Obama spokesman to admit on camera that $1.7 billion they gave Iran was quid pro quo for hostages.

December 26, 2018

Obama should not be president – Israel is thrown under the bus by POTUS, AND the US is also case asunder by proxy

May 21, 2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Jonathan Schanzer: Hamas & Fatah, posted with vodpod

Jonathan Schanzer of the Jewish Policy Institute addressed the Center for Security Policy’s National Security Group on Capitol Hill. He is the author of Hamas vs. Fatah.

Obama’s Abandonment of America

Posted by Caroline Glick on May 20th, 2011 and filed under Daily MailerFrontPage.

Reprinted from carolineglick.com.

I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today’s column for theJerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn’t want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he’ll do by Tuesday?

Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.

Quite simply, Obama’s speech represents the effective renunciation of the US’s right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region – first and foremost, the US’s interest in securing its national security.

Obama’s renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:

First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: “Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”

Then he said, “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.”

While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, “a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.”

And you know what that means. If the US doesn’t end the “spiral of division,” (sounds sort of like “spiral of violence” doesn’t it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.

And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.

How do we know this is Obama’s plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the “spiral of division,” he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.

And of course, intimations of Obama’s plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:

“There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.”

So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.

And he also said that the US will “support the governments that will be elected later this year” in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.

Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US’s lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn’t demand from its friends.

While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don’t distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.

P Photo/US Navy, Kurt Eischen The USS New Orleans makes its way down the Mississippi River on March 5, 2007. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet says two of its vessels -- a submarine, the USS Hartford and an amphibious ship, the USS New Orleans -- collided in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian peninsula early Friday.

Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn’t distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US’s right to have and pursue national interests. If you can’t favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.

As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US’s core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran’s openly genocidal nuclear program is, “Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known.”

Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn’t going to do anything about it.

May 11, 2011

Palestinian State in September? Hamas Says No Way

http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2011/05/palestinian-state-in-september-hamas-says-no-way.html

Al-zahar

Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar walks on an Israeli flag while taking part in a rally to mark the upcoming 23rd anniversary since the group's foundation, in Gaza city, Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010. The arabic text reads: "For sure will be destroyed. Israel". AP Photo.

Gaza rulers say September most likely too soon to declare Palestinian independence, as too many questions pertaining to state’s viability remain unanswered

Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said Wednesday that the Islamist movement was somewhat skeptical as to the viability of Fatah’s September-bound bid for statehood.

Speaking with the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency, al-Zahar said that “all the talk of a Palestinian state is… an attempt to pacify us.”

He further wondered as to the nature of the Palestinian state, should it be declared in several months’ time: “Where is the land for this state? Are those living in the West Bank and Gaza to be its citizens? What will be the fate of the five million Palestinians in the diaspora? Are we to give up the right of return?”

He also said that anyone who thinks that a Palestinian state would be accepted by the international community without it recognizing Israel first, “does not understand the (political) landscape.”

Hamas, he said, is willing to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but will maintain its refusal to recognize Israel, since a formal recognition of Israel would “cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.”

Read more at YNet.

Palestinians never miss an opportunity.

In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US’s worst enemies.

AS FOR ISRAEL, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn’t even say that he would oppose the Palestinians’ plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.

Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”

Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.”

Irrelevant and untrue.

It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don’t want peace. That’s why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

As for being untrue, Obama’s speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.

Then of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:

He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;

He didn’t say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;

He again ignored Bush’s 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;

He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;

He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;

He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley – without which it is powerless against invasion – by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.

Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words – security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it – were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.

Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”

What does that mean “with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?”

It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.

All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn’t attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.

But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.

He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing by the rules that Obama is trying to set for him.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/20/obamas-abandonment-of-america/


Middle East – the “Democratic” uprising is really a CIVIL WAR between Sunni and Shiite

May 7, 2011

No only is the uprising in the ME NOT Democratic, it’s a sort of CIVIL WAR.

I say civil war, because if one looks at the entire area as PERSIA and Muslim, then the area and issue becomes VERY clear.

Iran is not the head.  There is no HEAD.  The HEAD is ISLAM.

The wars are over control of the region.  The issue is who will be the leader of the coming LARGER fight.  Who wins here is who will take the baton of ISLAM to carry it forward in to the NEW MILLENNIAL.

2011 is 1432 H in Islam.

Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest

 BahrainBahrain

In Report to U.N., Government Says Lebanese Militant Group Has Been Working to Overthrow Ruling Khalifa Family

by Jay Solomon

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain has accused the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah with seeking to overthrow the island-state’s ruling family, in a report to the United Nations, escalating the growing cold war between Sunni Arab states and Shiite-dominated Iran.

The confidential report, sent to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, alleges that Hezbollah has been training Bahraini opposition figures at camps in Lebanon and Iran. Bahrain’s government also accuses Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other senior members of the Islamist Lebanese organization of directly plotting with Bahrain’s largely Shiite opposition on how to challenge the ruling Khalifa family.

Iran, Hezbollah and Bahrain’s opposition movement deny …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703907004576279121469543918.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Below is a good understanding of the ME.  Look at each countries -“Constitution and the Rule of Law .”  This will give a good feel for each.

Analysis: How will the Mideast dominoes fall now?

Hizballah to pull its heavy missiles from Syrian safekeeping
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 1, 2011, 9:30 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Bashar Assad   Hizballah   Israel   missiles   Syrian uprising 
Syrian army tank in Daraa

The Lebanese Shiite Hizballah has obviously decided the Assad regime is sinking.DEBKAfile’s military sources report the organization is preparing to pull its heavy, long-range weapons out of storage in Syrian military facilities – no longer sure they are safe there – and risk transporting them to Lebanon.

Last year, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to store Hizballah’s incoming Iran-made Fatah-110 surface missiles and its Syrian equivalent the M-600 and the mobile SA-8 (Gecko) anti-air battery which holds 18 warheads with a maximum range of 12 kilometers. Tehran paid for the upkeep of the Hizballah hardware on Syrian side of the border after Israel threatened to bomb these potential game-changers if they crossed over.

Deployed at Hizballah bases in Lebanon, the Fatah-110 and M-600 would place almost every corner of Israel within range of bombardment, while the SA-8 would seriously restrict Israeli Air Force operations over southern Lebanon and Galilee.
However, as the uprising against Assad rolls ever closer to Damascus, Hizballah see a very real threat of it infecting the Syrian army and has decided that now might be its last chance to get hold of the core arsenal it has standing by for war with Israel before events get out of hand in Syria.

Hizballah’s headquarters in Dahya, Beirut, became alarmed when they heard about strong resentment building up in the Syrian 11th Division over the Assad crackdown against the dissidents – among officers as well as other ranks.
The 11th Division, which is camped outside Aleppo, is the best trained and organized of all Syrian army units, equipped as its strategic reserve with the most advanced weaponry. If the unrest has reached this elite unit, Hizballah reckons there is no time to losing for pulling its missiles out of Syrian military safekeeping.

Meanwhile, top Hizballah and Iranian offices in Tehran are working on the best way to transport the missiles into Lebanon without exposing them to Israeli attack, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report. Some of them calculate that Israel would not venture to strike them while still on Syrian soil because it would lay itself open to interfering, or even getting in the way of, the revolt against President Assad and playing into his hands.

A security emergency might well take the wind out of protest movement’s sails.
But already, Tehran’s Lebanese surrogate is beginning to distance itself from Bashar Assad, its longtime strategic partner and arms supplier, having decided he has his back to the wall.  April 28, the Hizballah-controlled Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper started criticizing the Assad regime on its op-ed pages.

http://debka.com/article/20891/


Obama should not be president – POTUS Obama is the Mahdi – His position fashioned the Axis of Jihad

April 13, 2011

Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution –

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Obama is illegally sitting as head of the UN (not US– UN) Security Council.

In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council
This is directly relevant to the article :

Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

* to take military action against an aggressor;

* to recommend the admission of new Members;

* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;

* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

 

 

One might say that the UN is not a STATE.

Well, then the US can be viewed similarly as the UN, because we are a bunch of states that come together under the Constitution.  The UN has a similar charter that the Nations that are part of it also adhere to.  This however, is a title that is ABSOLUTELY illegal for a US PRESIDENT TO HOLD.

