RIGHT Before The Saudi Oil Attack THIS Happened and It’s The KEY To Everything


In the realm of Conservatives such as Paleocons and Neocons, there are concerns about the verifiable act that Saudi Oil Fields were attacked. The disagreement among pundits is, “Who attacked?” Was it Iran? Was it the Shi’ite Houthi Rebels in Yemen? Did the Houthis attack Saudi oil wells under the direction of Iran? More ridiculously, did the U.S. attack the oil wells to false flag Iran to start a war? Did the Saudis attack their own oil wells to false flag Iran so the U.S. would attack Iran?

Lisa Haven

The latter two is a bit unbelievable to me! YET a couple of days ago I ran into a Lisa Haven video/article where she puts forth a credible scenario of the Saudi oil well attack. I think you will be interested as well.

 

JRH 9/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

*******************

RIGHT Before The Saudi Oil Attack THIS Happened and It’s The KEY To Everything

 

Saudi Oil Fields Ablaze

 

By Lisa Haven

Sep 17, 2019

Lisa Haven News Network

 

Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq refinery, the largest oil processing facility in the world, and the Khurais oil field were attacked by a barrage of cruise missiles and drone strikes on Saturday.

 

Not surprisingly, United States President Donald Trump warned that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” to respond to the attack, but insisted that he was still waiting to verify who was responsible. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately rushed to blame Iran, even while Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for it.

But what’s really happening with the Saudi Oil attack? I believe the key can be found in what happened days before the entire event transpired. All that and more below…

 

ALERT: Because YouTube changed their algorithm, please click this link http://bit.ly/2ktaix4 to subscribe to this channel, then tap the bell to turn on notifications for more reports like this.

 

VIDEO: RIGHT Before The Saudi Oil Attack THIS Happened & It’s The KEY To Everything!

 

 

Posted by Lisa Haven

425K subscribers

 

[Blog Editor: Lisa Haven making a living as well as promotions]

 

SIGN UP WITH VIRTUAL-SHIELD: http://www.hidewithlisa.com  (30% OFF USING LINK ABOVE)

 

TO SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL CLICK HERE: http://bit.ly/2ktaix4

 

To SUBSCRIBE TO MY BACKUP CHANNEL CLICK HERE: http://bit.ly/lisahavenbackup

 

DONATE To Lisa Haven Via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lisahaven  

 

DONATE Via-Bitcoin: 1KCxsVFgpoSV5v3n4yYaFC5XPegXNBWgVB

 

Subscribe to My Website at: http://lisahaven.news/

 

Find Me On Bitchute/Brighteon:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/qbnhKthU5W7Z/

https://www.brighteon.com/channel/lisahaven

 

Find Me On Social Media: Parler- https://parler.com/profile/LisaHaven/…

 

Twitter- https://twitter.com/Lisa_Haven

 

AND MORE

 

Saudi Arabia: The Golden Chain and The Missing 28 Pages


Golden Chain

There are a lot of voices on both the Left and Right side of aisle calling for Obama to declassify the infamous 28 pages of a report that may link Saudi Arabia in some fashion or another to the al Qaeda attack on American soil on September 11, 2001. The Saudis are now saying they either don’t want the declassification or at the very least not allow the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) Bill to become law. JASTA would allow surviving victims of the 9/11 attack to sue Saudi Arabia in civil court for any culpability in financing the al Qaeda attack.

 

Authors Millard Burr and Rachel Ehrenfeld of the American Center for Democracy (ACD) have posed further incrimination against Saudi Arabia that beyond the 28 pages. Evidently a Bosnian police raid on a Muslim charity group in Sarajevo turned up some evidence of fund raising for Usama (or Osama – depending who you read) bin Laden’s al Qaeda. That Burr and Ehrenfeld suggest that evidence points to numerous Saudi families of wealth that were sugar-daddies to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda called these sugar-daddies the Golden Chain. The problem: The U.S. Government has made much of that evidence classified just as the 28 pages. Here is a teaser paragraph from the Burr-Ehrenfeld essay:

 

How much of the Sarajevo material remains classified and unpublished is debatable. However, like the missing Congressional report, substantial material that covers the genesis and expansion of al Qaeda in the 1990s has never been released. What we do know is that one note taken from the Sarajevo hoard that surfaced at the trial is a bin Laden note saying: “we took very huge gains from the country’s people in Saudi. We were able to give political power to the Mujahideen, gathering donations in very large amounts…”

 

Just think if there are some names on the 28 classified pages that are also on the Golden Chain. That could finally reveal just how involved the Saudi government or policies that can be associated with wealthy Saudis that are today considered legitimate global business partners. A civil trial could then open some cans of worms that the Intelligence communities of both the USA and Saudi Arabia that might lead to some criminal investigations. AND there you have it – My guess is neither the U.S. Government nor the Saudis want those cans of worms opened. What do you think?

 

Bosnia-Herzegovina map 1-1995

 

Just a brief aside: I heard on Fox News that Obama might declassify some of those 28 pages today. However, Google is fairly silent on the today thing. Google searches do point to former Senator Bob Graham reporting that a partial declassification of the 28 pages (e.g. AP, Fox News and Esquire) Hmm … Do you think the U.S. Intelligence community might be pressing Obama on what the public can see?

 

JRH 4/24/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Saudi Arabia: The Golden Chain and The Missing 28 Pages

 

By Millard Burr and Rachel Ehrenfeld

April 23, 2016 6:32PM

American Center for Democracy

 

Bin Laden Golden Chain al Qaeda list - Arabic

Arabic UBL-al Qaeda writing discovered at Bosnia-BIN office

 

The American media, which continues to concentrate on a bill making its way through Congress that would allow American citizens to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for losses suffered as a result of the 9/11 attacks, paid no attention to the Golden Chain.

 

The victims claim that the release of the 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Commission Report is of crucial importance to their case. Those pages, they say, would show the interrelationship that ties the hijackers to the Saudi regime itself and therefore would offer a damning indictment of the Kingdom. But President Obama, like President Bush before him, refuses to make it public. And the Saudi Royal Family that vehemently denies funding al Qaeda threatened that if the 28 pages are released, they would sell more than $750 billion of Saudi investments in the U.S.

 

Of equal if not of greater importance than the missing 28 pages, is the forgotten investigation of the Bosnia-BIF office. Crucially, among the boxes and files was found a note ostensibly written by Osama Bin Laden that lists a “Golden Chain” of twenty Arab plutocrats who were and remain suspected of financing international terrorism, including the funding of al Qaeda.

 

—-

 

The Golden Chain was established about the time of al Qaeda’s founding in 1988. Bin Laden’s notes on efforts to recruit wealthy Saudi Arabian families who could fund his group were also found at Sarajevo. Much of the information derived from the Sarajevo came to light during the 2003 trial of an al Qaeda financier, Enaam Arnaout, in Chicago.

 

In March 2002, a search of the Benevolence International Foundation (the Bosanska Idealna Futura, or BIF) in Sarajevo, Bosnia, would provide the West with the most significant trove of information ever to be found on the Genesis and growth of the al Qaeda organization.

 

In fact, Bosnian investigators unearthed an intelligence mother lode: Not only did they seize weapons, false passports, plans for making bombs, jihadist videos and literature, their search also yielded material of great historic value. On a computer file titled “Tareekh Osama” (Osama’s History), there were found documents, letters, and photos relating to the birth and early days of al Qaeda, some of it in bin Laden’s handwriting. Included in the haul was an organizational chart, and notes on al Qaeda activity reportedly prepared by bin Laden, and his mentor Sheikh Abdallah Azzam. The file had been kept by Bin Ladin confidant Enaam Arnaout, who clearly obviously thought the BIF office in Bosnia was safe from intrusion. Ironically, before 9/11 Arnaout and the BIF were under investigation in the United States for operating the charity as a racketeering enterprise. One that provided material support to al Qaeda. Following 9/11, it seemed only a matter of time before Arnaout would be indicted.

 

Why the raid took place when it did, and who sponsored the raid (in Sarajevo and Washington), remains something of a mystery. As a result of the Dayton Accords, Bosnia-Herzegovina had been governed by a unique tripartite power-sharing arrangement since 1996; a rotating presidency allowed Muslim Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats to share power. Importantly, in 2002 Alija Izetbegović, the powerful Islamist Muslim Brother, was no longer first among equals. The West’s bete-noire had stepped down after serving as Chairman of the Presidency from October 1996 through October 2000. Thus, given the power structure that existed in Sarajevo in early 2002 (and in the aftermath of 9/11 2001), it is posited that the CIA either took part in or at least was instrumental in, the raid on the BIF location.

 

Incredibly, the trove of information discovered in that raid was given publicity in Bosnia itself. No effort was made by the Bosnia intelligence agency to tailor, redact, or eliminate information found in the Bosanska, and thus, the information itself proved to be a bombshell both inside and out of Bosnia. Unlike Washington where the most astounding intelligence is immediately classified secret and squirreled down some intelligence rat hole, the Bosnian services shared their find with the world. And in an order issued on 6 March 2003 by the Supreme Court of Bosnia, the computer files that had been seized were delivered to the U.S. Embassy. The documents were then translated into English. Later, some appeared in a trial of a BIF official Enaam Arnaout.

 

Included in the files were “scanned letters” between Arnaout and bin Laden (using their nom de guerre) and letters concerning other al Qaeda principals. The letters revealed that al Qaeda leaders were paid, and weapons for the group were purchased from funds provided by Muslim charities. There were also letters authorizing the purchase, and purchase orders for rifles, RPGs, mortars, and other weaponry, with instructions to distribute the weapons to camps operated by al Qaeda.

 

Other memoranda provided a chronology of events from the founding of al Qaeda in Khost to the movement’s activity in Peshawar, Pakistan, during its first months of existence. There were reports on al Qaeda activity in the various jihad on-going in Bosnia, the Sudan, and Chechnya. An article published in 1988 in Arab News outlined bin Laden’s activity and included a photo of Arnaout and Bin Laden walking together at “Masada”, an Arab-Afghan camp for mujahideen.

 

In the search of the BIF’s Sarajevo offices, “law enforcement authorities” discovered conclusive evidence that tied the BIF Chief Executive Officer Enaam Arnaout to al Qaeda, and to its leader Osama Bin Laden. One letter even allowed Arnaout to sign an authorization on bin Laden’s behalf. Though the Sarajevo documents remained secret for months, they included the minutes of an 11 August 1988 meeting during which bin Laden discussed the creation of what would then be known as the al Qaeda. It is recalled that in the decade following the founding of al Qaeda 1988 only a few hundred jihadists had been permitted to take the oath of allegiance (the baya’t) to Osama bin Laden. Arnaout was thus a member of a very select body of mujahideen.

 

The evidence unearthed in Sarajevo was sufficient to charge Arnaout with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists. Arnaout, who was born and raised in Syria and was a member of a Saudi family of Albanian heritage, was also an American citizen and had been a resident of the U.S. since 1992. Thus, in the end, there would be no escaping U.S. justice.

 

Concerning the BIF, a “charity” incorporated in the State of Illinois in March 1992, the arrest of Arnaout was soon followed by the closure of BIF operation in Canada and Bosnia, and then by most of its offices located overseas; namely, in Pakistan, Bosnia, Yemen, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Dagestan, Soviet Georgia, China, and Ingushetia (moved from Chechnya).

 

In December 2001, and shortly after 9/11 but before the indictment of Arnaout himself, BIF funds had been blocked in the USA, Canada, and Bosnia. At that time, it was reported that the US government had in its possession substantial evidence proving that the Arnaout-bin Laden intimate relationship dated from the mid-1980s. The relationship was in fact fixed well before the creation of the al-Qaeda organization in August 1988 in Khost, Afghanistan.

 

Given the evidence uncovered at the BIF office in Sarajevo (and, reportedly additional evidence of BIF’s terrorist ties discovered by Bosnian police in a later raid on local charities on 3 June), it was not surprising that Arnaout was soon indicated in the United States.

 

See UNITED STATES of America v. Enaam M. ARNAOUT, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud”, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Suri”, a/k/a “Abu Mahmoud al Hamawi”, a/k/a “Abdel Samia”, U.S. v. ARNAOUT, No. 02 CR 892, 231 F.Supp.2d 797 (2002), U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 22, 2002, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, et.al., United States Attorneys.

 

The Trial

 

On March 2003 the Chicago trail [sic] of Enaam Arnaout was truncated just before it began == much to the dissatisfaction of most observers. Arnaout had been charged with racketeering conspiracy, providing material support to organizations engaged in violent activities, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. He faced a possible 90-year sentence. However, before the charges could be tried Arnaout pleaded guilty in federal court to a single count of illegally funding and supplying military assistance to mujahideen in Bosnia and Chechnya.

