Category Archives: Terrorism

Leaked email reveals Saudi and Qatar support for Islamic State


A leaked email from Hillary Clinton to then President Obama top aide John Podesta reveals Clinton’s concerns about Islamic State and the support it was receiving from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A few months after the email was sent, Podesta would take over as campaign chairman of the Clinton presidential campaign.

The revelation occured at a time when both Saudi Arabia and Qatar were donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

Daily Caller:

Clinton sent the email on August 17, 2014 to Podesta. It was an eight-point plan to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Clinton’s email said that the United States should support Kurdish forces on the ground with U.S. military advisers and avoid the use of a conventional ground operation.

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote.

The former secretary of state added: “This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the [Kurdish Regional Government]. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure.”

The email from Clinton to Podesta contains a similar format of previous intelligence reports Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal would send to the former secretary of state. The Daily Caller has previously reported how Clinton had previously asked aides to remove markings showing Blumenthal wrote the reports before sending them to White House officials.

The August 2014 email that pointed the finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar does not contain any information linking it to Blumenthal in particular and is sent from one of Clinton’s personal emails. The batch of Wikileaks emails has not been independently verified by TheDC. However, Clinton and her spokesman Brian Fallon did not dispute the legitimacy of leaked speech transcripts released by Wikileaks at Sunday’s debate.

TheDC reached out to the Clinton campaign and asked if they dispute the legitimacy of the email, but they have not responded. The Daily Caller also emailed Blumenthal asking if he authored the memo, and he also did not respond.

It has been an open secret for years that the Saudis and other Gulf states were backing not only ISIS, but al-Qaeda and other extremist militias in Syria and around the Middle East. This appears to be show that the Obama administration was well aware of Saudi support for Islamic State and chose not to do much about it.

According to The Intercept, the Saudis and othe Gulf states were donating millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time they were also supporting ISIS:

Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by“the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.

Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

They would also argue – with a straight face – that the Clinton’s accepted the cash from ISIS backers because of all the good that money would do to advance the Foundation’s charity work.

The doings of the Clinton Foundation have been largely off limits during the campaign. The media just can’t find the energy to write about things like this. But at the very least, the notion that the Clinton’s accepted cash from ISIS supporters reveals a towering cynicism and hypocrisy that would disqualify any other candidate for the presidency.

Don’t Say You Haven’t Been Warned about Terror


Few are likely to mistake New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for the fount of political wisdom. Even those few must have been astonished by his response to the first of the two incidents in his city on September 17, 2016. In his mode of political correctness, he said that the explosion on that day of a device in the Chelsea section of New York that injured 29 people and caused extensive damage, was an “intentional act.” He refused to acknowledge that the device was a bomb by an Islamist terrorist. One could draw the conclusion that it was really a Chinese firecracker that a joker used to intensify the usual cacophony on 23rd Street in New York on a Saturday evening.

Even for the politically correct it is now clear the various attacks or attempted attacks in two days, two in New York, one in Seaside Park in New Jersey, one in Elizabeth, NJ, were perpetrated by individuals linked to or influenced by Radical Islam. Fortunately, no one was killed in the explosions in New York and elsewhere, but the life of the city, its transit system, and its economy have been affected, if only temporally. In addition, the financial cost is high since, along with the physical damage, 1,000 additional NY State Police officers and National Guard troops are being deployed to patrol bus terminals, airports, and subway stations in New York.

It is ironic that the major explosion took place a few days before the 71st annual meeting in New York of the United Nations General Assembly beginning on September 19, 2016. The U.S. as host country is responsible for the security of the thousands of dignitaries who are attending the meeting, little more than a mile away from the scene of the explosion at 23rd Street.

The General Assembly is due to discuss a number of important global issues, including climate change, and sustainable development. Nevertheless, recent events have made it even more imperative that the UN should spend considerably more time on what should be its immediate priority, responding to international terrorism. It is bewildering that though there are countless proposed definitions of “terrorism” by organizations and countries throughout the world, the UN has been unable to agree on any binding definition, and consequently unable or unwilling to propose solutions or get agreement to act against the evil of our time.

The problem is even more pronounced because the UN is supposed to prevent and combat terrorism, even if undefined. The UN endorsed the Global Control-Terrorism Strategy, and the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force. In 2004 the UN Security Council in Resolution 1566 passed a nonbinding resolution on terrorism. It has also been concerned with threats to international peace and security. But the lack of consensus among the countries on what behavior constitutes terrorism prevents action.

On the definition of, and the search for the cause and motivation of terrorist acts some clarity is appropriate. Many well-meaning humanitarian organizations often call for inquiry into the “root causes” of terrorism. As a starting point, they should be aware that terrorism is not to be equated with any of the suggestions that are in effect excuses for violence: armed struggle of people under colonial or foreign domination or occupation; the struggle for liberation and self-determination; the unlawful use of force; poverty, social and economic inequality: racial or religious discrimination; emotional and mental instability.

The reality, all too obvious in view of the recurring atrocities aimed at killing innocent civilians, is that the overwhelming terrorism in our age is the result of Radical Islam, whether perpetrated by organizations that may or may not be state-sponsored, or by private individuals, so-called lone wolves. It may be ISIS, or al-Qaeda, or the Nusra Front, or Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or Al Mourabitoun and Boko Haram in Africa, or Ansar al- Shariah in Algeria, or one of the many Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa.

Or it may be individuals such as Nidal Hassan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in November 2009, or the couple of Pakistani descent who killed 14 in San Bernardino in December 2015, or Dahir Adan, a Somali, who stabbed nine people in a shopping mall in St. Cloud in Minnesota, in September 2016, or Ahmad Khan Rahami, the 28-year-old Afghan immigrant and citizen of the U.S. who is alleged to have triggered the Chelsea explosion.

In all cases, whether or not the individual perpetrator was addressed as “soldier of the Islamic state,” the objective was the same, to inflict maximum damage on western life and civilians in the name of Islam. The West now appreciates that ISIS has been claiming responsibility for most of the terrorist acts of groups and individuals all over Europe and in the U.S. ISIS and its main competitor Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have declared they are at war with the West, and the U.S. is the prime target, the main symbol of liberty, civil and human rights, and of the Enlightenment.

Indeed. the most recent ISIS video is titled “So take warning,”

Contrary to President Obama, terrorism has not been contained. A number of actions are necessary to counter it. First, the next president of the U.S. must exercise leadership and willpower, and lead a coalition of interested foreign parties that could include not only the democratic West but also Russia, Turkey, the Kurds, and the Gulf countries. That person has to make clear that the U.S. is responding to and giving priority to the war inflicted on Western civilization, while maintaining the delicate balance between free expression, national security, and protection of the population.

ISIS, surviving on extortion, robbery, human trafficking, and oil, must be ended. So must the other groups, especially al-Qaeda, which cut ties with ISIS in February 2014 for tactical and ideological reasons and now is anxious to reassert its influence.

A second requirement is to put maximum emphasis on the use of social networks. Cyberspace and new technology must be intensified against ISIS to counter its very effective online propaganda. Perhaps Twitter can be induced to prevent terrorists from misusing it, even removing accounts associated with ISIS from the social media.

A third issue is the controversial one of immigration. European countries are troubled by the problem and are seek to control their borders and turn away the many thousands of economic migrants, some posing as refugees, and some perhaps potential terrorists. British Prime Minister Theresa May has declared that the uncontrolled wave of immigrants into Europe is not in the best interests of the UK nor of the countries they have left.

The local state election on September 18, 2016 in Berlin has shown the backlash against the generous migrant policy of Chancellor Angela Merkel. The anti-immigrant party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) founded only in 2013, has had a dramatic rise and won 13 % of the vote in the Berlin Parliament.

The candidates in the U.S. presidential election, like the rest of the U.S. population in Chelsea and elsewhere, are aware of these issues. The question is whether they will use them to their electoral advantage.



Daniel Greenfield//Remember all the assurances that there was no possible way that any of the poor Syrian “refugees” would be ISIS Jihadists? Here’s another reminder of what they’re worth.

More than 200 police commandos took part in the pre-dawn raids in northern Germany to detain the men, who were suspected of either plotting an attack or awaiting orders to commit one.

The men were identified only as Mahir al-H., 17, Ibrahim M., 18, and Mohamed A., 26, in a statement issued by federal prosecutors.

They left Syria last October and travelled via Turkey and Greece – a route used by tens of thousands of refugees and migrants – and arrived in Germany in mid-November.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said the three apparently used the same migrant trafficking network as several of the Isis gunmen who killed 130 people in Paris in November last year.

Prosecutors said in their statement that Mahir al-H. had joined Isis in its de facto capital of Raqqa, Syria by September 2015 and received some weapons and explosives training.

The following month, all three men had pledged to travel to Europe in talks with an Isis fighter who was “in charge of missions and attacks” outside of the Syria-Iraq region where the group has its self-proclaimed caliphate.

They were detained at three refugee shelters in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein by more than 200 commandos of the federal police, BKA and police forces of several states.

Police also raided several other asylum seeker shelters, Die Welt daily said.

German authorities have urged the public not to confuse migrants and “terrorists,” but have acknowledged that more jihadists may have entered the country among the around one million asylum seekers who arrived last year.

I wonder why anyone would confuse the two?

Now remember Obama’s assurances about how thoroughly screened his 10,000 Syrian Muslim migrants are? Just wait.