 

 

 

 

April 13, 2011

The New Axis of Jihad

Peter Huessy

 

 

US security policy in North Africa and the Middle East faces a dramatic test: will we be able to weave a strong tapestry of help for our allies and take down our enemies or will a new stronger coalition or “Axis of Jihad” banner arise from Iran to Tunisia?
This coalition is now intent upon establishing its hegemonic control over the Islamic world, including a significant portion of the oil and gas resources of the world, from which to finance a war against the West and most particularly against the United States. It has been a war off and on for fourteen centuries.
This one is different, however. It involves nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and has the financial clout of sovereign funds primarily supported by petro-dollars, but also infused with cash from widespread criminal enterprises including piracy and drug trafficking.
Of immediate attention is our campaign in Libya, to the extent we know what it is, although as Judith Miller explains, events in Egypt are of far more importance. According to the US chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, there appears to be two missions in Libya: (1) a military mission run by NATO in which the US is a key participant to protect the civilians of the country from Qadhafi and (2) a political mission we hope as a result of these moves results in the removal of the Qadhafi regime from Tripoli either voluntarily or by force.
The military missions of establishing no fly zones have had mixed success. We also do not fully know the opposition we are helping and arming.
<they absolutely DO – they are any and all the thugs that are willing to pick up arms.  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and all the Palestinians in the area. >
From the air alone, said the chairman, it would be most difficult to achieve the latter political objective. Even though he sympathizes with Senator Graham’s call for taking out Qadhafi now and “moving on”, ruling out “boots on the ground” makes achieving such an objective ever more remote.
The chairman understands that a key objective of the administration was to protect civilians. He also explained that a key part of this was again according to administration briefings “How the rest of the world would look at us if we did not protect the civilians”.
Expanding on this idea was David Sanger of the New York Times who wrote that the actions of the US in and over Libya—as well as throughout North Africa and the Middle East—have been designed to focus on the key objective of stopping the nuclear weapons program of the Mullahs in Iran.
<and this is going to do what? / sarc >