 

The federal case, which focused on the Arnaout-Bin Laden relationship, was blown to smithereens when a federal judge ruled that evidence was spotty at best. Prosecutors dropped all charges after Arnaout pled guilty to a single felony count. For reasons still not clear, the government settled for a penalty less than the twenty years that Arnaout could have received. As an editorial in the New York Sun put it, “The government’s decision to accept a plea to a single, and relatively minor, count [transpired] so as to avoid a risky trial.” Nonetheless, federal prosecutors were “unwilling to credit [Arnaout] for cooperating.”

 

True or false, and despite the congressional testimony of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller before a U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on 14 September 2006, the Arnaout imbroglio was not one of the FBI’s finest hours.

 

Indeed, in February 2006, a federal judge had reduced the Enaam Arnaout sentence from 11 years and four months to 10 years, after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that his original sentence was improperly enhanced.

 

The Golden Chain

 

The Golden Chain was established about the time of al Qaeda’s founding in 1988. Bin Laden’s notes on efforts to recruit wealthy Saudi Arabian families who could fund his group were also found at Sarajevo. Much of the information derived from the Sarajevo came to light during the 2003 trial of an al Qaeda financier, Enaam Arnaout, in Chicago.

 

How much of the Sarajevo material remains classified and unpublished is debatable. However, like the missing Congressional report, substantial material that covers the genesis and expansion of al Qaeda in the 1990s has never been released. What we do know is that one note taken from the Sarajevo hoard that surfaced at the trial is a bin Laden note saying: “we took very huge gains from the country’s people in Saudi. We were able to give political power to the Mujahideen, gathering donations in very large amounts…”

 

Within the Sarajevo trove, there was found the essential minutes of a meeting held on 11 August 1988 during which Bin Laden initiated actions that established a jihadist movement loyal to himself. A week later the organization was officially established, and a copy of the oath of allegiance taken by some 40 participants was included in the file. The minutes of that seminal conclave end on 20 August.

 

Also recorded were bin Laden’s “own statements on the efforts to recruit members from Saudi Arabia for his network and to raise money.” Also included in the Bosnia find was a letter on Saudi Red Crescent/Peshawar letterhead and with it a note added by Osama Bin Laden to his money-manager Wael Jalaidan citing “an extreme need for weapons.” (John Solomon, “Bosnia Raid Yields al-Qaida Donor List,” Miami Herald via AP, Feb. 19, 2003.)

 

Many questioned why bin Laden, a member of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest family, searched for funds outside his fortune to fund al Qaeda. But Osama was not rich enough to fund the expensive jihad he had in mind. Though the bin Laden family was wealthy, Osama could not easily access the $300 million that some analysts felt he had squirreled away. His accounts were blocked in the United States and Saudi Arabia, and his family was watched closely and warned not to assist him financially. Still, during his stay in the Sudan (1991-1996) he probably invested more than $50 million (including $30 million deposited in the al-Shamal Bank). But when bin Laden departed the Sudan in 1996, he had little to show for his investments. By the admission of those al Qaeda members who knew him best, his personal wealth had been squandered. To carry out his jihadist agenda he had to continue to call on wealthy Gulf plutocrats, viz., the Golden Chain, to finance al Qaeda.

 

Included in the US government indictment of Enaam Arnaout on 9 October 2002 (02 CR 892) was an interesting memorandum, “Clarifying the Mujahideen’s situation to the world and keeping the spirit of Jihad alive.” (Exhibit 17, Department of Justice, “Government’s Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements” in the case of USA v. Arnaout, USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, filed 29 January 2003.) Of even more explosive power, however, was a memorandum that appeared as Exhibit 5: With regard to that piece of evidence the Justice Department noted: “Among the recovered files was a copy of a 1988 handwritten draft listing wealthy financiers of UBL’s mujahideen operation in Afghanistan, referred to within al Qaeda as the ‘Golden Chain.’” The information presented on lined paper and translated from the Arabic by the U.S. Department of Justice was headed by a verse in Arabic from the Koran: “And spend for God’s cause.” (“Government’s Evidentiary Proffer Supporting the Admissibility of Coconspirator Statements” in the case of USA v. Arnaout, USDC, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) filed on January 29, 2003.)

 

The Golden Chain memorandum, it included twenty-five names, including twenty very wealthy Saudis. (N.B: at the time of the discovery only two names on the list remained unidentified.) Of the twenty Saudis, six were bankers, and they were tied to the big three of Saudi banking: the National Commerical [sic] Bank of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh Bank, and Al Rajhi Banking and Investment Corp. Ther[e] twelve Saudi businessmen on the list, and the bankers owned or controlled sixteen of the top 100 Saudi companies. The list included eight individuals charged by the families of victims of 9/11 with being complicit in aiding and assisting al Qaeda. Also included were the names of two former government Ministers.

 

After each name, there was a second name, in parenthesis, of the al Qaeda operative who received money from the donor. “Osama” appeared after seven entries. The donors [sic] names included Saudi Arabia’s most prominent citizens including the bin Laden family, the al Rajhi, Sharbatly, al Naghi, bin Mahfouz, and Adel Faqih. The corporate net worth of the Golden Chain, as calculated more than a decade later accounted for more than $85 billion, or approximately 42% of Saudi Arabia’s GDP.

 

Whether or not bin Laden personally wrote the Golden Chaim memo, it is indisputable that he was in a position to know the family fortunes of the individuals named. In some cases, they were allied directly or tangentially with his family. They included Saleh Kamel, head of third largest Saudi company, and Suleiman Abdulaziz al Rajhi, head of 4th largest Saudi commercial bank. The “bin Mahfouz” family was in charge of Saudi Arabia’s most important bank. Also on the list, Abdel Qader Faqeeh (Adel Faqh) head of Savola Group, the 13th largest Saudi company. Mohammed al-Issa was head of the powerful al-Issa group, itself the 20th largest Saudi Company. Issa himself was a board member of the Saudi Research & Marketing Company (along with Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, Abdullah Bin Khaled bin Mahfouz, among others.) He was also Deputy Chairman of the Arab Cement Company whose shareholders included the Binladin Group, the bin Mahfouz and the al Rajhi, and whose chairman was Turki Bin Abdulaziz al Saud. That the individuals listed would be asked to assist Osama bin Laden in his jihadist mission is not surprising. It was all one big happy family.

 

Wael Julaidan, the al Qaeda moneyman and former Secretary-General of the Muslim World League, and of the well-funded Rabita Trust of Pakistan, was charged with collecting donations from four wealthy individuals. Mohammad al-Amin Khalifa, Osama’s wealthy brother-in-law, was another collection agent, who was known to have close ties to bin Laden’s two money men, Julaidan, and Yasin al-Qadi.

 

As could be imagined, the list which included such luminaries as “bin Mahfouz,” created a furor in Saudi Arabia, where the memorandum appeared to implicate a score of the Kingdom’s wealthiest citizens. Nearly all were either indirectly or directly involved in the Royal Family’s charity organizations as founders or board members.

 

Years later, following the September 2001 attacks on the U.S., the “9/11 Commission” issued a report in which a chapter devoted to “The Foundation of the New Terrorism, acknowledged that Osama bin Laden sought financial assistance from wealthy Muslims in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and that “the eventual success of the jihad in Afghanistan depended on an increasingly complex, almost worldwide organization.” Unfortunately, the report was long on implication and short on names.

 

The Golden Chain list included names of persons who were friendly to the Afghan-Arab movement and later to bin Laden himself. The Golden Chain gained importance after 1990 — when Osama bin Laden escaped house arrest in Saudi Arabia and a year later emerged in the Sudan. Indeed, the name al Qaeda came into vogue and the need for funding expanded after Osama move to the Sudan and al Qaeda’s expanding activities first in Somalia, and later in the Balkans.

 

Why then should anyone believe that any individual whose name appears on the Golden Chain memorandum, and who, like Khalid bin Mahfouz, claims he “never knowingly made any donation to al Qaeda or any organization or person acting on al Qaeda’s behalf or to any other terrorist organization,” is telling the truth?

 

It is unknown if any of those whose names appeared on the Golden Chain memo has ever been interrogated, charged with a crime, or chastised by the Saudis. It is safe to assume that In the Dessert Kingdom, where jihad is paramount and ‘silence is golden,” the Golden Chain members have little to worry about.

________________________

Copyright © 2013 [Blog Editor: I wish people would keep their copyright up to date] | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

About ACD

 

OUR MISSION

 

The ACD is dedicated to exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and national security.

 

ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

 

OUR DISTINCTION

 

ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our multidimensional Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.

 

CONNECTING THE DOTS

 

  • ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on emerging threats is facilitated by READ THE REST

More: JASTA, Saudi Threats against U.S. Economy & 28 Classified Pages


BHO Broken Promise- 28 Pages

John R. Houk – Editor

 

Here are a series of posts I discovered after cross posting the New York Sun’s essay – Obama v. 9/11 Families (of which I included a short relevant intro) – at three of my active blogs.

 

JRH 4/20/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

By Steve Vladeck

April 18, 2016 at 8:02 AM

Just Security

 

For lots of readers, I suspect Saturday’s front-page New York Times story by Mark Mazzetti was their first exposure to the ongoing efforts by 9/11 victims and their families to sue the government of Saudi Arabia and other entities in U.S. courts over their alleged role in providing financial support for the September 11 attacks. Indeed, allegations of Saudi involvement are also back in the public eye in connection with the possible declassification of 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report that supposedly deal with the role and responsibility of various senior Saudi officials.

 

In a nutshell, (1) the 9/11 plaintiffs’ claims–that the Saudi government and a wide range of other entities, including banks, provided material support to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks–have gone nowhere, thanks to a series of shifting (but now largely stabilized) court rulings concerning the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); (2) Congress is now considering legislation–the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)–that would in effect overrule each of those holdings; and (3) the Obama administration is, as Mark’s story explains, aggressively lobbying against that legislation, out of fears over the potential diplomatic and economic consequences of U.S. court judgments against the Saudi government that could run into the billions of dollars, and concerns over reciprocity from foreign countries.

 

In this post, I aim to provide a more detailed explanation of the legal background against which JASTA is being considered–so folks can better understand exactly what courts have held to date, and why JASTA could be a big deal, albeit in a very narrow class of cases.

 

I. The FSIA and theTerrorist AttacksLitigation

 

The shifting litigation sands vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia date back to a pair of 2005 district court rulings (In re Terrorist Attacks I and II), which threw out claims against the Saudi government and other state-run entities on the basis of the FSIA’s “discretionary function” exception. That exception preserves the sovereign immunity of foreign states even over non-commercial torts (for which the FSIA otherwise allows suits) if the tort resulted from discretionary conduct on the part of a foreign sovereign (e.g., whether to provide financial support to particular entities with links to terrorist organizations).

 

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in In re Terrorist Attacks III, albeit on different grounds: The Court of Appeals there held that a different FSIA provision, waiving the sovereign immunity of “state sponsors of terrorism,” was the exclusive means for seeking to hold a foreign sovereign liable for its involvement in acts of terrorism, and so the fact that the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia a “state sponsor of terrorism” precluded liability under any of the FSIA’s other exceptions (including the non-commercial tort exception) for terrorism-related claims. The court also held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over many of the other defendants (a holding that the Second Circuit would expand upon in its April 2013 decision in Terrorist Attacks IV).

 

The plaintiffs in Terrorist Attacks III sought certiorari, at which point the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General. In its “CVSG” brief, the U.S. government recommended that the Court deny certiorari–albeit on an alternative ground from that relied upon by the Second Circuit: In then-Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s view, the FSIA could theoretically allow a foreign sovereign to be held liable for terrorism-related non-commercial torts even if it was not a state sponsor of terrorism, but only if, as the Supreme Court had already interpreted the non-commercial tort exception in Amerada Hess, the “entire tort” took place within the territorial United States (as opposed to the injury arising from the tort).

 

As the government argued, even taking the plaintiffs’ allegations as true, a material amount of the allegedly tortious conduct (including the alleged help in financing the 9/11 attacks) took place overseas. Thus, the government offered a far narrower (and less vulnerable) ground on which to defend the Second Circuit’s ruling–which may have had a lot to do with the Supreme Court’s subsequent denial of certiorari, which appeared to conclude (at least at the time) the Terrorist Attacks litigation.

 

Things would indeed have ended there, except that, in 2011, the Second Circuit overruled its holding in In re Terrorist Attacks III, concluding in a different case (Doe v. Bin Laden) that the exceptions to the FSIA for non-commercial torts and state sponsors of terrorism were wholly unrelated–and therefore provided independent grounds on which to hold foreign sovereigns liable in U.S. courts. In other words, under Doe, a foreign sovereign that is not a “state sponsor of terrorism” can still be held liable for terrorism-related conduct under the FSIA, so long as one of the other exceptions–including the non-commercial tort exception–applies.

 

The Doe ruling led the Terrorist Attacks plaintiffs to file a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment in their earlier case, which provoked its own round of litigation, culminating in the Second Circuit’s December 2013 ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from the earlier judgment, which sent the case back to the district court for (re-)litigation of the original merits. Finally, last September, the district court nevertheless granted Saudi Arabia’s renewed motion to dismiss based upon the FSIA–because, as the U.S. government had argued in its 2009 CVSG brief in Terrorist Attacks III, the “entire tort” did not take place within the territorial United States, and so the non-commercial tort exception did not abrogate Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity. That ruling itself is now being appealed to the Second Circuit–so the underlying litigation remains very much ongoing…

 

II. The Anti-Terrorism Act and Aiding-and-Abetting Liability

 

Although the effort to hold the Saudi Arabian government liable notwithstanding the FSIA has received most of the headlines, there have also been concerted efforts by the 9/11 families to hold private individuals and entities liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act–which creates civil remedies for U.S. nationals to obtain triple damages against those responsible for injuries arising out of “an act of international terrorism,” but, notoriously, does not specify the parties against which such liability may be pursued, or the theories upon which such liability may be predicated.

 

As relevant here, the biggest open question is whether the ATA allows theories of “secondary liability,” i.e., whether claims may be maintained against entities that were not directly responsible for the underlying act of international terrorism, but that somehow supported it (including by aiding and abetting the perpetrators). Both the Second and Seventh Circuits (the latter sitting en banc) have expressly held that the ATA does not allow claims based upon common law understandings of secondary (or accessory) liability, although the Seventh Circuit in Boim III nevertheless adopted an expansive theory of primary liability–what Judge Posner called “primary liability . . . [with] the character of secondary liability.” As he explained, “In addition to providing material support after the effective date of section 2339A, a donor to terrorism, to be liable under section 2333, must have known that the money would be used in preparation for or in carrying out the killing or attempted killing of, conspiring to kill, or inflicting bodily injury on, an American citizen abroad.” Indeed, the Seventh Circuit explained, such not-quite-secondary liability requires proof of intentional misconduct–a high (and potentially insurmountable) hurdle to holding banks, governments, and other entities liable on a theory that they did nothing more than provide material support to the perpetrators of the underlying acts.

 

And the Second Circuit subsequently held that the ATA also requires proximate causation, i.e., that the tortfeasor’s contribution be a “substantial factor in the sequence of responsible causation and whose injury was reasonably foreseeable or anticipated as a natural consequence.”

 

I don’t mean to get lost in the doctrinal weeds (which are, as should be clear, quite densely packed). The larger point is that these circuit-level decisions, together with the nature of the 9/11 attacks themselves, have made it difficult to use the ATA to impose any civil liability against those indirectly responsible for September 11.

 

III.  JASTA

 

Understanding this litigation background should help to put into perspective exactly what JASTA does. The bill passed the Senate but died in the House in the 113th Congress, and has, to date, only gotten out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 114th Congress. As relevant here, JASTA would work four material changes to existing law:

 

  • It would amend the non-commercial tort exception to the FSIA to abrogate sovereign immunity in tort suits “in which money damages are sought against a foreign state arising out of physical injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of the office or employment of the official or employee (regardless of where the underlying tortious act or omission occurs), including any statutory or common law tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a claim arising out of such an act.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to expressly allow aiding-and-abetting liability not in all cases, but in cases arising out of an act of international terrorism “committed, planned, or authorized” by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO): “[L]iability may be asserted as to any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

 

  • It would amend the ATA to allow personal jurisdiction against such entities to the constitutional limit “for acts of international terrorism in which any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business by reason of such an act in violation of section 2333.”

 

  • It would also amend the ATA to repeal the prohibition on suits against “a foreign state, an agency of a foreign state, or an officer or employee of a foreign state or an agency thereof acting within his or her official capacity or under color of legal authority.”

 

JASTA’s amendments to the FSIA and ATA would apply to any civil action “pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment of this Act; and . . . arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after September 11, 2001.” In other words, the new law would apply to some pending cases–all those in which the underlying injury took place on or after September 11. Claims arising before September 11 would, presumably, not be covered.

 

IV. Taking Stock

 

It is certainly Congress’s prerogative to expand the scope of statutory liability that it created in the first place. And it’s hard to argue that amending the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow aiding-and-abetting liability (and more expansive personal jurisdiction) against private entities raises foreign relations and diplomatic questions nearly as grave or fraught as those provoked by the FSIA amendment.

 

The much more sensitive part of JASTA is the FSIA amendment and the last ATA amendment–which could be especially powerful for tort claims against foreign sovereigns that (1) are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism; but (2) could nevertheless be held liable in tort for “extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for” an act of international terrorism within the United States, even where much of the underlying tort occurred overseas. At least at the moment, that basically appears to be at most a class of one–to wit, Saudi Arabia, at least if the allegations in the pending lawsuits are true.

 

Although it’s easy to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs in the Terrorist Attacks litigation, as Mark explained in his Times article,

 

Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

 

Those reciprocity considerations, combined with the concerns about the United States’ diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and the potential economic consequences if, as a result of the bill, Saudi Arabia seeks to withdraw as many of its financial resources from U.S. territory as possible, are what potentially makes JASTA such a fraught proposition.

 

I don’t have a strong position on whether Congress should enact JASTA’s FSIA amendment or the last amendment to the ATA, largely because I’m not in a good position accurately to balance the ramifications of enacting JASTA against the unquestioned entitlement of the 9/11 victims and their families to appropriate legal relief, or to assess whether, if the FSIA and last ATA amendment were excised, JASTA’s amendments to the rest of the ATA would still go a sufficiently long way toward providing the 9/11 victims and their families with meaningful judicial redress. Moreover, I suspect reasonable minds will disagree about which of these compelling but competing considerations should receive greater weight. My hope, though, is that this post will at least help to illuminate what the legal obstacles to relief for the 9/11 families have been to date, what JASTA would do to eliminate them, and why, per Mark’s story in Saturday’s Times, it has proven so controversial.

 

Update (4/18/2016, 6:14 p.m. EDT): This post has been revised to clarify the effect of JASTA’s fourth provision–which would not create a new exception to liability for the U.S. government and its officers, but would rather excise the existing bar on liability for foreign states and their officers. Thanks to a careful reader for prompting this important clarification!

 

Steve Vladeck is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. Steve is a professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. Follow him on Twitter (@steve_vladeck).

 

+++

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

A bi-partisan bill has been proposed in Congress that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

April 19, 2016

Clarion Project

 

The Twin Towers on fire after 9-11 Attack

The Twin Towers on fire during the September 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City. (Photo: © Reuters)

 

Saudi Arabia has threatened economic retaliation if the U.S. passes pending legislation that would allow victims of terrorist attacks to sue foreign governments that are responsible.

 

The bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would permit victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudis and other financial partners of terrorism. The Obama administration is vigorously trying to block the bill.

 

Saudi Arabia warned it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if the bill is passed. Delivering the message personally in Washington, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told Congress Saudi Arabia would sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets before they would be in jeopardy of being frozen by American courts.

 

Saudi Arabia denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks, however, the official U.S. government report on the attack contains 28 censored pages on the topic of “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers.” Investigators say these pages confirm the Saudi’s role in the 2001 attacks that claimed the lives of close to 3,000 people and injured more than 6,000.

 

For years, the Saudis have asked for the release of the censored pages, but the Bush administration said disclosure would damage the U.S.’ ability to gather intelligence on terrorists. The Obama administration also refused to release the redacted pages.

 

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Other evidence of Saudi involvement in the terrorist attacks includes information leaked from the censored pages including the documentation of a series of phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to one of the hijacker’s handlers in San Diego.

 

Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called “20th hijacker,” who was sent to prison for his role in the attacks said members of the Saudi royal family donated funds to al-Qaeda. He also said he personally met a Saudi diplomat in Washington to plot the assassination of the U.S. president using a surface-to air missile. The two discussed bombing the U.S. Embassy in London as well.

 

“The Saudis have known what they did in 9/11, and they knew that we knew what they did, at least at the highest levels of the U.S. government,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 congressional inquiry commission.

 

Families tried in the past to sue the Saudi government, but the cases were rejected due to a 1976 law granting foreign nations immunity from lawsuits in the American judicial system.

 

“I think part of the concern is that somehow this is a thumb in the eye to Saudi Arabia, a valuable ally,” said Senate-sponsor Cornyn. “It’s not open-ended and it’s not targeted at Saudi Arabia.”

 

Cornyn also dismissed the threats from Saudi Arabia. “It’s seems overly defensive to me and I doubt they can do it,” he said. “I don’t think we should let foreign countries dictate the domestic policy of the United States.”

 

 

Other analysts say it is unlikely the Saudis will follow through on their threats.

All of the presidential candidates support the bill, expect John Kasich, who has not commented on it to date.

 

+++

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

Relevant Radio ‘The Drew Mariani Show’
April 19, 2016

Investigative Project on Terrorism

 

[Blog Editor: To listen to the audio, you can either go to the IPT post or go to this podcast link: http://relevantradio.streamguys.us/DM%20Archive/DM20160418c.mp3]

 

[Start transcript]

 

Drew Mariani: Hey, when the planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon back on 9/11, remember that, Osama bin Laden was revealed as the mastermind behind it. We knew at the time that there was an obvious Middle Eastern terrorism link. What we didn’t know was what countries were involved and to what extent. We went into Afghanistan, well, because you know that’s where bin Laden was holed up and why we sent troops into Afghanistan, and you know we didn’t know about the rest. The most disturbing was that we didn’t know that Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden was born and raised, could have played a role in this. You know Congress investigated the events surrounding 9/11; they came up with a 400-page report, and that was released to the public. And I should say most of it was released to the public. I think they held back about 28 pages and they’re still labeled as classified. But what’s contained on those pages is really fodder for a lot of conversation right now. It’s suspected to contain information on Saudi Arabia’s role on that fateful day. Right now Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it’s going to sell off hundreds-of-billions of dollars’ worth of American assets, it will be a huge asset dump held by their kingdom, if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government basically to be held responsible in American courts for any role in September 11th in 2001, when those attacks took place. The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill, according to some officials. But the Saudi threats have been of course the subject now of intense discussion in recent weeks between both lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. And a number of officials have warned basically senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from you know any sort of legislation. So what’s going to happen? And what is the truth behind all this? Joining me right now is Pete Hoekstra. He’s the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, and former member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. And Peter, thank you for your time. It’s good to have you back. I know you just came out with a book, I want to plug that for you too. It’s called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya. It came out about four months ago, folks, you may want to check that out. And you can learn more about him at investigativeproject.org. This is a big story. How do you know how do we know Saudi Arabia is involved and you know what do you think’s going to happen ultimately with you know Congress and possible legislation?

 

Pete Hoekstra: Well a couple of things, number one – I’ve been advocating for the last period of time that these 28 pages be made public, that if there need to be some redactions to protect sources, those redactions be made, but overall that the public 13 years after this report was completed, now almost 15 years after 9/11, you know they, the public deserves to see all of this information. And so it should move forward. In regards to the legislation that Senator Cruz is pushing, I’m not quite sure about a couple of things. I’m you know I’m not sure why we need to just highlight Saudi Arabia. Any country –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – that is identified with terrorism should be able to be held accountable; I’m thinking of Iran, should be able to be held accountable. So just singling out Saudi, I’m not sure that that is appropriate. There’s a number of countries that may in one form or another be somewhat supporters of terrorism against U.S. property, U.S. goods or U.S. persons. So let’s make sure that they can be held accountable. I think that the action that Saudi Arabia is talking about, and they’re not talking about disinvesting in the United States to punish the United States, the explanation that they’re giving is – we’ve got to disinvest in the United States because if we actually become liable and the courts find for some defendants that we are liable and you know hold us accountable or hold a judgment against us for X-hundreds-of-millions or a billion dollars, at that point in time the U.S. courts may come and seize U.S. assets that we own. And so what we want to do is to protect ourselves. We’re going to disinvest in the United States so that a U.S. court can’t freeze any of our assets. Oh, I think their economy and our economy and their, the assets they hold in the United States are so significant that they could never actually pull that off, pull it off successfully. If they did they’ve have to do it at a fire sale.

 

Mariani: Yeah.

 

Hoekstra: And they wouldn’t want to do that.

 

Mariani: Yeah, I read earlier today that they would be forced to sell about 750-billion dollars in Treasury securities and other assets. Again, I want to go back to you know what would happen if this did take place. Let’s take a worst-case scenario, say this is pushed and it goes through, what happens if the information is exposed and we find out Saudi Arabia had a, had something to do with 9/11?

 

Hoekstra: Well you know I’ve had access to those 28 pages. I think that this will, it will raise more questions than what it will answer. OK? I don’t think that someone will read through there and they will find, or again, who knows – some people may read it and they will see a smoking gun, others will read it and they will see something different, but I think what it, you know my belief is that what it will show is that you know this is not classified or a secret or whatever, you know. The Saudis have for years been funding radical jihadism in the form of funding radical mosques, believers in Wahhabism, where much of this hatred and doctrine of jihadism comes from, and they’ve been funding these mosques around the world. And so you know many of us have called for them to stop the funding of these kinds of mosques for an extended period of time.

 

Mariani: And let me just ask you, because you’ve had access to those 28 pages, are there other nations in addition to Saudi Arabia? It’s kind of the sense that I’m getting from you, it’s not just Saudi Arabia, there may be other nations involved?

 

Hoekstra: No, I don’t think if you go through there that you would see a litany of a number of different countries; I’m just saying from my experience with terrorism –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – is that you know there are a number of countries that are involved in terrorism and, or you know certain state governments, you know everything from the Palestinian Authority –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – to Iran, and these types of things, that you know any type of legislation like what Senator Cruz is proposing –

 

Mariani: Right.

 

Hoekstra: – shouldn’t be limited to just Saudi. That’s two very different issues.

 

Mariani: And your mindset right now is that they should be released, the American public has a right to know.

 

Hoekstra: Yeah. And we ought to just make sure that, you know it’s been 13 years since I’ve seen them, that if there is any sensitive information in there regarding sources or individuals that may have been the source of some of these information, make sure you redact that information. But other than that, let the information become public. It’s been a long time.

 

Mariani: Yeah, great. Before I let you go, because I only have a minute or two left –

Hoekstra: Sure.

 

Mariani: – you just came out with a book too, ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ I have not gotten the book or read it, but I would love to maybe have you back to talk about it. Fill me in, what was your book about?

 

Hoekstra: It’s about what happened in Libya. We had a tremendous success story in Libya. [Muammar] Gaddafi after years of being on the outside, you know supporting terrorism against the United States and the West, culminating really with the take-down of Pan Am 103. In 2004, he gave up his nuclear weapons program, he gave, he paid reparations to the victims of his terrorist attacks, and he became a partner in fighting radical jihadism with the United States, a bipartisan success of a consistent policy for 20 years and finally Gaddafi changed sides.

 

Mariani: Wow.

 

Hoekstra: In 2011, Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama decided that Obama needed, or excuse me, that Gaddafi needed to go, they partnered with radical jihadists, and they were successful in getting rid of Gaddafi. And what we now have is you know for the last four years we’ve had a failed state. It’s now part of the caliphate. It’s exporting ideology, it’s exporting fighters, and it’s exporting weapons to Africa, to the Middle East and to Europe. It’s been a disaster. It’s, you know and for eight years there it was a rock of stability and certainty in northern Africa. And now it is the disaster of Libya, the destruction of Libya.

 

Mariani: Yeah, the book is called ‘Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.’ It’s available at all major bookstores. And Pete, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you for your service to the country and for the insight you’re able to offer. I always enjoy your, our conversations.

 

Hoekstra: Hey, thanks for the invite.

 

Mariani: Thank you.

 

Hoekstra: I enjoyed being with you.

 

Mariani: Check him out too, the website is investigateproject.org [sic], investigativeproject.org, great site to check out.

 

[End transcript]

 

 

_____________

The 9/11 Civil Litigation and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)

 

About Just Security

_____________

Saudis Warn US of Economic Retaliation Over 9/11 Bill

 

Copyright © 2016 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

_______________

IPT’s Hoekstra: Public Deserves to See Full 2002 Congressional 9/11 Report

 

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

Obama v. 9/11 Families


911 Terrorism by frames

Blog Editor Intro to: Obama v. 9/11 Families

John R. Houk, Editor

 

I suspect President Barack Hussein Obama will continue to betray the American citizens and the U.S. Constitution by bowing to the wishes of Saudi government pertaining to Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act:

 

JASTA allows terrorism victims, like victims of the September 11th attacks, the right to pursue foreign states and sponsors of terrorism in federal court. The bill allows Americans to direct financial damage claims against those who funded the attacks. The legislation would also afford this right to families of other American victims of terrorism, that have occurred since September 11, 2001.

 

The following is a summary of the bill:

 

  • First, JASTA amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSA) so that foreign sponsors of terrorism cannot invoke “sovereign immunity” in cases arising from a terrorist attack that kills an American on American soil.

 

 

If JASTA becomes law and President Obama declassifies 28 pages of sealed documents that many in-the-know have hinted, links Saudi Arabia to financial involvement in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers. The Saudis have threatened to sell off their USA Treasury Securities if JASTA becomes law. A Fox News story says the Saudis believe that amount is in the area of 750 BILLION bucks.

 

I suspect President Obama will continue to heinously betray America by fighting and preventing JASTA from becoming law. After all, BHO simply needs to veto JASTA and not declassify the 28 documents that may indeed implicate Saudi Arabia in some manner to 9/11.

 

Alisa Flatow & scene of terrorist bombing

Alisa Platow

 

JRH 4/19/16 (Hat Tip Donald Moore of Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

By Editorial of The New York Sun 

April 18, 2016

 

President Obama owes Americans a public explanation for why his administration is lobbying Congress to protect Saudi Arabia from lawsuits by families of those killed in the attacks of 9/11. The lobbying was disclosed Friday in a scoop by the New York Times. It reported that the kingdom threatening to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in American assets if Congress exposed it to suits related to the attacks, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis.

 

Alisa Flatow Memorial in Israel

Gilabrand / via Wikipedia commons

NEVER FORGET: The Obama administration owes America an explanation for why it is fighting against a bill in Congress that would allow 9/11 families to pierce Saudi Arabia’s sovereign immunity from civil suits and be brought to book for its role in the terrorist attacks of 2001, most of whose perpetrators, including Osama bin Laden, were Saudis. The use of tort law against terror was pioneered by the Estate of Alisa Flatow, slain by Iran in 1995; her campaign to seize Iranian assets was also opposed by the State Department. She is remembered widely, including at a memorial, above, in the Jewish state.

 

Mr. Obama’s administration isn’t alone. Its truckling to the Saudis, its siding against Americans, is part of a long scandal going back to the Clinton administration, which fetched up in court on the side of Iran against the estate of Alisa Flatow. She was the Brandeis coed who was slain in 1995 by Iran in a bus bombing at Israel. Her heroic father, Stephen Flatow, pressed her case in an early test of whether American tort law could be used in this war.

 

The estate of Alisa Flatow won that case, and was awarded something like $247 million dollars. Come time to collect, however, the Clinton administration appeared in court against Alisa Flatow’s estate. In the settlement that followed, the Flatows got a pittance of the court’s award — only $16 million. The government, using taxpayers’ money, essentially bought the Flatows’ claim, giving it the right to keep whatever it can wrest from the Iranians. It’s unclear as yet what that will be.

 

Saudi Arabia can’t be sued under the same law that the Flatows used against Iran, however; that law, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, covered only certain nations officially listed by our State Department as sponsors of terror. The families suing Saudi Arabia tried to pierce its sovereign immunity under more traditional law, but they lost in United States district court and are now appealing. The law the administration opposes would end the sovereign immunity defense for the Saudis.

 

It may well be that Mr. Obama could make a case for what it is doing. The administration argues that by piercing sovereign immunity in these kinds of cases we would open ourselves and our allies to a reciprocal strategy. It wouldn’t surprise us were the State Department animated by baser instincts, including a notorious pro-Arab bias. In any event, despite the danger of reciprocity State has been warning against, no one has laid a legal glove on us in a generation.

 

Whatever case the administration wants to make, though, will be difficult to advance while skulking around Capitol Hill — or bowing to Saudi Kings in their opulent tents. Mr. Obama is scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia this week. The measure Mr. Obama opposes passed early tests in the Congress by overwhelming votes. We’d like to think that this reflects growing ire in a Congress the administration has attempted over and over again to sideline from foreign policy.

 

It’s been more than 20 years since Alisa Flatow was slain, and the only thing Iran has received is Obama’s appeasement. It’s been 15 years since 9/11 and our government still won’t come clean on what it knows about the Saudi role. The bill to which the administration objects is called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It’s a marker of the American retreat that the battle in the Middle East is being left to the tort lawyers — and that the administration opposes even that.

__________________________

Obama v. 9/11 Families

 

© 2002-2016 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.

Super Power Poker – Live from Iran


In my Clarion Project update email today was a fantastic link to a video that could be labeled as Iran Nukes for Idiots, but is actually an animated parody with the leaders of the USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran playing poker (or black jack – some kind of gambling card game) over who wins a good Iran nuke deal that benefits all the nations in the game.

JRH 6/9/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

Super Power Poker – Live from Iran

Is America prepared to go ‘all in’ for Iran?

Email Title: IRAN VIDEO #4: Nuclear Poker

Sent: 6/9/2015 7:49 AM

The Clarion Project

Write to your Representative in Congress

See what happens when the world plays (nuclear) poker with Iran.

Share this ANIMATED video, which uses satire to make a serious point:

Don’t gamble with a nuclear Iran.

VIDEO: Super Power Poker – Live From Iran

Published by Clarion Project – Challenging Extremism | Promoting Dialogue

Published on Jun 9, 2015

The stakes are the highest they’ve ever been. Nuclear Iran. The US, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel play for the security of the world. This is the ultimate hold’em game. Who holds the aces, who will go all in, who is bluffing and who has a tell that will leave them with nothing but a mushroom cloud. No nukes for Iran.

Watch the Iran Film Series

_______________

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

 

There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting.

 

We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.

 

Founded in 2006, Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.

 

Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic website, viewed by 1.1 million unique visitors in 2014, covers breaking news, provides expert analysis on relevant issues and acts as a platform for Muslim human rights activists.

 

Clarion Project draws together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

 

Mailing Address:

Clarion Project, Inc.

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 1025

Washington DC 20006

 

News Desk (ClarionProject.org):

info@ClarionProject.org

 

For Media & Press:

Tel: (646) 308-1230

Email: press@ClarionProject.org

 

Radical Islam is the Muslim Reformation


Mo - Martin Luther

John R. Houk

© September 4, 2014

 

ACT! for America basically represents the Counterjihad camp in which there is a divide in in Sunni Islam, viz. between the majority Moderate Muslims and the Radical Muslim purist Islam which is often described as Salafist Islam (Arab influence) or Deobandi Islam (Indian subcontinent [Short version and more Detailed version] – i.e. India-Pakistan). Pew Research estimates that 87% – 90% of Muslims are Sunni in 2009. A BBC article dated in December 2013 has the Sunni percentage between 85% – 90% of Islam.

 

The Counterjihad leader of ACT! for America Brigitte Gabriele cites “intelligent services” globally at a 2014 Benghazi Conference for the Heritage Foundation. Gabrielle says 15% – 25% of global Muslims are Radical. Unfortunately she does not cite which specific intelligence services she has in mind:

 

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Of course not all of them are radicals! The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent, according to all intelligence services around the world. That leaves 75 percent of them peaceful people.

 

But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big [as] the United States. (Heritage Panelist Brigitte Gabriel was asked about radical Islam. Her response is BRILLIANT… By Hannah Bleau; Young Conservatives; 6/14/14)

 

In a 2008 article by Daniel Pipes that was originally posted in the Jerusalem Post, Pipes shows the difficulty in pinning down the percentage of Muslims that are Radical:

 

As with any attitudinal estimate, however, several factors impede approximating the percentage of Islamists.

 

·         How much fervor: Gallup polled over 50,000 Muslims across 10 countries and found that, if one defines radicals as those who deemed the 9/11 attacks “completely justified,” their number constitutes about 7 percent of the total population. But if one includes Muslims who considered the attacks “largely justified,” their ranks jump to 13.5 percent. Adding those who deemed the attacks “somewhat justified” boosts the number of radicals to 36.6 percent. Which figure should one adopt?

 

·        

 

 

Negatively, 10-15 percent suggests that Islamists number about 150 million out of a billion plus Muslims – more than all the fascists and communists who ever lived. Positively, it implies that most Muslims can be swayed against Islamist totalitarianism. READ ENTIRETY (Counting Islamists; By Daniel Pipes; DanielPipes.org; 10/8/08)

 

Ten percent was the percentage of Radical Muslims I last heard about prior to Brigitte Gabriel’s 15% – 25%. Pipes places in perspective the reasons for pulling a lot of radical numbers out of the hat of percentages. That percentage might be as low as 7% or as high as Gabriel’s 25% or even the higher 36% criteria. Also cited by Pipes that the number of radical Muslims will number to the hundreds of millions at the lowest to a higher number of over 300 million cited by Gabriel. In 2012 Pew Research believes the global amount of Muslims was 1.6 billion. Thirty percent of 1.6 billion Muslims is around 576 MILLION Radical Muslims. Whether the Radical Muslims number about a hundred million or half a billion that is a lot of Muslims that might be willing to enforce Islam by violence.

 

Then there are the Counterjihad writers and pundits that look at the Quran in the same way a Radical Muslim does and comes to the conclusion that a good Muslim follows the examples of Muhammad the false prophet of Islam. Self-proclaimed Moderate Muslims will proclaim that Muhammad is the perfect example of the perfect man, ergo Mo is the perfect example for the basis for a Muslim to conduct his life. It would not matter to a devout Moderate or a Radical Muslim on the nature of the Islamic lifestyle based on the etched in stone perfect man which is Muhammad (Mohammed, Mohamet, etc. depending on the time period in which an English language publication is involved). To the Counterjihadists who look at all good Muslims are Muslims of Muhammad and the Quran there is really no difference between Moderate and Radical except in the display of violence. Which is to say every single Muslim under the right circumstances are more than capable of emulating their prophet.

 

I tend to lean toward this second camp of Counterjihadists. I’m very appreciative of non-violent expositors of Islam but because of the Islamic Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sunnah I do not trust the ultimate aim of Islam’s version of evangelism (dawah).

 

And specifically for me Islam is a particularly vile because its own writings condemn Judaism and Christianity as perversions of Islam as if Islam has always existed. Islam has not always existed. Old Mo crafted the death cult borrowing from Judaism, Christianity and singularizing the polytheistic moon cult of the deity of Allah. Mo essentially eclecticized*** the three religious beliefs to mold a singular monotheistic death-cult that is capable of transforming the human mind socio-politically via a divine theology.

 

[*** Apparently a quick perusal of Google tells me I may have created a derivative word with “eclecticized”. For clarity’s sake I derive this word from “eclecticism” which is definitely a word – from dictionary.com under ‘Encyclopedia Article for eclecticism’:

 

(from Greek eklektikos, “selective”), in philosophy and theology, the practice of selecting doctrines from different systems of thought  without adopting the whole parent system for each doctrine. It is distinct from syncretism-the attempt to reconcile or combine systems-inasmuch as it leaves the contradictions between them unresolved. In the sphere of abstract thought, eclecticism is open to the objection that insofar as each system is supposed to be a whole of which its various doctrines are integral parts, the arbitrary juxtaposition of doctrines from different systems risks a fundamental incoherence.                In practical affairs, however, the eclectic spirit has much to commend it.]

 

A Muslim apologist might bring up the thought that not all Radical Muslims are violent jihadists. Indeed there is an element of truth in that thought. Yet since I am in the camp that believes every Muslim that believes he is a good Muslim is capable of violence present with the proper circumstances, the so-called non-violent Radical Muslims will easily turn to violence when provoked. And provocation can be set off with anything a Muslim considers an insult to Muhammad, Islam and Allah. Essentially a Biblical Christian as myself has insulted Muhammad, Islam and Allah by calling Mo a false prophet, calling Islam an antichrist religion and Allah a man-made deity manufactured from Judaism, Christianity and an old Arabic polytheistic moon-god. I have no doubts that if I was a bigger dog in the blogosphere I would have a fatwa given by some cleric for my death or that some Muslim taking it upon himself to satisfy honor would murder me.

 

I have to assert here I am no expert on Islam nonetheless I can read. From what I have read pertaining to Radical Islam is that it is a relatively recent development in a historical perspective. The theo-political religion of Islam itself historically is attributed to Mo circa 622 AD. (Modern academics prefer Christian Era or Common Era or C.E. these days rather than the Latin Christian usage of Anno Domini or AD translated to English as Year of our Lord.)

 

As I wrote in the first paragraph the Radical Sunni Islam is roughly divided between Salafists and Deobandis. These are Islamic purist renewal movements within Islam. In essence it is the Muslim version of a Reformation. In Christianity many Christians began to believe the Papacy had exceeded its purpose in granting such things as indulgences for money, i.e. forgiveness of sins if a sum of money was paid to the Papacy. Another example was evoking a reverence for holy relics which were more often than not fake forgeries of what were claimed to be artifacts from Biblical and Early Christian beginnings. These protesting Christians became known as Protestants because the protested that the Roman Catholic Church was moving too far into man-made traditions above the authority of the Holy Scriptures. The Papacy’s first solution for these protesting Christians was to condemn them as heretics for being contrary to the Holy Pope the vicar of God on Earth. The Protestants became successful largely to the support of big dog Nobles and Kings supporting the earliest protesting Christians such as Martin Luther (German), Ulrich Zwingli (Swiss) and John Calvin (French). The three Protestant Reformers were hardly on the same page monolithically however they agreed on one point, viz. that the Pope had exceeded his theological authority in creating tradition rather than adhering closer to the Scripture and/or the Early Church.

 

The Salafis and the Deobandis also desire a return to the earliest principles of Islam. Which if you are unfamiliar with those Islamic early days were very sadistically violent and expansionist in building an empire to convert the world to Islam. For me this explains the gravitation of Radical Muslims to gravitate toward violent terrorism. These transnational Islamic terrorists really haven’t had the means to create a formidable military to exact conquest of the world since the demise of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Or least not yet …

 

Iran has been developing nukes to spread its concepts of a Shia Revolution upon the Earth. Now it is looking like ISIS-ISIL-IS forging a Sunni-Jihadi-Salafi-Muslim nation carved out of Iraq and Syria.

 

In the detailed version link above pertaining to Deobandi Sunnis you will note its origins derive Shah Waliullah who lived from 1703 – 1762. I say “derive” because a school was founded in 1867 in India called Darul Uloom Deoband. Whence the name Deobandi.

 

The Salafi Movement also has early inspiration but its spread among various Sunni locations did not really occur until 19th and 20th century. There are two or three Muslims scholars that were influential on modern Salafi movements. The primary one I am aware of is Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328):

 

[He] was a Sunni Islamic scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources: The Qur’an and the sunnah (the prophetic tradition of Muhammad). He did not consider the Mongols to be true Muslims and encouraged war against them. He believed that legitimate Islam is based on the opinions of the earliest Muslims, the salafa. He was critical of Shi’a and of Sufi Muslims for venerating their Imams and Sheikhs and for teaching that God dwelt within them. He was also critical of venerating and visiting the shrines of dead saints.

 

He was intolerant of Christians, arguing that Christianity as practiced was a corruption of what Jesus has taught, which was the message of Islam. He was also critical of Islamic philosophy and accused Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, and al-Frabi of being unbelievers for teaching that the world is eternal, which makes God redundant. At times employed by the authorities he was at other times imprisoned by those same authorities, who disagreed with his views. However, he attracted a large following and about 100,000 people, including many women, are said to have attended his funeral. He did much to revive the popularity of the Hanbali legal school. He is cited with approval by Islamist Muslims. His belief that Muslims who did not live under the Sharia lived in ignorance (jahilia) was taken up by such twentieth century thinkers as Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi. (Ibn Taymiyyah; New World Encyclopedia; This page was last modified on 3/30/14 22:41)

 

Another person of influence among Salafists is Ibn Qudamah (1147 AD – 1223 AD):

 

Imam Mawaffaq ad-Din Abdullah Ibn Ahmad Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (Arabic ابن قدامة Ibn Qudamah) was a noted Islamic scholar of the Hanbali madhhab, author of many treatises of Hanbali jurisprudence and doctrine, including al-Mughni (the most widely known textbook of Hanbali fiqh) as well as Tahrim an-Nazar (Censure of Speculative Theology, criticism of Ibn Aqil‘s views.) He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and is considered, along with Ibn Taymiyyah, as one of the two most significant proponents of Hanbalism; in the modern era, adherents of the school often refer to the two as “the two sheikhs and Sheikh ul-Islam.[2] (Some links removed – Ibn Qudamah; Wikipedia; This page was last modified 1/15/14 01:02)

 

And according to Mark Durie another influential person to Salafists was Ibn Qayyim:

 

There is hardly another Muslim Mamluk polymath of such standing who at the same time is best known as the student of someone else. Despite his own extraordinary scientific output, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah (1292–1350) was Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah’s (1263–1328) most famous and important student. Even centuries later, he is still primarily known and defined by his relation and service to his master, whose works he compiled and whose legal doctrines and hermeneutical and theological convictions he defended. While Ibn Taymiyah led a life characterized by conflict on several fronts, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah—with the exception of a few incidents—was a rather bookish man who preferred pious scientific endeavors to confrontations of any kind. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyah: His Life and Works; By BIRGIT KRAWIETZ; Middle East Documentation Center, The University of Chicago; © 2006, 2012)

 

A prominent book among Salafists on living a Sharia-like life is al-Misri’s Reliance of the Traveller (easy to access but difficult to read pdf and a Scribd assessable pdf) translated into English by Nuh Ha Mini Keller (an American convert to Islam living in Jordan). Salafists tend to think of themselves as most affiliated to the most conservative Islamic school of thought of Hanbali; however the irony is seems Reliance is affiliated with the Shafi’i school of Islamic thought which from what I have read seems to be the easiest to follow of the four schools. Keller’s English translation of Reliance includes biographical info on people some of Misri’s concepts include. One of those people is ibn Taymiyyah.

 

There are two Radical Islamic groups that have affected America and Israel via transnational terrorism that think of themselves as Salafists but other Salafis question that appellation for them: Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Between Wahhabis and the MB there seem to be nuanced differences but in the eyes of Americans there both anti-Liberty theo-political ideologies bent on Islamic Supremacism by hook or by crook.

 

Wahhabism

 

Wahhabism began as a religious and spiritual reform movement in Najd, a remote and rather featureless area of central Arabia. Its founder, Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92), was born in Najd, into a region inhabited by an Arab population of predominantly tribal structure. Based on the legal interpretations of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyah, which are conservative and literal in approach, Wahhabism is based on Sunni Islam but is very puritanical in its outlook. It forbids all practices that might be considered innovations, such as the Sufi custom of venerating saints, and disapproves of activities such as listening to music.

 

Wahhabi Muslims do not usually refer to themselves as such, but use terms such as Salafi (‘followers of pious forefathers’). (Wahhabi manuscript; Online Gallery Sacred Texts)

 

Wahhabi or Wahabi (wähäˈbē) … reform movement in Islam, originating in Arabia; adherents of the movement usually refer to themselves as Muwahhidun [unitarians]. It was founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab (c.1703–1791), who was influenced by Ibn Taymiyya and taught that all accretions to Islam after the 3d cent. of the Muslim era—i.e., after c.950—were spurious and must be expunged. This view, involving essentially a purification of the Sunni sect, regarded the veneration of saints, ostentation in worship, and luxurious living as the chief evils. Accordingly, Wahhabi mosques are simple and without minarets, and the adherents dress plainly and do not smoke tobacco or hashish.

 

Driven from Medina for his preaching, the founder of the Wahhabi sect went into the NE Nejd and converted the Saud tribe. The Saudi sheik, convinced that it was his religious mission to wage holy war (jihad) against all other forms of Islam, began the conquest of his neighbors in c.1763. By 1811 the Wahhabis ruled all Arabia, except Yemen, from their capital at Riyadh. The Ottoman sultan, nominally suzerain over Arabia, had vainly sent out expeditions to crush them. Only when the sultan called on Muhammad Ali of Egypt for aid did he meet success; by 1818 the Wahhabis were driven into the desert.

 

In the Nejd the Wahhabis collected their power again and from 1821 to 1833 gained control over the Persian Gulf coast of Arabia. The domain thereafter steadily weakened; Riyadh was lost in 1884, and in 1889 the Saud family fled for refuge into the neighboring state of Kuwait. The Wahhabi movement was to enjoy its third triumph when Ibn Saud advanced from his capture of Riyadh in 1902 to the reconstitution in 1932 of nearly all his ancestral domain under the name Saudi Arabia, where it remains dominant. Wahhabism served as an inspiration to other Islamic reform movements from India and Sumatra to North Africa and Sudan, and during the 20th cent. has influenced the Taliban of Aghanistan (sic) and Islamist movements elsewhere.

 

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. (Wahhabi; Infoplease.com)

 

9/11 Commission. The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the “9/11 Commission”) claims that “Islamist terrorism” finds inspiration in “a long tradition of extreme intolerance” that flows “through the founders of Wahhabism,” the Muslim Brotherhood, and prominent Salafi thinkers. The report further details the education and activities of some 9/11 hijackers in the Al Qassim province of Saudi Arabia, which the report describes as “the very heart of the strict Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia.” According to the Commission, some Saudi “Wahhabi- funded organizations,” such as the now-defunct Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, “have been exploited by extremists to further their goal of violent jihad against non-Muslims.”17 Due in part to these findings, the Commission recommended a frank discussion of the relationship between the United States and its “problematic ally,” Saudi Arabia. (The Islamic Traditions of Wahhabism and Salafiyya; By Christopher M. Blanchard; fpc.state.govCRS Report for Congress; updated 1/17/07)

 

Muslim Brotherhood

 

·         Influential Islamist organization

 

·         Ideological forebear of Hamas and al Qaeda

 

·         Supports imposition of Shari’a law

 

·         Approves of terrorism against Israel and the West

 

         See also:


       The Muslim Brotherhood’s “General Strategic Goal” for North America


The Muslim Brotherhood’s “Global Project for Palestine”

Hasan al-Banna 

 

Sayyid Qutb 

 

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

 

Al Qaeda

 

Hamas

 

Jihad Is The Way

 

Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian schoolteacher/activist Hasan al-Banna (a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis), the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — a Sunni entity — is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations in the world. While Egypt historically has been the center of the Brotherhood’s operations, the group today is active in more than 70 countries (some estimates range as high as 100+). Islam expert Robert Spencer has called MB “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.” In 2003, Richard Clarke – the chief counterterrorism advisor on the U.S. National Security Council during both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations – told a Senate committee that Hamas, al Qaeda, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were all “descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

MB was established in accordance with al-Banna’s proclamation that Islam should be “given hegemony over all matters of life.” Toward that end, the Brotherhood seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate, or kingdom — first spanning all of the present-day Muslim world, and eventually the entire globe. The organization further aspires to dismantle all non-Islamic governments wherever they currently exist, and to make Islamic Law (Shari’a) the sole basis of jurisprudence everywhere on earth. This purpose is encapsulated in the Brotherhood’s militant credo: “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle [jihad] is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

 

 

Embracing Hasan al-Banna’s belief that Islam is destined to eventually dominate all the world, MB today is global in its reach, wielding influence in almost every country with a Muslim population. Moreover, it maintains political parties in many Middle-Eastern and African countries, including Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Israel. Not only does the Brotherhood exist in Israel proper, but its Palestinian chapter created the terrorist organization Hamas, through which MB has supported terrorism against Israel ever since. …

 

 

In May 1991, MB issued to its ideological allies an explanatory memorandum on “the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.” Asserting that the Brotherhood’s mission was to establish “an effective and … stable Islamic Movement” on the continent, this document outlined a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” for achieving that objective. It stated that Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.” Through stealth jihad, the Brotherhood would seek to impose Islamic values and customs on the West in piecemeal fashion — gradually, incrementally gaining ever-greater influence over the culture. The memorandum listed some 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” which sought to realize the same goal.

 

 

MB Outlawed in Egypt:

On Christmas Day 2013, the Egyptian government formally labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, banning all of its activities including protests. The announcement came after the government blamed the Brotherhood for the suicide bombing of a police station in Mansoura. READ ENTIRETY (some repetitive links removed – MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD (MB); Determine the Networks)

 

I felt compelled to share my thoughts on Islam due to an ACT! for America email that promotes an essay by Alastair Crooke that ACT found on HuffPo. As a Conservative I am suspicious of the value of anything found on a website that promotes a Leftist perspective. HuffPo definitely is Left Wing (or for those into politically correct semantics – Progressive). So I decided to do a little checking on Mr. Crooke:

 

Alastair Crooke, … (born 1950) is a British diplomat, the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, an organisation that advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West.[1] Previously he was a ranking figure in both British intelligence (MI6) and European Union diplomacy.[2]

 

… He held clandestine meetings with the Hamas leadership in June 2002. He is an active advocate of engagement with Hamas to whom he referred as “Resistants or Resistance Fighters”.

 

… (Alastair Crooke; Wikipedia; This page was last modified 9/1/14 10:05)

 

 

Now, documents seized by Israel which have just been published reveal that in June 2002, Alistair (sic) Crooke, then working for Moratinos, met secretly in Gaza with a Hamas delegation headed by the organization’s then-leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

 

 

Grovelling behaviour, indeed; but more than that, a lethal confusion of language. Crooke told Yassin that: ‘The main problem is the Israeli occupation’. Yassin agreed. But while Crooke appears to have been talking about the post-1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Yassin was talking about the ‘occupation’ of 1948:

 

 

In other words, the problem Yassin wanted removed was the existence of Israel itself. And Crooke did not demur. Instead, he replied:

 

‘I completely understand what you are saying. There is an understanding not only on the government level but also on the popular level, and there is sympathy with the Palestinian people…’

 

… Crooke observed:

 

‘As for terrorism, I hate that word. I have spent some time in my life with freedom fighters like in Colombia.’

 

So to the EU’s security adviser, the genocidal terrorists of Hamas are actually freedom fighters. In other words, they are morally justified in their campaign of mass murder, and Israel is morally unjustified in trying to defend itself against it. And this was just three months after the massacre of the Passover seder in Natanya.

 

… (Melanie Phillips on Alistair (sic) Crooke; Posted by Robert Spencer; Jihad Watch; 4/22/05 7:26am)

 

As far as Counterjihad writing goes, Crooke is Islamic terrorist friendly promoting the ungodly concept that Israel does not have the right to exist and the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians have a right to the Land of Israel – the Promised Land from God Almighty to the Jews as a perpetual inheritance.

 

Crooke’s essay on HuffPo is a fairly decent explanation of the Radical Islam of the Islamic terrorists ISIS-ISIL-IS. Crooke takes his readers on a journey of understanding on the emergence of Wahhabism and Saud family founder connecting theologically and politically for a mutual benefit. To understand the differences between Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia and the extreme Salafism of ISIS he says this:

 

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine of “One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque” — these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of “the word” (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift — the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests — makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

 

Crooke goes on a historical journal of how the Al Saud tribal leader Abd-al Aziz – continued by his son Saud bin Abd al Aziz – utilized Wahhabism as a unifying ideology of the Arab Peninsula Bedouins to push out the Ottoman Turks from control of Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. These are among the holiest sites in Islam. By 1818 the Ottomans used their client army composed of Egyptians to destroy the then Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The Wahhabis and the Sauds disappeared into a desert life for the rest of the 19th century. In the early 20th century another Abd-al Aziz Saud tribal leader again used Wahhabi ideology to unite Arab Bedouins taking advantage of the Ottomans weakness in their empire because of the eventual loss of WWI.

 

Thus when read Alastair Crooke’s (not ‘Alistair and not to be confused with Alistair Cooke) essay of illumination about ISIS it is fairly decent; however keep in mind Crooke is writing under the belief that these poor misguided Radical Muslims desire a reform to the purist early days of Mo because they are exploited by the West, America in particular and Muslim world despotic leaders exploiting the universal Islamic ummah.

 

JRH 9/4/14

Please Support NCCR

*************************************

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE ISLAMIC STATE

Sent by ACT! for America: 9/2/2014 4:30 PM

 

There can be no denying that Saudi Arabia has long played a key role in the global Jihadist movement:


• 16 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.

• The largest single source of foreign fighters among insurgents in Iraq fighting US GIs was Saudi Arabia.

• Wealthy Saudis have long funded charities that supported the families of HAMAS suicide bombers in Israel.

These are just a few examples of Saudi treachery in the war on terrorism.

But what is Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the new Islamic State? Why is Saudi Arabia’s king warning the West to take action against them? Can he be trusted?

Former British intelligence officer Alastair Crooke provides an informed background on this subject that can help all of us understand…

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

 

By Alastair Crooke

The World Post – HuffPo

Sent by ACT! for America: 9/2/2014 4:30 PM

HuffPo original post: 08/27/2014 11:56 am EDT – Updated: 08/28/2014 3:59 pm EDT

 

The dramatic arrival of Da’ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed — and horrified — by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia’s ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, “Don’t the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?”

It appears — even now — that Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite “fire” with Sunni “fire”; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da’ish’s strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the READ THE REST at SlantRight 2.0 with this as the starting point

Irony of Saudi King Warning of ISIS Western Infiltration


IRAQ-UNREST-MOSUL-JIHADISTS-FILES

John R. Houk

© September 2, 2014

 

In an article from United with Israel there is a report that the Saudi King is warning the West that the Islamic State (IS) is preparing terrorist activity in a Western nation near you. Before further thoughts I want everyone to notice that the United with Israel article uses Islamic State and its abbreviation rather than ISIS or ISIL. As far as I know the Obama Administration still refers to the Islamic terrorists occupying parts of Iraq and Syria as ISIL (Islamic State and the Levant). The acronym ISIS is the first way that I heard about the Islamic terrorist organization so I usually refer them in that fashion.

 

Arabic: Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham

 

English rough translation: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham

 

“ISIS” comes originally from the English rough translation.

 

Evidently “al-Sham” can be translated as Levant.

 

The “Syria” of ISIS also comes from “al-Sham” in the sense that Muslim Arabs think in terms of Dar al-Islam used Greater Syria while the West stuck with its ancient maps of the Levant.

 

Is it ISIS or ISIL? Both are correct. ISIS and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) are the same, the group which emerged during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and was once led by the feared Abu Musab al-Zaraq[a]wi, killed by the Americans in 2006.

 

The group changed its name in 2012 from the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), from the Arabic term for Levant, al-Sham. That is sometimes translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It wanted to change its name to include a broader swath of land, as its goal was to create an Islamic state based on Sharia, or Islamic law.

 

The group, now led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is advancing toward that goal as it has now occupied parts of both Syria and Iraq, and continues its campaign south to Baghdad. (Is It ISIS Or ISIL? Jihadist Group Expanding In Iraq Has Two Names, One Goal; By Erin Banco; International Business Times; 6/14/14 11:15 AM)

 

Now to the next irony.

 

Does anyone find it interesting that the Saudi King is warning the West about the Radical Islam of ISIS when the Saudi Kingdom is the primary culprit for putting up the money enabling Radical Islamic teaching in the West’s Mosques including the USA?

 

If it wasn’t so real it would be almost hilarious that the ever growing huge minority of Muslims in Europe are rioting in the streets over Israel’s existence and Muslims are emigrating to Syria and Iraq to fight for Radical Muslim causes. I find it hilarious because of Saudi dissemination of Radical Islam to Europe while warning the Europeans that bad stuff was going to happen. Hello! Europe has been experiencing the fruit of radicalization for quite some time. I suspect that the Saudis are putting up warnings about ISIS is because the Islamic terrorists are on the verge of becoming a legitimate State. If ISIS indeed becomes the legitimate IS nation then there will be a Radical Sunni Muslim competitor in the Muslim Middle East with Saudi Arabia. Which by the way is now the current guardian of Islam’s most holy sites in Mecca and Medina.

 

Who better to take care of Saudi Arabia’s competitor problem than the USA or an USA led coalition to dismantle an IS nation, right?

 

Here’s another thing to think about. Violence is burning throughout Europe due to Radical Islam. The radicalized Muslims in European nations with a large minority combined are sending recruits in the thousands to Syria and Iraq. At this point radicalized American Muslims are going to Syria and Iraq by the hundreds.  Now most of those American Muslims are immigrant Muslims or first generation children of those immigrant Muslims. Eventually immigrant Muslims will begin to grow in the USA exponentially largely due to the Left Wing ideology of multicultural diversity. Multicultural diversity and the need for labor is the reason for the exponential growth of a Muslim population in Europe. America doesn’t have the need for labor like Europe did but thanks to multicultural diversity it will eventually hit the USA unless immigration restrictions emerge pertaining to hating the American way occurs.

 

As long as Barack Hussein Obama is President those restriction will never emerge. Obama is allowing low-wage labor competition displace young and elderly American citizens who try to work. The American Left will give voters the impression that Latino immigrants fill a low-wage labor necessity. The thing is Latino illegal immigrants are willing to work for wages that are lower than that would be acceptable for American citizens of any racial persuasion. Legal and first-second generation Latino immigrants would not work for the low wages that illegal immigrants would work.

 

Then there is the unenforced border situation Obama has fomented that is enabling Latino gangs, drug cartels and Muslim terrorists to cross the border just as illegal immigrants crossing the border for low-wage and American Welfare opportunities. None of those coattail violent people sneaking across the border have ZERO intentions of coming to the USA for a better work situation to become Americans or send money back to their homelands. Gangs come to carve out violent enclaves of racketeering and drug marketing. Drug cartels are like the upper management for the gangs who distribute cartel wares. I don’t think you’ll have a hard time to guess what Islamic terrorists intend to do on American soil.

 

JRH 9/2/14

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Saudi King Warns the West: You Are Islamic State’s Next Target

 

By Aryeh Savir

September 1, 2014

United with Israel

 

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warns the West of the rising threat from the Islamic State terrorists, calls for “rapid” action. As terrorism intensifies in Europe, world leaders seek solution.

 

King Abdullah has warned that the West will be the next target of the radical Islamists sweeping through Syria and Iraq, unless there is “rapid” action.

 

“If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month,” he said in remarks quoted by Saudi Press Agency (SPA) on Saturday.

“Terrorism knows no border and its danger could affect several countries outside the Middle East,” said the king, who was speaking at a welcoming ceremony for ambassadors early that day.

 

The Islamic State (IS) group has prompted widespread concern as it advances in both Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of people and forcibly converting adherents of other faiths. Lack of action would be “unacceptable” in the face of the phenomenon, King Abdullah said.

 

“I ask you to convey this message to your leaders. Terrorism at this time is an evil force that must be fought with wisdom and speed. I hope all ambassadors convey the message literally because fighting terrorism requires speed and capabilities,” the Saudi monarch demanded.

 

“I have noticed that most of you have not spoken about those terrorists and this is a completely unacceptable matter in terms of human rights. Those terrorists do not know the meaning of humanity. You see how terrorists carry out beheadings and make children show the severed heads in the street. It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to do. If we ignore them, I am sure they will reach Europe in a month and America in another month. Mark my words well and transmit this message to your leaders,” he concluded.

 

Saudi Arabia itself has so far not taken any comprehensive action against IS, which presents an explicit threat to their regime as well.

 

Islamic State Activity Intensifies in Europe, Targets Jews

 

The king’s warning comes as reports of IS activity in Europe multiply. A Lebanese news source, the Naharnet, reports that France has arrested an IS recruiter in France. The man, who is said to be of Chechen origin, was stopped at the Nice airport on Saturday and taken into custody. Naharnet further reports that some 800 French nationals or residents, including several dozen women, have traveled to Syria or returned from the conflict-ridden country, or plan to go there.

 

In a separate incident, French authorities have arrested and indicted two Muslim girls, ages 15 and 17, for plotting a suicide bombing in the Great Synagogue of Lyon. The girls contacted each other through social media and are among 60 people under investigation in France for association with radical Islamists, especially the Islamic State, where thousands of Europeans have joined the terrorist group. At least nine French synagogues have been attacked since the commencing of Operation “protective Edge’.

 

Across the channel, police in Britain have asked the public to identify “aspiring terrorists” amid government concern about people who go to fight with extremist groups in the Middle East and might return to carry out attacks on home soil.

 

West Seeks Coalition to Fight IS

 

US Secretary of State John Kerry called Friday for a global coalition to combat Islamic State fighters’ “genocidal agenda”, as President Obama has admitted the US did not yet have a clear strategy on how to contend with the IS terror.

 

Writing in the New York Times, Kerry said he and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will meet European counterparts on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Wales next week to enlist assistance. They will then travel on to the Middle East to build support “among the countries that are most directly threatened.” However, the Obama Administration has come under fierce criticism for what appears to be inaction and indecisiveness regarding IS, which seems to be the fastest-growing threat to Western Civilization.

___________________________

Irony of Saudi King Warning of ISIS Western Infiltration

John R. Houk

© September 1, 2014

___________________________

Saudi King Warns the West: You Are Islamic State’s Next Target

 

© United with Israel 2014

                                            

About United with Israel

 

United with Israel is a global, grassroots movement comprised of individuals who are deeply committed to the success and prosperity of Israel. Our primary mission is to build a massive network of pro-Israel activists and foster global unity with the People, Country and Land of Israel. In short, we seek to fight and win the battle of public opinion for Israel. We maximize the incredible power of social media to spread the truth about Israel to the entire world.

 

From incessant rocket attacks to threats of annihilation and fears of nuclear attack, Israel is alone in a big world of unfriendly nations. And for the first time, Israel is under intense pressure to divide Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Israel. This is a defining moment for the nation of Israel.

 

Now more than ever, Israel needs the support of its friends throughout the world. To bond with Israel by sharing its pain and lending a helping hand. To stand with Israel throughout these critical times. To affirm that throughout history, Israel has been a great blessing to the world and only those who blessed Israel were themselves blessed (Genesis 12:3). And those who sought to destroy Israel are no more.

 

United with Israel has developed state-of-the-art, efficient channels of communication to distribute READ THE REST

 

Iran Nuke Deal and Obama’s Seeming Agenda for Israel


Obama-Iran Deal - Israel Under Bus toon

John R. Houk

© December 18, 2013

 

The Obama Administration via John Kerry negotiated a deal with Iran that bends to everything Iran needs to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I can say that because Iran’s promises – particularly to the United States – have a history of no value and downright betrayal of international protocol. Can you say Tehran U.S. Embassy invasion and American hostages in 1979?

 

With this lack of Iranian trustworthiness Obama spearheads a nuclear deal with Iran based more on trust than verification which in the meantime sells out our principle Middle Eastern ally Israel and throws a monkey wrench in utilizing Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern friend. The biggest concern I have is the implication that the Iran Nuke Deal is probably to be used by Obama to further demonstrate his displeasure with Israel for not laying down to the outrageous demands of the Palestinian Authority for a sovereign Arab state called Palestine including robbing Jewish Israel of the Holy Temple site because conquering Muslims built a couple of Mosques on the holiest site of all Judaism. Obama’s pretensions for selling out the miracle of the Jewish State is certainly a part of reasoning for having the USA cozy up to such an evil nation as Radical Islamic Shi’ite Twelver Iran.

 

Now I appreciate that Saudi Arabia is uniting with their hated enemy the Jewish state of Israel against Iran, but that odd coupling has more to do with an existential National Interest against the designs of Iranian regional hegemonic desires. Israel is a Jewish state that all Muslims (Sunni and Shia) are taught to hate from their holy writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni nation dominated by Wahhabi Muslim Clerics that most Sunnis find a bit threatening with their purist back to Mohammed religious ideology. The things is about Saudi Arabia being Sunni is that Sunnis and Shias consider each other heretics by virtue of a disagreement on Caliphate succession in which the Sunnis ultimately began to dominate. That thousand year disagreement is showing up in the present between the Saudis and the Iranians in Islamic religious domination. For existential reasons the Saudis cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran. Hence, Israel and Saudi Arabia are unlikely allies against Iran and Obama’s idiotic diplomatic effort for America to trust a Muslim dominated nation like Iran.

 

Israel’s existential concerns about Iran are purely centered on Iran’s constant threat to wipe Israel off the map so that Muslims can once again rule the land of Jewish heritage. That means a hegemonic Iran will aid the Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) that call themselves Palestinians or support that so-called Arab-Palestinians to destroy Israel. If such a destruction of Israel was successful only the foolishness of Westerners like Obama would believe Iran would allow a Sunni controlled Arab sovereign state to exist. Or at least to exist independent of Shi’ite Twelver Iran’s control as a client state. Thus Hezbollah (Shi’ite-Lebanese Arabs) and Shi’ite-Alawite Arab Syrians are very important to Iran.

 

In case you haven’t notices there has been a slow genocide of the existing Christians stuck in Muslim controlled nations. And the Jews of the Middle East have mostly congregated in Israel. Jewish genocidal extermination would commence a la Nazi-style under the worst possible circumstances of the West laying down for a Caliphate agenda. The Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sharia Law encoded in Islam would lead to another global Jihad attempt to finish Islamic global domination. History shows how conquered people in Islamic imperialism fair under Islam. Keep in mind the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia (Turkey) and Muslim Eastern Europe (Balkans) were all Christian lands before Islamic imperialism.

 

The dhimma program utilized in Islam essentially transformed the Christian majority into the minority population. The dhimmi life imposed on non-Muslims was so oppressive that massive populations converted to Islam to leave dhimmitude behind. Consider some of these quotes pertaining to Islamizing the majority population:

 

 

“The two pillars of the nascent Islamic state in the conquered lands were the army — formed by Arab tribes and the slaves taken as spoils of war — and the conquered masses: tributaries, slaves, freed men, and converts, a workforce which fed the economic sector. The third pillar — juridical power — was being elaborated. It would undertake to balance and rectify the enormous demographic disparity between the conquered Peoples of the Book and the Muslims. – the legal institution would formulate a collection of laws which gradually whittled down the rights of the dhimmis and confined them to a cramped condition, by transferring to the umma all the key positions that the dhimmis had formerly held.” Pp. 69, 70

 

 

“In the lands conquered by jihad the Peoples of the Book formed majorities, among whom the Arabs of the first wave of Islamization and the Turks of the second wave were in the minority. Presumably the complex and little-known processes that transformed those majorities into minorities covered some three or four centuries for each wave of Islamization. By contracting it, the expression ‘religious minorities’ reverses a chronological process that had spread over centuries, whose result — the minority condition — is taken as its starting point.”

 

“This interpretation, which omits the essential phase when irreversible changes occurred, conceals the political aspect of dhimmitude and reduces it exclusively to a religious minority status. In addition, the formula becomes inadequate for certain regions, such as the Balkans, where non-Muslims were in the majority until the nineteenth century” P. 243

 

“Today, it would seem absurd to describe the Rumanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Israeli nations as former ‘tolerated religious minorities.’ Similarly, the common cliche second-class citizens has no meaning, because the dhimmis were not citizens and the term ‘second-class’ is devoid of the dhimma’s historical and juridical substrata.” Pp. 243,244

 

“dhimmitude reveals another reality. Here are peoples who, spread the Judeo-Christian civilization as far as Europe and Russia. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, conquered by nomadic bands, taught their oppressors, with the patience of centuries, the subtle skills of governing empires, the need for law and order, the management of finances, the administration of town and countryside, the rules of taxation rather those of pillage, the sciences, philosophy, literature, and the arts, the organization and transmission of knowledge — in short, the rudiments and foundations of civilization.” P. 264

 

Decimated by razzias in the countryside, they sought refuge in the towns which they developed and embellished. Branded with opprobrium, the conquerors still chose to drag them from region to region in order to revive ravaged lands and restore ruined towns. Once again, they built, again they worked. Once again they were driven out, again pillaged and ransomed. And as they dwindled, drained of their blood and spirit, civilization itself disappeared, decadence stagnated, barbarism reigned over lands which, previously, when they were theirs, were lands of civilization, of crops and of plenty.” P. 265

 

“The elites who fled to Europe took their cultural baggage with them, their scholarship, and their knowledge of the classics of antiquity. Therefore, in the Christian lands of refuge — Spain, Provence, Sicily, Italy — cultural centers developed where Christians and Jews from Islamized lands taught to the young Europe the knowledge of the old pre-Islamic Orient, formerly translated into Arabic by their ancestors.” P. 265 (Quotes from Bat Ye’or in reviewing book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity, From Jihad to Dhimmitude;” The Middle East After the Islamic Conquest; By Rev. Bassam Michael Madany; UnAshamedOfTheGospel.org [Middle East Resources])

 

See also a book review of Bat Ye’or’s book “Understanding Dhimmitude” posted on FrontPage Mag dated 7/19/13.

 

In understanding the theopolitical mindset encoded into Islam, you have to realize Obama’s Chamberlain-like nuke deal with Iran at worst will lead to a collapse of the global earth-governance system modelled after Western historical evolution – a global attack to spread Islam resulting in the nations of the earth choosing sides in WWIII. At best the Iran Nuke Deal will lead to an effective response by Israel which will also culminate in WWIII.

 

You can see how this nuke deal will threaten Israel, right? AND in the midst of this sell-out to Israel Secretary of State John Kerry is the instrument of President Barack Hussein Obama to twist the arms of Israel to a nation-destroying plan to establish a Jew-Hating sovereign Palestinian state. Let’s call it the Obama-Kerry Progressive One-State Solution for the Holy Land. I use the word “Progressive” because as time progresses Israel could again face a combination of a Diaspora and a Holocaust. First Obama buddies up with Iran, then lays the groundwork for forced indefensibility. Check out this small excerpt from Caroline Glick’s editorial from yesterday:

 

Kerry’s framework deal will involve the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of foreign-born Arabs, who have been living in al-Qaida-, Hamas- and PLO -controlled UN-run “refugee camps,” for the past four generations to the new state of “Palestine.”

 

Kerry’s plan will require Israeli society to destroy its cohesion through the dismemberment and destruction of hundreds of Jewish communities. As occurred before the Gaza withdrawal, it will require the government to oversee the demonization and criminalization of well over three million law abiding, patriotic Israeli citizens who oppose the mass expulsions.

 

Kerry’s parameters will require Israel to surrender its ability to defend itself against foreign aggression and Palestinian attacks. As for the Palestinians, implementation of the Kerry parameters will guarantee that all moderate elements in their society, including among Israeli Arabs, will be overwhelmed and destroyed. The PLO state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, like the Hamas state in Gaza, will be breeding grounds for global jihadists. They will actively incite, organize and oversee an armed insurrection of the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev, meting out punishment for all dissenters.

 

Glick’s analysis is merely shortened in the excerpt above. You should read her entire article to get a full grasp of how Obama is terminating Israel’s existence by proxy.

 

JRH 12/18/13 (Hat Tip: CarolineGlick.com updates)

Please Support NCCR

I am a Patriotic American


Chamberlain-Hitler & Rouhani-Obama History Repeating

Unless you are an idiot liberal, you would agree that the roll out of making Obamacare a viable national health plan was a calamitous disaster. Ari Bussel wonders if Obama is incapable of the successful management of his signature piece of legislation, how can he be trusted to make the world safer by being the prime mover behind negotiating nuclear peace with Iran so that we can give the psycho-Mullahs sanction relief to the tune of SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS?

 

JRH 11/26/13

Please Support NCCR

**********************************

I am a Patriotic American

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 11/25/2013 12:54 AM

 

Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program.  As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  But I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict.

 

Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.  President Obama

 

What was achieved last night in Geneva is not an historic agreement; it is an historic mistake.  Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

 

 

I am a patriotic American.  Whenever I see our flag, my heart springs to attention, and I am filled with pride and joy.  Very little can unnerve me enough to shake my solid belief in this great country of ours.

 

On Saturday, the 23rd of November 2013, Bloomberg’s top headline read:  “Iran Agrees to Deal With Powers to Curb Nuclear Work.”  It was subtitled “Iran to Reap $7 Billion in Sanctions Relief Under Accord.”  CNN’s top headline:  “Deal Limits Iran’s Nuclear Program,” and Fox’s:  “Deal Struck:  World powers reach agreement with Iran on nuke program.”

 

Everyone was focused on Iran, except the White House website that still showed the heading “Working with Both Parties to Keep the Economy Moving Forward.”  The latest e-mail blast I received from the White House – part of the White House American Jewish Outreach Update – is from earlier this month, boasting a statement by President Obama on the 75th Anniversary of Kristallnacht and a speech by the President at Dallas Temple on the Affordable Care Act.

 

[The White House website was later to change with “breaking news:  President Obama’s Statement on Iran, the United States – together with close allies and partners – has taken an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.”]

 

The President’s top priority always enjoys the full backing of the most sophisticated PR and outreach machine this great country of ours has ever witnessed.  Iran, apparently, is more a nuisance than the top priority.  At least that is how it seems from the attention afforded to it by the White House, resembling a disgusting task that needs to be carried out; an afterthought.

 

Clearly, the President is not very much interested in Iran, or its threat to the USA.  All that was necessary was an agreement, so that the Iranian “issue” can be put on the backburner. 

 

There are much more urgent issues we face, such as the President’s historical legacy – Obamacare.  (The program, at the moment, is still suffering from “technical glitches” despite an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in a website that does not work properly, not to mention a faulty architecture that will eventually bring its collapse and finger pointing at the Republicans and members of the Tea Party:  “It is all their fault!”)

 

Three more years from this November until the next Presidential election, and at the moment, the President is very focused:  Obamacare!  (It is not even a true concern to reform the healthcare system, just maintaining a legacy and not admitting a mess of colossal proportions already so clearly evident.)

 

Why should anyone worry?  Iran is far away and has repeatedly stated – contrary to all appearances and its abundance of oil as an energy source – that its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.  The Sanctions this Administration has put in place have been most effective, successful in causing remorse among the Iranian leadership and a reversal of course.  It all works.

 

Iran will say whatever the West wants to hear, while continuing to do exactly what it wants: accelerating development of its military nuclear program.

 

Indeed, given all the Administration under the current Commander-in-Chief achieved, we are witnessing “Peace in Our Lifetime.”  Let us focus on what is really important:  Higher health insurance costs; mass cancellations of policies for millions who were, until very recently, insured; hospitals and doctors pulling out of networks and Medicare recipients hurting due to cuts.  All this “noise” has to be dealt with quickly, lest it detract from the crowning achievement of Obama.

A negotiated peaceful end to all this unpleasantness with Iran!  Thirty-five years from the ascent of Khomeini to power and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and finally a Peace Laureate manages to bring an end to decades of open hostilities.  Truly, I am in awe of the massive achievements by one person.  Would I be amiss admitting the Messiah is finally appearing before our very eyes, revealing himself to the world?

 

Some feel that President Obama just “threw Israel under the bus,” but I say differently:  The President of the United States of America is not entrusted with protecting Israel.  Israel is a sovereign nation, and knows how and when to protect itself.  (If it does not, well, then it – and it alone – will suffer the consequences.)  Israel must not expect, and definitely cannot plan, for America to do its bidding.

 

The President – glossy and glory speeches notwithstanding – never intended to do anything of substance against Iran.  Similarly, he never had any real intention of standing in the way of Syria’s Assad and the latter’s slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world stood silent.  Why bother?

 

The President “showed determination and force” against an ally – Egypt’s President Mubarak – ushering in the Muslim Brotherhood’s ascent to power and control of the largest Arab country in the world.  The President ordered direct attacks in Libya, against a leader who repented and was working with us, the late Kaddafi.  (Where was the same determination and use of force and resources when our Ambassador and others of his protective detail were murdered?)

 

And Israel.  Again, Israel.  That is a difficult thorn indeed, only because of the all-powerful Jewish Lobby, AIPAC, that controls DC (please refer to a book about the Jewish Lobby and some statements by the Jews who truly care about America and are part of J Street), and all these rich Jews who support the Democratic Party.  For them, and because of them, we have to pretend. 

 

What a great conclusion:  The Jews are at fault for the President having to take a tough stand against Iran!  Not Israel, but those super-wealthy, super-powerful Jews right here in America.  If it were not for them, life would have been so much easier, a negotiated surrender could have been achieved ages ago.

 

Forget about Iran.  They do not know what they are doing.  They use idle threats, not really intent on doing anything with their nuclear power.  In fact, they have every right, exactly like Israel, to have a full-fledged nuclear program. 

 

Why should Israel have an arsenal it can use at a moment’s notice, and Iran be precluded?  What’s fair is fair!  Besides, there are enough crazies in Israel, not less dangerous to the world and to world peace!  (If Netanyahu didn’t possess so much clout with Congress, the President would put him exactly where he should be and declare him the real obstacle to peace in our lifetime, peace in the Middle East and the return of the Palestinians to their homeland and eternal capital of Al Quds.)

 

The President of the United States has to “make-believe” he is proactive so the Iranian “issue” can be set aside.  There are much more urgent things to which he must attend.  Thanksgiving is just around the corner, then Christmas and New Year.  What trips are planned?  Have thousands of members of the Entourage teams been invited to these all-expense-paid trips?  How about just a relaxing get-away using Air Force One to Martha’s Vineyard (too cold already), Hawaii, India or Africa?  Welcome to Beverly Hills!  You can enjoy a moment of rest with peaceful and protected shopping on Rodeo Drive!

 

There are endless parties to attend, a family and a Royal Dog.  Alas, the President is also the Commander in Chief, and there are still thousands of Americans around the world (time to get back home!).  Just recently we saw a disaster in the Philippines, and there, too, Israel was first.  First to respond and so effectively so.  The first baby to be delivered was called Israel and millions of hits (five million by the last count) were generated around the reports of the Israeli Consul General in the West Coast.  Those damn Jews!  First at everything!  They even managed to steal the glory from the President sending our military force and full might to extend a helping hand.

 

The Presidential Calendar is full!  Five days in Geneva have been overwhelming, truly exhausting even for a seasoned politician like our Secretary of State.  Time to get back home.  The days to Thanksgiving and Black Friday are drawing closer; let us stop wasting time on Iran.  Declare an agreement.  State the historic significance of our achievements, ease and eliminate the sanctions and let’s focus on what is really important.

 

Our allies in the Middle East and throughout the world are shocked.  Even France (usually characterized by their rush to surrender at the face of even the slightest hiccup) decided to take a different stand.

 

Our “allies in the Middle East” have long awakened to a new frightening reality, one in which the USA cannot be trusted.  Saudi Arabia sees something that our President does not, so it messes things up for him, for his plan for a peaceful holiday season.  Perhaps they simply do not understand the peaceful intentions of Iran and Iran’s right to achieve nuclear dominance (for “peaceful purposes” and nothing else).

 

A new coalition of the frightened is being formed.  Israel, France, Saudi Arabia, other countries in the Gulf.  Is anyone surprised that the fanatic Prime Minister of Israel is heading it, stirring trouble in peaceful and otherwise calm waters?

 

In fact, anyone with a bit of common sense and understanding of reality, and anyone who knows how to read what the Iranians are saying and analyze what is actually taking place in Iran, would conclude that the US-of-A has gone mad.  Apparently a previous history lesson – “Peace in our Lifetime!” – has been forgotten (or never learned at all).

 

If I, a patriotic American, did not believe Saturday night’s speech by President Obama, imagine what others, particularly Iran, countries throughout the Arab World and Israel, made of it.

 

I, at least, have given my President the full benefit of the doubt.

 

I would stand and defend our country to my last breath, and although I am registered with the Selective Service, we have not had a draft in recent memory.  I am just afraid my Commander in Chief has brought us a step closer to the beginning of World War III, willing to sacrifice whatever is needed, similar to the offering of Czechoslovakia in 1938.

_________________________________

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.


Zager and Bussel are based in Los Angeles.  Zager is an award winning investigative journalist, journalism professor and author.  Bussel is a foreign correspondent in Israel.

 

Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

 

© Israel Monitor, November 2013

 

First Published November 23, 2013

Contact:  bussel@me.com

 

 

Be Wary – The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend


Netanyahu-King Abdullah - Israeli Fighter Jet

John R. Houk

© November 19, 2013

 

Here is an interesting fact about the Quran and the Hadith: Jew-Hatred is encoded as truth in Islam’s holy writings.

 

005.060
YUSUFALI: Say: “Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!”

PICKTHAL: Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.

SHAKIR: Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path. (AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD); Total Verses: 120; Revealed At: MADINA; Quran-USC.edu.org; Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement)

  

002.096
YUSUFALI: Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.

PICKTHAL: And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

SHAKIR: And you will most certainly find them the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; every one of them loves that he should be granted a life of a thousand years, and his being granted a long life will in no way remove him further off from the chastisement, and Allah sees what they do. (AL-BAQARA (THE COW); Total Verses: 286; Revealed At: MADINA; Ibid.)

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 177; Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad))

 

If you take the time to examine more Quranic suras and the Hadith you will find more encoded Jew-Hatred (AND also Christian-Hatred and general non-Muslim-Hatred). Honestly if you are outside the belief system of Islam, unless you are blind, Islam is as much an ideology as it is a religious guiding principle, perhaps even more so an ideology teaching adherents about a superiority. This is a superiority that says if you not in the club or if you insult the club you are worthy of death or forced humiliating submission.

 

Now I have imposed on your reading time to show you that the principle of the enemy of my enemy is my friend is alive and well. Can you imagine the Jewish State of Israel and the radical Islamic Wahhabist nation of Saudi Arabia are engaged in working out a deal that both nations consider an existential threat?

 

The common enemy is Iran. Yup, that’s right. The same radical Islamic Shia-Twelver nation that President Barack Hussein Obama is about to urge the Senate to approve a deal on drawing back sanctions under the delusion that Iran will slow down nuclear uranium enrichment under the next delusion that Iran will forsake WMD nuclear weaponization.

 

Either Obama is a complete Foreign Policy moron or he is engaged in finding any scenario of chaos to transform the globe (yes including the USA) into a Left Wing pseudo-Marxist New World Order.

 

Obama’s flirtation with Iran has convinced Israel and Saudi Arabia that the U.S. government is no longer dedicated to their actual Middle Eastern allies’ regional security.

 

Jew-Hatred from a nuclear armed Iran could easily lead to a nuclear WMD strike against Israel EVEN THOUGH Israel does have its own nukes to level Iran. The Twelver mentality of Iran’s Mullahs and Ayatollahs will not be deterred by the military doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In essence the MAD doctrine states that regardless of who pushes buttons to launch nuclear warheads first, the retaliating nuke power will push buttons as well. Meaning that nations engaged in nuclear war will both loose because they will both be destroyed by mutual nuke WMD attacks. Twelvers believe dying in war is glorious and sends one straight to Muslim Paradise.

 

The problem between Saudi Arabia and Iran has its history in the ancient Islamic divide of Sunnis vs. Shias. Sunnis represent roughly 90% of all Islam. Even in that demographic difference both Islamic sects have both declared each other heretics. In the Muslim world heretics are worthy of death. So-called moderate-radical differences make no difference in how to adjudicate a Muslim heretic. It is an offense worthy of death. Wahhabi Clerics have often proclaimed Shia believers kafir. There is a Shia minority in Saudi Peninsula but the aim of Wahhabi fatwas against Shi’ites has a lot to do with a rally cry against the heretics of Iran. So you can see that a nuclear armed Iran is also an existential threat to Saudi Arabia whose Wahhabis consider themselves Sunnis. A large amount of Sunnis have a problem with the medieval puritanical Wahhabis.

 

If Israel and the Saudis cooperate against Iran, I would advise the Israeli government that Saudi Wahhabis are still their enemy and will turn on a dime to betray Israel once (if ever) there is a successful Israel-Saudi neutralization of Iranian regional aspirations.

 

Here is the article that got the old gray matter motivated concerning an Israel-Saudi team against Iran.

 

JRH 11/19/13

Please Support NCCR