No announcement yet.

Islam - Jihad - GWOT

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Here for the moment, pending placement in NA;

    ILHAN OMAR TERRORIST TIES? Omar supports companies that fund Al Shabaab, Hamas
    Plus ...

    CHALKBOARD LESSON: This timeline will untangle the wild web of Ilhan Omar's deception

    Last edited by G David Bock; 04 Sep 19, 20:35.


    • Add this;

      Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Husband Wants Divorce After Her Alleged Affair


      • BOMBSHELL: Mattis Says Obama Refused To Respond To Iran’s ‘Act Of War’ Because Of Nuclear Deal

        In a new book, former Defense Secretary James Mattis takes the Obama administration to task for its weak response to the growing threat of the Iranian regime. One bombshell included in the book is the Obama administration’s tepid response to what Mattis referred to as an “act of war” by Iran – the planned bombing of a café in Washington, D.C.

        The Washington Examiner reported on Mattis’ book, where he describes how during his time as the leader of U.S. Central Command (where he served between 2010 and 2013) he repeatedly warned the Obama administration about Iran and Sunni Islamist terrorists, though he felt Iran posed the “more deadly of the two threats.”

        Mattis claims in his book, Call Sign Chaos: Learning To Lead, that Obama fired him because of these warnings, and that the administration didn’t even tell him about the Iranian plot to bomb the café. Mattis was informed of the plot by a duty officer in Tampa, Florida, who told him then-Attorney General Eric Holder and then-FBI Director Robert Mueller (yes, that Robert Mueller) held a press conference announcing the arrest of two Iranians who had planned the attack on Café Milano. The Examiner describes the café as “a high-end restaurant in Washington that was a favorite of the rich and famous, including Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir.”

        “Attorney General Eric Holder said the bombing plot was ‘directed and approved by elements of the Iranian government and, specifically, senior members of the Qods Force.’ The Qods were the Special Operations Force of the Revolutionary Guards, reporting to the top of the Iranian government,” Mattis writes in his book.

        Mattis goes on to explain that he “saw the intelligence: we had recorded Tehran’s approval of the operation.”

        Mattis continues, saying that if the bomb had gone off, it would have been “the worst attack on us since 9/11.”


        • Mattis writes that he wanted to “respond forcefully,” but President Barack Obama refused to inform the public about just how dangerous the plot truly was.

          “We treated an act of war as a law enforcement violation, jailing the low-level courier,” Mattis writes.

          Mattis, by contrast, writes that he “wanted calculated actions, to restrain the regime so it couldn’t thrust us into a war.”

          “In my view, we had to hold Iran to account and strike back when attacked. But there was a reason for the administration’s restraint,” Mattis writes. “The administration was secretly negotiating with Iran, although I was not privy to the details at the time.”

          Those “secret” negotiations would eventually become the Iran Deal, which President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018.

          “In my military judgment, America had undertaken a poorly calculated, long-shot gamble. At the same time, the administration was lecturing our Arab friends that they had to accommodate Iran as if it were a moderate neighbor in the region and not an enemy committed to their destruction,” Mattis writes. “As long as its leaders consider Iran less a nation-state than a revolutionary cause, Iran will remain a terrorist threat potentially more dangerous than Al Qaeda or ISIS.”

          Mattis still believes Iran is the biggest threat in the Middle East, and that the Obama administration’s refusal to retaliate has led to the “emboldened” nation that continues to escalate attacks, including shooting down U.S. drones.


          • Comment

            • Jason Greenblatt and the Inconvenient Truth of Palestinian Rejectionism

              by EJ Kimball
              The Daily Wire
              September 20, 2019

              Mainstream media outlets have derided President Trump's yet-to-be-released Israeli-Palestinian peace plan as a "sideshow divorced from reality" that is "destined to fail," and it's become fashionable to attribute this to the shortcomings of his soon-to-be-departed Middle East special envoy, Jason Greenblatt. But claims that Greenblatt "wasn't the right guy" for the job are dead wrong. Whatever the outcome of the plan, he has arguably done more to advance the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians than any American diplomat in recent memory.

              Though coming into government with comparatively little knowledge of, or experience dealing with, the Middle East, Greenblatt keenly understood that the primary source of the festering conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is the unwillingness of Palestinian leaders to accept a Jewish state as a legitimate political entity.

              Hamas and Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders may disagree over tactics and political vision, but they share an absolute rejection of living alongside Israelis as equals, and thus see no need to tone down the viciously anti-Semitic content of their educational curriculum, halt violent anti-Israel incitement on state-run media outlets, or take other steps essential to a good-faith conflict resolution.

              For a quarter century, Greenblatt's predecessors glossed over such harsh realities in their zeal to coax PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and his successor as Palestinian Authority (PA) president, Mahmoud Abbas, into signing agreements and smiling for the cameras.

              U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz's pandering to Yasser Arafat was widely derided at the time.

              Much of the language used to do the glossing has changed little. In 1988, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz coached Arafat on the words he needed to utter so that the Reagan administration could say the PLO had "renounced" terrorism. Nearly three decades later, President Obama and his Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, could be found repeating the mantra that Abbas had "long since renounced violence" — never mind that the bloodiest period of Palestinian terrorism was sandwiched between. As rejectionism and incitements to violence running rampant in Palestinian society continually thwarted any movement toward peace, high-level U.S. diplomats continued their incessant glossing.

              From his first days on the job, rather than parroting the false narratives and biased framing that had become staples of ineffective American diplomacy, Greenblatt set out to publicly discredit them.

              This is most striking in his use of terminology. In his frequent public statements, Greenblatt rejected both the term "occupied" to describe disputed territories controlled by Israel and the word "settlements" to describe Jewish towns and villages there. He pointedly abstained from using the term "refugees" to describe the 5.4 million Palestinians registered by UNRWA, on the grounds that "only a very small fraction" of them are true refugees who fled their homes during the 1948 war for Israel's independence.

              So eager was Greenblatt to fundamentally recast the lexicon of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that he declined even to use the well-worn phrase "two-state solution" in characterizing the ultimate aim of American diplomacy. "You can't take ... a conflict as complex as this and boil it down to those three words," he explained to PBS in July 2019.


              • Trump's Balfour Moment

                Turkey-Backed Jihadists in Syria Kidnap, Murder, and Desecrate

                by Seth Frantzman
                The Jerusalem Post
                October 24, 2019

                Last edited by G David Bock; 27 Oct 19, 01:29.


                • 44619262-E6AD-4B9B-989A-58EFAED51345.jpeg


                  Latest Topics