It is here that the test to which I referred earlier comes into focus. For many American analysts, terrorism is simply a matter of “grievances”. One expert said of the terrorists:
“Their narrative has been utterly disrupted. The dictators they sought to replace have been ousted, and not by them or their violence.”
Another story tells us that a “senior New York Police Department intelligence analyst pointed to at least one short-term benefit of the upheavals: Home-grown Islamic radicals in America, too, had been stunned and shaken by the protests and the loss of what he called their ‘narrative of oppression’”.
One fact of the “revolt in the desert” which started in Tunisia and has spread to Iran, Syria and Yemen, is the virtual absence of protests against either the United States or Israel. No trampling of our flag or the burning of our political leaders in effigy. In one rebel held Libyan city one soldier waved a huge American flag. No call for Jews and Christians alike to be killed. As National Review’s Rich Lowry explained in “The Death of an Illusion”: “In the great Middle East whodunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren’t responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent, or predatory government of their Arab neighbors”.
<Thats right now.  Wait.  It’s coming.  Once the Jihadi’s come in there.  The poor Middle Easterners will cry out against the WEST again.  This time, they will be in unison and MUCH stronger than the US.   >
In fact, the universe of revolt and protest has been a call for both economic freedom and opportunity <for sharia finance> for the hundreds of millions who are unemployed and shacked to economic failure in country after country in the Arab and Islamic world. And for the political freedom needed to achieve such dreams.
<For the ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, which is what is considered FREEDOM over there.  Not real Democracy, but the childish understanding of democracy.  The way that a child would believe that it means the ability to do whatever one wants as long as those who want it are in the majority.  No principles, no standards, and no morality. >
One would hope therefore that this character of the revolt would finally drive a stake through the “grievance theory of terrorism” which has too often been at the heart of American security policy, especially among our intelligence community and its friends in the media, Hollywood and academia.
<American security policy is guided by the President.  The President is sitting as head of another Security council that has no particular allegiance to the US.  >
For example, former President William Clinton said only a few weeks ago that granting the Palestinians a homeland would end most terrorism directed at the United States. Former President Carter has said much the same thing.
<How many times do both of these former Presidents have to be proven wrong?  How many ways can they show their allegiance to the GLOBAL world and NOT the US? >
Contrary to their assertions, the terrorism we face is primarily state-directed. It is not grievance directed. It is nothing more in large part than simple war and revenge directed against us but by means often difficult to attribute.
Thus the outcome of the desert revolts is not without consequence. The bad guys should not gain ground. In particular, the current Iranian regime constitutes a threat because of its very identity as a jihadist state – the nukes, other WMD, especially biological weapons, its state directed terrorism, the massive human rights abuses–these are merely the manifestations to be expected of a jihadist state.
And Iran is but a leading part of a coalition of terror states and their terror group affiliates. Tehran provides weapons, financing and training for thugs in both Iraq and Afghanistan who kill Americans and our allies. Hezbollah and Hamas are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Mullahs, as they seek to complete the plan to turn Lebanon into a proxy of Iranian terror. Iran also allies itself with Chavez in Venezuela who in turn works with the drug cartel and terror group FARC and Hezbollah to plan terror attacks against Columbia, Mexico and the United States. An Iranian Shahab launched from off-shore Venezuela can hit down-town Miami.
North Korea, China and Russia help provide missile and nuclear technology to Iran. The attorney for the city of New York indicted one Chinese company on 104 counts of helping Iran with such technologies. Is the drive-by media in this country asleep?
<YES.  Because they MISSED the fact that Clinton was in on the DEAL.  This was about 2004 – Clinton Administration Gave China Top Nuclear Secrets (Flashback) also, Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War>
Similarly, rocket engines from the BM-25, a missile originally produced by Russia, made their way from Pyongyang to Tehran. This gives Iran a missile with a range near 4000 kilometers which puts all of Europe under its shadow, says Uzi Rubin of Israel.
In Libya, the areas controlled by the rebels have become an arms bazaar for Al Qaeda in North Africa. According to Jonathan Shanzer of the Washington Institute, Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is reportedly amassing surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, explosives, heavy machine-guns and other small arms and smuggling them to lawless areas in Mali.
Some of our allies are not helping either. Recently, Senators Kyl and Lieberman and Congressman Berman, all expressed serious concern over our failure to take seriously the Iranian threat. It is not only that this administration (and its two successors) was not utilizing the sanctions power it has under legislation passed by Congress (originally passed in 1996 but since strengthened). It was that a German located bank—the European-Iranian Trade Bank AG—had become a major conduit for Iranian companies involved in weapons proliferation.
This brings us back to Libya. According to recent reports, “During the weekend, Qadhafi forces sustained pressure on Misrata and drove the rebels from Ajdabiya, for a time. Timely NATO air attacks disrupted the attack on Ajdabiya and rebel fighters reportedly pushed Qadhafi forces out of Ajdabiya. At last report rebels still hold Misrata and Ajdabiya.
But “Misrata is under siege. Except for the increasing casualties that situation has not changed significantly in two weeks. The situation at Ajdabiya is more serious because a collapse there leaves Benghazi as the next target for ground forces. Qatari’s forces face no effective ground opposition. The effectiveness of NATO air forces has been inconsistent. Qatari’s forces have the capability to reach Benghazi by the end of this week. NATO air strikes can slow but not stop Qatari’s forces.”
While the African Union has said Gadaffi has accepted their proposed cease fire, the former is but a wholly-owned subsidiary of the latter. Such a cease fire is a sham.
We have to understand Gadaffi was and could again become a key state sponsor of terrorism. Note that only when Saddam was pulled from his spider hole in 2004 did Libya give up its nuclear weapons program and its other weapons of mass destruction efforts.
The moral of this story? The ability of the US to project and exercise force is important. Maybe we could call it “smart power”! As former Senator Wallop once noted, “Diplomacy without the threat of force is simply prayer”.
For too many, however, US force when used is considered largely illegitimate. “Experts” such as Lawrence Wright in his “Looming Tower” associated the attacks of 9/11 with Al Qaeda grievances, especially about US military forces “in the land of the shrines”, (otherwise known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
But what is never commented on were the other grievances by Osama Bin Laden—that the US had kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; that we maintained “no-fly zones” over Iraq; that we had established sanctions against Baghdad; and that our restrictions on the sale of oil had supposedly resulted in millions of Iraqi children failing to get “health care”. Sound familiar?
Few if any analysts have explained Osama coming to the defense of Saddam! Given the strong Iraqi connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, (occurring as it did precisely on the second anniversary of Saddam’s surrender in Gulf War 1991), one would have thought someone would ask a simple question: who are these people working for and is it possible such terror organizations can be used by state intelligence services for their own ends? And as such, how convenient the “narrative of oppression” is for states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria Libya and others to hide their terrorist means and their empire ends!
We know from numerous pleas from the Iraq government to the US government that Syria has not stopped providing sanctuary for the “rat lines” into Iraq. Thousands of recruits traveling from the mosques and madrassas of Northern Africa fly to Damascus and from there enter Iraq and carry out attacks against US and Iraqi and coalition soldiers, police and civilians, including working with Saddam’s trained terror masters in widespread torture and bombings.
Did we really do the right thing to help oust Mubarak, simply because the youth and professionals and shop keepers of Cairo “have grievances”? As Judith Miller explains, “Cairo has been a staunch ally in America’s Arab-supported campaign to contain Iranian influence in the region and prevent Tehran from developing atomic bombs.
“Iran’s growing regional clout and aid to terrorist groups abroad threaten not only Israel, but also such Sunni Arab states as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and, yes, Egypt. The post-Mubarak government’s sudden interest in enhanced relations with the mullahs sends a signal of weakness that can only encourage them.”
But Syria, a bona fide member of the Axis of Jihad, somehow gets the good housekeeping seal of “reform approval” by our US Department of State, leaving Syria as a place for terrorist hiding, where they can recruit, train and organize terrorists. That we too often refer to Syria as a potential “peace partner”– when all Damascus does is facilitate a war of terror against its enemies—certainly makes the American people perplexed.
The “Axis of Jihad” is on the march, just as the Soviets and their terror master friends were in the late 1970s. The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to take down two “terror masters”, which we successfully did. Unless we finish the job, as well as pay attention to the new jobs at hand, we could hand our enemies more real estate (and more oil) from which to plan, train, and finance, operate and recruit their armies of jihadis intent upon our destruction. State sponsors of terrorism are alive and well. US policy should not be in the business of adding to their ranks.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Huessy is on the Board of the Maryland Taxpayers Association and is President of Geostrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland, a national security firm.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9232/pub_detail.asp


US and UK – Arm enemies – The enemy of my enemy is my friend

April 1, 2011

Unfortunately, just like MAD, that ONLY works for an enemy that is ideologically similar.

Islamic countries are not.  Muhammad saw to that.  And OBAMA put himself on the UN security council to obtain the power of the post.  No matter that it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  (see Article 9)  Islam is not even a religion.  Anything that is 1/5th or less of anything can’t be classified as any ONE thing. Islam is Shariah Law, culture, ideology, politics and Maybe, if there is room, religion.

If one reads the Q’RAN, Hadith, and the Sunna’s, one begins to understand the core of it is born of a boy, angered by his orphanhood and has to survive under harsh and hostile circumstances.  He finds a niche. And it’s violence.  Be MORE violent then your enemy and you will win.  Then, later, after much achieved success by using these lessons learned, he hears of Judaism and Christianity.  He is illiterate.  He has other people translate – directionless translations and broken at that, this is how he begins to perceive other religions.  He deems them inferior.  He decides to implement TACTICS of the major religions.  These were not placed for the betterment of society and the procreation of LIFE.  NO.  These were implemented as TOOLS to seduce into Islam, so that those who succumb, MUST SUBMIT to ONLY Islam and through that submission the direction is not LIFE, but CONQUEST in in lieu of life.  This is WHY martyrdom is so revered in Islam.  It is ABOVE life.

How sad that our politician don’t see HOW incompatible this false religion is to the WEST.

It’s sad that they choose to make deals with the devil.  The devil that they don’t even understand.  How vain it is of them to think that they can out wit something they don’t even TRY to understand.  When my daughter says that she doesn’t understand, but does nothing to try to understand, then I recognize her as being lazy.  THIS is the REASON why westerners are UNDERSTOOD by Muslims to be lazy.  They have had their elites attend our schools and limbed in our culture  in order to infiltrate us.  They have been methodical and specific.  While our “leaders” have been scratching their asses playing kids games.

 

 

 

The U.S. Arms Its Islamic Enemies–Again

Mar. 31 2011 – 3:23 pm

The leader de facto of Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi.

 

Evidence grows with each passing week that in Libya the U.S. government and its allies are providing air cover and arms directly to its avowed enemies–including thugs from al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Taliban–those who’ve devoted the past decade to slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse, top U.S. and U.K. officials now acknowledge this and condone it.

At this week’s London conference on the Libyan war, while U.S. Secretary of State Clinton said the tyrant Gadhafi must go, U.K. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg saidthat if Gadhafi were to go, Libya could become a hard-line Islamist state, but the “gamble” was worth it. Above all, both stressed, Western allies must convey “humility” and forswear any desire to “impose” its preferred type of law-abiding government in Libya or anywhere else in the region.

In Foreign Policy magazine two military and terrorism experts describehow “Libya contributed hundreds of the fiercest foreign fighters to Iraq’s al Qaeda-led insurgency” and ask “Should Washington be worried that it’s now backing these guys against Qaddafi?” In fact, Washington foreign policymakers are more likely to be pleased than worried. For details, see only the vicious theories of Samantha Power, Obama’s national security adviser, who calls herself a “humanitarian hawk”–much like George W. Bush styled himself a “compassionate conservative” while proclaiming Islam to be a “good and peaceful religion.” Libya is only the latest in a long-term effort by foreign policymakers to encourage, fight for and sponsor Islamic regimes.

This craven and self-sacrificing policy is deadly, yet embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike in the U.S., albeit obscured by quibbles over the timing and tactics of Obama’s invasion. Both believe the world must be made “safe for democracy”–for mob rule and the almighty ballot–which means, in the Middle East: made safe for the rise and spread of Islamic rule. To “accomplish” this end the West is to “gamble” the lives and fortunes of its own citizens, while ensuring that secularism, the rule of law, individual rights and constitutionalism have no real chance in the Middle East, since that would entail “imperialistic colonizing”

Democrats and Republicans alike accept the myth that the “enemy of our enemy is my friend.” Even if the Christian Right occasionally admits to there being a real enemy, it finds a moral sanction in “turning the other cheek” to evils and threats, while the Relativist Left feels morally sanctified that the “lesser of two evils” isn’t really an evil at all, especially since there’s never any clear “black and white.” Meanwhile Islamic rebels are certain the U.S. and Israel are “evil”–Big Satan, Little Satan–and should be “wiped off the map.”

When cowardly, doubt-ridden disquietude meets irrational, brazen certitude the latter inevitably wins. The civilized West today is unjustifiably cowardly and guilt-ridden, while the Islamic radicals are certain, insane, evil, and dangerous; thus the former provides air cover, arms and moral sanction to the latter. The Islamic radicals specialize in rearing homicide-bombers, but it’s the West that rears the real suicide-bombers, for when the U.S. military bombs Libya–as it did Iraq and Afghanistan–it does so to clear a path for its sworn enemies.

Who exactly are the “rebels” and why are the U.S. and its allies so eager to help them? In Iran in early 1979 the Carter administration couldn’t care less about the philosophy or aims of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but only that the pro-Western Shah of Iran be deposed; by March a “referendum” established an Islamic republic; by April scores of prominent Iranians were executed; by December the ruling mullahs declared Khomeini to be absolute ruler for life. Ever since, Iran has been a major sponsor of world-wide terrorism.

In Afghanistan in the 1980s the Reagan administration and a CIA (then led by today’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates) helped finance and train al Qaeda, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in their fight against the invading Soviets (who withdrew in 1989). The U.S. also backed Iraq in its eight-year war against Iran, which failed, yet emboldened Saddam Hussein, and the U.S. fought him later. In the 1990s Afghanistan became a haven for terrorism, which led to the devastation of Sept. 11. In the decade since the U.S. has spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring “regime change” in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now have Islamic constitutions and are far closer in theocracy and practice to Iran than ever before.

Americans should realize that “the enemy of our enemy” is not our friend, but our enemy, and that America has many enemies, both at home and abroad. There can be no success in playing off one against the other.

Yet the same suicidal pattern is visible in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya, where military strongmen (and onetime U.S. allies) Musharraf, Mubarak and Gahdafi–not unlike Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq–have faced insurgencies emboldened by U.S. rhetoric and military aid, even though the “rebels” have showed every sign, yet again, of being devoted Islamic terrorists and enemies of America. Amid these “rebellions” few in Washington or the media have bothered to examine the actual make-up or aims of the rebels.

Rebellion is applauded for its own sake. Western cheerleaders claim anything is better than the status quo. Hope! Change! Democracy! The voice of the People is the voice of … Allah! The grim facts become clearer after the dust settles and new leaders and rules take irreversible hold–more fundamentally Islamic than before, closer to Iran than before, more anti-American than before–with the help of the U.S. government.

Thanks solely to the U.S., Iraq’s constitution ensures a “democratic, federal, representative, parliamentary republic” where “Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country’s laws” and “no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.” Is this why Americans must go to war in the Middle East? The official name of Afghanistan, where the U.S. has fought for a decade, like the failed Soviets, and Obama has boosted U.S. troops to 130,000, is” “the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.” Is this why Americans must fight in the region?

Pakistan, with 170 million people (sixth largest in the world, and the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia) has nuclear weapons and is officially the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” It’s also part of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a permanent delegation to the United Nations with 57 member states, all of which are philosophically anti-American and support U.N. missions to ensconce Islamic rebels in the governments of once-U.S. allies. Is this why we fight in the Middle East?

In Egypt this year the Obama administration helped unseat Mubarak, and it is now reported that the terror-sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood is taking over, re-writing the constitution, and preparing the ground for yet another state sponsor of terrorism, aimed directly at Israel. Essam el-Erian, the leader and spokesman, recently got 77% of voters to call for an Islamic state. “The Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group once banned by the state, is at the forefront, transformed into a tacit partner with the military government that many fear will thwart fundamental changes. . . . It is also clear that the young, educated secular activists who initially propelled the non-ideological revolution are no longer the driving political force.” In Libya “the rebel commander, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, admits his fighters have al Qaeda links” and that he himself fought the U.S. in Afghanistan before being captured and released to fight another day, now with U.S. help.

Some Western cheerleaders pretend to be chagrined and surprised by all this, while others applaud it precisely because they are anti-Western and antisemitic at root and thus welcome any Middle East regime that’s more closely aligned with Iran’s mission to rule the world and destroy Israel and the U.S. There should be no surprise that this is what the Quran encourages and demands, but Americans should be asking: Why is this what U.S. leaders–from Carter to Bush to Obama–also seem to encourage and demand?

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/03/31/the-u-s-arms-its-islamic-enemies-again/

 


Germany – Laundering money for India so that India can purchase Iran’s oil

March 28, 2011

Obama sits on the security council in the UN, so he could stop this.

This UNCONSTITUTIONAL post that he holds should quickly end his presidency.  This is impeachable.  How can he sit there and not do anything about this type of FINANCIAL game playing?  Very easy.  HE DOESN’T operate for the US and as a result, he will also not say anything about this AS The PRESIDENT of the US.  He has other allegiances.

The mainstream media is VOID on this.

They have completely ignored this huge story and they will bury as quickly as they can.

This should be something to shed light on, but they are too afraid, because that would expose the fact that OBAMA sitting on the UN security council IS A VIOLATION of the CONSTITUTION — THE NOBILITY clause — Article 1 section 9

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

  • Posted: Mon, Mar 28 2011. 5:01 PM IST

Govt to pay Iran for oil using Germany: report

Under pressure from the United States to break direct commercial links with the Islamic republic, India intends to place money for its Iranian oil imports in an account with the Bundesbank, the Handelsblatt business daily reported

Berlin: India is set to pay Iran for billions of dollars worth of oil imports by channeling funds to Tehran via the German central bank, a German newspaper report said Monday.

Die Bundesbank bereitet sich auf die Errichtung einer 'Bad Bank' vor

Under pressure from the United States to break direct commercial links with the Islamic republic, India intends to place money for its Iranian oil imports in an account with the Bundesbank, the Handelsblatt business daily reported.

The Bundesbank would then transfer the money to the European-Iranian Trade Bank AG (EIH), based in the northern German city of Hamburg, the paper said, quoting financial and political sources.

“We are in talks with the Bundesbank,” the paper cited Neeta Bhushan from the Indian finance ministry as saying.

The arrangement has been given the green light by two ministries in the German government, Handelsblatt said.

<Obama is head of the UN security council – HE COULD STOP THIS!  But his ally is the BANKERS in this and not America and American interests. >

Two of the EIH’s main shareholders, Bank Mellat and Bank Refah are subject to European Union sanctions approved last year in addition to UN restrictions, the paper said.

Contacted by AFP, the Bundesbank declined to comment while a spokeswoman for the economy ministry told a regular government briefing that the EIH, also known as the EIHB, was not itself subject to EU or UN sanctions.

“The inclusion of a bank on the (sanctions) list is not something decided by the (German) government but the European Union council,” spokeswoman Sarah Schneid said.

“What counts is involvement of a bank in financing Iran’s nuclear and missile programme … The government investigates closely any indications (of such involvement).”

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert stressed that the bank was under “strict” supervision, with all transfers over €10,000 ($14,000) needing to be reported and all those above €40,000 requiring approval.

Germany has long been under fire for its close business ties with Iran, with the country’s exports there totalling €3.8 billion in 2010, according to official figures.

Berlin’s abstention this month over a UN Security Council resolution — it holds a non-permanent seat — authorising military action in Libya has also angered Germany’s partners and put Merkel under

http://www.livemint.com/2011/03/28165857/Govt-to-pay-Iran-for-oil-using.html


Turkey – Iran cargo plane carrying “suspicious” cargo is “CLEARED” by Turkey officials and Israel seizes ARMS from Iran. Any connection?

March 16, 2011
So, the plane lands, the weapons get swiftly smuggled away, and the inspectors are allowed to then come and inspect.
Charades.
The game is all around.

Turkey frees detained Iran cargo plane, finding ‘nothing illegal’ on board

Plane had been forced to land in Turkey on suspicion it was carrying weapons to Syria, day after ship allegedly bringing arms from Iran to Gaza was seized by Israel.
  • Published 17:28 16.03.11
  • Latest update 17:28 16.03.11

An Iranian cargo plane, forced to land in southeast Turkey on suspicion it was carrying weapons to Syria, departed on Wednesday after a search squad found nothing illegal on the plane, officials said.

A team trained in chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear cargo from the Civil Defense Directorate inspected the plane, which landed in the city of Diyarbakir late on Tuesday en route from Tehran to Aleppo in northern Syria, the state-run Anatolian news agency said.

Iranian cargo plane

Iranian cargo plane forced to land in Turkey, on March 16, 2011.

 

 

Airport officials said the plane, which had two pilots, an unknown number of crew members and no passengers, was ordered to land on suspicion it was carrying Iranian weapons to Syria.

Selcuk Unal, spokesman for Turkey’s Foreign Ministry, told Reuters: “The plane was allowed to continue on its route after a routine control.” He added the search squads had found “nothing illegal” inside the aircraft.

The forced landing occurred on the same day Israeli naval commandos seized a cargo ship in the Mediterranean Sea carrying what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said were Iranian-supplied weapons intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.

The Israel Defense Forces said the vessel that was captured with Iranian weapons had set off from the Syrian port of Latakia and stopped in Mersin, Turkey, before heading towards Alexandria in Egypt. Turkey was not involved in the arms shipment, it said.

On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Miniser Ehud Barak told reporters at Ashdod Port, where the seized cargo ship was taken, that he hoped Turkey carried out a proper inspection.

“We have seen this plane that was stopped in Turkey, and it must be hoped that there, too, they will conduct checks as required, and that the other players that are involved, too — that everyone in their area do the right things so that this mutual reinforcement of terror and (military) build-up ceases,” Barak said.

Before leaving Diyarbakir, the plane, identified as a Russian-made Ilyushin 62 and bearing Arabic script and green livery, was parked on the tarmac at the airport, which is used for both civilian and military aviation.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/turkey-frees-detained-iran-cargo-plane-finding-nothing-illegal-on-board-1.349597

 

 

 

 

Iranian Army Commander-General denies sending weapons to Gaza on “Victoria” ship; Hamas also claims weapons weren’t for them.

The Iranian Army’s Commander-General denied on Wednesday that Iran was connected to the weapons found aboard the Victoria. 

“The Zionist regime’s diet is mixed with lies, lies and more lies,” Gen. Amir Ataollah Salehi said. “We deny all false reports.”

 

 

The Zionist regime is a usurper,” he added. “There is an Islamic awakening throughout the Middle East and North Africa that sees the damage.”

Salehi said “there is no doubt that Israel is calculating its losses since the departure of the Egyptian Pharoh. God willing, they will sink to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea.”

He added that “next year the armed forces of the Islamic Republic will be stronger than ever.”

 

A Hamas spokesman also denied that the weapons aboard the Victoria was headed for them, Israel Radio reported on Wednesday.

The IDF intercepted a cargo vessel, called the Victoria, en route from Turkey to Egypt on Tuesday. The ship was found to contain advanced weaponry, including anti-ship missiles labeled in Farsi, as well as manuals explaining how to use them in Farsi.

The ship was boarded by several teams of commandos from Flotilla 13, known as the Shayetet, and reached the Ashdod port overnight Tuesday.

Yaakov Katz contributed to this report.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=212365

 

 


%d bloggers like this: