Category Archives: Libya Benghazi Muslim Brotherhood murder

Obama subervient to Iran and Russia

Posted on by

America has been caught up in Ebola, the midterm elections and the DACA executive order allowing tens of thousands to come across the southern border. We have been horrified by a handful of beheadings of Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq.

Now the real work begins for Americans to get engaged as some very nefarious events could occur between now and the time the 114th Congress is seated in January of 2015.

It is important to look at the Middle East with particular emphasis as a 3rd Intifada is brewing there again in Israel. Meanwhile, we cannot ignore Vladimir Putin any longer and his aggression on Ukraine and the handful of Baltic States.

The community organizer, Barack Obama cannot compete in any arena with other world leaders that include those of China, Russia and Iran.

On the Denise Simon Experience Radio show hosted by Cowboy Logic Radio, Alex Holstein spend almost two hours putting into perspective matters of geo-politics and the future implications.

Alex Holstein is the Director of Corporate & Government Relations for Geopoliticalmonitor Intelligence Corps.  He holds a BA from the University of Southern California and an MSc. in Russian and Post-Soviet Studies from the London School of Economics, where he wrote his thesis on the Soviet KGB. Through years of extensive research and worldwide experience, Alex has developed a strong grasp of foreign affairs, maintaining a particular interest in espionage, terrorism, special operations, border security and international relations. A former Executive Director of the Republican Party of San Diego County, he has managed communications and stakeholder engagement for major statewide and national political and issue advocacy campaigns in both California and Washington D.C., including the California Recall 2003 and the US Presidential Election 2004. He is currently a contributing expert for International Security and Intelligence issues at the SUN News Network in Canada. Geopoliticalmonitor Intelligence Corp. GPMGlobalSolutions.com / Geopoliticalmonitor.com

As a subject matter expert with well placed and selected placeholders, Alex explained in layman’s terms the implications of Syria, Iran, Iraq and what the near future holds. To hear the show, click here.
 

Most disturbing is the actions of Putin as noted here:

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with top security chiefs on Thursday over a “deterioration of the situation” in eastern Ukraine after pro-Russian rebels there accused Kiev of launching a new offensive in violation of a ceasefire.

Sporadic violence has flared since the Sept. 5 truce in a conflict that has cost over 4,000 lives; but the ceasefire has looked particularly fragile this week with separatists and the central government accusing each other of violations.

Andrei Purgin, deputy prime minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, said the Ukrainian army had launched “all-out war” on rebel positions, Russian news agency RIA said.

Ukrainian military spokesman Vladyslav Seleznyov denied this, saying the army remained in agreed positions.

“We refute these allegations…we’re strictly fulfilling the Minsk memorandum (on a ceasefire),” he said by telephone.

A Kremlin statement said the presidential Security Council, which groups key security and defense officials under Putin’s chairmanship, discussed among other things a “deterioration of the situation in the Donbass due to repeated violations of the ceasefire by the armed forces of Ukraine.”

It did not say what decisions, if any, had been reached over the conflict that broke out in the industrialized east after the overthrow of Ukraine’s Moscow-backed leader Viktor Yanukovich in February and Russia’s subsequent annexation of Crimea.

A Reuters witness in the rebel stronghold of Donetsk said there was no sign the conflict was escalating.

Representatives of the separatist regions earlier put out a joint statement calling for a redrafting of the Minsk deal, which established a ceasefire in exchange for Kiev granting “special status” to eastern territories.

Rebels say Ukraine has violated the deal by seeking to revoke a law that would have granted eastern regions autonomy. Kiev says this was a consequence of Sunday’s separatist leadership elections which it says go against the agreement.

The Ukrainian military said three soldiers had been killed on Thursday, reporting a total of 26 separate artillery clashes with separatists.

In summary, make no mistake that the adversaries of America, Iran, Russia and China are working in cadence for their own agendas and completely against America, hence our State Department, National Security Council and the White House and willfully allowing this. Question is to what end?

Who Applauds the Brewing Intifada?

Posted on by

In recent days, there has been protests, conflicts, murders and explosions in and around Israel. It is important to list these attacks as they demonstrate what may lay ahead.

The following report was released by the Israel Foreign Ministry on Thursday, 13 Marcheshvan. The Palestinians have carried out three terrorist attacks in Jerusalem in less than two weeks and instigated numerous riots on the Temple Mount since the summer. Incitement and the glorification of terrorists have played an important role in triggering the violence and in encouraging further attacks. Rioting on the Temple Mount document.

The past weeks have been marked by a series of terrorist attacks in Jerusalem: One Israeli man was killed and 14 injured, some seriously, in Jerusalem on Wednesday, November 5, when a Palestinian deliberately rammed his commercial van into two separate crowds of Israelis near a light-rail train station and then attacked passers-by with a metal pole. A nearly identical attack took place exactly two weeks earlier (Wednesday, October 22) when a Palestinian steered his car into a light-rail station killing an Israeli-American baby and a woman originally from Ecuador and injuring eight. On Wednesday, October 29, a Palestinian terrorist attacked Yehuda Glick, an American-born Israeli, as he was departing from a conference in central Jerusalem. The terrorist shot Rabbi Glick multiple times and he remains in critical condition. Rioting on the Temple Mount: In the past few months, Palestinian radicals have been trying to breach the status quo by preventing Christians and Jews from visiting the Temple Mount. Palestinian rioters – incited by Hamas and the radical branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel – have attacked visitors as well as the police with stones and fireworks, using the al-Aqsa Mosque as their base of operations.

On November 5, several dozen masked Arabs again rioted on the Temple Mount. As the Mughrabi Gate for non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount opened as usual, the rioters came out of their prepared positions inside the al-Aqsa mosque and launched stones and fireworks at police stationed at the gate. The police responded with non-lethal measures to prevent injuries. The rioters then returned to the al-Aqsa mosque, positioning themselves behind barricades they built the night before. They targeted the police with the hundreds of fireworks, rocks and iron bars prepared beforehand, all from within the mosque itself. Several police officers were injured. Although as a matter of policy, the police never enter the mosque, following the escalation of attacks from inside the mosque, the police had to take a rare step. A small number of officers walked a few steps into the mosque’s entrance, for a short time, to remove the barricades that were preventing the mosque’s doors from being shut. By closing these doors, the police separated the rioters from their targets, thereby restoring calm to the Temple Mount and enabling peaceful visits to the plaza. A video filmed by the Israel Police clearly shows the Palestinian rioters at the entrance to the mosque, which they have taken over and desecrated as a launching base for their attacks. It is important to note that contrary to a number of media reports, the Temple Mount is not synonymous with the al-Aqsa mosque. Rather, this mosque is one of several structures located within the Temple Mount plaza (called Haram al-Sharif/the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims). Israel places the highest value on freedom of religion and worship. In contrast to Palestinian claims, Israel has made no move to change the decades-old status-quo on the Temple Mount, to which the Government of Israel is committed. Israel is reacting with maximum restraint to Palestinian violence on the Temple Mount. Its goals are to allow Muslims to pray peacefully and for Jews and others to visit safely. The police, despite being targeted, use only non-lethal measures against rioters, such as sponge-bullets and concussion grenades. In contrast, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas and his “unity government” partner Hamas are operating to undermine the status-quo on the Temple Mount, inciting riots to enflame tensions. Islamic extremists are endangering the safety of the al-Aqsa mosque by transforming it into a base for attacks and using flammable weapons. They store fireworks, Molotov cocktails and other dangerous objects inside the mosque and launch violent attacks from within the structure they claim as their third holiest site. While instigating riots on the Temple Mount, PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself, as well as Hamas, have engaged in incitement to terrorism and violence in Jerusalem.

In recent statements, Abbas said that all means must be used to prevent Jews from going up to the Temple Mount. He called Jewish visitors to their holiest site a “herd.” In the past, Abbas has disseminated lies, claiming that Israel is attacking the al-Aqsa mosque and that Jews are “desecrating” it. The most recent terrorist attack (November 5) is a direct result of the incitement by Abbas and his Hamas partners. The acts of incitement include a condolence letter sent by Abbas (1 November) to the family of the terrorist who shot Yehuda Glick. In the letter that glorifies the shooter, the PA president wrote that he “ascended to heaven as a martyr in the course of defending the rights of our nation, its honor and holy sites.” Abbas’ Fatah movement also published materials exalting the terrorist who carried out the attack on 22 October. For example, both Sultan Abu-Aynayn (an Abbas advisor and Fatah Central Committee member) and Fatah’s official Facebook page praised him as “a heroic martyr.” The international community should strongly condemn Abbas’ incitement and call on the PA president to cease this encouragement of violence and terrorism. The inflammatory language and actions must cease so that calm can return to Jerusalem and its Temple Mount in particular.

Then there is the breaking relationship with Jordan over the mosque closing.

While facing increased Arab riots and terrorist attacks that resemble the underpinnings of a renewed Palestinian intifada (uprising), Israel is simultaneously working to manage tension in its delicate relationship with Jordan, one of its two peaceful Arab neighbors.

On Nov. 5, masked Arab rioters threw rocks and shot fireworks at Israeli security forces on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, forcing Israel to temporarily close the holy site to visitors and touching off a diplomatic spat between the Jewish state and Jordan.

Israel also temporarily closed the Temple Mount to all worshippers last week after an Arab man’s attempted assassination of activist Yehudah Glick, a promoter of Jewish access to the Temple Mount. The preventative move came against the backdrop of weeks of increased Muslim riots and assaults on Jewish residents, including the recent vehicular Palestinian terror attack on Jerusalem’s Ammunition Hill light rail station that killed two people. After pressure from U.S. and Muslim leaders, the Israeli police decided to re-open the Temple Mount ahead of Muslim prayers on Oct. 31. Yet Nov. 5 saw another car-ramming attack by a Palestinian driver, this time at the Shimon Hatzadik light rail station in Jerusalem. The latest car attack killed an Israeli Druze border police superintendent and a 17-year-old yeshiva student.

Following the temporary closure on Nov. 5, Jordan threatened to undermine its relations with Israel by recalling its ambassador to the country over Israeli “violations” on the Temple Mount. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab nations that have diplomatic relations with Israel.

After a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Jordan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Judeh, accused Israel of “escalating the situation in Jerusalem” and “violations against the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” the Jordanian news agency Petra reported. Judeh added that Jordan would continue to counter “unilateral Israeli moves through diplomatic and legal means, especially using its vantage position as a member of the U.N. Security Council.”

Grant Rumley, a research analyst specializing in Palestinian politics and the Levant region for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS.org that he believes Jordan’s calculations “are mostly the result of domestic pressure.”

“It’s harmful for the Jordanians to pull their minister from Israel, but it’s even worse for [Jordan’s] King Abdullah domestically if he doesn’t do anything,” Rumley said. “This, combined with a complaint to be filed at the Security Council, amount to symbolic gestures that are likely to appease the Jordanian public (a majority of whom do not support the country’s peace treaty with Israel) while still not severely damaging the strategic relationship with Israel.”

Despite fighting against each other in the 1948 War of Independence and 1967 Six Day War, Jordan and Israel have always maintained a relatively close relationship, which was finally formalized in 1994 with the Israel-Jordan peace treaty.

Today, both countries cooperate in several important areas, including security, the economy, and natural resources. Jordan in September signed a 15-year, $15 million natural gas deal with Israel that was hailed at the time as an “historic agreement.” As top allies of the U.S., Jordan and Israel also cooperate closely on intelligence sharing, especially amid the threat of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups in nearby Iraq and Syria. Jordan and Israel have also set up joint industrial parks, including the Jordan Gateway, whose formation was announced in late 2013.

At the same time, Israel and Jordan maintain a unique arrangement in Jerusalem. According to the 1994 peace treaty, Jordan retains custodianship over the Muslim holy sites in eastern Jerusalem, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. But since the late 1990s, Israel has gradually allowed the Palestinian Authority to assert greater control over the site, which has caused some friction with Jordan and a gray area over control.

As part of the Jordan-Israel arrangement on the holy sites, Jews and non-Muslims are permitted to visit the Temple Mount, site of the First and Second Temples, on select days, but are not permitted to pray there. Yet there has been a push by some Israelis for greater Jewish sovereignty at the Temple Mount, including prayer rights.

Meanwhile, Muslim leaders, including in the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, have used the Temple Mount issue to incite protests and violence. Recent Palestinian news has been flooded with speeches, articles, and cartoons featuring calls by Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas to “defend” Al-Aqsa “in any way,” Palestinian Media Watch reported.

“This is our Sanctuary, our Al-Aqsa, and our Church [of the Holy Sepulchre]. They (Jews) have no right to enter it. They have no right to defile it. We must prevent them. Let us stand before them with chests bared to protect our holy places,” Abbas said.

For Jordan, the Temple Mount arrangement is just one of the critical issues facing the country.

“Jordan has about four major areas of concern these days: the threat of Islamic State, the economy, the crisis of handling Syrian refugees, and the tensions in Jerusalem,” Rumley told JNS.org.

“Now, for Abdullah, that’s probably exactly the order he’d list these issues in importance,” he said. “For the Jordanian public, it might be the other way around. These are sensitive issues, and Abdullah made a strategic calculation in keeping this spat with Israel at the diplomatic/rhetorical levels. There are too many benefits to the relationship with Israel in regards to the other categories for the king to seriously consider severing ties.”

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Paul Hirschson, meanwhile, was careful not to place too much blame on Jordan for recent unrest, instead focusing on PA incitement.

“We regret the Jordanian decision [to recall its ambassador], which doesn’t contribute to calming the situation,” Hirschson told JNS.org. “We would expect Jordan to condemn the violence, deliberately instigated from [PA headquarters in] Ramallah.”

Before the news of the recall of the Jordanian ambassador and the threat of diplomatic action in the U.N., reports indicated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and King Abdullah met secretly in Amman on Nov. 1 to discuss the situation in Jerusalem and urge calm.

The two leaders spoke again over the phone on Nov. 6 about the importance of ending violence and incitement over the Temple Mount.

“We agreed that we’ll make every effort to calm the situation,” Netanyahu said after the phone call.

“I explained to him that we’re keeping the status quo on the Temple Mount and that this includes Jordan’s traditional role there, as consistent with the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel,” Netanyahu added, referring to claims in the Muslim world that Israel is seeking to change the status there.

Some Israeli lawmakers, however, feel that Israel is conceding sovereignty over Jerusalem and the holy sites.

“Israeli society needs to decide if it is willing to pay the price for maintaining sovereignty over the Temple Mount and the entire land,” said Member of Knesset Moshe Feiglin (Likud), who has been a leading advocate for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount and recently visited the site. “The weakness being shown in dealing with the Temple Mount reflects on the whole country.”

After the two vehicular terror attacks on Nov. 5, Netanyahu placed the blame on Palestinian incitement.

“This attack was the direct result of the incitement of Abbas and his Hamas partners,” Netanyahu said. “This front of hate wants to run over all of us. Peace will come when Abbas stops calling Jews ‘defilers’ and he stops embracing murderers.”

Last week, Abbas’s Fatah movement declared Oct. 31 to be a “day of rage” in Jerusalem, calling on Palestinian “fighters” to defend Al-Aqsa, while Hamas similarly called for further protests and violence.

While the tension continues to escalate, Rumley believes that the situation has not yet risen to the level of another Palestinian intifada.

“I think there are a lot of analysts out there eager to label this as an intifada,” he told JNS.org. “But intifadas have to have leadership at some point. The first started leaderless before local committees sprouted up. The second [Intifada] was top-down coordinated. So far, the situation in East Jerusalem is leaderless.”

“What we’re seeing instead is not so much local leadership as it is external groups attempting to steer the situation,” added Rumley. “Hamas calling for protests, Abbas calling for days of rage, etc. … Right now, these attacks and clashes appear to have a short shelf life, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way in the future.”

Obama out of Iraq Due to WH, Maliki, Mahdi Army

Posted on by

The White House knew better than anyone else when it came to Iraq. At all costs, Barack Obama wanted out and to declare hostilities over. He prevailed however, today Iraq is a battleground not seen before.

In Mosul, two army divisions also disintegrated as thousands of soldiers and police officers shed their uniforms, dropped their weapons and ran for their lives. Shehab, told that his commanders had deserted, tossed his rifle and ran away too.

“We felt like cowards, but our commanders were afraid of Daesh. They were too afraid to lead us,” said Shehab, 43, using the Arabic acronym for Islamic State. The military collapsed in Mosul even though Washington spent eight years and $25 billion to train, arm and equip Iraq’s security forces. The United States has now deployed 1,400 advisors to try to rebuild the shattered military into a force that can repel Islamic State.

So how did Iraq reach this point?

Behind the U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Negotiations were repeatedly disrupted by Obama White House staffers’ inaccurate public statements

By James Franklin Jeffrey

 

The spectacular success in early 2014 of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq, is often blamed on the failure of the Obama administration to secure an American troop presence in Iraq beyond 2011. As the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in 2010-12, I believed that keeping troops there was critical. Nevertheless, our failure has roots far beyond the Obama administration.

The story begins in 2008, when the Bush administration and Iraq negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement granting U.S. troops in the country legal immunities—a sine qua non of U.S. basing everywhere—but with the caveat that they be withdrawn by the end of 2011.

By 2010 many key Americans and Iraqis thought that a U.S. military presence beyond 2011 was advisable, for security (training Iraqi forces, control of airspace, counterterrorism) and policy (continued U.S. engagement and reassurance to neighbors). The Pentagon began planning for a continued military presence, but an eight-month impasse on forming a new government after the March 2010 Iraqi elections delayed final approval in Washington.

In January 2011, once the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was formed, President Obama decided, with the concurrence of his advisers, to keep troops on. But he wasn’t yet willing to tell Prime Minister Maliki or the American people. First, Washington had to determine the size of a residual force. That dragged on, with the military pushing for a larger force, and the White House for a small presence at or below 10,000, due to costs and the president’s prior “all troops out” position. In June the president decided on the force level (eventually 5,000) and obtained Mr. Maliki’s assent to new SOFA talks.

The Obama administration was willing to “roll over” the terms of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement as long as the new agreement, like the first, was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament.

Iraqi party leaders repeatedly reviewed the SOFA terms but by October 2011 were at an impasse. All accepted a U.S. troop presence—with the exception of the Sadrist faction, headed by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, which held some 40 of Iraq’s 325 parliamentary seats. But on immunities only the Kurdish parties, with some 60 seats, would offer support. Neither Mr. Maliki, with some 120 seats, nor former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, the leader of the largely Sunni Arab Iraqiya party with 80 more, would definitively provide support. With time running out, given long-standing U.S. policy that troops stationed overseas must have legal immunity, negotiations ended and the troop withdrawal was completed.

Given the success in winning a SOFA in 2008, what led to this failure? First, the need for U.S. troops was not self-evident in 2011. Iraq appeared stable, with oil exports of two million barrels a day at about $90 a barrel, and security much improved. Second, politics had turned against a troop presence; the bitterly anti-U.S. Sadrists were active in Parliament, the Sunni Arabs more ambivalent toward the U.S., and polls indicated that less than 20% of the Iraqi population wanted U.S. troops.

Could the administration have used more leverage, as many have asserted? Again, the main hurdle was immunities. The reality is that foreign troops in any land are generally unpopular and granting them immunity is complicated. In a constitutional democracy it requires parliament to waive its own laws. An agreement signed by Mr. Maliki without parliamentary approval, as he suggested, would not suffice. (The legal status of the small number of “noncombat” U.S. troops currently redeployed to Iraq is an emergency exception to usual SOFA policy.)

Some suggest that the U.S. could have made economic aid or arms deliveries contingent on a Status of Forces Agreement. But by 2011 the U.S. was providing relatively little economic aid to Iraq, and arms deliveries were essential to American and Iraqi security. Was the 5,000 troop number too small to motivate the Iraqis? No Iraqi made that argument to me; generally, smaller forces are more sellable. Could someone other than Mr. Maliki have been more supportive, and were the Iranians opposed? Of course, but with or without Mr. Maliki and Iranians we faced deep resistance from parliamentarians and the public.

Could President Obama have showed more enthusiasm? True, Mr. Obama seemed to feel he couldn’t force an unwanted agreement on the Iraqi people, and he didn’t work with Mr. Maliki as President Bush had. But Mr. Obama spoke or met with Mr. Maliki three times in 2011, and Vice President Joe Biden was constantly in touch. What counted most with Mr. Maliki was not rapport but the coldblooded calculus of pluses and minuses affecting his political fortunes. On the other hand, the negotiations were disrupted repeatedly by White House staffers with public statements inaccurately low-balling the troop numbers and misinterpreting Iraqi decisions.

The withdrawal of troops allowed President Obama to declare that he was “ending the war in Iraq”—oddly, since it was the Bush administration’s military victories and successful negotiation of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement that had set the timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal. Later, during the 2012 presidential debates, Mr. Obama inexplicably denied that he had even attempted to keep troops in Iraq.

Could a residual force have prevented ISIS’s victories? With troops we would have had better intelligence on al Qaeda in Iraq and later ISIS, a more attentive Washington, and no doubt a better-trained Iraqi army. But the common argument that U.S. troops could have produced different Iraqi political outcomes is hogwash. The Iraqi sectarian divides, which ISIS exploited, run deep and were not susceptible to permanent remedy by our troops at their height, let alone by 5,000 trainers under Iraqi restraints.

Iraqis in Shiite-dominated greater Baghdad generally support the army, he said. But he also acknowledged that the army cannot defend the surrounding “Baghdad belt” without the help of thousands of Shiite militiamen Kamil calls “volunteers,” particularly because areas just to the north, west and south have a Sunni majority.

Officers in one of many units that collapsed in Mosul, the 2nd Battalion of Iraq’s 3rd Federal Police Division, said their U.S. training was useful. But as soon as their American advisors left, they said, soldiers and police went back to their ways.

Retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, in charge of Iraqi training in 2007 and 2008, said Maliki’s government intimidated and assassinated Sunni officers while Maliki seized personal control of the security forces from commanders. Human rights groups have accused Iraqi security forces of detaining and killing Sunnis.

Selected quotes from the text above is from By David Zucchino

Why Iraqi army can’t fight, despite $25 billion in U.S. aid, training

 

 

No Definition for Terror

Posted on by

I have no connections to anyone currently employed by the FBI but I do have several with former FBI’ers. Our formal and non-formal discussions are chilling when it comes to operations, assignments and investigations at the agency.

So FBI, here is a tip, this website http://islamophobia.org/ has listed names and organizations they deem as a threat to Islam. Is this some kind of hit list? What criteria creates such a list and is this approved by the FBI?

But take note FBI, those that are paying attention don’t feel safe in America. Your agency is doing little to sway our fears. Share that same sentiment with Jeh Johnson at DHS please.

It was a few years ago after doing some research and gathering evidence that I attempted to have a dialogue with the local FBI office, the agent on duty asked me if I was an Islamophobe and them hung up on me. It was clearly the time when the FBI was given an edict to be politically correct when it comes to investigations on Islam and all the manuals were stripped from the operating and training systems.

 

FBI Director Robert Mueller in 2012 capitulated with the American Muslim and Arab American lobby groups and announced that more than 700 documents and 300 presentations from training materials. Abed Ayoub was able to take a meeting with Mueller who represented groups including the Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC and CAIR. Included in the dialogue was also Thomas Perez of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division. It all goes a step further as law enforcement agencies around the country are required to do Muslim outreach in a robust campaign of political correctness. No one in America is allowed to have independent thought regarding Islam, Muslims or terror as it is deemed offensive to Islam.

So in the meantime, America sadly has endured domestic terror attacks but government refuses to apply the term ‘terrorism’ instead using ‘work place violence’ as is noted in the Ft. Hood shooting by Major Nidal Hasan and beheading of Colleen Hufford in Moore, Oklahoma at the hands of Alton Nolen. The mosques are connected by a network of imams that are devoted followers of Anwar al Awlaki killed by an American drone in Yemen a few years ago. We cannot overlook the Tsarneav brothers the killers of the Boston bombing.

While we do have many that have left the shores of America to join Daesh we also witness the black flags and ISIS graffiti in many locations around the country. America also has agreements with many countries in a VISA waiver program, making it easier to made round trip journeys to rogue states like Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Afghanistan.

So terror is here America and yet what does the FBI have to say or do about it? Crickets…

So when it comes to defining terror, here is a formal summary of the term. We can only hope that the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice will take note and behave and investigate accordingly.

Terrorism Defies Definition

by Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld The Washington Times October 24, 2014

http://www.meforum.org/4877/terrorism-defies-definition

 

Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important consequences in U.S. law.

Terrorism suspects can be held longer than criminal suspects after arrest without an indictment They can be interrogated without a lawyer present. They receive longer prison sentences. “Terrorist inmates” are subject to many extra restrictions known as Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. The “Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002” gives corporate victims of terrorism special breaks (it is currently up for renewal) and protects owners of buildings from certain lawsuits. When terrorism is invoked, families of victims, such as of the 2009 Ft. Hood attack, win extra benefits such as tax breaks, life insurance, and combat-related pay. They can even be handed a New York City skyscraper.

Despite the legal power of this term, however, terrorism remains undefined beyond a vague sense of “a non-state actor attacking civilian targets to spread fear for some putative political goal.” One study, Political Terrorism, lists 109 definitions. American security specialist David Tucker wryly remarks that “Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that who enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism.” The Israeli counterterrorism specialist Boaz Ganor jokes that “The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself.”

This lack of specificity wreaks chaos, especially among police, prosecutors, politicians, press, and professors.

“Violence carried out in connection with an internationally sanctioned terrorist group” such as Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, or Hamas has become the working police definition of terrorism. This explains such peculiar statements after an attack as, “We have not found any links to terrorism,” which absurdly implies that “lone wolves” are never terrorists.

The whole world, except the U.S. Department of the Treasury, sees the Boston Marathon bombings as terrorism.

If they are not terrorists, the police must find other explanation to account for their acts of violence. Usually, they offer up some personal problem: insanity, family tensions, a work dispute, “teen immigrant angst,” a prescription drug, or even a turbulent airplane ride. Emphasizing personal demons over ideology, they focus on an perpetrator’s (usually irrelevant) private life, ignoring his far more significant political motives.

But then, inconsistently, they do not require some connection to an international group. When Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez shot eight rounds at the White House in November 2011, the U.S. attorney asserted that “Firing an assault rifle at the White House to make a political statement is terrorism, plain and simple” – no international terrorist group needed. Similarly, after Paul Anthony Ciancia went on a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in November 2013, killing a TSA officer, the indictment accused him of “substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person and to commit an act of terrorism.”

This terminological irregularity breeds utter confusion. The whole world calls the Boston Marathon bombings terrorism – except the Department of the Treasury, which, 1½ years on “has not determined that there has been an ‘act of terrorism’ under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.” The judge presiding over the terrorism trial in January 2014 of Jose Pimentel, accused of planning to set off pipe bombs in Manhattan, denied the prosecution’s request for an expert to justify a charge of terrorism. Government officials sometimes just throw up their hands: Asked in June 2013 if the U.S. government considers the Taliban a terrorist group, the State Department spokeswoman replied “Well, I’m not sure how they’re defined at this particular moment.”

The U.S. Department of State has yet to figure out whether the Taliban are or are not terrorists.

A May 2013 shooting in New Orleans, which injured 19, was even more muddled. An FBI spokeswoman called it not terrorism but “strictly an act of street violence.” The mayor disagreed; asked if he considered it terrorism, he said “I think so,” because families “are afraid of going outside.” Challenged to disentangle this contradiction, a supervisory special agent in the FBI’s New Orleans field made matters even more opaque: “You can say this is definitely urban terrorism; it’s urban terror. But from the FBI standpoint and for what we deal with on a national level, it’s not what we consider terrorism, per se.” Got that?

This lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge. Terrorism, with all its legal and financial implications, cannot remain a vague, subjective concept but requires a precise and accurate definition, consistently applied.

After releasing the Taliban 5, matters are worse when it comes to Afghanistan, Syria Yemen, Qatar and Iraq. We witnessed carefully the hostilities between Israel and Hamas and then we watched the demonstrations in America and Europe of those standing in solidarity with Hamas. So, hey, FBI, if you are going to do outreach, it should be to those in America that don’t trust you or the lack of security we feel. Your agenda is misplaced and sadly I would think any agents would be demanding a pro-active objective against jihad in America have long memories. This is shameful.

 

 

 

John Kerry in the Middle of the Iranian Circle Jerk

Posted on by

Sheesh, is it dementia? Is it willful blindness? Is it the quest for the Nobel Peace Prize? What the hell is John Kerry doing marching to the orders of Barack Obama and Susan Rice? C’mon America, you low information types have a duty to pay attention, start here.

Iran is a state sponsor of terror, the historical facts prove that. Iran was named a terror state in 1984 by the State Department. Surely Kerry has the memo on that. Okay, so in case the reader and even John Kerry along with Marie Harf, Jen Psaki should check with Victoria Nuland on this…oh wait…let us review some factual history.

 

 

It should also be noted that the State Department has its own intelligence division and situation room such that real-time intelligence reports are created and received there as well as in the White House, ignorance is no excuse, except for State Department leadership.

Last Thursday marked the 31st anniversary of Hezbollah’s twin attack on the US Marine barracks and the French paratroopers base in Beirut in 1983. The date passed quietly; ancient history as far as the Obama White House is concerned. Then it is important to know that Iran supports Palestinian terror organizations. Even the liberal think tank the Brookings Institute gave detailed testimony to Congress just two years ago about Iran and their terrorism activities.
Now lets bring this forward to Syria as Assad has fighters fighting within his regime from Afghanistan. This is especially chilling as they are paid transplants coordinated by whom? IRAN !!


From CNN:

“My name is Sayed Ahmad Hussaini. The Iranians pay people like me to come here and fight. I am from Afghanistan and I am an immigrant in Iran. The Iranians brought us to Syria to fight to defend the Zainab shrine. I don’t want to fight anymore.”

He says he wants to go home, and that he was paid about $500 a month to fight. There are many Afghan immigrants in Iran, trying to find some shelter from the decades of war that have torn apart their land. He says he was trained and then sent to assist the regime.

It is potentially a serious development in the Syrian war, and explains in some ways how the Syrian regime has gained ground in some areas after months of appearing exhausted.

So understand this, John Kerry and the White House has postured America on the side of the Iranians and that of Bashir al Assad in the fight against Islamic State. But we also want to destroy the Assad regime, or do we? Assad is the core reason for the millions of Syrian refugees straining countries like Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. Yet, Assad has had years of help from Iran and Russia, so this chessboard has too many rook(ies) and under this administration a checkmate is clearly not in the near future.

Daesh was operating in Iraq in late 2010 as well as in Syria and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is based in Syria pulling all the strings for the organization.  Susan Rice, the Obama National Security Advisor is completely micro-managing this war with Daesh (ISIS) which was not born in Syria but headquarters in Syria.  The Pentagon is ripping angry over the White House designed rules of engagement in Iraq and Syria such that even Secretary Hagel has pushed back.

The Pentagon brass placed in charge of implementing Obama’s war against ISIS are getting fed up with the short leash the White House put them on.
Top military leaders in the Pentagon and in the field are growing increasingly frustrated by the tight constraints the White House has placed on the plans to fight ISIS and train a new Syrian rebel army.

As the American-led battle against ISIS stretches into its fourth month, the generals and Pentagon officials leading the air campaign and preparing to train Syrian rebels are working under strict White House orders to keep the war contained within policy limits. The National Security Council has given precise instructions on which rebels can be engaged, who can be trained, and what exactly those fighters will do when they return to Syria. Most of the rebels to be trained by the U.S. will never be sent to fight against ISIS.

Maybe retired General John Allen who is the personal envoy of John Kerry can sort it all out. That is a big NO….he does not enjoy any regard from the Pentagon either.

An article posted at Foreign Policy on Thursday by Mark Perry lists a surprising number of detractors to Allen’s appointment, including many in and out of uniform. The most obvious rift comes from Gen. Lloyd Austin, the man in charge of Central Command, tasked with carrying out the military plan to “degrade and destroy” ISIL, the administration’s preferred acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“Why the hell do we need a special envoy — isn’t that what [Secretary of State] John Kerry’s for?” a senior officer close to Austin told Perry, of the potential for confusion since Gen. Allen reports directly to President Obama.

Allen, 60, was given an incredibly difficult task upon his appointment. With the Islamic State consuming much of Iraq and Syria and boasting roughly 31,000 fighters, his role as special envoy is to “help build and sustain the coalition,” and coordinate their efforts, according to the State Department.

But Allen —  now inside the State Department and no longer wearing military rank — commands a role  not very far outside the scope of duties of Gen. Austin at Centcom, who is charged with overseeing relationships, offering military support, and carrying out operations when necessary in 20 Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq and Syria.

Simply in summary, just wait until after the mid-term elections, maybe everyone will have more flexibility. Iran is enjoying most of it now courtesy of John Kerry the White House dissed soldier on diplomacy.

Sheesh…