For more details: CLICK HERE atlasshrugs
As you read this and view the video, please remember the following KEY factor of who the Moslem Brotherhood - cleared and working DIRECTLY out of the White House and Homeland Security - in an advisory group capacity really is and represents:
MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD CREDO: "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."
(Apparently, according to oft publicized Islamic tenets, not just their own deaths but the death of non-MOSLEMS who refuse to convert to Islam! Or pay special "jaziyah" tax to be allowed to live!
Nor can they follow our American nor any other Constitution except the Koran!)
by Pam Geller
Homeland Insecurity in the hot seat: Big Sis, Janet Napolitano, with the most most disturbing hairdo/color I haingve ever seen, admits that she has been giving secret level clearance to Muslim Brotherhood-tied operatives here in the US at the US Immigration and Enforcement hearings.
This is jawdropping testimony. Looking like a character in a John Waters film, Janet Napolitano is either clueless, complicit or downright lying to cover for her Muslim Brotherhood appointments. Napolitano denies being aware of a Muslim Brotherhood-tied operative whom she swore in.
Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas does a spectacular job on pressing Napolitano's knowledge of the story that was posted yesterday concerning Mohamed Elibiary, the Homeland Security Adviser who allegedly leaked intel and shopped classified Info to media. I warned of Elibiary's appointment back in 2010. He asked if she was aware and she said she was not aware. Gohmert further pressed Napolitano of her knowledge of Elibiary's support of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Again she feigned concern and professed ignorance. This is the head of Homeland Security claiming ignorance of the most dangerous threat to the homeland, the global jihad and Islamic imperialism and expansion.
All of her answers indicate that she is being led by her not inconsequential nose by those who seek "to eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within."
Gohmert asked her if it concerned her at all and ...... she didn't answer.
.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
OBAMA THE BETRAYER - INCLUDING OF AMERICA!
By Diana West
Timing is everything. Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR's terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush's "war on terror" in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates.
Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side -- the al Qaeda affiliates.
Lawrence Auster elaborates on why the event rankles:
Kaddafi never violated his agreements with us and never became a threat to us or our allies. He spoke in the warmest terms of the United States and of Obama.
BUT he limited the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaeda activity in Libya and stunted their rise to Sharia based power.
Yet the instant that people whom we chose to call democrats (in reality extreme Islamic jihadists) rose up in rebellion against him, our ideology and what we (mis)-perceived as our political self-interest (actually Obama's) required that we side against him, we attacked his country, bombed his military and his government, bombed his residence, drove him from power, and now we have killed him.
I will not become a moral relativist and make the despicable statement, which some commentators on the anti-war right have made, that the U.S. is as immoral as the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, there is now significant and terrible overlap between the behavior of the U.S.S.R and the behavior of the (Obama) United States. We are no longer a moral state; we are not a state under the rule of law.
We are, as Solzhenitsyn said of the Soviet Union, an ideological state, a state that will do anything, violate any agreement, betray any ally or friend, tell any lie, cover up any truth, in order to advance its ideology and its power that is associated with that ideology.
In betraying and killing a foreign leader with whom we had made peace, we have taken on terrible karma. I tremble to think of how that karma will manifest itself against us in the years to come.
(A comparison of Obama's actions creating another Khomeini type regime in Libya and the similar bloodshed and suppression in the future has been examined in Persian language sites and time permitting, will appear here soon in both English and Farsi).
Timing is everything. Qaddafi was not killed in retaliation for his attacks on American servicemen in Berlin in 1986, or the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1989. He was not killed for his central role in the USSR's terror networks going back to the 1960s and 1970s. He was killed after coming over to our side of George Bush's "war on terror" in the final phase of a civil war in Libya in which his regime fought al Qaeda affiliates.
Horrific as it sounds, Qaddafi was killed because we and our NATO allies joined the other side -- the al Qaeda affiliates.
Lawrence Auster elaborates on why the event rankles:
Kaddafi never violated his agreements with us and never became a threat to us or our allies. He spoke in the warmest terms of the United States and of Obama.
BUT he limited the Moslem Brotherhood and al-Qaeda activity in Libya and stunted their rise to Sharia based power.
Yet the instant that people whom we chose to call democrats (in reality extreme Islamic jihadists) rose up in rebellion against him, our ideology and what we (mis)-perceived as our political self-interest (actually Obama's) required that we side against him, we attacked his country, bombed his military and his government, bombed his residence, drove him from power, and now we have killed him.
I will not become a moral relativist and make the despicable statement, which some commentators on the anti-war right have made, that the U.S. is as immoral as the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, there is now significant and terrible overlap between the behavior of the U.S.S.R and the behavior of the (Obama) United States. We are no longer a moral state; we are not a state under the rule of law.
We are, as Solzhenitsyn said of the Soviet Union, an ideological state, a state that will do anything, violate any agreement, betray any ally or friend, tell any lie, cover up any truth, in order to advance its ideology and its power that is associated with that ideology.
In betraying and killing a foreign leader with whom we had made peace, we have taken on terrible karma. I tremble to think of how that karma will manifest itself against us in the years to come.
(A comparison of Obama's actions creating another Khomeini type regime in Libya and the similar bloodshed and suppression in the future has been examined in Persian language sites and time permitting, will appear here soon in both English and Farsi).
Saturday, October 22, 2011
OBAMA DECREES VIRTUAL IMMUNITY FOR ISLAMISTS !
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/6/islam-content-spurs-fbi-review-of-anti-terror-trai/
Islam content spurs FBI review of anti-terror training
By Shaun Waterman
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the bureau is conducting a review of training programs after disclosure of materials that equated devout Muslims with a greater propensity for violent extremism.
Mr. Mueller said that one part of the training program disclosed in a press account was "inappropriate and offensive," [that would be the true part of the training in the first paragraph, don't you see. Muslim Brotherhood can't let that get out.---Dorrie] but that the session was a "one-off" and not likely to be repeated.
"We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training," Mr. Mueller said. "I think these are isolated incidents, and in the course of that review, we've had outreach to academicians and others to assist us in reviewing the materials and assuring that that offensive content does not appear."
The comments came in response to questions from Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about leaked training materials from an FBI training session at its institute in Quantico, Va., in March.
The exchange prompted charges that Mr. Mueller was knuckling under to political correctness aimed at muzzling critics of Islam.
The materials, Mrs. Schakowsky said, stated of Muslims that "the more religious they get, the more violent they are. And I understand that there's been training [sessions] where the Prophet Muhammad has actually been called a cult leader and [where] the Islamic practice of giving to charity [has been described as] no more than, quote, 'a funding mechanism for combat.'"
The FBI materials were first reported and posted online by Wired Magazine's Danger Room blog.
"In this particular instance," said Mr. Mueller, "reports of what had been in that training came up from the students [does one wonder if those were Muslim students?], and we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others."
He added that there had been "other instances [of training] that may include what would be perceived as offensive content."
The exchange highlights a long-running dispute, both about the counterterrorism training provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but more deeply about the nature of the threat posed by the ideology of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Mueller "is saying that this correlation [between piety and violence] is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tell him that it offends them," said Robert Spencer, a writer on Islam.
Mr. Spencer is one of those whose training presentations for law enforcement - including for the FBI - have been criticized as anti-Muslim. CAIR describes itself as a civil rights organization and denies any link to terrorism.
"Mueller and the FBI have departed from a pursuit of the truth and are following a politically correct agenda that makes us all less safe," Mr. Spencer told the Times.
John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and another counterterrorism trainer, called it "outrageous" that "almost the only people our leaders in national security and law enforcement are looking to for guidance about Islam" are representatives of groups like CAIR, which he said is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a global political network that promotes Islamic law and a political view of Islam as not just a personal faith, but a code for the whole of society.
"The FBI director's job is not to be the politically correct police, but to look at facts and evidence," Mr. Guandolo said. "The fact is, the major threat does not come from terrorist attacks. It comes from the Muslim Brotherhood."
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says
The Daily Caller
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.
"I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security," Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.
The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.
In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.
Maintaining the training materials in their current state "will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community," al-Marayati wrote.
Multiple online sources detail MPAC's close alignment with CAIR.
In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community" and "establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials." [Man, these people really do think they're hot stuff, don't they?--Dorrie]
Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new "interagency task force" to review the training materials" --- a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. [I know this is an old and tired saying, but it really is the fox demanding the right to be in the hen house, isn't it?]
Some believe the Obama administration's Justice Department will go even further.
"The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training" that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. Gaffney is co-author of a report, published by the Center, titled Sharia: The Threat to America.
Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials. Holton is the federal prosecutor who announced the arrest of so-called "Christmas tree bomber" Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010. That announcement made no mention of Mohamud's Muslim faith.
"I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," Holton said Wednesday. "They will not be tolerated."
Such training materials "pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam," he added. (No! They are at war with the USA and we need to defend ourselves)!!!
In a Sept. 12 letter to White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan in September, Democratic Senate Homeland Security committee chair Joe Lieberman and ranking Republican member Susan Collins called for "meaningful standards" to govern counterterrorism training materials.
"Proper training about violent Islamist extremism is absolutely essential for our law enforcement personnel in order to empower them to identify and understand this grave threat, and then protect the American people from it," the senators wrote. "Part of this training must be an understanding of the clear and profound difference between Islamist extremism, which is a totalitarian political ideology that is at war with us, and Islam, which is a religion practiced by more than a billion people around the world, including millions of law-abiding and loyal Americans."
FBI analyst William Gawthrup is one of several experts on Islam whose training materials arouse the ire of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. At the beginning of a videotaped presentation showing one of his training modules, Gawthrup makes exactly the same distinction demanded by Sen. Lieberman. The video was published online in June.
"Understand that what we are going to be doing is (CORRECTLY!) looking at Islam as an ideology, not as a religion," Gawthrup says in the video."What's the difference? Religion is man's relationship to his deity. In the United States, we protect it under the first amendment. We're going to set it aside. We are not going to discuss religion. We are going to discuss Islam as an ideology: "man's relationship to other men.We're going to be discussing that component of Islam that is nonreligious.That component comprises about 83 percent of the ideology. Islam is only about 17 percent religious. The other 83 percent discusses the relationship [of Muslims] with the non-Islamic world."
Now the Obama administration is establishing an advisory panel to vet terror-training materials for law enforcement and the intelligence community "that is comprised of people from the same organizations that are cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund-raising trial," according to Gaffney.
Reviewing these decisions at a forum about Sharia on Thursday, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy said the effort to include such groups as reviewers of training materials would have a "paralyzing" effect on law enforcement.
(EXACTLY WHAT MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD ACTIVISTS OPERATING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND MOSLEM PUPPET OBAMA WANT)
"What you're doing is empowering the worst elements of the American Islamic community, which are the leadership elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and you're selling out the rank and file of American Muslims," McCarthy said. [Not to mention the American non-Muslims.]
Islam content spurs FBI review of anti-terror training
By Shaun Waterman
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a congressional hearing on Thursday that the bureau is conducting a review of training programs after disclosure of materials that equated devout Muslims with a greater propensity for violent extremism.
Mr. Mueller said that one part of the training program disclosed in a press account was "inappropriate and offensive," [that would be the true part of the training in the first paragraph, don't you see. Muslim Brotherhood can't let that get out.---Dorrie] but that the session was a "one-off" and not likely to be repeated.
"We have undertaken a review from top to bottom of our counterterrorism training," Mr. Mueller said. "I think these are isolated incidents, and in the course of that review, we've had outreach to academicians and others to assist us in reviewing the materials and assuring that that offensive content does not appear."
The comments came in response to questions from Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, during a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, about leaked training materials from an FBI training session at its institute in Quantico, Va., in March.
The exchange prompted charges that Mr. Mueller was knuckling under to political correctness aimed at muzzling critics of Islam.
The materials, Mrs. Schakowsky said, stated of Muslims that "the more religious they get, the more violent they are. And I understand that there's been training [sessions] where the Prophet Muhammad has actually been called a cult leader and [where] the Islamic practice of giving to charity [has been described as] no more than, quote, 'a funding mechanism for combat.'"
The FBI materials were first reported and posted online by Wired Magazine's Danger Room blog.
"In this particular instance," said Mr. Mueller, "reports of what had been in that training came up from the students [does one wonder if those were Muslim students?], and we took action to assure that that inappropriate, offensive content was not provided to others."
He added that there had been "other instances [of training] that may include what would be perceived as offensive content."
The exchange highlights a long-running dispute, both about the counterterrorism training provided by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but more deeply about the nature of the threat posed by the ideology of Islamic terrorism.
Mr. Mueller "is saying that this correlation [between piety and violence] is offensive because Islamic supremacist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) tell him that it offends them," said Robert Spencer, a writer on Islam.
Mr. Spencer is one of those whose training presentations for law enforcement - including for the FBI - have been criticized as anti-Muslim. CAIR describes itself as a civil rights organization and denies any link to terrorism.
"Mueller and the FBI have departed from a pursuit of the truth and are following a politically correct agenda that makes us all less safe," Mr. Spencer told the Times.
John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and another counterterrorism trainer, called it "outrageous" that "almost the only people our leaders in national security and law enforcement are looking to for guidance about Islam" are representatives of groups like CAIR, which he said is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a global political network that promotes Islamic law and a political view of Islam as not just a personal faith, but a code for the whole of society.
"The FBI director's job is not to be the politically correct police, but to look at facts and evidence," Mr. Guandolo said. "The fact is, the major threat does not come from terrorist attacks. It comes from the Muslim Brotherhood."
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administration-pulls-references-islam-terror-training-materials-044605689.html
Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says
The Daily Caller
Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.
"I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security," Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.
The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.
In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.
Maintaining the training materials in their current state "will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community," al-Marayati wrote.
Multiple online sources detail MPAC's close alignment with CAIR.
In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community" and "establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials." [Man, these people really do think they're hot stuff, don't they?--Dorrie]
Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new "interagency task force" to review the training materials" --- a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring. [I know this is an old and tired saying, but it really is the fox demanding the right to be in the hen house, isn't it?]
Some believe the Obama administration's Justice Department will go even further.
"The Attorney General has announced what sounds like reprogramming if they find people who have actually received training" that Islamist groups find objectionable, Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney told The Daily Caller. Gaffney is co-author of a report, published by the Center, titled Sharia: The Threat to America.
Dwight C. Holton, the U.S. Attorney in Oregon said he had spoken with Holder directly about the issue of the terror training materials. Holton is the federal prosecutor who announced the arrest of so-called "Christmas tree bomber" Mohamed Osman Mohamud in 2010. That announcement made no mention of Mohamud's Muslim faith.
"I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for," Holton said Wednesday. "They will not be tolerated."
Such training materials "pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam," he added. (No! They are at war with the USA and we need to defend ourselves)!!!
In a Sept. 12 letter to White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan in September, Democratic Senate Homeland Security committee chair Joe Lieberman and ranking Republican member Susan Collins called for "meaningful standards" to govern counterterrorism training materials.
"Proper training about violent Islamist extremism is absolutely essential for our law enforcement personnel in order to empower them to identify and understand this grave threat, and then protect the American people from it," the senators wrote. "Part of this training must be an understanding of the clear and profound difference between Islamist extremism, which is a totalitarian political ideology that is at war with us, and Islam, which is a religion practiced by more than a billion people around the world, including millions of law-abiding and loyal Americans."
FBI analyst William Gawthrup is one of several experts on Islam whose training materials arouse the ire of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups. At the beginning of a videotaped presentation showing one of his training modules, Gawthrup makes exactly the same distinction demanded by Sen. Lieberman. The video was published online in June.
"Understand that what we are going to be doing is (CORRECTLY!) looking at Islam as an ideology, not as a religion," Gawthrup says in the video."What's the difference? Religion is man's relationship to his deity. In the United States, we protect it under the first amendment. We're going to set it aside. We are not going to discuss religion. We are going to discuss Islam as an ideology: "man's relationship to other men.We're going to be discussing that component of Islam that is nonreligious.That component comprises about 83 percent of the ideology. Islam is only about 17 percent religious. The other 83 percent discusses the relationship [of Muslims] with the non-Islamic world."
Now the Obama administration is establishing an advisory panel to vet terror-training materials for law enforcement and the intelligence community "that is comprised of people from the same organizations that are cited as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror fund-raising trial," according to Gaffney.
Reviewing these decisions at a forum about Sharia on Thursday, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy said the effort to include such groups as reviewers of training materials would have a "paralyzing" effect on law enforcement.
(EXACTLY WHAT MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD ACTIVISTS OPERATING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND MOSLEM PUPPET OBAMA WANT)
"What you're doing is empowering the worst elements of the American Islamic community, which are the leadership elements linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and you're selling out the rank and file of American Muslims," McCarthy said. [Not to mention the American non-Muslims.]
Saturday, October 8, 2011
OBAMA - RADICAL MOSLEM & TERRORIST SUPPORTER
How Obama Got Around Congress Withholding $200 M In Aid To The 'Palestinians'
By Rob Miller
A story in the UK Independent says that the US Congress showed its displeasure with the 'Palestinians' going unilaterally to the UN by withholding $200 million in aid that was supposed to be disbursed to Mahmoud Abbas' little fiefdom by the end of this fiscal year, which ended October 1st.
Being part of the British press and sharing their well known attitude towards Israel, the article is sympathetic to Abbas, referring to him as being 'punished' and inferring that the US Congress is under the thumb of those Evil Zionists, rather than being upset with the 'Palestinians' for allying with Hamas or for abrogating their agreements under two treaties the US is signatory to, the Road Map and The Oslo Accords.
However, there are indications that this was a set up and if my source is correct, both the Obama Administration and the 'Palestinians' were privy to it.
One of my notorious Little Birdies works directly in the 'Palestinian Authority' and we've been correspondents for some time, sort of frenemies, if you get my meaning.
My source had a good laugh at Congresses' action. According to this person, the Obama Administration was aware for some time that the final $200 million might be withheld by Congress and informed the 'Palestinians' in advance. The Obama Administration promised the 'Palestinians' that they would do their best to head this off, but when they couldn't, an arrangement was made with the Saudis to make up the missing $200 million in advance.
That rang a bell...and showed me that as usual, my source was almost certainly correct.
A scant ten days ago, the Saudis gifted Mahmoud Abbas and the 'Palestinians' with the exact sum the US Congress was withholding from them...$200 million.
My source didn't speculate, but knowing how these things work it's almost guaranteed that the Saudis either received the money from the Obama Administration directly to give to the 'Palestinians' or more likely, that the Saudis supplied the cash in exchange for an American quid pro quo somewhere else down the line.
President Obama is going to see to it that the 'Palestinians' receive their jizya no matter what..and a little thing like Congress certainly isn't going to stop him if he can help it.
Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace and other publications.
For Comments go to: how_obama_got_around_congress READ MORE
By Rob Miller
A story in the UK Independent says that the US Congress showed its displeasure with the 'Palestinians' going unilaterally to the UN by withholding $200 million in aid that was supposed to be disbursed to Mahmoud Abbas' little fiefdom by the end of this fiscal year, which ended October 1st.
Being part of the British press and sharing their well known attitude towards Israel, the article is sympathetic to Abbas, referring to him as being 'punished' and inferring that the US Congress is under the thumb of those Evil Zionists, rather than being upset with the 'Palestinians' for allying with Hamas or for abrogating their agreements under two treaties the US is signatory to, the Road Map and The Oslo Accords.
However, there are indications that this was a set up and if my source is correct, both the Obama Administration and the 'Palestinians' were privy to it.
One of my notorious Little Birdies works directly in the 'Palestinian Authority' and we've been correspondents for some time, sort of frenemies, if you get my meaning.
My source had a good laugh at Congresses' action. According to this person, the Obama Administration was aware for some time that the final $200 million might be withheld by Congress and informed the 'Palestinians' in advance. The Obama Administration promised the 'Palestinians' that they would do their best to head this off, but when they couldn't, an arrangement was made with the Saudis to make up the missing $200 million in advance.
That rang a bell...and showed me that as usual, my source was almost certainly correct.
A scant ten days ago, the Saudis gifted Mahmoud Abbas and the 'Palestinians' with the exact sum the US Congress was withholding from them...$200 million.
My source didn't speculate, but knowing how these things work it's almost guaranteed that the Saudis either received the money from the Obama Administration directly to give to the 'Palestinians' or more likely, that the Saudis supplied the cash in exchange for an American quid pro quo somewhere else down the line.
President Obama is going to see to it that the 'Palestinians' receive their jizya no matter what..and a little thing like Congress certainly isn't going to stop him if he can help it.
Rob Miller writes for Joshuapundit. His work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The San Francisco Chronicle, Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace and other publications.
For Comments go to: how_obama_got_around_congress READ MORE
Sunday, September 25, 2011
COMPASSIONATE ISLAM IN ACTION - SOMALIA
SOMALIA'S Al-Qaeda linked rebels said today they have begun moving more than 12,000 starving families back into famine zones they had fled, areas where the UN have warned they will die without help.
Draconian aid restrictions imposed by the extremist Shebab are blamed for turning harsh drought across the Horn of Africa into famine in the areas they control, with 750,000 people at risk of death in coming months, the United Nations warns.
"The mujahedeen fighters, in their bid to help people displaced by drought, started working on plans to send them back home where they will be assisted, God willing," said Sheik Mahad Abu-Safiya, a senior Shebab official.
The families, estimated to number at least 50,000 people, were "taken back to their homes with packages to feed them for three months", he added.
Witnesses said the packages included rice, maize and cooking oil.
However, the Shebab have refused most international assistance, and blocked people fleeing drought and famine in Bay and Bakool regions from travelling in search of aid to Mogadishu, where relief efforts are centered.
Crowded trucks began moving people late on Wednesday from camps in and around the Shebab-held town of Baidoa back to their original villages, up to 50 kilometres southwest of the town, officials and witnesses said.
"The process has started and we have moved the first of the 12,000 displaced families to their original locations", Mohamed Walid, another Shebab official, told reporters.
"Most of the displaced people were moved from a big camp at Baidoa airport, they were taken on long trucks," said witness Osmail Mohamed.
Shebab fighters last month pulled out of positions in the war-torn capital Mogadishu where they were battling the weak Western-backed government but still control swathes of south and central Somalia.
The United Nations has declared six regions in south Somalia famine zones, the majority in Shebab-controlled areas.
Drought, high food prices and fighting in Somalia has increased the number of those in need of humanitarian assistance across the Horn of Africa to 13.3 million, according to the United Nations.
Draconian aid restrictions imposed by the extremist Shebab are blamed for turning harsh drought across the Horn of Africa into famine in the areas they control, with 750,000 people at risk of death in coming months, the United Nations warns.
"The mujahedeen fighters, in their bid to help people displaced by drought, started working on plans to send them back home where they will be assisted, God willing," said Sheik Mahad Abu-Safiya, a senior Shebab official.
The families, estimated to number at least 50,000 people, were "taken back to their homes with packages to feed them for three months", he added.
Witnesses said the packages included rice, maize and cooking oil.
However, the Shebab have refused most international assistance, and blocked people fleeing drought and famine in Bay and Bakool regions from travelling in search of aid to Mogadishu, where relief efforts are centered.
Crowded trucks began moving people late on Wednesday from camps in and around the Shebab-held town of Baidoa back to their original villages, up to 50 kilometres southwest of the town, officials and witnesses said.
"The process has started and we have moved the first of the 12,000 displaced families to their original locations", Mohamed Walid, another Shebab official, told reporters.
"Most of the displaced people were moved from a big camp at Baidoa airport, they were taken on long trucks," said witness Osmail Mohamed.
Shebab fighters last month pulled out of positions in the war-torn capital Mogadishu where they were battling the weak Western-backed government but still control swathes of south and central Somalia.
The United Nations has declared six regions in south Somalia famine zones, the majority in Shebab-controlled areas.
Drought, high food prices and fighting in Somalia has increased the number of those in need of humanitarian assistance across the Horn of Africa to 13.3 million, according to the United Nations.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
MOSLEM BROTHERHOOD IN TERRORIST WHITE HOUSE
Michelle Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood
By Eileen F. Toplansky
With the news that "[i]nfiltration of the federal government by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood is worse than some have warned," it should come as no surprise that while Obama has been courting Muslim Brotherhood operatives, his wife has also gotten into the act.
According to the toolkit site,
"[t]he Let's Move! initiative, started by First Lady Michelle Obama, has an ambitious national goal of addressing the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation, so that children born today reach a healthy adulthood. Let's Move! engages every sector impacting the health of children and provides schools, families, and communities with simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy."
Thus,
"[f]aith-based and neighborhood organizations have a unique and critical role to play in ending childhood obesity and addressing related issues of hunger. Your organizations are trusted leaders in your community, which makes you well-positioned to take action. Children learn many lessons about healthy living and well-being in faith- and community-based settings that set the foundation for their lifestyles as adults.
Let's Move Faith and Communities is designed to help faith-based and neighborhood organizations transform neighborhoods, engage communities, and promote healthy choices."
Consequently, towards the end of July 2011, IRUSA or Islamic Relief USA, "a faith-based disaster relief and development organization, celebrated the inauguration of its Summer Food Service Program ... at the An Nur School in Lanham, Maryland." The White House announced that IRUSA "ha[d] a collaborative partnership with the USDA's Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and that IRUSA ha[d] pledged to host 50 sites as part of a Michelle Obama initiative."
So while an FBI "agent confirmed that at least three operatives of the Egypt-based Brotherhood -- whose credo is 'Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream' -- have penetrated the Obama administration," the First Lady is now dealing with an organization that boasts of such people as Yaser Haddara who is a member of the IRUSA board since 2006 and its chairman until May 2011.
According to the IRUSA's own site, "Dr. Haddara was one of the developers and lead trainers for the Student Leadership Training Program that was jointly sponsored by the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Association of Canada.
Dr. Haddara has been actively involved in several community organizations including the Islamic Society at Stanford University, the Muslim Community Association of the Bay Area, the Islamic Society of North America (Western Region), the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Association of Canada."
One of the main front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America's "leadership does not accept Islamic practices that fall outside the version of Islam propagated by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood."
Furthermore, in addition to terrorism, ... the Muslim Brotherhood [spreads] political Islam, which weds religion, politics, SOCIETAL RULES, SHARIA LAW AND MILITARY ASPECTS) into a potent force that clashes with pluralistic democracies."
According to the 2007 report entitled Extremism and the Islamic Society of North America, "ISNA is clearly connected to Islamic radicals and terrorist organizations, but it is not simply guilty by association -- its own ideology is marked by extreme social, political, and religious views."
Hence, "ISNA's ideology is its leaders' views of Islam within the context of religion and politics, where they believe in Islamic supremacy" as exemplified in the following statement: "[i]n considering the earth as an arena for Islam, Allah has promised its inheritance to His righteous people, and He has promised that Islam Will prevail over other religions."
So how does one reconcile this with IRUSA's CEO Abed Ayoub who claims that "IRUSA's mission is to alleviate suffering, hunger, illiteracy, and disease regardless of color, race, gender, or creed"?
Also troubling is the point that "[a]ccording to the most influential Islamic authorities, zakat (alms in Arabic) can be given only to Muslims."
So how does this figure in Michelle Obama's outreach program?
Moreover, in January of 2011, Daniel Pipes described how "Islamic 'charities' squander money." He explained how the Islamic Society of North America's Canada branch had engaged in "gross mismanagement" whereby less than one-quarter of monies collected went to the Muslim recipients.
Pipes further explained that "ISNA's management refused to give the auditor all the necessary documents" and thus it was not possible to follow "the trail of funds transferred from ISNA to other organizations[.]" Pipes ends his article by stating that "Islamic 'charities' already have a notorious reputation because of their ties to terrorism; this case shows that they must be watched for more venal problems as well."
Further nefarious associations go to the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). IRW has had directors who are linked to the U.K. and European Muslim Brotherhood.
One director was a former minister of religious affairs in the Sudan and also held numerous positions associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006 the Israeli government announced "the arrest of an IRW worker for activities related to supporting Hamas." Moreover, "Islamic Relief was one of the founding members of the Union of Good."
According to Steven Merley of the Hudson Institute, "[t]he Union of Good is a coalition of Islamic charities that provides financial support to both the Hamas 'social' infrastructure, as well as its terrorist activities. It is headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, and most of the trustees and member organizations are associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. The Union of Good was banned by Israel in 2002 and was recently designated a terrorist entity by the United States[.]"
As far back as 2004, Daniel Pipes described the Muslim American Society (MAS) and explained "how it seeks to replace the Constitution with the Koran." Though the MAS "goes about its work quietly; it is none the less dangerous -- and perhaps more so -- for that."
In August 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations" (CCMO) brought Muslim leaders to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. government agencies (including Homeland Security) to "provide the groups 'funding, government assistance and resources."
According to a post by Christine Brim at Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, "the workshop [would] apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge[d] to provide 'direct access' and 'cut through red tape.'
And after the workshop an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) commenced. The event was announced by the ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial."
Notwithstanding the concern about the Muslim Brotherhood connections, Meghan Clyne, editor of National Affairs at the Weekly Standard, asserts that while "[m]uch of what the [Michelle Obama] toolkit recommends is innocuous -- encouraging churches to host kids' intramural sports leagues, for instance. ... several sections illustrate the Obamas' strange understanding of the role of religious communities in America and suggest how, under this president, faith-based offices at the White House and in the agencies have changed their mission and purview."
For Clyne "[m]ost worrisome, ... are the administration's efforts to have congregations place themselves in the service of government as recruiters for the welfare state" ... and "[t]his approach is a marked departure from the original purpose of the White House faith-based initiative. Launched at the outset of President George W. Bush's first term, the initiative was largely intended to allow religious entities to compete on an equal footing with secular ones for grants to deliver social services.
When it came to treating addicts, rehabilitating prisoners, mentoring children, sheltering the homeless, and, yes, feeding the hungry, the Bush administration argued that faith-based organizations often had better records of efficiency and compassion than government programs. But rather than reducing the public's dependence on government-run programs by empowering faith-based organizations, [the Obama] White House seems to view churches, synagogues, and so on as tools to increase reliance on programs designed in Washington."
"They're turning this on its head," said Rev. Richard Land, who handles public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. The wisdom of the original faith-based initiative -- about which he was initially skeptical, Land explains -- was "to have people who live in a zip code making the decisions about what are the best ways to alleviate the problem in that zip code," rather than being pushed to follow some federal initiative. Under the Obama administration, Land said, "the White House says what your priorities should be."
It appears that political strategists in the White House are mindful of the demographics which "serve the President's electoral interests" in this faith-based program. Moreover, is it ever a good "idea for churches to provide platforms for politicians -- or First Ladies" no matter which political party? And, most troubling, "increased dependence on government [ultimately] services the interests of the party that represents big government," leading us farther down the road to less independence and decision-making.
So here's the mix: greater government interference coupled with possible Muslim Brotherhood influence even though the Muslim Brotherhood "is one of the most dangerous Islamic groups in the world today." Is this a recipe for disaster?
Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com .
By Eileen F. Toplansky
With the news that "[i]nfiltration of the federal government by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood is worse than some have warned," it should come as no surprise that while Obama has been courting Muslim Brotherhood operatives, his wife has also gotten into the act.
According to the toolkit site,
"[t]he Let's Move! initiative, started by First Lady Michelle Obama, has an ambitious national goal of addressing the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation, so that children born today reach a healthy adulthood. Let's Move! engages every sector impacting the health of children and provides schools, families, and communities with simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy."
Thus,
"[f]aith-based and neighborhood organizations have a unique and critical role to play in ending childhood obesity and addressing related issues of hunger. Your organizations are trusted leaders in your community, which makes you well-positioned to take action. Children learn many lessons about healthy living and well-being in faith- and community-based settings that set the foundation for their lifestyles as adults.
Let's Move Faith and Communities is designed to help faith-based and neighborhood organizations transform neighborhoods, engage communities, and promote healthy choices."
Consequently, towards the end of July 2011, IRUSA or Islamic Relief USA, "a faith-based disaster relief and development organization, celebrated the inauguration of its Summer Food Service Program ... at the An Nur School in Lanham, Maryland." The White House announced that IRUSA "ha[d] a collaborative partnership with the USDA's Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and that IRUSA ha[d] pledged to host 50 sites as part of a Michelle Obama initiative."
So while an FBI "agent confirmed that at least three operatives of the Egypt-based Brotherhood -- whose credo is 'Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream' -- have penetrated the Obama administration," the First Lady is now dealing with an organization that boasts of such people as Yaser Haddara who is a member of the IRUSA board since 2006 and its chairman until May 2011.
According to the IRUSA's own site, "Dr. Haddara was one of the developers and lead trainers for the Student Leadership Training Program that was jointly sponsored by the Muslim American Society and the Muslim Association of Canada.
Dr. Haddara has been actively involved in several community organizations including the Islamic Society at Stanford University, the Muslim Community Association of the Bay Area, the Islamic Society of North America (Western Region), the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Association of Canada."
One of the main front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America's "leadership does not accept Islamic practices that fall outside the version of Islam propagated by Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood."
Furthermore, in addition to terrorism, ... the Muslim Brotherhood [spreads] political Islam, which weds religion, politics, SOCIETAL RULES, SHARIA LAW AND MILITARY ASPECTS) into a potent force that clashes with pluralistic democracies."
According to the 2007 report entitled Extremism and the Islamic Society of North America, "ISNA is clearly connected to Islamic radicals and terrorist organizations, but it is not simply guilty by association -- its own ideology is marked by extreme social, political, and religious views."
Hence, "ISNA's ideology is its leaders' views of Islam within the context of religion and politics, where they believe in Islamic supremacy" as exemplified in the following statement: "[i]n considering the earth as an arena for Islam, Allah has promised its inheritance to His righteous people, and He has promised that Islam Will prevail over other religions."
So how does one reconcile this with IRUSA's CEO Abed Ayoub who claims that "IRUSA's mission is to alleviate suffering, hunger, illiteracy, and disease regardless of color, race, gender, or creed"?
Also troubling is the point that "[a]ccording to the most influential Islamic authorities, zakat (alms in Arabic) can be given only to Muslims."
So how does this figure in Michelle Obama's outreach program?
Moreover, in January of 2011, Daniel Pipes described how "Islamic 'charities' squander money." He explained how the Islamic Society of North America's Canada branch had engaged in "gross mismanagement" whereby less than one-quarter of monies collected went to the Muslim recipients.
Pipes further explained that "ISNA's management refused to give the auditor all the necessary documents" and thus it was not possible to follow "the trail of funds transferred from ISNA to other organizations[.]" Pipes ends his article by stating that "Islamic 'charities' already have a notorious reputation because of their ties to terrorism; this case shows that they must be watched for more venal problems as well."
Further nefarious associations go to the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW). IRW has had directors who are linked to the U.K. and European Muslim Brotherhood.
One director was a former minister of religious affairs in the Sudan and also held numerous positions associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. In 2006 the Israeli government announced "the arrest of an IRW worker for activities related to supporting Hamas." Moreover, "Islamic Relief was one of the founding members of the Union of Good."
According to Steven Merley of the Hudson Institute, "[t]he Union of Good is a coalition of Islamic charities that provides financial support to both the Hamas 'social' infrastructure, as well as its terrorist activities. It is headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi, and most of the trustees and member organizations are associated with the global Muslim Brotherhood. The Union of Good was banned by Israel in 2002 and was recently designated a terrorist entity by the United States[.]"
As far back as 2004, Daniel Pipes described the Muslim American Society (MAS) and explained "how it seeks to replace the Constitution with the Koran." Though the MAS "goes about its work quietly; it is none the less dangerous -- and perhaps more so -- for that."
In August 2010, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations" (CCMO) brought Muslim leaders to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. government agencies (including Homeland Security) to "provide the groups 'funding, government assistance and resources."
According to a post by Christine Brim at Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, "the workshop [would] apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge[d] to provide 'direct access' and 'cut through red tape.'
And after the workshop an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) commenced. The event was announced by the ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial."
Notwithstanding the concern about the Muslim Brotherhood connections, Meghan Clyne, editor of National Affairs at the Weekly Standard, asserts that while "[m]uch of what the [Michelle Obama] toolkit recommends is innocuous -- encouraging churches to host kids' intramural sports leagues, for instance. ... several sections illustrate the Obamas' strange understanding of the role of religious communities in America and suggest how, under this president, faith-based offices at the White House and in the agencies have changed their mission and purview."
For Clyne "[m]ost worrisome, ... are the administration's efforts to have congregations place themselves in the service of government as recruiters for the welfare state" ... and "[t]his approach is a marked departure from the original purpose of the White House faith-based initiative. Launched at the outset of President George W. Bush's first term, the initiative was largely intended to allow religious entities to compete on an equal footing with secular ones for grants to deliver social services.
When it came to treating addicts, rehabilitating prisoners, mentoring children, sheltering the homeless, and, yes, feeding the hungry, the Bush administration argued that faith-based organizations often had better records of efficiency and compassion than government programs. But rather than reducing the public's dependence on government-run programs by empowering faith-based organizations, [the Obama] White House seems to view churches, synagogues, and so on as tools to increase reliance on programs designed in Washington."
"They're turning this on its head," said Rev. Richard Land, who handles public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention. The wisdom of the original faith-based initiative -- about which he was initially skeptical, Land explains -- was "to have people who live in a zip code making the decisions about what are the best ways to alleviate the problem in that zip code," rather than being pushed to follow some federal initiative. Under the Obama administration, Land said, "the White House says what your priorities should be."
It appears that political strategists in the White House are mindful of the demographics which "serve the President's electoral interests" in this faith-based program. Moreover, is it ever a good "idea for churches to provide platforms for politicians -- or First Ladies" no matter which political party? And, most troubling, "increased dependence on government [ultimately] services the interests of the party that represents big government," leading us farther down the road to less independence and decision-making.
So here's the mix: greater government interference coupled with possible Muslim Brotherhood influence even though the Muslim Brotherhood "is one of the most dangerous Islamic groups in the world today." Is this a recipe for disaster?
Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com .
Monday, September 5, 2011
NUCLEAR IRAN AND ISRAEL
By LOUIS RENÉ BERES
The expected effects of an Iranian nuclear attack.
This is the dead land This is cactus land.... T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land
For a variety of reasons, neither Israel nor the US has exercised its lawful right of anticipatory self-defense against Iran. As a result, Iran’s entry into the Nuclear Club is effectively a fait accompli. In Israel, remaining self-defense options will necessarily be limited to inherently fallible programs and expanded active defense. Unlike a no-longer-viable preemptive option, these programs would come into play only after an Iranian nuclear force has been deployed, or after an Iranian nuclear attack.
There is also a vital antecedent question. Should Washington and Jerusalem expect a newly-nuclear Tehran to be fully rational?
What could happen to Israel if certain Iranian leaders with nuclear weapons value certain presumed religious obligations more highly than their own state’s survival? (Like Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and his Hojatieh) Ironically, and notwithstanding growing hopes for democracy, a regime change in Tehran could yield a heightened likelihood of irrationality.
There can be no assurances that any post-Ahmadinejad regime would be “better.”
IRRATIONALITY is not the same as madness. Even an irrational Iranian leadership could retain a distinct hierarchy of preferences. This would likely be less dangerous than facing a genuinely mad adversary, or one that is entirely unpredictable.
In any event, as it is not up to Israel to decide which type of adversary it would prefer, Jerusalem needs to plan carefully for all three contingencies.
Whether rational, irrational or mad, any Iranian leadership that slouches toward major conflict with the “Zionist entity” could, perhaps in less than three years, unleash regional nuclear war.
This could be deliberate or inadvertent, as a “bolt from the blue,” or as a fully unintended result of an inexorable religious commitment to Jihad against “unbelievers,” let alone for much more mundane reasons such as miscalculation, accident or coup d’état.
(Like the very serious, potentially mass destruction/biological weaponry obtained by Al Qaeda in Libya).
Thirty-one years ago, I published the first of 10 books that contained authoritative descriptions of the consequences of nuclear war – any nuclear war. These descriptions were drawn largely from a still-valid 1975 report by the National Academy of Sciences, and included the following outcomes:
large temperature changes;
contamination of food and water;
disease epidemics in crops, domesticated animals and humans due to ionizing radiation;
shortening of growing seasons;
irreversible injury to aquatic species;
widespread and long-term cancers due to inhalation of plutonium particles;
radiation-induced abnormalities in persons in utero at the time of detonations;
a vast growth in the number of skin cancers, and increasing genetic disease.
Overwhelming health problems would afflict the survivors.
These difficulties would extend beyond prompt burn injuries. Retinal burns would even occur in people far from the actual explosions.
Tens of thousands would be crushed by collapsing buildings, or torn to shreds by flying glass.
Others would fall victim to raging firestorms.
Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation; superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiation; and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances in the body.
After an Iranian nuclear attack – even a “small” one – those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed beyond capacity.
Water supplies would become unusable. Housing and shelter could be unavailable for millions. Transportation would revert to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be critical and long-term.
Virtually everyone would be deprived of the most basic means of livelihood. Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. All systems dependent on electrical power could stop. Severe trauma would occasion widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders.
Normal human society would cease. Unrestrained murder and banditry could soon augment plague and epidemics. Many survivors would suffer serious degenerative diseases. They would also expect impaired vision and sterility. An increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and cervix would be unavoidable.
Israelis who survive would still have to deal with mushrooming insect hordes spreading from the radiation-damaged areas.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting corpses would pose the largest health threat.
Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with uncontrolled waste and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes.
These insects would make it impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis.
Reciprocally, all these effects would be unleashed upon Iran. An immediate massive Israeli retaliation would be certain. In Iran, the eagerly expected joys of “martyrdom” would fade in a flash.
IN ITS newest report, released in June 2011, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations.” Now, when effective preemption or “anticipatory selfdefense” by Israel or the US is likely no longer practicable, and when any sustained nuclear deterrence would be unstable and unpredictable, Jerusalem may need to place most of its survival bets on ballistic missile defense (the Arrow and the shorterrange Iron Dome).
These gambles cannot be permitted to fail – an imperative that may require IDF planners to begin disclosing specific features of Israel’s nuclear posture, including limited information about secure nuclear bases, counter-city targeting, and cumulative penetration capability.
If, for any reason, these efforts to reduce “deliberate ambiguity” do not succeed, there would be no lilacs to breed out of the now “dead land.”
Rather, before anything fully human could be born, a pitifully sorrowful gravedigger would have to wield the forceps.
The expected effects of an Iranian nuclear attack.
This is the dead land This is cactus land.... T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land
For a variety of reasons, neither Israel nor the US has exercised its lawful right of anticipatory self-defense against Iran. As a result, Iran’s entry into the Nuclear Club is effectively a fait accompli. In Israel, remaining self-defense options will necessarily be limited to inherently fallible programs and expanded active defense. Unlike a no-longer-viable preemptive option, these programs would come into play only after an Iranian nuclear force has been deployed, or after an Iranian nuclear attack.
There is also a vital antecedent question. Should Washington and Jerusalem expect a newly-nuclear Tehran to be fully rational?
What could happen to Israel if certain Iranian leaders with nuclear weapons value certain presumed religious obligations more highly than their own state’s survival? (Like Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and his Hojatieh) Ironically, and notwithstanding growing hopes for democracy, a regime change in Tehran could yield a heightened likelihood of irrationality.
There can be no assurances that any post-Ahmadinejad regime would be “better.”
IRRATIONALITY is not the same as madness. Even an irrational Iranian leadership could retain a distinct hierarchy of preferences. This would likely be less dangerous than facing a genuinely mad adversary, or one that is entirely unpredictable.
In any event, as it is not up to Israel to decide which type of adversary it would prefer, Jerusalem needs to plan carefully for all three contingencies.
Whether rational, irrational or mad, any Iranian leadership that slouches toward major conflict with the “Zionist entity” could, perhaps in less than three years, unleash regional nuclear war.
This could be deliberate or inadvertent, as a “bolt from the blue,” or as a fully unintended result of an inexorable religious commitment to Jihad against “unbelievers,” let alone for much more mundane reasons such as miscalculation, accident or coup d’état.
(Like the very serious, potentially mass destruction/biological weaponry obtained by Al Qaeda in Libya).
Thirty-one years ago, I published the first of 10 books that contained authoritative descriptions of the consequences of nuclear war – any nuclear war. These descriptions were drawn largely from a still-valid 1975 report by the National Academy of Sciences, and included the following outcomes:
large temperature changes;
contamination of food and water;
disease epidemics in crops, domesticated animals and humans due to ionizing radiation;
shortening of growing seasons;
irreversible injury to aquatic species;
widespread and long-term cancers due to inhalation of plutonium particles;
radiation-induced abnormalities in persons in utero at the time of detonations;
a vast growth in the number of skin cancers, and increasing genetic disease.
Overwhelming health problems would afflict the survivors.
These difficulties would extend beyond prompt burn injuries. Retinal burns would even occur in people far from the actual explosions.
Tens of thousands would be crushed by collapsing buildings, or torn to shreds by flying glass.
Others would fall victim to raging firestorms.
Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation; superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiation; and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances in the body.
After an Iranian nuclear attack – even a “small” one – those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed beyond capacity.
Water supplies would become unusable. Housing and shelter could be unavailable for millions. Transportation would revert to rudimentary levels. Food shortages would be critical and long-term.
Virtually everyone would be deprived of the most basic means of livelihood. Emergency police and fire services would be decimated. All systems dependent on electrical power could stop. Severe trauma would occasion widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders.
Normal human society would cease. Unrestrained murder and banditry could soon augment plague and epidemics. Many survivors would suffer serious degenerative diseases. They would also expect impaired vision and sterility. An increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and cervix would be unavoidable.
Israelis who survive would still have to deal with mushrooming insect hordes spreading from the radiation-damaged areas.
Tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting corpses would pose the largest health threat.
Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans. This fact, coupled with uncontrolled waste and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes.
These insects would make it impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis.
Reciprocally, all these effects would be unleashed upon Iran. An immediate massive Israeli retaliation would be certain. In Iran, the eagerly expected joys of “martyrdom” would fade in a flash.
IN ITS newest report, released in June 2011, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations.” Now, when effective preemption or “anticipatory selfdefense” by Israel or the US is likely no longer practicable, and when any sustained nuclear deterrence would be unstable and unpredictable, Jerusalem may need to place most of its survival bets on ballistic missile defense (the Arrow and the shorterrange Iron Dome).
These gambles cannot be permitted to fail – an imperative that may require IDF planners to begin disclosing specific features of Israel’s nuclear posture, including limited information about secure nuclear bases, counter-city targeting, and cumulative penetration capability.
If, for any reason, these efforts to reduce “deliberate ambiguity” do not succeed, there would be no lilacs to breed out of the now “dead land.”
Rather, before anything fully human could be born, a pitifully sorrowful gravedigger would have to wield the forceps.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
YOU DECIDE, WHO IS WRONG, WHO IS RIGHT
Courtesy Bare Naked Islam click here
Canadian Hindu Advocacy’s director Ron Banerjee says, “In its entire history, Islamic civilization has invented and contributed less to human advancement than a pack of donkeys.”
Banerjee says he wants to “fight the Islamization of our society” and, lately, of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). He’s demanding that Valley Park Middle School in Flemingdon Park stop giving space to Muslim students in the cafeteria after lunch on Fridays.
And judging by the writer’s, HAROON SIDDIQUI spin on this story, (below) muslims and lefties don’t like it one bit.
The Star:
He does not live in the area but claims to have “received many complaints from terrified Hindu students and parents (who) felt that the TDSB was so thoroughly infected with Islamist sympathies that they would suffer consequences for speaking up.”
“Frankly, I don’t believe what he says,” principal Nick Stefanoff says. “I’ve not had a single complaint from any non-Muslim parents. We have dozens of Hindu students and we have a great relationship with them and their parents. When the Indian cricket team played Sri Lanka in the World Cup final (in April in Mumbai), Hindu and Muslim kids came to the school at 4 a.m. to watch it together. They had a great time.”
He says that several of Banerjee’s assertions are wrong — that other kids are denied access to the cafeteria (the prayer is held after lunch when the place is vacant); that prayer is interfering with classes (all classes start on time); and that “secular education” is compromised (class content is decidedly not affected).
“I think he just makes it all up,” says Stefanoff. “He never asked me a thing. Why doesn’t he come and talk to me?” Banerjee has speculated that the praying students may be subject to “inflammatory preaching” against Hindus. There’s no such evidence.
Yet he plans to picket the school just when the Muslims begin praying in the new school year. “Let’s see how much praying they can do with our loudspeakers. . . . If our loudness disrupts their prayers, so be it.”
Banerjee’s views echo those of extremist Hindus in India, a minority there.
For example, he thinks India’s ruling secular Congress Party, “which depends heavily on Muslim votes,” is “a curse” on that country. Congress led India’s struggle against British colonial rule and has been elected more times than any other party since 1947.
Joining Banerjee’s crusade are the fundamentalist Christian Heritage Party, the Jewish Defence League (JDL) and the Canadian Muslim Congress. The latter is notorious in the Muslim community for attacking fellow-Muslims and being the darling of Islamophobes and right-wing media.
In January, when the Jewish Defence Legue made common cause with a racist (Oh, please, Islam is not a race, it’s a death cult) British group, the English Defence League, Banerjee was at their Toronto rally, which was opposed by the Canadian (Uber Leftie) Jewish Congress.
Bernie Farber, then CEO, said: “When extremists come together, we all too often get a combustible reaction. . . . Using the tactics of hooligans, whether from the right or the left, is appalling.”
Banerjee is also in bed with a handful of Canadians who are fans of Dutch anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders. When they held a rally for him in Toronto last year, Banerjee spoke in glowing terms about Wilders.
Banerjee describes his group as the voice of “real Hindus.” Other times he claims it to be “the leading” voice for Canadian Hindus. This annoys the large and well-respected Canadian Hindu organizations, whom he keeps attacking:
“Canadian Hindu temples and groups have proven themselves unable or unwilling to protect Hindu lives, rights or property. The Canadian Hindu Advocacy was formed to address this, and our national advocacy shall continue to provide real leadership to our oppressed community, which is by far the most victimized in Canada.”
Canadian Hindu Advocacy’s director Ron Banerjee says, “In its entire history, Islamic civilization has invented and contributed less to human advancement than a pack of donkeys.”
IS IT ISLAMOPHOBIA WHEN THEY REALLY ARE TRYING TO KILL YOU?
Banerjee says he wants to “fight the Islamization of our society” and, lately, of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB). He’s demanding that Valley Park Middle School in Flemingdon Park stop giving space to Muslim students in the cafeteria after lunch on Fridays.
And judging by the writer’s, HAROON SIDDIQUI spin on this story, (below) muslims and lefties don’t like it one bit.
The Star:
He does not live in the area but claims to have “received many complaints from terrified Hindu students and parents (who) felt that the TDSB was so thoroughly infected with Islamist sympathies that they would suffer consequences for speaking up.”
“Frankly, I don’t believe what he says,” principal Nick Stefanoff says. “I’ve not had a single complaint from any non-Muslim parents. We have dozens of Hindu students and we have a great relationship with them and their parents. When the Indian cricket team played Sri Lanka in the World Cup final (in April in Mumbai), Hindu and Muslim kids came to the school at 4 a.m. to watch it together. They had a great time.”
He says that several of Banerjee’s assertions are wrong — that other kids are denied access to the cafeteria (the prayer is held after lunch when the place is vacant); that prayer is interfering with classes (all classes start on time); and that “secular education” is compromised (class content is decidedly not affected).
“I think he just makes it all up,” says Stefanoff. “He never asked me a thing. Why doesn’t he come and talk to me?” Banerjee has speculated that the praying students may be subject to “inflammatory preaching” against Hindus. There’s no such evidence.
Yet he plans to picket the school just when the Muslims begin praying in the new school year. “Let’s see how much praying they can do with our loudspeakers. . . . If our loudness disrupts their prayers, so be it.”
Banerjee’s views echo those of extremist Hindus in India, a minority there.
For example, he thinks India’s ruling secular Congress Party, “which depends heavily on Muslim votes,” is “a curse” on that country. Congress led India’s struggle against British colonial rule and has been elected more times than any other party since 1947.
Joining Banerjee’s crusade are the fundamentalist Christian Heritage Party, the Jewish Defence League (JDL) and the Canadian Muslim Congress. The latter is notorious in the Muslim community for attacking fellow-Muslims and being the darling of Islamophobes and right-wing media.
Boys pray in front. Girls pray in the back. Menstruating girls banished to Siberia.
In January, when the Jewish Defence Legue made common cause with a racist (Oh, please, Islam is not a race, it’s a death cult) British group, the English Defence League, Banerjee was at their Toronto rally, which was opposed by the Canadian (Uber Leftie) Jewish Congress.
Bernie Farber, then CEO, said: “When extremists come together, we all too often get a combustible reaction. . . . Using the tactics of hooligans, whether from the right or the left, is appalling.”
Banerjee is also in bed with a handful of Canadians who are fans of Dutch anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders. When they held a rally for him in Toronto last year, Banerjee spoke in glowing terms about Wilders.
Banerjee describes his group as the voice of “real Hindus.” Other times he claims it to be “the leading” voice for Canadian Hindus. This annoys the large and well-respected Canadian Hindu organizations, whom he keeps attacking:
“Canadian Hindu temples and groups have proven themselves unable or unwilling to protect Hindu lives, rights or property. The Canadian Hindu Advocacy was formed to address this, and our national advocacy shall continue to provide real leadership to our oppressed community, which is by far the most victimized in Canada.”
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
UANI - EYE ON IRAN 8/24
AP: "Iran has allowed a top U.N. atomic inspector access to a site where it is developing advanced centrifuges that can be used to make nuclear fuel and to arm warheads, diplomats told The Associated Press on Tuesday. The diplomats said that Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency also was allowed to tour Iran's heavy water production plant for the first time. Heavy water reactors - like the research unit being built by Iran - produce plutonium which, along with enriched uranium, can be used for the fissile core of nuclear warheads.
A senior diplomat familiar with the visit described the Iranian move as significant in demonstrating openness after years of stonewalling IAEA requests for greater access to restricted nuclear activities. Iran is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions because it refuses to suspend both enrichment and its heavy water reactor program. Therefore any sign that it is ready to open a larger window is likely to blunt U.S.-led efforts to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic for defying the Security Council...
Before Nackaerts' five-day visit, which ended Saturday, the IAEA was forced to rely on satellite imagery in concluding that the heavy water production plant was in operation. One of the diplomats said Nackaerts was able to confirm this on his visit." http://t.uani.com/qEarlb
Reuters: "North Korea has intensified its cooperation with Iran this year and supplied it with a computer program that could help the Islamic Republic build nuclear weapons, a German newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing western intelligence sources. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung said North Korea had in the spring delivered software, originally developed in the United States, that could simulate neutron flows.
Such calculations, linked to identifying a chain reaction, are vital in the construction of reactors and also in the development of nuclear explosives. With the help of the program, Iran could gain important knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons, reported the newspaper which quoted no individual source.
If confirmed, it could add to Western suspicions about Iran's disputed nuclear activities and its links with North Korea, a secretive Asian state whose pursuit of nuclear weapons worries the world. A confidential U.N. report earlier this year said North Korea and Iran appeared to have been regularly exchanging ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions." http://t.uani.com/qLsiR7
LAT: "The European Union announced sanctions Wednesday against Iran's elite Al-Quds security force, saying it was providing Syria with materiel and other support to help Syrian President Bashar Assad crush that country's popular uprising. The sanctions represent the most direct international accusation that Iran is helping Syria to quell a 5-month campaign of opposition protests.
There was no immediate public response from Iranian authorities to the sanctions, who have remained among Assad's strongest allies. The sanctions, published Wednesday in the EU's Official Journal, accuse Iran's Al-Quds force of 'providing equipment and support to help the Syria regime suppress revolts in Syria.'
The EU sanctions will freeze assets and ban travel by certain individuals and entities. British newspapers previously have quoted unidentified Western diplomats as accusing Iran of providing riot-control and surveillance gear to Syria to help Assad's regime against dissidents." http://t.uani.com/p16JH7
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
Reuters: "A senior United Nations official visited all of Iran's main atomic sites last week, an Iranian news agency reported, as the Islamic Republic looks to restart talks with world powers about its nuclear program. Herman Nackaerts, the head of the 'safeguards' department of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spent five days in Iran on a rare visit that coincided with a new push by Russia to re-start diplomatic talks.
The trip also happened as Iran started to move some of its uranium centrifuges to an underground bunker that would be less exposed to any strike by Israel or the United States... 'During this trip, the delegation visited Bushehr nuclear plant, enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, nuclear sites in Isfahan ... and also the Arak heavy water reactor,' the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as saying.
Nackaerts, whose department is responsible for ensuring that nuclear material is not used for weapons, met Iran's nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani. 'There were talks on how to expand cooperations with the Agency and how to answer some of the Agency's questions,' Soltanieh said." http://t.uani.com/r50kwH
Domestic Politics
JPost: "Iran's suicide rate has climbed 17% in two years, with 10 Iranians on average taking their lives every day, a government official announced Wednesday.
Ahmad Shaja'i, the country's chief of forensic medicine, told the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) that suicides increased nearly 5% since last year, with 952 Iranians taking their lives during the first quarter of the Iranian year, which began in March, compared with 870 the same time last year. More than 70% of the suicides were men.
Mehrdad Khonsari, a former Iranian diplomat, told The Media Line that suicide rates in Iran have always been higher than in the West, but that the aggravated economic and social conditions may have contributed to the new peak, mainly among the country's youth. 'Iranians don't live a normal life,' Khonsari told The Media Line. 'There are barriers to interaction between youth, forced marriages, and many young couples must live with their parents because they can't afford housing.'" http://t.uani.com/q3xnhw
Bloomberg: "Iran expects to find four new gas fields before the end of March 2012 following exploration now being carried out, the state-run Mehr news agency said, citing National Iranian Oil Co.'s director for exploration, Mahmoud Mohaddes. Iran recently discovered the Menar natural gas field located east of the southern port town of Assaluyeh, according to the Mehr report. The field holds 17.470 trillion cubic feet or 495 billion cubic meters of gas and some three fourth of it is recoverable, the report said." http://t.uani.com/oOaIiZ
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Doran in FP: "The United States must therefore dispense entirely with grand strategies that seek to foster a conciliatory image of the United States and to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead, it should focus on the key challenge posed by the Arab uprisings: managing intra-Muslim conflict.
This requires returning to the question that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah first posed to Obama: What is the strategy of the United States toward Iran? At stake in Syria today is nothing less than the future of the Iranian regional security system. It should not escape notice that the Saudis, though hostile to the populist wave in general, have now aligned themselves against Assad.
As much as they fear revolution, the Saudis fear the Islamic Republic of Iran even more, and they see the Syrian crisis as an opportunity to deal a severe blow to it. The United States should adopt a similar view. The contest on the ground in Syria, obviously, has profoundly local causes. Nevertheless, the regional struggle between Iran and its rivals will play a significant role in shaping it.
After Assad falls, a proxy war will erupt, with outside powers seeking to cultivate Syrian clients. Iran and Hezbollah will use the covert and brutal methods that they have honed in Lebanon and Iraq. They will preserve what they can from the remnants of Assad's security services, while simultaneously arming and training new proxies. They will kill off and intimidate those Syrians who get in their way. The United States has a vital interest in thwarting Iran. To do so effectively, however, it must develop a serious and sustained regional containment strategy.
The process of writing the new strategy begins, like before, in Riyadh and Ankara. This time, however, Obama should reverse his attitude toward the preferences of King Abdullah and Prime Minister Erdogan. The Syrian crisis offers a new opportunity to reach a strategic accommodation with the Saudis.
At the same time, it should also force Washington to re-evaluate the Turks' no-problems policy. To date, this policy has worked to the net benefit of Iran and Syria and to the detriment of the United States. There is no reason to believe that it will produce a different result in the future." http://t.uani.com/oF5Jfg
Ramin Jahanbegloo in CSM: "When future generations look back, they will remember 2011 as the year of the end of dictators in the Middle East and the Maghreb. Libya's Muammar Qaddafi appears to have now joined the Middle East parade of despots rejected by an uprising. Practically nine months after Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted after 23 years of authoritarian rule and the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was thrown out of power by a few weeks of protests in Tahrir Square, Qaddafi is at the end of his reign after 42 years of dictatorship...
So far, the remaining authoritarian regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria have sought to insulate themselves from an Egypt-like scenario. They continue to practice a high degree of violence against their opposition, believing they can hold onto power as long as they succeed in terrorizing their citizens... It remains to be seen whether Mr. Assad and Iran's Revolutionary Guards can manage to continue terrorizing their fellow citizens extensively enough to win a chance of dying in their own bed.
Leaving aside wishful thinking, what is certain is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes, even though they have lost their moral and political legitimacy, are doubling their efforts to crush and fragment civic actors precisely in order not to end up like Egypt or, now, Libya. In doing so, they have created enormous obstacles to the nonviolent transition in these countries.
Nonetheless, ending the reign of terror in Syria and Iran is not totally blocked if the formerly cowed citizenry takes up their own collective responsibility, as they did in Libya, to end human rights abuses. However painful it might be to admit, the time is long past for "dictator containment" by an international community that seeks to guide leadership succession and create a space for moderate autocrats." http://t.uani.com/qOpDzH
A senior diplomat familiar with the visit described the Iranian move as significant in demonstrating openness after years of stonewalling IAEA requests for greater access to restricted nuclear activities. Iran is under four sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions because it refuses to suspend both enrichment and its heavy water reactor program. Therefore any sign that it is ready to open a larger window is likely to blunt U.S.-led efforts to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic for defying the Security Council...
Before Nackaerts' five-day visit, which ended Saturday, the IAEA was forced to rely on satellite imagery in concluding that the heavy water production plant was in operation. One of the diplomats said Nackaerts was able to confirm this on his visit." http://t.uani.com/qEarlb
Reuters: "North Korea has intensified its cooperation with Iran this year and supplied it with a computer program that could help the Islamic Republic build nuclear weapons, a German newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing western intelligence sources. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung said North Korea had in the spring delivered software, originally developed in the United States, that could simulate neutron flows.
Such calculations, linked to identifying a chain reaction, are vital in the construction of reactors and also in the development of nuclear explosives. With the help of the program, Iran could gain important knowledge of how to construct nuclear weapons, reported the newspaper which quoted no individual source.
If confirmed, it could add to Western suspicions about Iran's disputed nuclear activities and its links with North Korea, a secretive Asian state whose pursuit of nuclear weapons worries the world. A confidential U.N. report earlier this year said North Korea and Iran appeared to have been regularly exchanging ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions." http://t.uani.com/qLsiR7
LAT: "The European Union announced sanctions Wednesday against Iran's elite Al-Quds security force, saying it was providing Syria with materiel and other support to help Syrian President Bashar Assad crush that country's popular uprising. The sanctions represent the most direct international accusation that Iran is helping Syria to quell a 5-month campaign of opposition protests.
There was no immediate public response from Iranian authorities to the sanctions, who have remained among Assad's strongest allies. The sanctions, published Wednesday in the EU's Official Journal, accuse Iran's Al-Quds force of 'providing equipment and support to help the Syria regime suppress revolts in Syria.'
The EU sanctions will freeze assets and ban travel by certain individuals and entities. British newspapers previously have quoted unidentified Western diplomats as accusing Iran of providing riot-control and surveillance gear to Syria to help Assad's regime against dissidents." http://t.uani.com/p16JH7
Nuclear Program & Sanctions
Reuters: "A senior United Nations official visited all of Iran's main atomic sites last week, an Iranian news agency reported, as the Islamic Republic looks to restart talks with world powers about its nuclear program. Herman Nackaerts, the head of the 'safeguards' department of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), spent five days in Iran on a rare visit that coincided with a new push by Russia to re-start diplomatic talks.
The trip also happened as Iran started to move some of its uranium centrifuges to an underground bunker that would be less exposed to any strike by Israel or the United States... 'During this trip, the delegation visited Bushehr nuclear plant, enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, nuclear sites in Isfahan ... and also the Arak heavy water reactor,' the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as saying.
Nackaerts, whose department is responsible for ensuring that nuclear material is not used for weapons, met Iran's nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani. 'There were talks on how to expand cooperations with the Agency and how to answer some of the Agency's questions,' Soltanieh said." http://t.uani.com/r50kwH
Domestic Politics
JPost: "Iran's suicide rate has climbed 17% in two years, with 10 Iranians on average taking their lives every day, a government official announced Wednesday.
Ahmad Shaja'i, the country's chief of forensic medicine, told the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) that suicides increased nearly 5% since last year, with 952 Iranians taking their lives during the first quarter of the Iranian year, which began in March, compared with 870 the same time last year. More than 70% of the suicides were men.
Mehrdad Khonsari, a former Iranian diplomat, told The Media Line that suicide rates in Iran have always been higher than in the West, but that the aggravated economic and social conditions may have contributed to the new peak, mainly among the country's youth. 'Iranians don't live a normal life,' Khonsari told The Media Line. 'There are barriers to interaction between youth, forced marriages, and many young couples must live with their parents because they can't afford housing.'" http://t.uani.com/q3xnhw
Bloomberg: "Iran expects to find four new gas fields before the end of March 2012 following exploration now being carried out, the state-run Mehr news agency said, citing National Iranian Oil Co.'s director for exploration, Mahmoud Mohaddes. Iran recently discovered the Menar natural gas field located east of the southern port town of Assaluyeh, according to the Mehr report. The field holds 17.470 trillion cubic feet or 495 billion cubic meters of gas and some three fourth of it is recoverable, the report said." http://t.uani.com/oOaIiZ
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Doran in FP: "The United States must therefore dispense entirely with grand strategies that seek to foster a conciliatory image of the United States and to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead, it should focus on the key challenge posed by the Arab uprisings: managing intra-Muslim conflict.
This requires returning to the question that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah first posed to Obama: What is the strategy of the United States toward Iran? At stake in Syria today is nothing less than the future of the Iranian regional security system. It should not escape notice that the Saudis, though hostile to the populist wave in general, have now aligned themselves against Assad.
As much as they fear revolution, the Saudis fear the Islamic Republic of Iran even more, and they see the Syrian crisis as an opportunity to deal a severe blow to it. The United States should adopt a similar view. The contest on the ground in Syria, obviously, has profoundly local causes. Nevertheless, the regional struggle between Iran and its rivals will play a significant role in shaping it.
After Assad falls, a proxy war will erupt, with outside powers seeking to cultivate Syrian clients. Iran and Hezbollah will use the covert and brutal methods that they have honed in Lebanon and Iraq. They will preserve what they can from the remnants of Assad's security services, while simultaneously arming and training new proxies. They will kill off and intimidate those Syrians who get in their way. The United States has a vital interest in thwarting Iran. To do so effectively, however, it must develop a serious and sustained regional containment strategy.
The process of writing the new strategy begins, like before, in Riyadh and Ankara. This time, however, Obama should reverse his attitude toward the preferences of King Abdullah and Prime Minister Erdogan. The Syrian crisis offers a new opportunity to reach a strategic accommodation with the Saudis.
At the same time, it should also force Washington to re-evaluate the Turks' no-problems policy. To date, this policy has worked to the net benefit of Iran and Syria and to the detriment of the United States. There is no reason to believe that it will produce a different result in the future." http://t.uani.com/oF5Jfg
Ramin Jahanbegloo in CSM: "When future generations look back, they will remember 2011 as the year of the end of dictators in the Middle East and the Maghreb. Libya's Muammar Qaddafi appears to have now joined the Middle East parade of despots rejected by an uprising. Practically nine months after Tunisia's President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was ousted after 23 years of authoritarian rule and the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was thrown out of power by a few weeks of protests in Tahrir Square, Qaddafi is at the end of his reign after 42 years of dictatorship...
So far, the remaining authoritarian regimes in the region such as Iran and Syria have sought to insulate themselves from an Egypt-like scenario. They continue to practice a high degree of violence against their opposition, believing they can hold onto power as long as they succeed in terrorizing their citizens... It remains to be seen whether Mr. Assad and Iran's Revolutionary Guards can manage to continue terrorizing their fellow citizens extensively enough to win a chance of dying in their own bed.
Leaving aside wishful thinking, what is certain is that the Syrian and Iranian regimes, even though they have lost their moral and political legitimacy, are doubling their efforts to crush and fragment civic actors precisely in order not to end up like Egypt or, now, Libya. In doing so, they have created enormous obstacles to the nonviolent transition in these countries.
Nonetheless, ending the reign of terror in Syria and Iran is not totally blocked if the formerly cowed citizenry takes up their own collective responsibility, as they did in Libya, to end human rights abuses. However painful it might be to admit, the time is long past for "dictator containment" by an international community that seeks to guide leadership succession and create a space for moderate autocrats." http://t.uani.com/qOpDzH
Saturday, August 20, 2011
AL QAEDA IN IRAN & DENIAL BY WITNESS OSAMA WAS SHOT IN RAID!
By THOMAS JOSCELYN
In a stunning development on Thursday, the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Iranian government of sponsoring al Qaeda. Treasury designated six al Qaeda terrorists and reported that they are working for a network headquartered in Iran. This al Qaeda network is “headed by Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil, a prominent Iran-based al Qaeda facilitator, operating under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.”
A Treasury Department press release quoted Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen as saying:
Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today. By exposing Iran’s secret deal with al Qaeda allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory, we are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran’s unmatched support for terrorism. Today’s action also seeks to disrupt this key network and deny al Qaeda’s senior leadership much-needed support.
This is not the first time the Treasury Department has designated al Qaeda operatives operating in Iran. In January 2009, treasury designated four al Qaeda terrorists, including one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, who were living in Iran. Thursday’s designation, however, explicitly accuses the Iranian government of having an “agreement” with al Qaeda that allows terrorists to use Iranian soil to move money and recruits into Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil is described as “an Iran-based senior al Qaeda facilitator currently living and operating in Iran under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian government.” Treasury explains.
Iranian authorities maintain a relationship with Khalil and have permitted him to operate within Iran’s borders since 2005. Khalil moves money and recruits from across the Middle East into Iran, then on to Pakistan for the benefit of al Qaeda senior leaders, including Atiyah Abd al Rahman.
Atiyah Abd al Rahman was also designated by treasury. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rahman was al Qaeda's “operations chief” and was working with bin Laden to assemble a terrorist cell capable of hitting America on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. According to the Journal, the intelligence tying Rahman to the plot was found in communications recovered during the May 2 U.S. raid on bin Laden's safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Rahman is one of al Qaeda’s most senior operatives. After the Taliban’s Afghanistan fell in late 2001, he moved to Iran along with numerous other al Qaeda terrorists.
The U.S. State Department's Rewards for Justice page notes that Rahman was al Qaeda's “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Treasury’s designation reiterates that Rahman was appointed by bin Laden as an al Qaeda emissary to Iran. Rahman, the State Department reported, “recruits and facilitates talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and “is also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.”
Rahman was a longtime confidante of bin Laden. He “joined Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan as a teenager in the 1980s,” the State Department reported. “Since then, he has gained considerable stature in al Qaeda as an explosives expert and Islamic scholar.”
Rahman “became acquainted with [Abu Musab al Zarqawi],” the deceased leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in the western city of Herat in the late 1990s. He then retreated with Osama bin Laden to the Tora Bora Mountains in late 2001 before moving on to Iran.
The U.S. government has repeatedly recognized the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda – even though it is widely assumed the two are incapable of collusion.
For example, the 9/11 Commission found that the “relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations.” The Commission found that Iran and its chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, trained al Qaeda operatives as they plotted the 1998 embassy bombings.
And in more recent years, according to the Treasury Department, there has been no barrier to cooperating on operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The six terrorists designated on Thursday have moved funds and jihadists to each of these countries, using Iranian soil as a transit hub.
The Treasury Department says that these activities are part of a formerly “secret deal” between Iran and al Qaeda.
The reality is that there is plenty of publicly-available evidence showing that Iran and al Qaeda have been cooperating since the early 1990s.
Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
THEN THERE IS THE QUESTION OF THE WHOLE OBAMA-OSAMA SAGA BEING REAL.
VIDEO - Mr Bashir, his home is in front of Osma's house and who watched whole operation from the roof of his house and he said that out of THREE only one helicopter landed and after 10-20 minutes when tried to lift up it crashed and two other helicopters run away and he rushed to house and he saw dead bodies of 10 or more people and within 20 mins Pak army came. he said that I am 100% sure that they did not take Osama if he was there because of the crash of helicopter.......what you think?????
THEY DID APPARENTLY GET HIS SON.
EYEWITNESS VIDEO BELOW CASTS DOUBT ON OSAMA HIMSELF EVEN BEING THERE OR CAPTURED OR KILLED IN THE RAID.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
