senior member of Hezbollah) was ordered by Iran to go to KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) to recruit Saudi hijackers.”

“Of course, the Saudi government at the highest levels knew about this and permitted it to happen.”

Lopez said less well-corroborated were reports that then-Saudi Intelligence Director Turki bin Faisal met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001.

In addition to spending two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer, Lopez was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has authored two books, and contributed to many others, on Iran and jihadism. She turned to history to further her case against the Saudis.

Lopez said more proof was provided by “the funding that senior Saudis and other wealthy Gulf figures provided to bin Laden in the 1990s, when he was mostly broke because he’d spent his family inheritance in the 1980s in Afghanistan.”

“These Saudis may not have been members of the royal family, but they were certainly close to them and there is no way the Riyadh royals did not know they were funding bin Laden and allowing it to happen. This was the so-called ‘Golden Chain’ – including such individuals as Abdullah Omar Nasseef, he of the Rabita Trust, who has been ‘godfather’ to the Huma Abedin family for all these decades.”

Huma Abedin is Hillary Clinton’s top aide and former top State Department official whose family has been repeatedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group dedicated to spreading militant Islam worldwide.

WND asked Lopez: In light of growing evidence of Saudi support of the 9/11 hijackers, and in light of their continuing export of wahhabism (a form of radical Islam), is that government really an ally of the U.S., or is it an enemy?

She replied, “The Saudi regime is a ‘frenemy.’ The House of Saud made a deal with (wahhabism founder) Ibn Wahhab in late 1700s, which has held, off and on, ever since. The deal is that Wahhabi clergy will lend theological legitimacy to Riyadh royals in return for which said royals will use power and wealth to spread Islam, jihad and Shariah (strict Islamic law) throughout the world, both by force and stealth.”

But the emergence of ISIS has become a grave threat to the Saudis.

“A serious problem now for those Riyadh royals is that they have not been leading exactly devout Muslim lives. Wahhabi establishment today, in fact, finds more in common, ideologically speaking, with the more pure practice of Islam by the Islamic State than by the House of Saud, at a time when both ISIS and Iran pose possibly existential threats to the Riyadh regime.”

Mecca, Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islam

Mecca, Saudi Arabia is the spiritual home of Islam

WND asked the Cruz foreign-policy adviser, what should U.S. policy be toward Saudi Arabia? Is it time to dramatically reassess our relationship with the regime?

“U.S. leaders need to make very clear to Riyadh that, yes, we share certain key objectives: free flow of oil from the Gulf, countering the Iranian regime’s quest for deliverable nuclear weapons and its geo-strategic aggression and expansion in the region, stopping ISIS aggression and expansion, and generally supporting regional stability.”

“That said,” she concluded, “we will no longer permit Riyadh to pretend to work with the U.S., purchase top-of-the-line U.S. military equipment, or pose as American partners while simultaneously funding and/or allowing funding from the kingdom to support the export and expansion of jihad and Shariah.”

“Riyadh must choose: We are willing to work with them on mutual objectives but will no longer tolerate a double game. Decide – or there will be consequences.”

***

Also see: