Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Iran Deal and the Hudaybiyyah Precedent - Mike Konrad

by Mike Konrad

What President Obama gave us is not a peace, but a treacherous hudna, a deceitful truce.

What President Obama gave us is not a peace, but a treacherous hudna, a deceitful truce.  It is hard to believe that no one in the State Department knew this; and even harder to believe that Obama himself, who was educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia, did not know this. This should be ground for impeachment.

So what is a hudna?

Mohammed, after he started preaching Islam, was driven out of his hometown Mecca to Medina. He soon took over Medina, which was originally a Jewish city named Yathrib, and slaughtered the Jewish community.  Yathrib's name derived from Moses' Midianite father-in-law Jethro. which in Hebrew is Yithro.
The city of Medina ... had originally been settled by Jewish tribes from the north, especially the Banu Nadir and Banu Quraiza. ... Medina, or, as it was known before Islam, Yathrib, had no form of stable government at all. ... as soon as the Arabs had attained unity through the agency of Muhammad they attacked and ultimately eliminated the Jews. - Bernard Lewis, as quoted by
It original name, Yathrib, bespeaks of a Hebrew origin. 

After taking over Yathrib, now Medina, Mohammed struck south to attack Mecca, to get revenge on those who had driven him out. However, the Meccans were too powerful.

So Mohammed signed a truce, a hudna, for ten years: The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Mohammed used the time to re-arm; and broke the hudna at the first opportunity, using a minor incident as an excuse to invade an unsuspecting Meccan populace.
Less than two years after making a treaty with the people of Mecca, Muhammad returned with an army and took the city by surprise. - The Myths of Mohammed
That is a hudna. A dishonest ten-year truce, made only to buy time, and broken at the first available opportunity.

And what kind of treaty has Obama signed with Iran?  A ten year treaty, which gives the Iranians time to get a nuke, and which has escape clauses allowing the treaty to be broken at the Iranians’ convenience, over minor issues.
Iranian and American officials ended a round of high-level nuclear talks here on Monday considering a proposal that would strictly limit, for at least 10 years ... New York Times
Muslims, using the example of their prophet, feel morally obliged to limit any treaty with the infidel to 10 years. Since jihad is an article of faith, no treaty exceeding the 10-year limit set by the illiterate prophet can be made. How amazing that the State Department obliged them.

In the past, Hamas had offered to sign peace deals with Israel for ten years -- but not longer. The Israelis, many of whom can read Arabic, know the line of camel dung being offered, and refuse to accept.
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel has dismissed as ridiculous a proposal from the main Palestinian militant group, Hamas, to declare a 10-year truce if the Jewish state withdraws from territory occupied since 1967.
Top Hamas official Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi told Reuters late on Sunday Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation". - Reuters, 2004
Muslims will sometimes admit it. Hudnas are only stalling tactics. They are willing to work in phases.

Most of all, a hudna is never meant to be kept. At best, from our viewpoint, the peace lasts only ten years. In practice, however, it would be broken at the first available opportunity, using Mohammed's Treaty of Hudaybiyyah as the sacred precedent.

Of course, when Western reporters hear the Arabs cry peace, few realize that the word being used, "hudna," means deceitful truce. Arab translators are happy to provide the reporters with the Western translation, but the Arab street knows what is meant. It is a practice sanctified by the Great Muslim Molester himself, and therefore is the standard for all Muslims to imitate.

More amazing yet, the State Department allowed the Iranians multi-faceted escape clauses in the treaty to break the "hudna" at the first available opportunity.

A close reading of the P5+1 deal shows that Iran could easily defect whenever it wants. - Haaretz

The treaty will allow Iran to exit the deal at will, using the slightest of perceived infractions as an excuse. A new Treaty of Hudaybiyyah for the mullahs of Teheran.

Nonie Darwish, here at American Thinker, noted the same problems, albeit in more depth.  Obama has written the treaty to comply with Islamic Law. This treaty could have been written by Mohammed himself.

 It is inconceivable that no one in the State Department knew this. It is inconceivable that Obama did not know this. And, if they did not know, it is inconceivable that they could be called competent.

Hence, the necessary requirements for impeachment.

Obama has all but pre-ordained war.

The Sunni Saudis, who know a hudna when they see it, will look to buy a nuclear missile from Pakistan, if only to protect themselves from Shi'a Iran.

What the press is not telling us is that the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Iraq are in Shi'a dominated areas.  Though Saudi Arabia is dominantly Sunni, its oil fields are in Shi'a majority provinces. Bahrain is run by a Sunni minority.

[T]he concentrations of Shia Islamic peoples, in the Persian Gulf, are in the same areas as the oil fields and petroleum infrastructures. - Shia Islam and oil geopolitics
This is about oil. Obama knows it. Iran knows it. And once Shi'a Iran has a nuke, Iran will control the world's oil.
Obama has just turned the Mideast into a nuclear arena.

Is there a Republican Congressman or Senator with enough guts to call for impeachment?  Of course, they won't succeed, but it will air the complaints, and might wake up the Congress to shoot down the hudna.

Is our press this stupid?  Are our politicians so fearful of being called "racist" that they are afraid to go after Obama? If so, if they won't move to impeachment -- which may be fruitless, as Biden would have to go also.  But at least that would remove the charge of racism.  At least have the guts to vote down this treaty. Fight tooth and nail to stop it.  Really fight!  Don't just go through the motions.
This is not even about Israel. This is about world peace.  

The mullahs in Iran would never even have come to the table unless they were weak. They were on the verge of collapse until Obama freed up some sanctions. Personally, I think Obama is doing this to punish Israel for not agreeing to his peace deal; but that is another article.

For God's sake:  Fight this treaty!

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, nor Arab. He runs a website,, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Gamble with Iran's Theocratic Regime - Robert D. Onley

by Robert D. Onley

  • Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.
  • Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make. By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, Obama has bound the U.S. under international law without Senate consent.
  • The gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Shi'a Islamism.
  • A total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. An end to Iran's financial and materiel support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.
  • There is still time for a better deal that can be had.

As President Obama and Secretary Kerry dominated the airwaves with rounds of media interviews to defend the Iran deal last week, German Vice Chancellor and Economic Minister Sigmar Gabriel flew straight to Tehran for the first of what are certain to be countless meetings by P5+1 leaders to capitalize on new business opportunities in Iran.

In Europe, it seems, there is no debate to be had over the Iran deal; rather, it is a fait accompli.

But in the United States, the domestic debate is heating up, fueled by a Presidential primary campaign and increasingly justified bipartisan anxiety over the bill.

Independent of these political realities, however, the immediacy and tenacity of the White House's defense of the Iran deal (which now has its own @TheIranDeal Twitter account, no less), betrays an acute unspoken discomfort by many Democrats with the practical flaws and global security dangers that the deal presents.

Obama's Iran deal is a direct manifestation of the President's fundamentally misguided worldview, one that wishes away danger and then believes in the wishes.

Haunted by his electorally-motivated premature withdrawal from Iraq in 2011; his refusal in 2013 to confront Syria's Bashar Assad when he used chemical weapons on his own people; his betrayal by Russia's Vladimir Putin to whom he had offered a reset button, and his impotence in failing to respond to the aggressive expansionist moves of Russia, ISIS, Iran and China, the President and Democrat Party, in signing the Iran deal, seem to be trying to absolve the United States of its role at the forefront of the global fight against Islamic radicalism and other threats.

Citing the failed EU-led negotiations with Iran in 2005, which resulted in Iran's massive expansion of centrifuge production, defenders of the deal, such as Fareed Zakaria, have painted a bleak and zero-sum counterfactual argument. It is claimed that the result of Congress's opposition will be an international community that forges ahead on renewed trade relations with Iran, while leaving the United States outside the prevailing global reconciliation and supposed love-in with the Islamic Republic.

There are several serious problems with this defense, and similarly with the White House's blitzkrieg public relations campaign to fend off detractors of the Iran deal, with Secretary of State John Kerry commanding the preemptive, and often totally inaccurate, strikes against Congress. In consideration of the colossal failure represented by the North Korea nuclear precedent, let us consider the issues unique to Iran.

Foremost, opponents of the Iran deal are not universally suggesting the Iran deal be killed outright or immediately resort to "war." This is simply disingenuous. Instead, the opponents' fundamental premise is that a better deal was left on the table, and thus remains available. The very fact that the Iranian regime was at the negotiating table was indeed a sign of Iran's weakness; any timelines for the P5+1 to "close" the deal were artificial constraints that surely erased further achievable concessions.

Second, much ink has already been spilled about the technical weaknesses of the Iran deal. Namely: that Iran's vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place; that the most important restrictions expire in 10 years (a mere blip for humanity); that Iran's uncivilized domestic and regional behavior was a naughty unmentionable; and finally, that the deal undoubtedly initiated a regional nuclear arms race while supercharging the Iranian regime's finances.

Third, the gravest consequence of Obama's Iran deal, and the most damning of its continued defense, is that the world bestowed ideological legitimacy on the Islamic Republic's radical theocracy, and in so doing has consigned the people of Iran to near permanent rule under the iron fist of Twelver Shi'a Islamism.

This capitulation occurred precisely at a time when the West and the broader Middle East are facing off against the Islamic State -- a terrorist force which, when stripped of its social media allure, is ultimately a Sunni-branded spin-off of the extremist Shi'a Islamism that has ruled in Iran since 1979.

The Iranians may be convenient allies as enemies of our enemies today, but not for one second have Iran's rulers suggested their ultimate intent is anything other than the all too familiar "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" propaganda seen for the past 36 years. In what is objectively and wholly a strange deadly obsession, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, has been rousing crowds with calls for the destruction of two nation-states both during and after nuclear negotiations.

In spite of this public malice, defenders of the deal suggest that "the [Obama] administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure." Why exactly then is Khamenei making clear the opposite?

President Obama's willingness to concede Iran's new-found normalized membership in the community of nations on the basis of this nuclear deal is an affront to the liberal, free, democratic principles that have stood against the forces of tyranny throughout American history.

It is also an affront the American political system and to the members of both parties who are now being cornered by the President into supporting, or not supporting, such an intrinsically dangerous and needlessly flawed bargain with an avowed enemy.

Even more concerning is that the Iran deal may directly conflict with U.S. obligations as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As a number of critics have pointed out, the Iran deal may be unconstitutional, violate international law and feature commitments that President Obama could not otherwise lawfully make.

By seeking approval of the deal under the UN Security Council, President Obama has bound the United States under international law without Senate consent.

If the United States is to remain the vanguard of human liberty, President Obama must distinguish between the vain pursuit of his legacy, and the civilized world's deepest need at this consequential hour for the American President to defend comprehensively the fundamental principles that underpin the modern order. Unless his desired legacy is actually to destroy it.

As opponents of the Iran deal have noted, there is still time for a better deal that can be had.
To start, a total reversal of the Iranian regime's behavior should have been, and still can be, a precondition for the removal of any sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program. Congress can lobby for this change, and should maintain American sanctions and applicable provisions in the U.S. Treasury Department's SWIFT terrorist tracking finance program.

Next, while Iran's regional malignancy may run deep in the regime's veins (through the many twisted arms of Tehran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), an end to Iran's financial and materiel support for terrorist forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas must be demanded, along with the return of the four American hostages Iran is holding.

Third, those who argue that Iran's human rights record was not "on the table" in Geneva have needlessly abdicated the West's moral and intellectual high ground to the forces of barbarism and hate that are now waging war across the region. Respect for international humanitarian norms should never be discarded in such negotiations.

At the end of the day, the deeper questions for Obama and the entire P5+1 are this: By whose standards were negotiations conducted? And whose worldview will rule the 21st century?

In defense of Obama's approach, the deal's supporters point out that the Iranians are a "proud, nationalistic people," which is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant, just as it was for the leadership of Germany's Third Reich.

The Iranian regime, by virtue of its radical religious nature, weak economy and political experiment with theocracy, should have borne the burden of coming to the negotiating table with the most to lose. Instead, President Obama, on behalf of the free world, is allowing this pariah state to guarantee its place among the nations, lavishly rewarded for having violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and in all its about-to-be-well-funded lethality.
  • Follow Robert D. Onley on Twitter

Robert D. Onley is a lawyer in Ottawa, Co-Founder of the Young Diplomats of Canada and a "Global Shaper" in the World Economic Forum.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Kurds get the shaft, U.S. gets an airbase, NATO gets used - Fran Fawcett Peterson

by Fran Fawcett Peterson

Turkey admits bombing Kurds the past couple of days as it also attacks ISIS.  Kurds on the ground report many, many more strikes against the Kurds than against ISIS.

My friends in Istanbul tell me, “It isn’t perfidy.  It’s the classic power plan of a political savant.”

The “political savant” is Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erodogan.  The plan is to rid the area of those pesky Kurds without appearing genocidal.  And how could the West object if it’s done under the cover of fighting ISIS?

Turkey admits bombing Kurds the past couple of days as it also attacks ISIS.  Kurds on the ground report many, many more strikes against the Kurds than against ISIS.

This push against the Kurds comes just days after Turkey agreed to let the U.S. use the Incirlik airbase to attack ISIS.  Without Incirlik, U.S. jets have a one-thousand-mile journey.  So, were the Kurds the price of using Incirlik?

Today, July 28, 2015, all 28 NATO allies will meet in Brussels at the request of Turkey.  Turkey is calling the meeting under article 4 of the NATO treaty, which allows for an emergency meeting when “the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”

Turkey wants NATO help establishing a 60-mile-deep safety zone along 500 miles of border with Syria.  Besides safety along the border from the fanatical ISIS, the zone would permit the repatriation of some of the 1.8 million Syrian refugees in Turkey.

The Irish Times reports that Syrian rebels are skeptical of Turkey’s plan, pointing out that “Ankara has yet to provide details of how it will drive jihadists from the Syrian border and create a safe zone for refugees.”

The Kurds are the fighters who face ISIS on the ground.  During the heroic battle to save the border town of Kobani, the Kurds proved to the world they are the only successful ground forces against ISIS.

The front man for the plan is Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davuloglu.  He told Turkish media that his country will not send ground troops into Syria.  Additionally, he is quoted saying Ankara will work and support the Syrian Kurdish fighters, the PYD, if they “did not irritate Turkey.” 

Ankara claims it is fighting the Kurdish terrorists, the PKK.  Hard to do, because according to the female Kurdish fighter interviewed in the July 25 Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes I’m a PJAK, sometimes I’m a YPG. It doesn’t really matter. They are all members of the PKK.” 

A former diplomat to NATO tells me that while the Turks have been bombing the Kurds for years, NATO has never gotten involved.  However, “the safe zone is another matter, one NATO could support.”

Meanwhile, the peace hammered out between the PKK and the Turkish government seems to be ended.  Kurds are attacking inside Turkey.  The government is rounding up Kurds, and now NATO may find itself drawn into the quagmire.  Let us pray cool heads prevail in Brussels.


Will NATO fall for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erodogan’s ploy to get the 28 nation military alliance to aid his efforts to wipe out the Kurds and in the process get the US and NATO deeply embroiled in the Syrian civil war?

 Turkey tried to pawn the line it was going after ISIS while in reality unleashing most of its fury against the Kurds.  In the past four days Turkey has launched 16 strikes against ISIS and 600 against the Kurds according to a Kurdish commander in a BBC interview.  Yesterday Kurdish sources told me there had been 161 strikes against the Kurds and 3 against ISIS.

As a member of the alliance Turkey called the emergency meeting of NATO claiming under article four that it’s “territorial integrity, political independence or security …. is threatened.”  Apparently, Turkey is more worried about its own Kurds than ISIS given the ferocity of Turkey’s attacks. Turkey claims its just returning fire from the Kurds.

Erodogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davuloglu claim the Kurds are terrorists just like ISIS. But, Turkey and the militant wing of the Kurdish separatist party, the PKK, have enjoyed over 3 years of peace after a 30-year guerilla war.  With the Kurds having proven themselves the best, bravest fighters on the ground against ISIS, why does Erodogan choose now to resume the attacks?

The answer may lie in the fact that in last month’s parliamentary elections Erdogan’s party failed to win a majority.  There are rumblings he wants new elections to try and push the Kurds below the 10% threshold and thus out of Parliament.  Possibly he believes bombing the Kurds will inspire Turkish nationalism or just plain smash the Kurds into submission. Then who will fight ISIS on the ground? Turkey has said it will not send in ground troops.
Many Kurds believe Erodogan is up to his old tricks.  July 20 a suicide attack in the Kurdish town of Suruc in southern Turkey killed 32 young activists preparing to go across the border into Syria and help rebuild Kobane.  Survivors tell of Turkish police teargassing vehicles carrying the wounded. Across Turkey there were protests condemning the massacre allegedly carried out by a Turk with ISIS ties.

 Many Kurds believe the government was behind the attack because state intelligence was closely monitoring the meeting of the students.  They believe the attack could not have been carried out without state support. And, they point out that shortly after the Suruc attack another suicide bomber detonated a car bomb at a checkpoint across the border in Kobane.

Kurds have taken to the streets. At least 3 police officers have been killed by Kurds in retaliation. Apparently that was Erdogan’s justification to go after the Kurds again. Or perhaps its headlines like Time magazine’s June 23, The Kurds Are Building a Country With Every Victory over ISIS.

Turkey has entered a pact with US allowing the use of its Incirlik airbase. Surely the US would not abandon the Kurds for the use of the base to attack ISIS.  The plot thickens and picture grows murkier.

Fran Fawcett Peterson


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Terrorist attack in Bahrain has Iran's fingerprints all over it - Rick Moran

by Rick Moran

Bahrain has long been on Iran's target list, largely because of its Shia majority, but also because of its strategic position in the Persan Gulf.  It's made up of 30 islands off the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf and has immense oil wealth.

Two policemen in Bahrain were killed and several injured in a terrorist attack that the tiny nation says was engineered by Iran.

Last weekend, the government of Bahrain announced they had intercepted a shipment of explosives and weapons from Iran.  Two Bahraini nationals confessed to being the conduit for the weapons, and the explosives used in yesterday's attack matched those smuggled into the country.

Bahrain has suffered unrest since a 2011 uprising in which the Shia majority demanded reforms from the Sunni-led government.
The latest attack comes just days after Bahraini authorities said they had foiled an arms smuggling plot linked to Iran.
Two Bahrainis were arrested after they admitted receiving a shipment of explosives, automatic weapons and ammunition from Iranian handlers, officials said.
Bahrain's government has previously accused Iran of supporting Shia militants in the kingdom.
It also recalled its ambassador to Tehran on Saturday, over "hostile comments" by Iranian leaders.
The explosion in Sitrah is the latest in a series of blasts that have targeted police in villages with a predominately Shia population.
Roads leading into the town were blocked by officers, as the wounded were taken to hospital.
Iran has always denied interfering in Bahrain, although it acknowledges it does support opposition groups seeking greater political and economic rights for the Shia Muslim community.
Bahrain has long been on Iran's target list, largely because of its Shia majority, but also because of its strategic position in the Persan Gulf.  It's made up of 30 islands off the coast of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf and has immense oil wealth.

The nation of a little more than a million people (only half being native Bahrainis) is ruled with an iron fist by the absolute monarchy of King Hamad.  Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the monarchy and its Sunni allies.  This has bred a low-level rebellion by the majority Shias that's being financed and supplied by Iran.

The significance of the nuclear deal to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia is immediately apparent.  Bahrain is a dagger aimed at the heart of Saudi Arabia, and if the Iranians get control, it would make life extraordinarily uncomfortable for the kingdom.  The sanctions relief being granted Iran will allow them to turn up the pressure on King Hamad's rule, perhaps reigniting the large-scale protests seen in 2011, when Hamad was forced to turn to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council to restore order.  

Bahrain is a tiny country balanced on the knife's edge of Iran's geopolitical and regional ambitions and a creaky, oppressive monarchy.  When the Congress considers this deal, it might keep Bahrain in mind.

Rick Moran


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Transformation of European Reality for Jews - Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld

A journalist attests: "I feel more at ease in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including the ones with Palestinian residents, than in the Netherlands."

Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Cnaan Liphshiz

“While covering Europe as a journalist over the past years, I have seen a recrudescence of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism almost everywhere on the Western part of the continent. In such a brief interview, I can only mention a few examples to illustrate it.

“In October 2012 I wrote about the synagogue in Marseille, France’s second largest city: ‘At a time when Jewish institutions across France resemble military fortresses for their security, entering the great synagogue and main Jewish center of this picturesque city on the Mediterranean coast is as easy as pushing open the front door.’

“In Marseille, this is no longer the case. Jews fortify their institutions almost everywhere in Western Europe and an increasing number of them hide their identity. In January 2015, the Jewish schools of Marseille, which is home to France’s second-largest Jewish community, were put under permanent police protection provided by officers armed with machine guns.”

Cnaan Liphshiz is the European correspondent of the Jewish Telegraph Agency since 2012. He has previously worked for Haaretz, Maariv and The Jerusalem Post.

“One response in Paris is rather unique, but it means little within the general European context. In 2013, some members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) chased the Arabs they suspected of having perpetrated an attack a day earlier. The JDL also went into action when a Parisian synagogue was attacked during Israel’s Protective Edge campaign in the summer of 2014. They are on a collision course with the Jewish community which has always been opposed to taking the law in one’s own hands.

“In the Paris suburb of Sarcelles during the summer of 2014, I stood in a cloud of tear gas with Jews who were defending their shul from a pogrom-like rabble. An Arab mob numbering two hundred, armed with sticks and stones, tried to attack the synagogue. They set garbage cans alight and shouted, ‘Slaughter the Jews.’ A police force prevented their attack. The hundred or so JDL supporters who were at the scene, armed with baseball bats and clubs, sang the French national anthem, La Marseillaise, in honor of the police. The Arabs were unable to reach the synagogue but managed to torch two cars and throw a firebomb at a smaller synagogue which was slightly damaged. Over the summer, nine French synagogues were attacked.

“Around that time I reported from Paris that during an illegal demonstration, I had heard a young black man with a Parisian accent declare loudly to a dozen of his friends, ‘OK, guys. Let’s go hunt some Jews.’ One of his friends answered, ‘Let’s break their heads’, to which the man replied, ‘Catch them fast, kill them slow.’

“One of the few other places where I found some members of a Jewish defense force, be it under very different circumstances, was the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. A small group of Jews were practicing self-defense in case of urban warfare. All of them had some form of Ukrainian or Israeli army background, but their skills were rusty.

“My own environment has changed as well. My wife and I lived within a small gated Jewish enclave in the Schilderswijk, a neighborhood of The Hague. This is one of the most problematic neighborhoods in the Netherlands. There is high unemployment and in the summer of 2014, a number of Muslims marched there in support of the Islamic State. The problems go far beyond the fact that my wife cannot walk in public wearing a skirt.”

Liphshiz quotes from an interview he gave a Dutch news site at time. “I said during the interview that, although it is distressing to say so, I feel more at ease in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including the ones with Palestinian residents, than in the Netherlands. In Israel, there is much acceptance of minorities’ sensitivities. In Europe, minorities are often resented for those sensitivities.”

He adds that in The Hague “I went to have my phone repaired in a shop. When the Turkish owner heard that I was Israeli, he said, ‘Wait a moment. I’ll fetch my gun’. He laughed a bit to indicate that he was not serious. I asked him what he had against Israelis, or against Jews. The shop owner answered that he ‘simply’ hated Jews. In the summer of 2015, during the Ramadan holiday, there were riots after an Aruban national was strangled to death by the Dutch police during his arrest. The unfortunate event had nothing to do with Jews, and yet many protesters shouted anti-Semitic slogans.”

Liphshiz concludes: “In the past when I would mention to friends where I resided, I would always add that we never had any issues with our neighbors. I would also remark that I did not hide being a Jew. Nowadays that is no longer true. We have relocated, in part because of the rapid radicalization we experienced.”

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Saudi FM denounces Iran’s “aggressive” rhetoric following nuclear deal - Nasser Al-Haqbani

by Nasser Al-Haqbani

Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region fear the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers will embolden Tehran to continue supporting regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir (R) meets with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in the Saudi capital Riyadh, on July 27, 2015. (Saudi Press Agency)
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir (R) meets with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in the Saudi capital Riyadh, on July 27, 2015. (Saudi Press Agency)

Riyadh and Baghdad, Asharq Al-Awsat—Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir on Monday criticized recent “aggressive statements” made by Iranian officials towards other countries in the region, following Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers on July 14.

Jubeir, who was meeting with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini in Riyadh, said, “we reject their comments and reject the hostility they show towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the countries of the region.” 

“These statements are escalating and they are many,” he added.

Several Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, have made comments aimed at other regional countries since the nuclear deal, many of which have focused specifically on Saudi Arabia. 

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian recently said some “extreme” voices within the Saudi administration were “pushing the region towards conflict and shaking its security and stability.” He also criticized what he said was the Kingdom’s “negative” role in countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

Jubeir said the comments did not “represent the desire of a state for good neighborly relations but that of a state which has aspirations in the region and which carried out hostile acts like this”—referring to a suspected plot by Iran to smuggle arms and explosives into Bahrain.

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said on Saturday it had arrested two men in relation to the plot and recovered several weapons, ammunition, and explosives. It said both men had admitted to receiving the shipment from Iranian handlers and at least one of them had been trained at an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps camp in Iran.

During an official visit to Kuwait on Sunday, Zarif said the allegations that Iran was involved in the plot were “baseless” and, in apparent reference to Saudi Arabia, said “some countries . . . want conflict and war in this region,” according to AFP.

Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmed Bin Khalid Al Khalifa responded on Twitter by saying: “Iran’s foreign minister says allegations of smuggling arms into Bahrain are false. I advise him to come [to Bahrain] so we can show him what the Revolutionary Guard has been hiding from him.”

Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region fear the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers will embolden Tehran to continue supporting regional proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Iran has also been involved in Iraq as part of the country’s fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), supporting volunteer Shi’ite militias accused by Human Rights Watch and other international groups of carrying out human rights abuses against Sunni civilians. The Quds Force, an elite paramilitary unit of the Revolutionary Guard, has also been involved in the fight against ISIS in Iraq.

In addition to praising Saudi Arabia’s role in the region, Mogherini said on Monday that with respect to Iran the “trust is not there yet” and that EU leaders would be watching Tehran’s behavior closely in the coming period in order to ensure it was not reneging on the terms of the nuclear agreement. 

“We [the EU] understand the concerns very well,” she said in reference to some of the regional reservations regarding the deal.

Zarif in Baghdad

Jubeir also criticized comments by Iraq’s former prime minister and current Vice President Nuri Al-Maliki, who recently said that Saudi Arabia was a “sponsor and supporter of terrorism” and called for the Kingdom to be placed under the “trusteeship” of the international community.

Jubeir said Maliki’s tenure as prime minister between 2006–2014 and his sectarian policies marginalizing Sunnis in the country had helped pave the way for the rise of ISIS in Iraq.

Meanwhile, on Monday Zarif visited the Iraqi capital Baghdad as part of a tour of regional countries which also includes Kuwait and Qatar.

During a press conference with his Iraqi counterpart Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, Zarif said: “Iran is sending a message of peace to all the countries of the region after its recent nuclear deal with the West,” and added that those countries “should not be afraid of the deal.”

He said he was in Iraq to “reiterate that Iran stands by the Iraqi government and people in their fight against terrorism.”

Jaafari said Iraq welcomed the nuclear deal and added that Iran “has proven through the wisdom of its leaders that it is capable of overcoming a crisis that perhaps was difficult but clearly not impossible to surpass.”

Zarif arrived in Iraq on Sunday and visited the Shi’ite holy city of Najaf where he met with Iraq’s top Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. Following the meeting, Zarif held a press conference and said Iran supported Sistani’s role in Iraq and that the Ayatollah had stressed during their meeting the “importance of working together [with Tehran] to ensure the peace and stability of the region and the world.”

Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on Monday, Salah Al-Arabawi, a senior member of the Shi’ite-dominated Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) party, said: “Zarif’s visit to Iraq at this particular time, and particularly after the signing of the nuclear deal, is extremely important, especially given the good relations which Iraq has with Iran,” adding that Iraq’s government and politicians had “strongly supported the nuclear deal with Western powers.”

“There is much that unites us with Iran, most importantly on the political, cultural, and economic fronts. This calls for a continuation in dialogue between the two countries, given also that we see the relationship has more positives [than negatives], in addition to the fact that the relationship will reflect positively on the region and the fight against ISIS’s gangs,” he said. 

Hamza Mustafa contributed additional reporting from Baghdad.

Nasser Al-Haqbani


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey Turns on Its Jihadists Next Door - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

  • In an embarrassing reality, the crackdown on Islamic State targets in Turkey revealed how jihadists have enjoyed official protection over the past several years.
  • But questions remain: How, so spontaneously, were the Turkish police able to find the safe house where jihadists were waiting to be shipped to Syria? Why, specifically, did the Turks let Ebu Hanzala go free, despite his proven links with terrorism and, specifically, with organizations such as al-Qaeda and IS? Why was he released shortly after he was detained in each case?

When the Islamist radicals of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS, or Islamic State) decided to send a suicide bomber across the border into a small Turkish town, they probably did not think the bomb attack would poison their relations with Turkey. After all, the bomber's target was a pro-Kurdish group, also viewed with hostility by Turkey. The attack killed 32 people and injured over 100.

The attack also prompted tighter border controls in an area patrolled by the Turkish security forces. In an exchange of fire over the Turkey-Syria border, one Turkish non-commissioned officer was killed (the first Turkish casualty by IS fire) along with one IS fighter.

That was the end of Turkey's silent, peaceful cohabitation with the jihadists next door. The Turkish military said it sent fighter jets to bomb IS positions in northern Syria. Turkey also, for the first time, joined the allied forces fighting IS, by agreeing to allow, after several months of negotiations, the US military to use the critical Incirlik air base in southern Turkey for air strikes against IS targets.

Then came police raids against IS targets inside Turkey. Suddenly Turkey, a NATO member, was in an all-out war against IS, inside and outside Turkey. But in an embarrassing reality, the crackdown on IS targets in Turkey revealed how jihadists have enjoyed official protection over the past several years.

In one raid, for instance, the Turkish police targeted an Istanbul apartment where it (unsurprisingly) found 30 foreign fighters waiting to be dispatched into Syria to fight their jihad alongside their IS comrades. The police also detained hundreds of "IS members or sympathizers" in raids across Turkey. The IS men must have been shocked at the unexpected hostility they faced from Turkish security forces, something they probably had not seen before.

But of all the detainees, two names were more revealing than the other, less-known ones. One was Abdullah Abdullaev, an Azeri jihadist, believed to be one of the IS leaders in Turkey. Abdullaev is the man who ran a network that received, provided safe houses for, and dispatched a large number of jihadists into Syria to augment the jihad there. Ironically, Abdullaev had successfully avoided coming onto the Turkish security's radar -- a real miracle -- until one IS cell with no real vision decided to bomb a pro-Kurdish meeting in a small Turkish town. Then it attacked Turkish troops. Then Turkey attacked both IS in Syria and pro-independence Kurds in Iraq.

Similarly, three pro-IS websites operating in Turkey were abruptly blocked, on court orders. Just like the detained IS operatives, the websites had been free to operate inside Turkey, until the first direct combat between Turkey and IS.

And then there is the curious case of "Ebu Hanzala." Ebu Hanzala is in fact the nom de guerre of the Turkish national, Halis Bayancuk.[1] In 2008, the Turkish Hanzala, Bayancuk the believer, was caught by the police as he was sketching plans to bomb a synagogue in Turkey. Mysteriously, he was released one year later. In 2014, he was briefly arrested again at a pro-Al-Qaeda meeting in Van, an eastern Turkish province bordering Iran. Also in 2014, he publicly declared that he wanted Islamic shariah law in Turkey. Bayancuk also declared his commitment to IS in a series of video tapes he released. He even had a Twitter account under the name "Ebu Hanzala."

"Ebu Hanzala," a well-known Turkish Islamist who is affiliated with the Islamic State, and who plotted an attack on a synagogue, is shown being arrested in 2014. He was quickly released after that arrest.

Without the bomb attack against the pro-Kurdish party, Bayancuk would most probably still be a free man, fighting for jihad and organizing some of the traffic on Turkey's jihadist highway, under the discreet surveillance of the same police officers who detained him when they wanted to.

It is good news that Turkey is cracking down on jihadists across the country. But questions remain: How, so spontaneously, were the Turkish police able to find the safe house where jihadists were waiting to be shipped to Syria? How did they immediately find and detain Messrs Abdullaev and "Ebu Hanzala?" Why did they let them go free before? It is nice of Turkey to ban the three pro-jihad and pro-IS websites, but why did the Turkish court not shut them down before? Why, specifically, did the Turks let Ebu Hanzala go free, despite his proven links with terrorism and specifically with organizations such as al-Qaeda and IS? Why was he released shortly after he was detained in each case?

Finally, Turkey is fighting what the entire civilized world views as a brutal jihadist organization. But the way Turkey fights the Islamic State reveals how friendly it may have viewed the group until now.
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
[1] "Ebu Hanzala" is the Turkish version of the Arabic name "Hazrat Hanzala," the son of Abu Aamir Rahib, who was a non-believer during the birth of Islam. Hanzala fought for the Muslims while his father fought for the non-believers. During the Battle of Uhud, Hanzala is believed to have fought with such spirit that he was able to pass through the barrage of soldiers and ultimately reach the non-believers' leader, Abu Sufyaan who later accepted Islam.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Illegal Aliens Are Not 'Law Abiding' - Michael Cutler

by Michael Cutler

The immigration system must have integrity. Local authorities must never have the discretion to unilaterally decide which immigration detainers should be honored and what should be done with aliens who are encountered, but must leave those decisions to federal authorities.

Recently Bill O'Reilly interviewed Senator Chuck Grassley about Kate's Law, legislation currently being drafted in the United States Senate to address the issue of sanctuary cities and the unlawful reentry of aggravated felon aliens who had been convicted of committing felonies prior to being deported from the United States. That law was prompted by the murder of Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman alleged killed by an illegal alien from Mexico, Francisco Sanchez, who had been previously convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times.

During the interview O'Reilly said that he thought it was a “no brainer” for criminal aliens to be prosecuted if they unlawfully reenter the United States after deportation.

However, O'Reilly, dismissively stated that he had no problem with “law abiding illegal aliens” who are "simply" working in the United States. Pairing the phrase “law abiding” with the term “illegal aliens” is an oxymoron. How can a person who violated our nation's most fundamental laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety and the jobs of Americans be considered “law abiding”?

The immigration system must have integrity. Local authorities must never have the discretion to unilaterally decide which immigration detainers should be honored and what should be done with aliens who are encountered, but must leave those decisions to federal authorities.

Our immigration laws were enacted to achieve the primary goals of protecting national security and the lives of innocent people while also protecting the jobs of American workers. This is as reasonable and commonsense as a homeowner looking through the peephole of the front door to make certain that strangers with malevolent intentions not be given access to their homes.

While it is routinely claimed that there are about 12 million illegal aliens present in the United States today, the actual number is likely a multiple of that number. Foreign workers, both legal and illegal, have a common goal: They seek to send money home. Each year our economy loses a minimum of $125 billion in remittances. That number may actually be as high as $200 billion. When the multiplier effect is taken into account, the remittances alone account for more than the annual increase in the U.S. national debt. This is without considering wage suppression of American workers and the flat-out displacement of American workers, who, through no fault of their own, go from being tax-paying middle class working consumers to members of the increasing number of Americans who live below the poverty line, suffering the personal consequences this brings and causing them to rely on costly economic safety net programs, further hammering the U.S. economy.

As an INS agent I was far happier arresting aliens engage in violent crime and, indeed, I spent half of my 30 year assigned to narcotics investigations at the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA and subsequent promotion to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force where I worked closely with the DEA, FBI, ATF and other federal and state law enforcement agencies. However, while we all feel empathy for illegal aliens fleeing poverty in their home countries, the current situation is unsustainable for the United States in many ways. Today the “American lifeboat” is overcrowded and close to capsizing.

The United States spends billions of dollars each year to conduct the inspection of people seeking to enter the United States and cargo being shipped to the United States.

By making his statement mentioned above, Mr. O'Reilly created a very dangerous impression that will likely influence the millions of viewers who watch his program -- that our immigration laws are relatively minor and violations of those laws are insignificant in the scheme of things.

Nothing could be further from the truth. His cavalier pronouncements are dangerous.

Consider the first paragraph found in the preface of the The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
I would love to ask Mr. O'Reilly and those who share his mistaken belief that violations of our immigration laws are so insignificant that illegal aliens can still be “law abiding” the following questions:

Would you be okay with ending the inspections of passengers and cargo arriving on international airline flights from around the world?

Would you feel comfortable having flights from Paris, France; Bogota, Colombia; Karachi, Pakistan; Lagos, Nigeria and Kingston, Jamaica pull into gates at the airport next to the domestic arrivals and permit the passengers on those international flights to disembark, grab their bags and head for a taxi without speaking to a single CBP (Customs and Border Protection) official?

Would it be okay if they did not carry any reliable identity documents such as passports?

If, as I expect, Mr. O'Reilly would find this proposal disturbing then he needs to get real about the true importance of our immigration laws and those who would circumvent the inspections process conducted at ports of entry or otherwise violate those laws.

Aliens who run our borders are trespassing. As I have previously noted in earlier commentaries, on October 14, 2014 CBS News reported, “Mayor De Blasio Heads to D.C. For Meetings On NYC Security And Counter-Terrorism.” According to the report, Senator Schumer, the leader of the “Gang of Eight” who has been the strongest advocate for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, has proposed federal legislation that would impose a maximum jail sentence of five years for anyone trespassing on a nationally recognized landmark or critical infrastructure. Here is an excerpt from that article:
While individuals like this (trespassers) may have meant no harm, their acts put commuters and first responders at risk,” Schumer said. “They also inspire copycats who may have much more evil plans in mind.”
Critical infrastructure is defined by the Patriot Act as systems and assets so vital to the U.S., that the incapacity or destruction to them would have a debilitating effect.
When stunts like this occur, the New York City trespassing law has a maximum of one year and it’s often three months,” Schumer said. “That’s not enough punishment to deter this behavior. It’s time to change that.”
My July 10, 2015 opinion piece for The Daily Caller, “Sanctuary Cities: No Peace And No Justice.” addressed the true importance of routine immigration law enforcement as being essential for national security and as a means of combating the threat of terrorism. To bolster my argument I provided an excerpt from the 9/11 Commission Report. In that article I introduced the 9/11 excerpt this way:
Aliens who run our borders are trespassing and we have no way of knowing why they actually evaded the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors. We may find it all but impossible to know their true identities and therefore knowing if they are fugitives from justice in another country, perhaps wanted for crimes of extreme violence. We don’t know if they are involved with criminal or terrorists organizations.
Consider this excerpt from Chapter 12 of the 9/11 Commission Report:
Looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws-that is, aspects of those laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism-inevitably shaped al Qaeda’s planning and opportunities. Because they were deemed not to be bona fide tourists or students as they claimed, five conspirators that we know of tried to get visas and failed, and one was denied entry by an inspector. We also found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who or what they claim to be-and ensuring routine consequences for violations-it could potentially have excluded, removed, or come into further contact with several hijackers who did not appear to meet the terms for admitting short-term visitors.  
Our investigation showed that two systemic weaknesses came together in our border system’s inability to contribute to an effective defense against the 9/11 attacks: a lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as a part of border security and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. These weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.
An important observation is in order. The last sentence of the above excerpt states that [t]hese weaknesses have been reduced but are far from being overcome.” The report was published more than a decade ago. Today, executive orders issued by the administration, coupled with the sanctuary policies of towns, cities and states across the United States, have not simply rolled back the gains that had been made, but have created many more vulnerabilities in the immigration system than were present on September 11, 2001.

On September 23, 2014 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “'Sanctuary Cities' or 'Safe Havens' for Terrorists?" In this article I focused on numerous terrorists who gamed the immigration benefits program to acquire lawful status ranging from political asylum to lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

O'Reilly is not the only television personality to make presumptions that may be well-intentioned but nevertheless mislead our fellow citizens and, consequently, our political leaders.

Think of how many times the celebrity “journalists” are quick to offer their opinions about how it is “reasonable” to provide lawful status to a heretofore illegal alien who has been living illegally in the United States for a specific period of time, such as 5 years, 10 years, etc.

This perspective may resonate with the television audience as the panelist on the program smiles into the camera with that knowing look of confidence. Generally most of the others on the panel will readily agree, calling such an approach “reasonable and commonsense.”

Reality is often far different from hypotheticals. Because the number of applications would number in the millions -- more likely tens of millions -- there would be no face-to-face interviews and no field investigations. No record of entry is created when aliens run our borders. This is an invitation to massive fraud. Adjudication  Officers will face extreme pressure to approve nearly all of the applications to keep up with the onslaught of applications. It only takes minutes to approve an application but may well take hours if not days to deny a single application.

The bottom line: If you believe that an illegal alien who claims to have entered the United States 5 years ago should be given lawful status -- given the reality of such a situation -- you had better be willing to provide illegal aliens who ran our borders 5 days ago lawful status because it will be all but impossible to verify when these individuals actually entered the United States.

Undoubtedly aggravated felon aliens must face significant enhanced penalties for unlawful reentry after deportation, as compared with aliens who have no criminal convictions. As I have noted in many of my articles, more than 30 years ago I worked with then Senator Al D'Amato to create the law that is currently on the books that calls for a maximum of 20 years in prison for such aliens who are deported and then unlawfully return. Non-criminal aliens who are deported and return unlawfully face a maximum of two years in prison.

On June 26, 2015 Californians for Population Stabilization posted my commentary, “Prosecutorial Deception: The $21 Billion DHS Betrayal.”
I began my article with the following:
On June 17, 2015, the House Subcommittee on National Security and the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, conducted a joint oversight hearing concerning “A Review of the President’s Executive Actions on Immigration.
DHS Inspector General (IG) John Roth testified at this hearing along with the directors of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Those agencies, as well as CBP (Customs and Border Protection), all operate under the aegis of DHS (The Department of Homeland Security).
Roth’s prepared testimony disclosed his concerns about how the administration has “addressed” the immigration crisis in the United States – by implementing executive orders to inhibit immigration enforcement personnel from doing their jobs. He noted that for each of the past two fiscal years, ICE, CBP and USCIS, collectively, received approximately $21 billion. The obvious question is: “What we are getting for that huge expenditure of money?”
In his candid testimony, John Roth made it clear that the failures of the administration to enforce the immigration laws and the implementation of executive orders, public safety and national security were compromised. Here is a key passage:
DHS also does not collect other prosecutorial discretion-related data that might help immigration efforts. For example, DHS would benefit from capturing information regarding aliens who are granted prosecutorial discretion and later commit a crime or pose a threat to national security and public safety.
National security and public safety are similarly seriously compromised when when law enforcement officials on the city or state level refuse to honor detainers and refuse to notify the federal immigration authorities about aliens who have been arrested.
On March 21, 2012, the Huffington Post published an extremely disturbing article that was entitled: "Peter King: Iran May Have 'Hundreds' Of Hezbollah Agents In U.S."

The basis for the Huffington Post article was a hearing that was conducted that day by the House Committee on Homeland Security that is chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, the topic of the hearing was, “Iran, Hezbollah, and the Threat to the Homeland.”

Here is how the Huffington Post article began:
Iranian-backed Hezbollah agents, not al Qaeda operatives, may pose the greatest threat on U.S. soil as tensions over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program ratchet up, according to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
"As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran's secret operatives and their number one terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America," said New York Rep. Peter King at a Wednesday hearing of his committee.
The hearing, which featured former government officials and the director of intelligence analysis for the New York Police Department, follows a foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, D.C., and testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in late January that Iran's leaders are "more willing to conduct an attack inside the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime."
Opening the hearing, King said, "We have a duty to prepare for the worst," warning there may be hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States, including 84 Iranian diplomats at the United Nations and in Washington who, "it must be presumed, are intelligence officers."
On January 9, 2002 CNN posted a report, “Another hijacker was stopped for traffic violation” that noted that a number of the 9/11 terrorists had been stopped by police officers when they committed motor vehicle law violations days before the attacks of 9/11.

Local law enforcement agencies must work in close cooperation and coordination with ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies. In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 much was made of the failures of the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies that failed to communicate, share information and work cooperatively. Police departments are important in combating not only crime but terrorism.

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas “Tip” O'Neill famously remarked that all politics is local. In point of fact, all law enforcement is also, as is our war on terror.

On September 11, 2001 international terrorists launched an attack against the United States of America and its allies around the world. Yet, their attacks impacted local buildings in lower Manhattan, the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Many local and state police departments are quick to snap up the money that the federal government provides to combat terrorism. There is no such thing as a “free lunch.” These local and state law enforcement agencies are indeed elements in our ongoing “war on terror” and need to conduct themselves appropriately and perhaps spend some time reviewing “The 9/11 Commission Report” and the companion document, “The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel.”

Where the loss of human life is concerned, there are no “do-overs.”

Michael Cutler is a retired Senior Special Agent of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) whose career spanned some 30 years. He served as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Adjudications Officer and spent 26 years as an agent who rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch. For half of his career he was assigned to the Drug Task Force. He has testified before well over a dozen congressional hearings, provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission as well as state legislative hearings around the United States and at trials where immigration is at issue. He hosts his radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour,” on Friday evenings on BlogTalk Radio. His personal website is


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget