Monday, December 5, 2016

9/11 Mastermind Reveals Trump’s Plan to Fight Terrorists Works - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows anti-war leftists were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

The left aided Islamic terrorists most not with street protests, but by embedding counterintuitive narratives into the framework of counterterrorism. These narratives turned reality on its head.

In counterterrorism, counterintuitive narratives transformed inaction into a virtue.

One of the most pervasive myths was that Islamic terrorists actually wanted us to fight them and that we could only defeat them by ignoring them. The irrationality of the myth that terrorists wanted us to bomb and kill them was exceeded only by its persistence among experts and political officials.

Popularly known as “Playing into their hands”, the goal of this counterintuitive narrative was to make the ostrich approach appear prudent and masterful while flipping around patriotism by accusing national security hawks of playing into the hands of the terrorists by killing them.

Only the appeasers had the secret to defeating Islamic terrorism while the patriots were truly traitors.

Trump faced repeated accusation from Hillary and her proxies that he was playing into the hands of ISIS with calls to get tough on Islamic terrorism. And you can expect the smear that he’s playing into the hands of the terrorists by bombing and killing them to recur throughout his administration.

But the myth has been shredded by James E. Mitchell's book, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America.” As the man who helped the CIA break terrorists, Mitchell had written the “book” on effective methods for fighting Islamic terror. And now he actually wrote the book on what the terrorists really wanted and fear.

And no, they didn’t want to be bombed. We weren’t “playing into their hands” by killing them or by making it harder for them to come to America. It was the left that was playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

And that still is.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, revealed that Al Qaeda shared the leftist panic and disaster over Bush’s “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists. The United States had backed down from Islamic terrorists so many times that they had come to take our defeatism for granted. Al Qaeda didn’t have a masterful plan to lure us into Afghanistan, as the left liked to insist, instead it expected President Bush to follow in Clinton’s footsteps by delivering an empty speech and then writing it off as a law enforcement problem. Much as Obama had done with Benghazi.

It wasn’t expecting the roar of jets over Kandahar.

“How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’’ Khalid Sheikh Mohammed whined.

“KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks”, but instead Al Qaeda and its plans for the next wave of attacks were crushed “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.”

Like Saddam’s WMDs, the left has made great sport of the lack of major follow-up attacks by Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda couldn’t follow up because it was under too much pressure. Unsurprisingly, killing terrorists actually worked. Unknown numbers of American lives were saved because President Bush believed that killing terrorists was more effective than appeasing them.

The left had always insisted on treating 9/11 as a law enforcement matter. That is why Obama aggressively pushed to move Islamic terrorists into criminal courts. Even his Osama bin Laden bid was only an effort to capture the top Al Qaeda terrorist so that he could put him on trial in a criminal court.

“My belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama had argued, showcasing a typical counterintuitive narrative myth.

Osama’s death proved to be a lucky political break for Obama, but he hadn’t been trying to fight terror. Instead he was working to appease it.

Various counterintuitive narratives were invoked in defense of this bad policy, including the “Playing into their hands” myth. But now we know that it was leftists who were playing into Al Qaeda’s hands.

The mastermind of 9/11 wanted us to send the cops after Al Qaeda. He wasn’t looking to dance with an A-10. And had Bill Clinton turned over the White House to Al Gore instead of George W. Bush, 9/11 would have been far more devastating as the opening round of a series of major Islamic terror attacks.

Another great counterintuitive myth is that Islamic immigration, which provides fertile recruiting ground for foreign terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS to pursue their Jihad on America using operatives already embedded in the country, is actually the best way to fight Islamic terrorism.

When Trump called for a ban on Muslim migration, counterintuitive narratives were deployed that accused him, once again, of playing into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda. Islamic immigration, the counterintuitive myth claimed, disproved the claims of Islamic terrorists about America. The more Muslim migrants we took in, the more Muslims would come to love us and reject Islamic terrorism.

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed that he did not oppose Islamic immigration. He viewed it as the certain way for Muslims to defeat America and the free world. Islamic terrorism was a short range gamble. The “moonshot” of Islamic conquest wasn’t terrorism, it was Muslim migration to the West.

And even in the short term, Islamic terror was still enabled by Islamic immigration.

"Jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws’ while continuing their attacks,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted.

While the counterintuitive narrative deeply embedded in CVE insists that Islamist “civil rights” groups like CAIR are our best “partners” in fighting Islamic terrorism and that extending every possible legal protection to Islamic terrorists will help discredit them, Mohammed saw Islamic migration and the whole Islamist civil rights scam enabled by the radicals at the ACLU and elsewhere, as cover for Islamic terrorism.

All of this is obvious to any thinking person who possesses enough common sense to come out of the rain. So why did so many important people fall for the counterintuitive myths of counterterrorism?

The strange seductiveness of counterintuitive narratives lies in their rejection of common sense solutions. Instead they follow the standard leftist pattern of descending into the matrix of a logically illogical system which is internally consistent, but makes no sense when applied to the real world.

Counterintuitive narratives make elites and experts feel smart for appearing to transcend common sense to grasp deeper insights into human nature and how the world works. Such gnostic revelations are a big part of the left’s appeal, particularly to college students, but these mythologies are a myth.

The left loves to play with language, but word games don’t change reality. They just seduce those who consider themselves bright into believing that their cleverness is more meaningful than reality.

But eventually the ivory towers fall, the sand castles are washed away by the tide and the lies die.

Common sense was always right. Killing terrorists works. Appeasing them doesn’t. Terrorists are broken through pressure, not milk and cookies. Trump’s proposals work. Those of the left only enable terrorism.

“America will expose her neck for us to slaughter,” Mohammed predicted. And it did.

But just as the mastermind of September 11 had not anticipated what President Bush would do, Islamic terrorists never saw President Trump coming.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Will Mahmoud Abbas Pay Salaries to the Arsonists? - Itamar Marcus

by Itamar Marcus

Should Abbas insist on adding the imprisoned arsonists to the PA payroll, his hypocrisy in sending a few fire engines to Israel will be exposed to the world.

While Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas was accepting praise for sending Palestinian firefighters to help put out fires in Israel, the PA Finance Ministry was busy doing the paper work to start paying salaries to the Palestinian arsonists who were arrested for setting many of those same fires. So far Israel has arrested 23 suspected arsonists connected to the hundreds of fires that raged across Israel in the last week of November, burning more than 500 homes and 32,000 acres of forests and national parks. According to Palestinian law documented by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), anyone imprisoned for "resisting the occupation" receives a high monthly salary. Therefore, all of those convicted and imprisoned for arson will receive PA salaries "from the day of arrest until the day of release."

A fire rages in central Haifa, November 24, 2015. (Image source: Haaretz video screenshot)

Of course, it is not only arson-terrorists who receive a PA salary. All Palestinian, Israeli Arab and Arab terrorists from any country who are imprisoned are rewarded with high salaries from the PA. (See PMW Special Report) According to PA law and practice, "resisting the occupation" includes any Arab imprisoned for attacking Israelis by any means, including throwing a stone at a car, driving a car into people at bus stops, building bombs for suicide bombers to blow up at cafes, or shooting and stabbing civilians to death in their sleep. Since the PA automatically includes anyone who attacked Israelis or their possessions as "fighters" who are "resisting the occupation," there is no justification under Palestinian law and practice not to include last week's arsonists among the Palestinian "heroes" who receive monthly salaries.

Significantly, these salaries for terrorists rise the longer terrorists are in jail. Terrorists convicted of murder and serving life sentences will reach a high salary of NIS 12,000 a month - more than four times the average Palestinian salary.

The PA has already paid the five Hamas terrorists who murdered Eitam and Naama Henkin in front of their four children last October in total NIS 91,000 as reward for their murders. And terrorist Abdallah Barghouti has already received NIS 645,000 for building the bombs that murdered 67 Israelis at the Sbarro pizza shop, Sheffield Club, Moment Café, the triple bombing at the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall, Hebrew University and No. 4 bus in Tel Aviv.

Today there are approximately 7,000 Palestinian prisoners on the PA payroll. The PA rewards them every month for terrorism, and this generous arrangement will cost the PA NIS 488 million in 2016 alone, according to the PA's publicized budget.

If Abbas was ever serious about stopping the PA's ongoing support for terrorism, he now has the perfect opportunity to make a difference. Instead of merely enjoying complimentary headlines and nice photo ops of Palestinian firemen with Israelis, Abbas should decree that the arsonists will not receive PA salaries.

Even though this is contrary to current Palestinian law and practice.

Should Abbas insist on adding the imprisoned arsonists to the PA payroll, his hypocrisy in sending a few fire engines to Israel will be exposed to the world.

Should Abbas decide to deny salaries to the arsonists this may indicate the beginning of a fundamental change in the PA attitude toward terrorism. However, if Abbas cancels salaries only to the arsonists, it will not be enough. If he says to the world that the PA will not pay salaries those who burned trees, rocks and homes while it continues to pay salaries to murderers of men, women and children, his values and behavior, which cause many to see him as a terrorist leader, will remain unchanged.

If Abbas' act of sending fire trucks to help Israel was a sincere act indicating that he is no longer a terrorist leader, he now has a great opportunity to prove it.

Right now while he has the world's attention, having made this small gesture in the direction of peace, let him take a serious step. Abbas should announce that not only will the arsonists not be rewarded with PA salaries, but he is changing Palestinian law and canceling the payments to all imprisoned terrorists altogether.

And what better opportunity than now to announce this, during Fatah's Seventh General Conference.

If Abbas continues to pay salaries to murderers and arsonists, his gesture of sending fire trucks to Israel must be seen as an act of contemptuous hypocrisy.

Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A blight on the City of Roses - Victor Sharpe

by Victor Sharpe

The city that hosted anti-Trump demos after the election has a record of blatant anti-Zionism, which is a crude mask for its twin, anti-Semitism.

The late November sky was gray and murky over Portland, Oregon when hundreds of Israel haters descended upon City Hall with the sole purpose of driving yet another nail into the reputation, honor and survival of the one Jewish state in the world: Israel.

The meeting was held in the city known for its renowned and beautiful rose test gardens, yet for supporters and defenders of Israel very little was coming up roses.

According to a Jewish Federation of Greater Portland survey taken some years ago, the Jewish population numbers some 47,500. Yet from this surprisingly high number of Jewish residents in this Pacific Northwest city barely a handful came to City Hall to defend and support the Jewish state.

In stark contrast, the City Commissioners were assailed with a tsunami of anti-Israel falsehoods so ugly and groundless that they could only have been manufactured in the fevered minds of those consumed by a corrosive and anti-Semitic hatred. 

There is now a great danger to the integrity of the Portland City Council if it succumbs to the mendacious anti-Israel hate fest launched upon it by the notorious BDS movement in collusion with far left church groups and the renegade and morally confused organization calling itself Jewish Voice for Peace: All masquerading as human rights organizations.

Before the City Commissioners was the demand that Portland, Oregon divest from its investment pool all those companies that have business with the Jewish state, such as Caterpillar.

Among the many falsehoods leveled against the embattled Jewish state - and the grotesque demonization of it - was the regurgitated myth of Rachel Corrie as a valiant peace activist. She was anything but.

At best she was a foolish and indoctrinated useful idiot for Hamas. At worst she was a hater of America and Israel, but that did not stop her relatives from being present and poisoning the meeting with the pernicious myths they have helped weave around her.   

In his article titled, Rachel Corrie Was No Peace Activist, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote a scathing expose of the Rachel Corrie myth, which has so effectively been exploited by BDS, ISM and others to disfigure Israel’s image and delegitimize it.

Tobin also quoted  British journalist Tom Gross who memorably wrote in 2005, “The Forgotten Rachels,” in which he lamented that those promoting the cult of Rachel Corrie never care about the Jewish girls with the same first name who have been slaughtered by the Muslim terrorists the ISM activist herself sought to shield.

Such a divestment resolution targeting only embattled Israel, while not divesting from a host of countries and entities with appalling human rights violations, will inevitable bring opprobrium upon the city of Portland with justified accusations of committing a double standard. 

It will inflict an indelible stain upon Portland’s very honor should the city commissioners vote to embrace the hateful boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. 

It is not by coincidence, however, that Portland shares a lamentable record of extreme left-wing sympathies and actions with the People’s Republic of Berkeley, California. 

Remember the ugly riots and mindless vandalism perpetrated by leftist trolls which broke out in downtown Portland when President elect Trump was declared the winner of the general election? And it is a dismal claim to infamy that Portland State University is now ranked as one of the ten worst centers of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic venom in the nation. 

To quote from a recent article by Phyllis Chesler, let us look at the annual human rights ranking by Freedom House of independent countries having poor and in some cases horrendous human rights records that dwarf any that are falsely attributed to Israel. 

As of 2015, the countries listed were as follows: 

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, The Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Panama, Papau New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

And yet, it is only beleaguered Israel that is chosen to be vilified and persecuted by well-funded hate groups and NGOs whose very policies can no longer be separated from the sin of virulent anti-Semitism.

Victor Sharpe is a prolific freelance writer with many published articles in leading national and international conservative websites and magazines. Born and educated in England, he has been a broadcaster and has authored several books including a collection of short stories under the title The Blue Hour. His three-volume set of in-depth studies on the threats from resurgent Islam to Israel, the West and to Judeo-Christian civilization is titled, Politicide: The Attempted Murder of the Jewish State.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Trump Chooses “Mad Dog” Mattis for Pentagon Chief - Matthew Vadum

by Matthew Vadum

Leftists foam at the mouth and gnash their teeth.

Obama foe and retired Marine Corps Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis will be the nation’s new Secretary of Defense if President-elect Donald Trump gets his way.

“I will not tell you that one of our great, great generals — don’t let it outside of this room,” an impish Trump told a Cincinnati audience last night. “We are going to appoint 'Mad Dog' Mattis as our secretary of defense … but we are not announcing it until Monday, so don’t tell anyone. He’s great.”

"They say he’s the closest thing to Gen. George Patton that we have and it’s about time."

The president-elect previously praised Mattis. On Nov. 20 he tweeted, “General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!”                             
James Norman Mattis was born Sept. 8, 1950 in Pullman, Washington. He is a political Independent. In addition to the “Mad Dog” moniker, the nickname “Warrior Monk” has been applied to him. His reported radio call sign was "Chaos." Mattis co-wrote the military's counterinsurgency manual along with retired Army Gen. David Petraeus who is also under consideration for a post in Trump’s cabinet.

Eminently quotable, he is known for his many “Mattis-isms.” Among them are "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet," and "I don't lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) hailed the cabinet selection, describing Mattis as “without a doubt one of the finest military officers of his generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special admiration of his troops.”

Mattis “has a clear understanding of the many challenges facing the Department of Defense, the U.S. military, and our national security,” and the nation “will be fortunate to have General Mattis in its service once again.”

Mattis seems unlikely to be a yes-man in Trump’s cabinet. He repeatedly criticized Trump during the recent election campaign.

Mattis said Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration makes U.S. allies think “we have lost faith in reason.”

“They think we’ve completely lost it," he said. "This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through this international system.”

But Mattis has also suggested that “political Islam” needs to be combatted. He said last year that Islamic State's strategy rests on the belief that "the Americans will not ask one fundamental question: … Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States?" He continued: "I suggest the answer is no, but we need to have the discussion. If we won't even ask the question, how do we even recognize our side in this fight?"

Mattis is somewhat of a contrarian. He questions the current organization of the country’s nuclear arsenal, which now consists of submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles. "Is it time to reduce the Triad to a Diad, removing the land‐based missiles?" he said at a congressional hearing last year.

The selection of the distinguished 66-year-old veteran delighted conservatives and defense wonks but some Democratic lawmakers don’t like him. Obama gave Mattis the boot as head of Central Command and the general has been an outspoken critic of the president ever since.

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Personnel, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, vowed yesterday to fight the nomination.

“While I deeply respect General Mattis’s service, I will oppose a waiver,” she said, referring to a law that prevents commissioned officers in the U.S. military from taking the top Pentagon post less than seven years after leaving the service.

“Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule.”

Always the moral poseurs, Democrats could don convenient moral garments by pretending they oppose Mattis because they suddenly care about civilian control of the military.

Gillibrand’s hostility to the Mattis pick could be a signal to the Left and foreshadow confirmation problems for the general. Critics says Gillibrand is a “mini-me” to apparent incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also from New York, and follows him in lock-step.

So does this mean Schumer is planning to rain on the Mattis parade? We’ll find out soon enough.

But with all the electoral shellackings Democrats have received in the last few national elections, early in the new year the Left may need a confidence boost. Who better to vilify than a deadly serious career soldier, the kind of man Daily Kos readers hold in contempt because he actually wants America to win wars?

And while Trump may liken Mattis to Patton, he may also be the closest thing to a comic book super-villain in the new president’s cabinet for legions of perpetually outraged Democrats who would prefer that U.S. soldiers function as social workers. They may want to take out Mattis as a nominee or make his life difficult to help MoveOn and boost the coffers of the DNC and Democrat fundraising shops.

The “waiver” to which Gillibrand referred is needed because Mattis faces an unusual statutory hurdle on the road to the Pentagon: he hasn’t been away from military service long enough.

The National Security Act of 1947, which reorganized the military and intelligence agencies in the wake of the Second World War, forbade anyone from becoming secretary who in the preceding 10 years had been on active duty as a commissioned officer in the armed forces. The thinking at the time was apparently that it was important to guarantee civilian control over the military, a longtime cornerstone of American governance.

The statute was amended in 1950 to allow Army General George C. Marshall to become defense secretary. The legislative language was changed again in 2008. Section 903(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act reduced the waiting period to seven years.

Mattis, who is very popular in military circles, only left the service three-and-a-half years ago in May 2013 after serving as commander at U.S. Central Command, which covers the Middle East.

CNN spoke to Arnold Punaro, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who helped write the current law. He said that a waiver from both houses of Congress shouldn’t be a problem.

"He would not in any way undermine or erode civilian control of the military, and it would be hard to find someone who would be less likely to be pushed around by the military and he is now a civilian and would be firmly in charge," said Punaro, adding Mattis was a "stellar choice."

Another retired general seemed to agree with Punaro.

"Waivers are waivers," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mick Bednarek, who was senior U.S. military adviser in Iraq until last year. "In the case of Jim Mattis, that would not be too contentious. The real issue is his views and perspectives."

If Senate Democrats believe fighting the Mattis nomination will benefit the Left, history suggests they’ll do it and make excuses up for their behavior as they go along.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

UK: Another Massive Charity Commission Whitewash - Samuel Westrop

by Samuel Westrop

Those more familiar with the iERA will know that asking this Salafist charity to produce and follow its own counter-extremism plan is akin to demanding that the Ku Klux Klan introduce affirmative action hiring processes.

  • In its report, the Charity Commission makes note of the iERA's promotion of hate preachers, but treats the charity as a victim of such extremism, rather than an instigator.
  • According to the Commission, bureaucracy is the solution -- the iERA's extremism will be solved by more "adequate procedures... to prevent abuse of the charity, its status, facilities or assets."
  • Extremist charities are not private institutions: charitable status affords extraordinary legal and financial benefits, including the opportunity for radical Islamist organisations to claim government subsidies. But no government should allow extremist networks to exploit charitable status. Shut these charities down, and ban those Islamist activists from ever again becoming trustees of a charitable organisation.
On November 4, the British charity regulator, the Charity Commission, published a report of its inquiry into the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), a British Salafist group and religious training organisation. The inquiry was initially welcomed by moderate Muslim groups and counter-extremism analysts, but many will be disappointed with the Charity Commission's recommendations.

More than a dozen pieces have been written for the Gatestone Institute examining the iERA's links to extremism, as well as the failure of government, media and even Jewish organisations to tackle this fast-growing Salafist group. In 2014, one of these articles exclusively revealed that the "Portsmouth Five," a notorious group of ISIS recruits from southern England, were all members of an iERA youth group.

In 2014, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain published their own comprehensive report, which looked even more closely at the officials, preachers and extremist links of the iERA. In the wake of significant media coverage, the Charity Commission launched their investigation. The "inquiry's scope," the Charity Commission claims, was to look at the iERA's extremist links, as well as its "financial management."

There was no shortage of evidence. The head of the iERA, Abdur Raheem Green, is a former jihadist who warns Muslims of a Jewish "stench," encourages the death penalty as a "suitable and effective" punishment for homosexuality and adultery, and has ruled that wife-beating "is allowed."

The head of the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), Abdur Raheem Green, is a former jihadist who warns Muslims of a Jewish "stench," encourages the death penalty as a "suitable and effective" punishment for homosexuality and adultery, and has ruled that wife-beating "is allowed." (Image source: BBC video screenshot)

Other iERA officials have included Zakir Naik, an Islamic preacher whose NGO has just been raided and designated "unlawful" by Indian law enforcement; and Abdullah Hakim Quick, who has called upon God to "clean and purify al-Aqsa from the filth of the Yahood [Jews]" and "clean all of the lands from the filth of the Kuffar [non-believers]."

In its report, the Charity Commission makes note of the iERA's promotion of hate preachers, but -- as it has done in the past -- treats the charity as a victim of such extremism, rather than an instigator. According to the Commission, bureaucracy is the solution: the iERA's extremism will be solved by more "adequate procedures... to prevent abuse of the charity, its status, facilities or assets." External speakers, the Charity Commission advises, should "sign the charity's Anti-Extremism, Data Protection and Equal Opportunities disclaimers." The iERA, concludes the Charity Commission, should produce "risk assessments" for all events and put in place an effective "counter-extremism policy."

Those more familiar with the iERA will know that asking this Salafist charity to produce and follow its own counter-extremism plan is akin to demanding that the Ku Klux Klan introduce affirmative action hiring processes. But such demands make sense to civil servants in London, who adhere to the government line that because British Islam is inherently good, any real examples of extremism can only be the work of corrupting outside influences.

Counter-extremism analysts have seen such blindness from the Charity Commission before. In 2013, the Charity Commission reported on the offices of an unnamed charity:
"We visited the charity's premises and saw images of the leader of the group that is a proscribed terrorist organisation were displayed on the walls of the charity's offices. We also identified that the charity had organised marches at which supporters of the proscribed organisation were present."
Was this charity, evidently dedicated to the support of a banned terrorist organisation, shut down? No. Instead, the Charity Commission decided to "instruct the trustees to develop and implement robust controls to manage the charity's activities and the use of its premises."

Also in 2013, the Charity Commission opened an investigation into International Islamic Link, a taxpayer-funded Shi'ite charity that previously described itself as "the office of ... Ayatullah Nasir Makarem Shirazi." Aytollah Shirazi is one of the Iranian's regime most hardline clerics. He is known for issuing a fatwa for the murder of Iranian pro-democracy activist Roozbeh Farahanipour. He is also known for his unwavering commitment to Holocaust denial and his support for killing adulterers and homosexuals.

Once the Charity Commission opened an investigation into International Islamic Link, the organisation told the Charity Commission that they had no link with this Iranian cleric. Nevertheless, the Charity Commission, despite clear evidence to the contrary, declared that they were "satisfied" with the charity's response.

The Charity Commission treats the claims made by trustees of extremist charities as irrevocable truth, and responds to evidence of extremism merely by urging more stringent bureaucratic oversight.

In 2014, Gatestone Institute published information about the Islamic Network. This extremist group's website advocated the murder of apostates, encouraged Muslims to hate non-Muslims and claimed "The Jews scheme and crave after possessing the Muslim lands, as well as the lands of others." After investigating the charity, the Charity Commission decided to give the Islamic Network booklets titled, "How to manage risks in your charity."

The recent Charity Commission whitewash into the iERA is just one more example of a weak, ineffective charity regulator. Extremist charities are not private institutions: charitable status affords extraordinary legal and financial benefits, including the opportunity for radical Islamist organisations to claim government subsidies through a "tax-back" scheme named Gift Aid. Although the iERA's accounts do not mention the amount if receives from the Gift Aid program, the group encourages donors to "consent yes to gift aid."

If a private organisation wishes to promote non-violent, bigoted Islamist ideology, then a free society should allow them to do so. But no government should allow extremist networks to exploit charitable status. Shut these charities down, and ban those Islamist activists from ever again becoming trustees of a charitable organisation.

Samuel Westrop


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Habitat for Humanity’s Terror-Linked Friends - Joe Kaufman

by Joe Kaufman

The Islamic Circle of North America stains a good cause.

For decades, Habitat for Humanity (HFH), a Christian charity, has been building homes for those who are less fortunate in society, regardless of religion. Because of this truly noble undertaking, the organization has garnered much praise around the world, including from leaders of nations. However, recently, the group has been doing something to lose that respect and sully its reputation. It has been allowing itself to become affiliated with groups associated with international terrorism. One of these groups is the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA.

ICNA is the American affiliate of South Asian Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). JI’s militant wing, Hizbul Mujahideen, owned the Pakistani compound where Osama bin Laden was hiding out and where he was eventually killed by US Navy Seals. ICNA, itself, has been linked to terrorist financing and has used the web to promote different terrorist groups, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Taliban.

ICNA conducts its annual functions with the Muslim American Society (MAS), which, in November 2014, along with al-Qaeda and ISIS, was designated by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government a terrorist organization. The National Executive Director of MAS, Mazen Mokhtar, was a US-based administrator for (‘Jihad in Chechnya’), an al-Qaeda recruitment and financing site, and has been quoted as calling Hamas operations “heroic” and suicide bombings “an effective method of attacking the enemy and continuing jihad.”

The main charity of ICNA is ICNA Relief. In August 2006, ICNA Relief was the top donor and partner to Pakistani charity Al Khidmat Foundation (AKF), at the same time AKF took a delegation to Syria to hand deliver nearly $100,000 to the global head of Hamas, Khaled Mashal, at his then-Damascus residence. Today, Mashal operates out of Qatar. Mashal thanked the group and said Hamas would continue to wage “jihad” (war) on the “Zionist yoke” (Israel).

ICNA Relief continues to work directly with AKF overseas. In fact, the President of AKF’s Central Board of Management, Muhammad Abdus Shakoor, is a former Secretary General of ICNA.

On October 15th, ICNA Relief partnered with the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Florida International University (FIU) for a Habitat for Humanity event, in Pompano Beach, Florida. Attending were both leaders of their respective Muslim groups, the President of the FIU MSA, Sara Haroon, and the Secretary of ICNA Florida and ICNA Relief USA Florida, Abdul Rauf Khan.

ICNA’s Khan has used his Facebook page to post videos dedicated to Nation of Islam leader and anti-Jewish fanatic Louis Farrakhan and Egypt’s banned Muslim Brotherhood. He has been photographed wearing Muslim Brotherhood garb, himself. Khan also posted a video on his Facebook site glorifying a member of Hezbollah as a “hero,” and he posted a link to an anti-Semitic video labeling comedian talk show host Bill Maher, “Zionist Jew Bill Maher.”

Listed on the flyer – which contains both the ICNA Relief and Habitat for Humanity logos – as the contact for the Habitat event is Taha Qureshi, the Outreach Coordinator for ICNA Relief USA Florida.

Qureshi likes sharing controversial posts on his Facebook page. In October, he shared a post stating, “Don’t worry about Trump. Abu Lahab has always existed – We just need more Abu Bakrs.” When Muslims refer to someone as an Abu Lahab, who was the half-uncle of Muhammad, they are calling him/her an enemy of Islam.

In August, Qureshi shared a Facebook post with his readers referring to English as a “shit language.” And in February, Qureshi shared a post praising the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, as “a legend” who “feared none but his Lord” and memorializing the anniversary of his death in 1949.

This is not the first event ICNA Relief has done with Habitat for Humanity. They have done a number of them, in Florida and other parts of the country. In January, the two came together, also in Pompano Beach, Florida. Attending that event as a volunteer for ICNA Relief was the imam of Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen (MJAM), Izhar Khan.

In May 2011, Khan was arrested and spent the next 20 months in a federal detention center in Miami on charges of terrorism. According to the indictment against him, “Izhar is a Pakistani Taliban sympathizer who worked with [his father Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan] and others to collect and deliver money for the Pakistani Taliban… Izhar… provided and attempted to provide material support and resources… knowing and intending that they be used in preparation for and in carrying out… a conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign country.”

Other radical Muslim outfits have participated in similar projects with HFH, including the Hamas-related Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Are these the types of groups and individuals Habitat for Humanity wishes to represent their cause? Does HFH really want a support network for terror and bigotry to be associated with their name and their logo?

It is obvious these organizations are cynically exploiting Habitat’s name and humanitarian endeavors for their own sinister purposes. If HFH wishes to preserve its integrity – and its donors – it must cease working with groups which promote a violent Islamist agenda.

The website for Habitat for Humanity contains the following message of thanks: “We are deeply grateful to the many partners who help Habitat for Humanity build decent and affordable housing in the United States and around the world.”

But how could anyone ever be thankful towards those who spread violence and hate?

Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.

Joe Kaufman was the 2016 Republican nominee for United States House of Representatives in Florida’s 23rd Congressional District. He is an expert in the fields of counter-terrorism, foreign affairs and energy independence for America. He has been featured on all major cable networks, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS and C-SPAN. Joe has been instrumental in getting terrorist charities shut down and terror-related individuals put behind bars. Exactly one month prior to the September 11 attacks, he predicted the attacks by stating in an article that “the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was no aberration” and that it would happen again.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How does John Bolton stack up against other SecState contenders? - Arnold Cusmariu

by Arnold Cusmariu

The question now arises: which candidate for the position of secretary of state would be most compatible with General Mattis?

President-Elect Donald J. Trump showed excellent judgment in appointing Marine general James N. Mattis to lead the Department of Defense for two independent reasons.

First, General Mattis is eminently qualified to lead the government's largest and most expensive bureaucracy. The general has led the United States Joint Forces Command and the United States Central Command and as such can be said to know the Pentagon like the back of his hand. General Mattis will hit the ground running on day one. His status as a four-star means that the Joint Chiefs will quickly accept him as their peer.

Second, the president-elect was absolutely right to first appoint a secretary of defense rather than a secretary of state. This is the right priority order, because it is our military strength that qualifies our country as the world's top superpower. Soldiers win battles; diplomats sometimes (Vietnam) lose the war. State telling Defense what to do, which has been the Obama model, is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The question now arises: which candidate for the position of secretary of state would be most compatible with General Mattis? The president-elect will want to make sure that State and Defense are in sync. The Benghazi fiasco was due in no small measure to Hillary Clinton getting priority over Leon Panetta at Defense. Previously her husband's White House chief of staff, Panetta probably felt subordinate to the former first lady.

With these criteria in mind, let us see how four candidates fare: Governor Mitt Romney, General David Petraeus, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Ambassador John Bolton.

Romney, Petraeus, and Giuliani would not hit the ground running day one. By the time they are up to speed, more than likely several months later, State's career diplomats will have figured out how to maneuver around whatever changes might come their way. This would happen because the local team inherently has a field advantage over the visitors. As former U.N. ambassador, Bolton knows State as well as Mattis knows the Pentagon.

The president-elect several times referred to General Mattis as "Mad Dog" Mattis, which is Mattis's nickname. Mattis also has a reputation as a "general's general." Neither description applies to General Petraeus, despite his many accomplishments. "Mad Dog" Romney? I don't think so. Mayor Giuliani capably led New York before and after 9/11 but is not tough or knowledgeable enough to stand up to State careerists. Bolton wins again.

In July 2010, General Mattis replaced General Petraeus as commander of CENTCOM, a fact that may well lead to friction between the two four-stars. How well they would get along in their new positions is a question mark. Moreover, placing military officers in charge of the two most major policy organizations of our government might raise concerns that Trump wants the military rather than civilians to run the show.

State careerists would have a pretty easy time convincing Romney and Giuliani that they need to defend their turf against possible Pentagon "encroachment" by Mattis and his subordinates. Rivalries would soon develop over many issues, some manageable like military personnel in embassies, others less easy to manage. Bolton understands priorities and can be relied upon to avoid factionalism and get on with business.

Finally, not to be overlooked or downplayed is the "swelled head" factor.

Mattis and Bolton are both humble men and would be able to assume the top positions at Defense and State without undergoing a transfusion of arrogance or pomposity. I think Petraeus is safe on that score but is disqualified by other considerations. I'm not sure about Giuliani, but being top diplomat would go to Romney's head pretty quickly.

Arnold Cusmariu


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Vicious Palestinian Politics - Michael Curtis

by Michael Curtis

The power struggles in Palestinian politics make the contest between presidential candidates in American politics look likely a friendly game of chess.

The mills of democratic politics in Palestinian organizations grind slowly, if they ever grind at all. This was borne out once again at the 7th General Congress of the Fatah section of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) held in Ramallah, the capital of the West Bank, on November 29, 2016, the anniversary of the day in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved the Partition of Palestine. This was the first such conference since 2009. It was attended by 1400 delegates compared with 2355 in 2009.

 The main function of the Congress was to elect the leader of Fatah, the Fatah Central Committee and the Revolutionary Council. The main event was the reelection of 81-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, said to be suffering from a heart problem, and having undergone cardiac catheterization, as chairman of Fatah. The stated term of office is five years, but it is unpredictable when it will actually end. The lack of adherence to rules and time restraints by Palestinian leaders is familiar. Mr. Abbas is presently in the twelfth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority, and appears ready to hold the post until destiny calls.

In the Congress in Ramallah, Abbas, not unexpectedly, was elected unanimously despite a possible challenge from his long-time rival, the 55-year-old Mohammed Dahlan, former leader of Fatah in the Gaza Strip, who is in exile in Abu Dhabi. Dahlan had been minister for Palestinian security for a short time in 2003 and had organized a paramilitary force in 2007.

However, no challenge took place. Abbas has been wary of a threat to his leadership and acted ruthlessly. He thus suspended key Dahlan supporters from Fatah, reduced the PA salaries of many others, and prevented many other Dahlan supporters from attending the Fatah conference.

At the Congress, there was pointless talk about the successor to Abbas when he retires. Interestingly, that retirement will not be in Palestine or Jordan, but in Qatar, where Abbas has citizenship and where his two sons, who through connections have acquired considerable wealth, have investment firms.

Abbas's bitter rival Dahlan has had a checkered career, personal and political. In the Karni scandal of 1997, he was accused of diverting 40% of taxes levied in Gaza to his own personal bank. Dahan fled the West Bank in 2014 after accusing Abbas of corruption. As a result he was sentenced in absentia to two years in prison.

The bitter power struggle continues. In a ceremony on November 10, 2016, the 12th anniversary of Arafat's death, Abbas in his remarks implied that Dahlan was behind Arafat's death in Paris. Two days later Dahlan replied. In his version, it was Abbas who was a suspect, because Abbas was the only one who benefited from Arafat's death.

The power struggles in Palestinian politics make the contest between presidential candidates in American politics look likely a friendly game of chess. The organizers of the Ramallah Congress, using political muscle, could have given Debbie Wasserman Schultz valuable lessons in her attempts to distort the Democratic party primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton. 

The bitter rivalry between Abbas and the ambitious Dahlan is highly personal, rather than based on issues on which their opinions are largely similar. This rivalry is only part of the other divisions among Palestinians: the bitter fight between Fatah and Hamas; the rival groups with Fatah; and the feud between the PLO and other groups, the Popular Front (PFLP) and the Democratic Front (DFLP). 

Abbas has tried to reach agreement with Hamas, partly through the agreement signed in Cairo in 2011 for a joint government in the West Bank and Gaza. But this has been postponed, even though Abbas met Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh in Qatar in October 2016.

Supporters of all sides in Palestinian politics claim they are following the path of Yasser Arafat. That path was a devious one, but it bears some similarity with the road taken by Abbas concerning Russia. Arafat had emerged as a leader of Fatah (Movement for the Liberation of Palestine), formed in Kuwait in 1959, and then as chairman in 1964 of the PLO created by the Arab League aided by the Soviet Union in 1964.

There is controversy over the origin of the PLO. The most dramatic, if exaggerated, explanation comes from Ion Pacepa, a former adviser to Nicolae Ceausescu, dictator of Communist Romania, and a general in the secret police of that country, who defected to the U.S. in July 1978. Pacepa's argument is that the Soviet Union proposed the creation of the PLO and decided on the main point of appeal, the liberation struggle of the "Palestinian people."

Indeed. around this time the Soviet Union was creating "liberation fronts" throughout the Third World, especially in Bolivia and Columbia. The Soviet influence is shown in the PLO Charter created on May 28, 1964, with a preamble, "We, the Palestinian Arab people," and Article 25, which calls for the liberation of its homeland in "liberational, organizational, political, and financial matters."

The first PLO Council with 422 representatives, in which the KGB had an influence, approved the document. The first chair, Ahmad Shukeiry, only held the position for a few months after which he was replaced by Arafat, who was dependent on the Soviet Union for military and economic assistance.

It is unclear the exact nature of Soviet influence in the creation of the PLO, but it is more than coincidental that Abbas studied in Moscow in the early 1980s, that he got his doctorate from Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, and published in 1984 his dissertation, "The Other Side: the Secret Relationship between Nazism and Zionism". Abbas told the world that the Holocaust had been exaggerated, and that "Zionism" had fabricated the myth of six million killed.

According to some documents, revealed by another Soviet defector Vasili Mitrokhin, Abbas was a KGB agent in 1983.

The Obama administration has persisted in seeing Abbas and Fatah as a possible negotiating partner for peace with Israel. President Trump can benefit from the true nature of Fatah as illustrated by the rhetoric and ruthless power politics at the Ramallah Congress. The most devastating comments were that Abbas is a political corpse, corrupt, tyrannical, who has lost political direction. The incoming secretary of state in the Trump administration should act accordingly.

Michael Curtis


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Haim Saban: Keith Ellison is an anti-Semite, Israel-hater - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

Israeli-American media mogul and Democratic donor warns Ellison as DNC chair would be a 'disaster' for relations with Jewish community.

Keith Ellison
Keith Ellison
A leading Democratic donor issued a stinging condemnation of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, warning that if the controversial far-left candidate became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, relations with the Jewish community would be seriously damaged.

Israeli-American media mogul and billionaire Haim Saban blasted Ellison, calling him an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.”

“If you go back to his positions, his statements, his speeches, the way’s he voted, he’s clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” Saban said during the Saban Forum on Friday, hosted by the Brookings Institute.

Since announcing his candidacy for the DNC chair, Ellison has come under fire from Jewish groups, like the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America, for his sharp opposition to the Israeli government and past support for Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan.

Prior to his election to the House of Representatives, Ellison had defended Farrakhan’s controversial comments, which often strayed into black supremacy, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry.

In 2009, Ellison endorsed the United Nation’s Goldstone report, which accused Israel of war crimes during the 2008-2009 Gaza conflict. Five years later, Ellison was one of only eight House members to oppose aid for the Iron Dome missile protection system Israel developed in response to Hamas rocket attacks.

Last week a bombshell revelation of comments by Ellison at a 2010 gathering – comments Ellison made as a sitting congressman – led to an explicit condemnation by the Anti-Defamation League.

In an audio recording publicized by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Ellison can be heard accusing Israel, through elements of the American Jewish community, of dominating the United States.

“The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people,” Ellison is heard saying in the recording. “A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again?”

In response, ADL head Jonathan Greeblatt slammed Ellison, accusing him of peddling in “age-old stereotypes”.

"Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying. His words imply that US foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the US.”

Ellison denied the charges, claiming the recording was “taken out of context,” though a complete transcript of the meeting has been released. Since he entered politics, Ellison has worked to portray himself as reformed, dropping his public support for the Nation of Islam and their anti-Semitic beliefs.

On Friday, Saban acknowledged Ellison’s change in rhetoric, but argued his actions and the recently uncovered 2010 address reveal he remains “an anti-Semite.”

“If you listen to Keith Ellison today, and you see his statements he’s more of a Zionist than Herzl, and Ben Gurion and Begin combined,” Saban said during the gala dinner for the event, which is organized by the Brookings Institution. “It’s amazing, it’s a beautiful thing. If you go back to his positions, his statements, his speeches, the way’s he voted, he’s clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.”

“Words matter, actions matter more,” Saban continued. “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Now, I’ve said what I’ve had to say.”

David Rosenberg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget