It Began with a Lie (German with English Subtitles)

Click here to view the embedded video.

41:39 – 2 years ago
German documentary about the false pretext and German propaganda used to exert and sustain public support for illegal NATO aggression against Serbia.

With Serbian subtitles:

Es begann mit einer Lüge – Deutschland gegen Yugoslawien (Serbien).

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by srbskaskolabuchrain on Jan 8, 2012

Ovakva cuda se ne desavaju cesto! Pogledajte link ispod:
http://dijaspora.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/десило-се-чудо-немачки-фотограф-снима/

So ein Wunder gescheht nicht oft ! Orginal link und klare text auf Deutsch :
http://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/s-h_magazin/zeitreise/kosovo197.html

Die Frage ist warum Deutschland wieder die Serben angriffen?

Welche Interessen hatte Amerika an diesem Krieg?

Und wie geht die Politik von Deutschland gegen die serben weiter?

Rudolf Scharping und Joschka fischer zwei Brüder die sich fest entschlossen hatten nach 40Jahren dieserben zu Begrüssen aber mit Bomben.

Fischer äusserte sich ein paar mal beim Besuch dass es nicht wieder passieren darf mit den Konzentrationslagern .Genau richtig was sollen die Konzentrationslager?

Es ist besser wenn man mit Flugangriffen reagieren kann und unschuldige Zivile Serben töten konnte.

Amerika hatte bei diesem Krieg nur unter einer Bedienung mitgemacht!mit der Bitte dass Sie sich noch weiter in den Balkan begeben konnten und somit ganz russland einkreisen konnten.

Klinton hatte keine Interessen was im Kosovo passierte. Seine Interresse war “Amerikanische Basis im Kosovo”die grösste Militärbasis der Welt.

Und wieder ist es Deutschland gelungen Serbischen Boden zu zerstampfen,und wieder zahlten die Serben Ihre freiheit mit Blut.

In Deutschland wo 70% Rasismus herrscht konnte Punkte bei Europa sammeln.Frankreich steht auf diesem Weg mit der Starken Macht und liebt nicht gerade die Lügen der Deutschen Politik.

Zasto je Njemacka napala opet Srbe?Koje interese ima Amerika od toga rata?Kakva je dalja politika Njemacke prema Srbima?Dali sa lazima dobijamo rat i koje su posledice njega?

Rudolf Sarping i Joska Fiser dva brata imaju odgovore na ta pitanja i zelja im je bila nakon toliko godina da se obrate Srbima za poklone doneli su nam Bombe.Joska Fiser izjavljuje u par navrata da se na Balkanu nesme desiti Ausvic jer tamo su stradali?a ja Srbi ali to nije ni bitno.Fiser kaze mi cemo Srbe Bonbardovati samo zato sto su Srbi.Uz taj plan imao je svoga Rudolfa i mocnu Ameriku koja je imala samo jednu zelju,napraviti vojnu bazu na kosovu sa ciljem da opkoli Rusiju sa svih strana.Ma kome je to jos stalo do ljudski prava i ko je to krsio na kome podrucju,apsurd,smesna politika Njemacke odlazi na zapad i uspevaju u Lazima protiv Srba gde Njemacka postaje sila u Evropi.To bi zelela i da ostane ali Amerika ne voli licemerne i lazove pa je za svoga partnera uzela Tursku.Njemacka ima jos jednog prijatelja koji joj neda da siri svoja krila nad Evropom a to je Francuska jedna od naj mocniji zemalja u Evropi pa i Svetu,e ona smeta mozda bi Dotsche Reich i uspeo ali imaju oni i izmedju sebe ljudi zdravoga razuma koji zele da zive ko svi Evropljani ne imajuci zelju da sve bude Velika Njemacka.Americka Baza na kosovu moze da primi preko 60 hiljda vojnika i naj veca je od vojnih Americki baza u Svetu.

Jamie Shea is prominently featured in the video “It Began With a Lie.”

For those who may not have seen: http://home.windstream.net/dwrighsr/a3820cf4d2861.html

(My An Open Letter to Lieutenant General Michael Short, Commandeer, 16th Air Force, United States Air Forces, Europe Commander, Allied Forces, Southern Europe.)

“- Was it your son whose bombs hit the convoy of ethnic Albanians reducing the victims to ashes, and then have your NATO pimp spokesperson, Jamie Shea, have the gall to deny that NATO pilots, possibly your son, were responsible for this atrocity by blaming it on the Serbs?”

Also, please read the comments.

YouTube: The Forgotten Man – Jon McNaughton

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by SethAdamSmith on Sep 7, 2010

What has President Obama done? Visit: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com

Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, “What have you done?” Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

For my take on the painting (and to find out who the Forgotten Man is) click here: http://sethadamsmith.com/2010/09/07/the-forgotten-man/

The only quibble I have with The Forgotten Man is that Abraham Lincoln would not have been been all that perturbed by Obama, or anyone else, trampling on the US Constitution, owing to the fact that Lincoln had quite a history of flouting the Constitution himself. Ironically, Lincoln would have been far more upset by seeing a mulatto in any position of political power. For that reason only, Lincoln’s facial expression and stance in the painting makes sense.

Be that as it may, The Forgotten Man is a poignant visual portrayal of our current plight. More about the painting here. Click the image to enlarge, then mouse over each image in the portrait for details.

THE USUAL SUSPECTS

Comment by Jim Campbell:

Another Obama illegal war?

Question: Has the United States ever sent in Special Forces as advisers when it wasn’t a prelim for war?  I didn’t think so. Congress must get off it’s collective ass and regain control of their positions of authority, honor their oath to protect and defend the Constitution from two foreign enemies or step aside.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C and I approve this message.

Obama’s billionaire friend has interests in African country’s oil.

Personification of EVIL!

After President Barack Obama announced earlier this week that he would be sending American troops into Uganda, WND uncovered billionaire activist George Soros’ ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation’s fledgling oil industry.

Soros sits on the executive board of an influential “crisis management organization” that recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform, a recommendation Obama’s action seems to fulfill.

The president emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is also the principal author of “Responsibility to Protect,” the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.

Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.

Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda’s oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country’s leadership.

Soros’ hand in Ugandan oil industry

Oil exploration began in Uganda’s northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.

Uganda’s Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.

A 2008 national oil and gas policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the policy’s recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country’s emerging oil sector.

Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda’s national oil and gas policy.

Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP’s oil work.

PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda’s oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros’ Open Society as well as the the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

The billionaire’s Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to “identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals.”

U.S. troops to Uganda

Obama yesterday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.

The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”

“Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” he said.

Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.

Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.

“But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. – something the Lord’s Resistance Army could not possibly do,” he wrote.

“It’s difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord’s Resistance Army’s campaign of violence,” continued Fisher. “It’s possible that there’s some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can’t obviously see.”

Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration’s stated rationale for sending troops “puzzling,” claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. – “despite what President Obama said.”

Tea-party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the wisdom of Obama’s move to send U.S. troops to Uganda.

“When it comes to sending our brave men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest before we send our troops in,” she said at a campaign stop yesterday in Iowa.

Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

In April 2010 Soros’ International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony’s capture.

The report states, “To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations.”

Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony’s LRA, but Obama’s new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.

Soros sits in the ICG’s executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton’s former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO’s former secretary-general as well as the former foreign affairs minister of Spain.

Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG’s senior advisor.

The ICG’s president emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, with the duo even coining the term “responsibility to protect.”

Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.

As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros’ Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

WND was also first to report the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power’s center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya, widely regarded as test of Responsibility to Protect in action.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various United Nations-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged “war crimes” overseas.

Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’…

ACT for America has the story.

(h/t: J.C.)

From the American Council for Kosovo

NATO Tries to Force Christian Serbs to Submit to Criminal Albanian Muslim “Authority”

September 27, 2011: Today, NATO forces in Kosovo opened fire on Serbian demonstrators protesting efforts by KFOR (NATO’s “Kosovo Force”) and the ironically designated European Union “rule of law” mission (“EULEX”) to force Serbs to submit to the illegal Albanian Muslim “authority” posing as an independent government in Priština. As summarized by retired U.S. diplomat Gerard Gallucci, who formerly served in Kosovo:

On September 27, the NATO force in Kosovo (KFOR) lost completely its guise as UN peacekeepers and became a repressive, lawless military occupation force. After seeking to use force to remove peacefully maintained barricades and to close a alternate road used by northern Kosovo Serbs, some locals apparently threw stones at the KFOR soldiers who then responded – in “self defense” – by firing at the otherwise defenseless Serbs, wounding at least six. The NATO action ought to be thoroughly investigated by an independent body to verify whether or not war crimes were committed. KFOR and EULEX ought to stand down and stop trying to change the political reality on the ground through such bullying and repressive measures before they provoke real violence.

At this time, writes Gallucci, “Details about the day’s events remain somewhat unclear. Various reports have suggested that the NATO shots fired were either rubber bullets or live ammo. It is also unclear whether the soldiers involved were German or perhaps American or Polish.” But make no mistake: if not for a political green light from Washington, NATO would not have taken the initiative of authorizing violence to remove Serbian barricades.

This latest escalation follows weeks of rising tensions since late July, when Hashim “Snake” Thaci – so-called “prime minister” of Kosovo, mafia kingpin, war criminal, and organ-trafficker – placed illegal checkpoints on the administrative line between Kosovo and the rest of Serbia, in a bid to force Serbs in northern Kosovo to submit his illegal administration. Incredibly, KFOR and EULEX, in violation of their “status neutral” mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which is the only legal authority for their presence in the province, have backed up Thaci and his criminal cronies. The question now is, does this latest resort to violence mean NATO has decided on use of force – in the pattern of the genocidal 1995 “Operation Storm” in the Serbian Krajinas with the help of U.S. mercenaries – to impose a final solution on Serb resistors to the the Albanian Muslim administration? Or will public attention force them to back off?

No less dismal than the spectacle of American and other NATO soldiers acting as enforcers for Thaci & Co. is that of Serbia’s supine “pro-western” government, under President Boris Tadic. Aptly dubbed “Vichy Serbs” by writer and analyst Vojin Joksimovic, Tadic and his government, seeing their own citizens under fire on their own national territory, can think only of stepping up “technical negotiations” with the Priština-based terrorists. For that reason, in a Joint Statement of the All-Serbian National Council “Serbs Rally Together,” on September 17, 2011, Kosovo Serbs declared (in part, read the full statement here):

WHEREAS we are committed to the ideal of freedom and inspired by our sacred spiritual heritage of Kosovo but mindful of our future generations, while never forgetting our obligation to respect the will and the sacrifice of our glorious ancestors who created Serbia and left it for us to preserve,

WHEREAS, determined to stop and prevent further dismemberment and occupation of Serbia and united under the blessing and leadership of His Grace Bishop Artemije, we have resolved and hereby announce to Serbia and the international community our resolution as follows:

KOSOVO AND METOHIJA ARE UNDER OCCUPATION

The Belgrade regime of Boris Tadic considers the occupying powers his partners; it negotiates with them, draws up agreements, pacts and treaties, but always to the detriment of the Serbian nation as a whole and, particularly so, to the detriment of the Serbs who live in Kosovo and Metohija.

If the Serbs could call their enemy by its rightful name—OCCUPIER—and the conditions under which they have been living in Kosovo and Metohija for the past 12 years—OCCUPATION—then they would do as one does under occupation: they would endure and fight until the end, until the liberation.

We give notice to NATO and to Albanian terrorist occupying powers in Priština that we do not recognize any agreement or treaty they have signed or will sign with Tadic and his coalition. Treaties concluded during occupation through blackmail and trickery have always been considered invalid.

We particularly want to point out that we shall not tolerate further threats, attacks on our security and efforts at assimilation of the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija. Those who have done this or are planning to do so will soon be confronted with legitimate forms of self-defense.

We remind our people that no shame is attached to being under enemy occupation, but it is certainly shameful to praise the occupier or collaborate with him. Not only is it shameful, it is a sin against our ancestors who had fought for hundreds of years to liberate Kosovo and Metohija from centuries long Turkish occupation.

It now remains to be seen who will prevail: the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija, who have declared themselves against occupation of their country, or their occupiers: the Albanian Muslim separatists and their NATO and EU enablers in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, London – and worst of all, in Belgrade.

The blackest deeds occur when the perpetrators believe no one is watching. Most Americans have long since forgotten about Kosovo, and about the Balkans in general. Today, how many Americans remember the 78 days of “humanitarian” bombing in 1999 by the Bill Clinton administration on behalf of the Thaci’s “Kosovo Liberation Army” – a gaggle of jihadists and Albanian Mafia kingpins? How many recall George W. “the Decider” Bush’s announcement in 2007 in Tirana, Albania, that to please our Islamic “allies” in the “War on Terror,” he would simply proclaim, on no authority whatsoever, “enough’s enough, Kosovo’s independent.” (And then the grateful Albanians stole his watch!)

Almost no one.

But the fact that few Americans remember doesn’t change the fact that at this very moment, under the authority of President Barack Hussein Obama, NATO – acting in our name, and supported by our tax dollars – is bringing force to bear against Christian people living in their own country, to force them to submit to hostile Muslim occupation and to accept their eventual extinction.

James George Jatras
Director, American Council for Kosovo
Washington, September 27, 2011

This says it all – what they really think of Obama and the Clintons! Is this the “Change” Obama talked about?

These floats were part of the annual Carnival Parade in Germany watched by an estimated 3 million people in 3 German cities including Dusseldorf. With our controlled press, it is interesting to see that German citizens seem to know more about the U.S. political system and environment than the majority of citizens on the streets of America.

Also see:

• Kölner Karneval
• Political Satire at German Carnival 2011
• Cologne Carnival 2010 Floats
• Cologne Carnival 2010 Begins

If you’ve been around video or pinball arcades, no doubt you’ve encountered Whac-A-Mole. If you haven’t, you can play it online for free at Addicting Games.

According to Wikipedia:

Whac-A-Mole is an arcade redemption game. A typical Whac-A-Mole machine consists of a large, waist-level cabinet with five holes in its top and a large, soft, black mallet. Each hole contains a single plastic mole and the machinery necessary to move it up and down. Once the game starts, the moles will begin to pop up from their holes at random. The object of the game is to force the individual moles back into their holes by hitting them directly on the head with the mallet, thereby adding to the player’s score. The more quickly this is done the higher the final score will be.
[…]
Colloquial usage
The connotation of “Whac-a-mole” or “Whack-a-mole” in colloquial usage is that of a repetitious and futile task: each time the attacker is “whacked” or kicked off a service, he only pops up again from another direction.[5][6] The term has been used in the computer and networking industry to describe the phenomenon of fending off recurring spammers, vandals or miscreants. It is also used in the military to refer to opposing troops who keep re-appearing.[7] This use has been common in the Iraq War in reference to the difficulty of defeating the Iraqi insurgency.[8] Nuclear scientist Edwin Lyman compares the multiple simultaneous crises at Fukushima I to a game of “whack-a-mole” [9]

Let’s go get ‘em!

We in the blogosphere can help by uncovering at least some of the Muslim Brotherhood bad guys (and some bad women, of course), so that we don’t have to wait for them to rear up their ugly heads on their own.

We’ve recently drawn your attention to that wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, Grover Norquist, who has insinuated himself into conservative and Republican circles as an anti-tax activist, but who is a vile agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

American Thinker: Grover Norquist’s Jihad

By Pamela Geller

The Freedom Defense Initiative, a new organization I started with author and scholar Robert Spencer, hosted its inaugural event to an enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 19. But this event was at CPAC, not of CPAC. Could this be because of the influence of conservative kingmaker and power-broker Grover Norquist, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union, which hosts CPAC? The only event concerning the war on America at CPAC was worse than nothing at all: It was an Islamic propaganda (taqiyya) presentation entitled “You’ve Been Lied To: Why Real Conservatives are Against the War on Terror.” Its message was that “real conservatives” don’t support the war on terror because it is a creation of the “Israeli lobby.”

How did CPAC come to this?

Grover Norquist’s ties to Islamic supremacists and jihadists have been known for years. He and his Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes — who was director of communications for his Islamic Free Market Institute until they married in 2005 — are very active in “Muslim outreach.” Just six weeks after 9/11, The New Republic ran an exposé explaining how Norquist arranged for George W. Bush to meet with fifteen Islamic supremacists at the White House on September 26, 2001 — to show how Muslims rejected terrorism. Wrote TNR author Franklin Foer:

On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America’s Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam’s name.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders present hadn’t unambiguously rejected it. To the president’s left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas “freedom fighters.” Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that “we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list.” And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans that “America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

It was Norquist who ushered these silver-tongued jihadists into the Oval Office of an incurious president after the worst attack ever on American soil. Instead of Hamas, Hezb’allah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or, and Wafa Sultan should have been advising the president. Instead, at that September 26 meeting, Bush declared that “the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good.” It was a critically important, historic incident. What should have been the most important teaching moment of the long war became a propaganda tool for Islam. A singular opportunity was squandered, and the resulting harm is incalculable.

Bush did this because he trusted Norquist, who vouched for these Muslim leaders. Yet “the record suggests,” wrote Foer, “that [Norquist] has spent quite a lot of time promoting people openly sympathetic to Islamist terrorists.” And this continued for years. In December 2003, David Horowitz wrote that Norquist,

…has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.

Horowitz wrote this in an introduction to a detailed exposé by Frank Gaffney showing how Norquist had given Muslims with jihad terror links access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

Grover Norquist was on the Islamic payroll before and after the carnage of September 11. Gaffney revealed Norquist’s close ties to Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is now serving twenty-three years in prison for financing jihad activity. In 2000, Alamoudi said at a rally, “I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. Anybody support Hamas here? … Hear that, Bill Clinton? We are all supporters of Hamas. I wished they added that I am also a supporter of Hezb’allah.” Alamoudi was at that time head of the now-defunct “moderate” group known as American Muslim Council (AMC), and he was active in other Muslim groups in the U.S. that showed sympathy to or support for jihadists. And Alamoudi, according to Gaffney, gave $50,000 to the lobbying group Janus-Merritt Strategies, which Norquist co-founded.

Alamoudi’s money bought influence. Gaffney wrote in 2003: “It seems unlikely that even in Alamoudi’s wildest dreams he could have imagined the extent of the access, influence and legitimacy the American Muslim Council and allied Islamist organizations would be able to secure in Republican circles, thanks to the investment they began in 1998 in a relationship with Norquist.”

Alamoudi also helped found Norquist’s Islamic Institute with a $10,000 loan and a gift of another $10,000. The founding director of the Islamic Institute is Khaled Saffuri, a Palestinian Muslim who had previously been active in Islamic groups in Bosnia, where Islamic jihadists from all over the world gathered “to establish,” says Gaffney, “a beachhead on the continent of Europe.” Gaffney adds that Saffuri “has acknowledged personally supporting the families of suicide bombers — even though, in public settings, he strenuously denies having done so.” Saffuri also denounced Bush’s shutdown of the Holy Land Foundation, which was funneling charitable contributions to Hamas.

Norquist has also carried water for Islamic supremacist attempts to weaken anti-terror efforts. Gaffney reveals that “Norquist was also a prime-mover behind efforts to secure one of the Islamists’ top pre-9/11 agenda items: the abolition of a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that permits authorities to use what critics call ‘secret evidence.’ … Norquist was an honoree at an event held by Sami Al-Arian’s National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom in July 2001, two months before 9/11. The award was for being a ‘champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence.’” Al-Arian in 2006 pleaded guilty “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds to or for the benefit of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.” Palestinian Islamic jihad is even worse than Hamas’s; it celebrates the killing of Israeli civilians and calls repeatedly for the destruction of Israel.
[…]
Much more here.

We’ve already pulled the bedcovers (both figuratively and literally) off Hillary Clinton and her pet MB mole, Huma Abedin, in the context of Weinergate.

Anthony Weiner resigned, but the real problem is his wife Huma, and she is still around!

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack: U.S Ignores Hillary Clinton’s Powerful Aide Huma Abedin at Its Own Risk

[…]
Even more disconcerting…is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton​’s aide and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, who has been with Clinton since 1996. She was never properly screened, this will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

To be concerned about Abedin’s access to sensitive information is an issue that will most likely garner unsolicited curses from “sensitive” Americans who are enamored with her. These same people ignore this diva’s familial ties to the Muslim Brotherhood…

Abedin is even more potentially dangerous: She can leak state secrets. She is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood​ family and even joined Clinton at an event with her mother, Saleha Abedin, at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. Also present was a close associate of Saleha Abedin—Suheir Qureshi. Qureshi’s name later appeared in several prominent Arab newspapers when it was revealed that she belonged to a list of 63 members of the secret arm of the Muslim Brotherhood called The Sisterhood. The full list was later revealed—Huma Abedin’s mother is on it. Huma’s brother—Hassan Abedin—also collaborates with Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

Yet, as detractors argue “guilt by association,” they unwittingly strengthen our case, because this is what the FBI uses when investigating federal employees: “Character. Associates. Reputation. And Loyalty to the United States. (CARL).” This checklist was never applied to Huma Abedin, who still associates with her family. Dismissing all this as “guilt by association” ignores a tough question:

Other than Huma Abedin, has there ever been a case in which a family member who either belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood or was a prominent Islamist did not denounce a Muslim female relative who married a non-Muslim male?

It’s a question with only one answer: Her family made an exception for her because Huma has a higher calling.

Westerners erroneously compare the “Middle East” mindset with that of the “Midwest,” and fail to shift gears to understand the Muslim worldview. They do not comprehend the seriousness of a Muslim “daughter” or “sister” marrying a Jewish male, particularly because the Islamic Shariah Faculty in Kuwait has deemed Huma Abedin’s marriage to a male Jew null and void.

While Westerners portray The Sisterhood as a simple “mule service,” our own detailed research—which will be released shortly—reveals male supervisors as official members along with their wives and/or daughters. The list includes spies who have proudly disclosed their heroic acts during Israel’s wars with Egypt. Others are Nazi-style propagandists, Nazi affiliates from the time of the Brotherhood’s inception, hijab (Muslim head covering and modest styles of dress) advocates in Europe, prominent doctors, popular conspiracy theorists and media icons that closely emulate the Goebbels propaganda machine of Nazi Germany.

The group’s influence spans several international organizations from the United Nations to the United States to women’s advocacy groups worldwide. Its influence is immense. Overlooking this group—and by extension, Huma Abedin—is not dissimilar to ignoring the Able Danger intelligence operation’s revelations about Mohamed Atta​ prior to 9/11.

Any doubting Thomas must acknowledge the validity of The Sisterhood list because it follows the same agenda and direction shown on the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website, and it has been confirmed by Egyptian security services and top experts, including the Arab Center for Research and Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.

To give you a taste of this bitter herb, we will examine a single name before we publish all 63. Take Najla Ali Mahmoud, who is supervised by her husband, Mohammed Aidalmrsi, member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Guidance Bureau and the current leader of the Justice and Freedom Party (the Brotherhood’s new propaganda name). He recently appeared on national television and explained why “Egypt needs to ban Western dress” and how “no one with a full mental faculty can believe in the Trinity.” He even condemned Egyptian monuments as “idols.” This group differs from the Taliban only in that it has a Western propaganda machine.

Will Egypt do to the Sphinx what the Taliban did to the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan? Will Egypt perpetrate a holocaust on Coptic Christians who are already portrayed as having a mental deficiency for believing in the Trinity?

And while this “Goebbels” runs his propaganda machine, the naysayers demand evidence of Huma Abedin’s membership in this notorious group. Would someone have appointed the daughter of Magda and Joseph Goebbels as the deputy chief of staff for Cordell Hull—the U.S. secretary of state during World War II​—arguing that she was not a member of the Nazi party?

It is not “racist” to compare the Muslim Brotherhood with the Nazis. Hassan Al-Banna, the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan​(Ramadan’s ban from the U.S. was lifted by Clinton), collaborated with Hitler henchman Haj Amin al-Husseini, who became the Muslim Brotherhood leader after the war. Neither has the Brotherhood repented. They still take pride in their collaboration with the Nazis.

And while the U.S. House of Representatives debated whether to cut off funds for Obama’s military campaign in Libya, which aids the Brotherhood-backed rebels, Clinton challenged Congress over its position, asking, “Whose side are you on?”

This is a question the secretary of state should ask herself.

Read it all.

But wait, there’s MORE…

MB moles in the Obama White House!

NoisyRoom: Did Obama’s actions put Seal Team Six in danger? Muslim Brotherhood in our White House

By: AJ of NoisyRoom.net & Arlen Williams
Contributor: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

New details and names have emerged regarding appointees that Obama brought into our White House who allegedly have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. This article lays out what we have learned and calls for an immediate Congressional investigation.

It is no secret that Obama has embraced an enemy that openly states their desire to destroy Western Civilization and declares “Death to America.” Obama’s perplexing actions over the course of his Presidency appear to be more aligned with the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and United Nations than with America’s agenda.

From Obama’s illegal war in Libya with U.S. military support to Al Qaida insurgents (under UN direction) – to his most recent war waged in Yemen – to the murders of 30 U.S. special operations troops which included 17 members of SEAL Team Six who took out Osama bin Laden, the truth about Obama’s actions and those he has placed in our White House must be found.

Background:

As documented in our previous article, “Muslim Brotherhood in Our White House and the Murders of SEAL Team Six”:

“Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, author and self-described Liberal Democrat Marxist Muslim who campaigned for Barack Obama, revealed the identity of Obama’s White House appointees who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Muslim Brotherhood in our White House – Vetting Obama).

Obama and Hillary Clinton are reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic fundamentalist group committed to the destruction of America, Britain and Israel and identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Obama began talks with the Taliban to negotiate with these terrorists.”

Obama sells tanks and weaponry to the Islamists in Egypt who want to suspend the treaty with Israel and annihilate them. They have formed a NAZI party that is gaining strength in Egypt today.

Obama invites people to our White House during Ramadan who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood; he omits their names on the Iftar guest list.”

New Details:

We now learn that the threat of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration runs much deeper in our White House. WND’s investigative reporting uncovered stunning information from a former FBI special agent in Washington D.C. and WND presents that information in: “Underpublicized threat deep in White House.”

WND reports, “Former FBI special agent John Guandolo says Obama’s ties to agents for the Muslim Brotherhood are even more extensive.”

Excerpt from the WND article:

“Another Brotherhood-tied figure influencing the White House is Azizah al-Hibri.

Obama this June appointed her to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. A Muslim professor, al-Hibri is also the granddaughter of a sheik, who claims the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Al-Hibri herself has proclaimed: “Islamic fiqh (law) is deeper and better than Western codes of law.”

She served on the advisory board of the American Muslim Council and made joint appearances with its leader Abdurahman Alamoudi. Now defunct, the AMC was a front group for the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and Alamoudi was the Brotherhood’s top leader in America. He is now behind bars as one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America.

Al-Hibri has also made appearances at Islamic Society of North America conferences. The Justice Department says ISNA is a Brotherhood front and recently named the group an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to provide material support to Hamas terrorists.

Guandolo identified several other Brotherhood-connected agents of influence – all of whom are just as politically savvy and moderate sounding – who have worked their way into government positions, including:

Arif Alikhan, who was assistant Homeland Security secretary for policy development and is now a distinguished visiting professor of homeland security and counterterrorism at the National Defense University.

Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who is Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s senior policy adviser.

Navy Cmdr. Youssef Aboul-Enein and Jocelyne Cesari, a Muslim convert who previously worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, both of whom teach at colleges within the National Defense University.

Guandolo blames the advances Brotherhood figures on political correctness and lax vetting at government agencies.

Even at the FBI, he notes, an Iranian-born Muslim has taken over the agency’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

Conclusion:

SEAL Team Six was in danger if Obama brought individuals into our White House who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a terrorist organization that created Al Qaida, Hamas and the Taliban. It was reported that it was the Taliban who murdered our troops on August 6, 2011.

There is no question that the Muslim Brotherhood would want to exact revenge for the death of Osama bin Laden. Obama not only enabled them by permitting public release of the identity of our troops, but he may also have unwittingly provided them with access to mission-related information from within the White House by his own appointees.

Serious questions remain from the moment Obama allowed the release of SEAL Team Six’s identity up to the day our troops were murdered.

[…]
More here.

Not that long ago, enemy foreign agents were rooted out and then hanged. Now we can’t even get them FIRED. Is that too much to ask?

Also see:

• Denying Islamists Federal Security Clearances

Actually, it isn’t just John McCain, David Ramadan, and the Republicans who are boosting Al-Jazeera. The dirty fingers of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are in this too.

Accuracy in Media: Republicans Boost Al-Jazeera

Cliff Kincaid — August 9, 2011

Michael Calderone, the senior media reporter for The Huffington Post, has written an article which appears on the website of Arab American News that appears to “credit” Senator John McCain for helping get carriage for Al-Jazeera English (AJE) on Time Warner cable in New York.

He writes that “…U.S. political leaders have had far more praise for the network’s on-the-ground reporting around the globe. In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called AJE ‘real news’ for its coverage of the Arab Spring protests. Two months later, both House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) attended a dinner for the network and spoke glowingly about its impact on the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.”

Meantime, an Al-Jazeera contributor, Republican David Ramadan, who supported McCain for president, is running for the newly created 87th House of Delegates seat in the Commonwealth of Virginia and seems poised to win. He has been interviewed by Al-Jazeera, which the Muslim Brotherhood describes as the “great Arab media organization,” and says that his mission includes “educating the Republican party on the Arab-American and Muslim community on what we need from candidates in order to support them.”

On August 10, former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese is scheduled to appear on Ramadan’s behalf at a Loudoun County, Virginia, restaurant.

The Huffington Post has done its part on behalf of Al-Jazeera, as noted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA): “Another facet of the Huffington Post’s brand of journalism is its symbiotic relationship with Qatar’s state-financed news organization Al Jazeera. In early 2011, the Huffington Post ran a series of pieces supporting Al Jazeera’s efforts to convince major American cable companies to carry its newscasts.
[…]
Calderone is nevertheless correct in his assessment of how significant McCain’s praise of the channel has been. As we noted at the time, McCain’s praise of the terror channel “was a shocker because the day before, on Sunday, The Washington Post had finally gotten around to publishing a semi-critical article on the channel, noting its double-standards and open bias on the matter of revolutions in the Middle East. The Post even acknowledged that WikiLeaks had released a U.S. cable describing the channel as a foreign policy instrument of Qatar, the Middle Eastern dictatorship which financially sponsors it and selects its personnel.”

Picking up a New York Times story by Brian Stelter about Al-Jazeera getting carriage in New York, Keach Hagey of Politico wrote, “It’s a major step forward for the awareness-raising campaign that AJE has been on since its coverage of the Arab Spring propelled it to newfound relevance this year. But so far there is no sign that the obstacles keeping the channel from achieving its true goal in the U.S.—national cable carriage—are cracking at all.”

Neither Stelter nor Hagey gave any space to critics of Al-Jazeera, an indication of how this “awareness-raising campaign” has captured the exclusive attention of these reporters, indicating that they do not want to be accused of putting obstacles in the way of its well-financed push for carriage in major U.S. media markets.

One of the big obstacles has been the channel’s anti-American and anti-Israel bias.

Interestingly, many of the concerns that we have expressed about Al-Jazeera are confirmed in a 94-page master’s thesis, “Al-Jazeera as a Political Tool within the Contradictions of Qatar,” by an Arabic-speaking Japanese graduate, Munehiro Anzawa, available on the American University in Cairo website. It is dated May 2011.

This student is able to document many of the facts that seem to have been ignored by the media cheerleaders for the channel. First—and most obvious—the channel is Arab government-funded, which obviously colors its reporting.

The student writes that “It is important to reveal how Al Jazeera’s financing by one of the most repressive governments regarding freedom of expression affects the channel’s coverage, bias, and editorial independence. It is also interesting to note that Al Jazeera’s news reporting virtually ignores the internal affairs of its financial sponsor, Qatar, or the ruling Al Thani family.”

“More significantly,” says the master’s thesis, “Al Jazeera does not seem eager to report on the internal issues of Qatar and the dirty laundry of the ruling family.”
[…]
The academic study, however, neglects many other important points, including the fact that Al-Jazeera’s Afghan correspondent, Tayseer Alouni, went to prison in Spain for being an agent of al-Qaeda. This kind of relationship explains why Al-Jazeera has been so quick to air exclusive videos and messages from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The study notes that a turning point for Al-Jazeera in the U.S. came when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the channel for offering “real news.” The study failed to note that her husband, disgraced former president Bill Clinton, has a financial relationship with the government of Qatar and several entities in the country. The regime is a financial sponsor, listed at between $1 and $5 million, of the William J. Clinton Foundation.

In mid-May it was revealed by Hagey at Politico that McCain had praised Al-Jazeera, becoming a shill for the terror channel. It appears that McCain was using the channel, or perhaps the channel was using him, in order to affect regime change in Libya. As a result, Islamists are poised to take control of the country.

We pointed out at the time, “McCain’s praise of Al-Jazeera was also curious because the channel, during the 2008 presidential campaign, had savaged the McCain-Palin ticket by running a piece depicting Republican voters as country bumpkins and racists. Casey Kaufmann, the Al-Jazeera reporter who did the story, contributed $500 to the Obama-for-president campaign, a violation of basic standards of journalism ethics.”

Additional research has turned up the fact that David Ramadan, a member of the Virginia delegation and Arab-American delegate to the Republican National Convention in 2008, told Al-Jazeera about his support for McCain in an article that appeared under the direct headline, “Why I support John McCain.” He wrote, “McCain is a reformer, McCain is pro-immigration, McCain is a centrist. McCain supports the US finishing the trouble that George Bush got the US into in Iraq.”

Ramadan is running for the newly created 87th House of Delegates seat in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Republican primary election takes place on August 23. His website boasts an endorsement from House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, a Jewish conservative, and other prominent Republicans. Appointed by Governor Robert McDonnell to serve on the Board of Visitors of George Mason University (GMU), he says he is an example of living the American dream. He has lived in Virginia since 1989.

However, Ramadan’s bio also says that he is a “frequent commentator” on networks such as Al-Jazeera.

Pamela Geller, author of the new book, Stop the Islamization of America, suggests Ramadan is a Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Writing at Big Peace, Kent Clizbe, a former CIA counter-terrorism ops officer, says that Ramadan has mysterious foreign connections that deserve serious scrutiny.

Read it all.

From Gates of Vienna:

For the last ten days commentators all over the world have been preoccupied with Anders Behring Breivik. The psychology of the killer, his “Christian” beliefs, his “right-wing extremist” political opinions, and the resulting necessity for a crackdown on “Islamophobia” throughout Europe — these have been the major topics of discussion.

Shortly after the atrocity occurred, it became clear that the EU and European national governments were not about to let the crisis go to waste. Less than twenty-four hours after the shootings, Europol was ready to go with its blueprint for a task force for Norway. Its plans to deal with “homegrown, non-Islamic terror threats” had obviously been in place for a while, ready to be pulled off the shelf and utilized at the first opportune moment.

Immediately after that the EU declared itself ready to fight “right-wing extremism”, saying that “this atmosphere of intolerance had abetted the attacks in Oslo and on the island of Utøya.” Needless to say, those who created the “atmosphere of intolerance” were people like you and me, people who have chosen to speak out against the Islamization of Europe.

The British press began to connect the murderer with the EDL. German Muslims called on their government to take legal action against websites that “provoke Islamophobia”, especially Politically Incorrect. The push was on.

Commentators focused on the ideology being promoted by “populists” — the lowest of the low in politics, those populists, people whose opinions actually appeal to ordinary citizens. The bien-pensants found it “worth wondering to what extent the proponents of the new right — an ideology that clearly influenced Breivik — have been implicated by his actions?” In this case the commentator was Dutch, and the “populist” in the crosshairs was Geert Wilders.

So the responsibility for Anders Breivik is being clearly laid out: “populists” created an “atmosphere of intolerance” which “implicates” them in the psychopath’s crime.

That is, we are in the process of being set up.

The machinery for all this has been in place for a long time. It just took a little bit of Breivik-gasoline in the tank to start it rumbling along. It doesn’t really matter whether this was a “false flag” operation or not . The killer could have been exactly what he seemed to be, and the state apparatus just decided to seize a golden opportunity the moment it presented itself. The end result is the same.

Let’s pull back a bit from the situation, rising through the troposphere to gaze down on the larger map, where Europe is just a small red-highlighted patch on the globe. There are several bright green nodes to look at: Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, and Istanbul, the European outpost of Turkey. These are, respectively, the petrodollars, the theological powerhouse, and the political muscle behind Sunni Islam and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

The plan is to find a way to implement UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which would require member states “to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”. Or, to put it in more straightforward language, they would have to outlaw the criticism of Islam.

There’s only impediment to Mrs. Clinton’s ambitious plans: a pesky little scrap of paper known as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

However, now that Anders Breivik has demonstrated the full consequences of allowing “Islamophobia” to run unchecked, what right-minded person could ever object to a few restrictions on freedom of speech to make sure that nothing like the Oslo massacre ever happens again?

That’s the general set-up. The next stages of the operation, as outlined by co-chairmen OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are explained in this article from Arab News. I’ve highlighted some of the more notable portions:

OIC: West Pledge to Combat Intolerance

ISTANBUL: In what can rightly be described as a seminal step in relations between the Muslim world and the Western world, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the leading nations of the Western world led by the United States and the European Union agreed Saturday to take concrete steps to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.

The high-level meeting was held at the historic Yildiz Palace in Istanbul. It was attended by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Cathrine Ashton along with foreign ministers and officials from France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Japan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Poland, Romania, Denmark, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Senegal, Sudan, the Vatican, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Arab League and African Union. The meeting was co-chaired by OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Ever since he took office, the OIC secretary-general has been working on formulating ways and means to stop acts of religious intolerance.

“It was during my address to the 15th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva that I outlined a new approach toward evolving a consensus against incitement to violence and intolerance on religious grounds that could endanger peaceful coexistence and must be viewed as a direct contrast to the very notion of a globalized world,” said Ihsanoglu. “I am glad that the eight points in the proposed approach found resonance with all the negotiating partners. They formed the basis of the consensus reflected in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The importance of the consensual adoption of this resolution should be duly recognized.”

He said challenges remain.

“However, the test would lie in the implementation. Having been successful at consensus building, we must now act in concert to build on the consensus. The adoption of the resolution does not mark the end of the road. It rather signifies a beginning based on a new approach to deal with the whole set of interrelated issues,” said Ihsanoglu. “Resolution 16/18 provides a good basis for concerted action by states, at both national and international levels and must be utilized accordingly. Otherwise, we would be faced with the unaffordable risk of the agenda being hijacked and set by radicals and non-state actors.”

Ihsanoglu said there was a delicate balance between freedom of expression and incendiary speech.

“We continue to be particularly disturbed by attitudes of certain individuals or groups exploiting the freedom of expression to incite hatred by demonizing purposefully the religions and their followers. Though we respect their freedom of opinion and expression, we find these attitudes politically and ethically incorrect and insensitive.”

At the meeting, Clinton discussed how to build on a UN Human Rights Council resolution passed on March 24 that calls for promoting tolerance and respect for diversity of beliefs, without restricting legitimate free speech.

Clinton agreed to pursue a new religious tolerance agreement, which respects free expression of religious beliefs in order to resolve debates over religion between the West and the Islamic world.

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of religion,” Clinton said. “We are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.“

Speaking of the United States, Clinton said: “We have seen in the United States how the incendiary actions of just a very few people can create wide ripples of intolerance, so we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.”

[…]

She commended the Organization of Islamic Cooperation for its work securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council.

“Resolution 16/18 calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps.”

The chain of causation has thus been fully established: when a blond blue-eyed psychopath kills scores of people, the websites he likes to read are partially responsible for his acts. By OIC standards and Resolution 16/18, these sites engage in “intolerance, negative stereotyping and… incitement to violence”.

By the way — it’s interesting to note that the same is not true of incendiary Islamic preachers — not even the ones who cry “Death to those who insult the prophet!”

No, this is a one-way street: only non-Muslims can be guilty of incitement to religious hatred. Even totally non-violent sentiments qualify as incitement, as long as they express a negative opinion about Islam. Them’s the rules.

And now Mrs. Clinton has identified a necessary intermediate step, which involves “peer pressure and shaming”. In other words, things that people like me think and say will be judged doubleplus ungood. Our sentiments will become so far beyond the pale that outlawing them will scarcely be necessary, a mere legislative afterthought.

Imagine a compliant Congress, mesmerized by our success in killing Osama bin Laden and ready to help our “democratic allies” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.

Imagine when President Obama appoints a replacement for a retiring conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Imagine just one more incident involving a blond blue-eyed mass murderer whose ideology can at least nominally be identified as “conservative” or “anti-immigration”.

Where do you think we’ll be after that?

Do you really think it can’t happen here?

I’m telling you, the OIC is running the show.

Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:

Posted by Julia Gorin

As the world bows its collective head this week in shame to mark the 16th anniversary of not rescuing Muslim soldiers from the Serbs they were slaughtering, the Netherlands’ largest internet news portal, NRC, was audacious enough to challenge the official version of the sacred, unquestionable, meticulously constructed lie known as the “Srebrenica Genocide,” heralding a significant change in attitude toward the nature of the incident. As Stefan Karganovic of the Srebrenica Historical Project put it, “The expression of such heretical views would have been unthinkable in Holland [or anywhere else] a short time ago.” Herewith, the translated version:

Srebrenica: new insights By Rene Gremaux

…Hans Blom (June 1, continued in his interview with The Times of May 28) correctly argues that the Bosnian Serb entry was not planned well in advance, and even less so the mass executions. According to [Blom,] the former head of the NIOD [Netherlands Institute for War Documentation] investigation into the July 1995 Srebrenica events, Mladić was enraged about the surreptitious departure of the majority of Muslim men from the enclave. His objective was to take prisoners of war. The shooting of the captured Muslims of fighting age was an unintended consequence, according to Blom. What started spontaneously in unexpected circumstances, was then systematically continued and completed. That is the core of the professor’s argument.

Thе fact that this historian dared to offer an analytical framework to explain the cruelties of the Bosnian war, which was contrary to the moralistic Dutch image on Srebrenica, reflects some progress on that issue. Yet his comments on the [role] of Mladić’s anger are not convincing. This requires a review of the context in which Srebrenica occurred, which I will now try to sketch on the basis of results of my own investigations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia.

In the hot summer of 1995 the untenability of Srebrenica and other enclaves painfully came to light. Earlier, the Muslim government in Sarajevo refused to alleviate the plight of tens of thousands of refugees in Srebrenica by [dis]allowing their evacuation to Central Bosnia. As evidenced by his contribution to the NRC last June 7, Joris Voorhoeve, Minister of Defence at the time, was originally in favor of this solution. In Sarajevo, however, his initiative was flatly refused, [ostensibly] because this would imply cooperation with ethnic cleansing. What the outside world preferred to misperceive as a humanitarian issue, for the Republika Srpska was a very serious military and strategic question. Repeatedly, the Srebrenica enclave, which was demilitarized in name only, was used by the Islamists inside it, sometimes reinforced by civilian men and women, as a base for provocative and murderous military assaults on the surrounding Serb villages. To combat and prevent the joining of Srebrenica and the neighbouring southern enclave of Žepa with the rest of the Muslim-dominated areas, many Bosnian Serb forces were tied down, while their army along the main front lines was facing the full burden of conducting the war hampered by a great shortage of military personnel.

Given the situation as outlined above, the Bosnian Serb leadership were keen to find a solution. Great was the surprise when in the second week of July 1995 Srebrenica was captured by a relatively small, not very heavily armed force, which was actually operating only on the south side of the enclave. What actually happened? The leadership of the 28th Division in Srebrenica-based Muslim army was ordered back to Sarajevo.

Thus the protection of tens of thousands of Muslims in the enclave in fact was largely left to the small and weak Dutch battalion. Apparently the political and military leadership of Bosnian Muslims were not really afraid of Serbian revenge and arbitrariness, let alone of the implementation of any genocidal plan.

Or could it be that they were left behind deliberately to be sacrificed for a “higher” purpose? [It turned out to be the latter, with the disappearance of the battalion helping create the impression that the Serbs were attacking an unarmed “safe zone.”]

Shortly before July 11th the vast majority of the male Muslim population of fighting age, led by active military, took to flight, refusing to assemble in the Dutch base in Potočari. Firstly, there was fear of being called to account for atrocities committed against Serb prisoners of war and civilians. At the same time, the main Muslim army did not want to lose men unnecessarily as prisoners of war. Everyone was desperately needed for the combat that was going on elsewhere. After a long, terrible trek barely half of perhaps 15,000 in Srebrenica men and older boys who left managed to reach Muslim-controlled territory, mostly around Tuzla.

But what happened to the rest, who did not reach safety, one could ask? The Dutch media invariably point to mass executions as their only cause of death. According to Mr. Blom[,] the alleged Serbian murderousness following the fall of Srebrenica is explained by Mladić’s intense anger about the military age men’s escape. Yet there is much that is inconsistent in the image of Mladić as a man of great wrath who wanted to put all Muslim men to the sword. The head of the hospital located in Milići [extended] medical care to wounded Muslims from Srebrenica. I spoke with him and found out that after recovering many patients later expressed their gratitude. In Tuzla I was told by young Muslim men from Srebrenica who actually had fallen into the Serbs’ hands as prisoners of war, that they were treated correctly. When Mladić shortly after the capture of Srebrenica went on to Žepa, he refused to take with him men who had reason for revenge. The Serbian takeover of the nearby small Muslim enclave went with little or no bloodshed. For an explanation of the terrible crimes committed in the aftermath of the takeover of the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica, we should consider something else besides the possible criminal intent of Mladić and his men. For instance, not infrequently, small numbers of Serb guards were put in charge of hundreds of Muslim men who had surrendered. In at least in one such case a Muslim from the crowd of prisoners managed to kill a guard, after which all hell broke loose.

It is obvious that Srebrenica fell when the Western powers were looking for a pretext to enter the conflict on the side of the Bosnian Muslims, as well as the Croats, which would enable them to give their protégés massive and open military assistance. It is unlikely that Mladić would in such circumstances knowingly hand his opponents a casus belli on a silver platter. There was simply no chance that crimes of the scope as alleged could be effectively concealed. It soon turned out that for Mladić Srebrenica was a Pyrrhic victory and actually became the long-sought stick with which to beat the Serbs. Soon, with NATO air support elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina Muslims and Croats were on the march. All the more reason to investigate in greater detail evidence of the involvement of intelligence services in the Srebrenica massacre. Several witnesses refer to the fact that the shadowy figures involved in death squad killings were rewarded with gold or money. If that is true, then neither the bloodlust and the desire for revenge attributed to the Serbs, nor the alleged fury of their commander, can serve as a sufficient explanation for these events.

That last part is a reference to the mostly false testimony of the Hague prosecution’s “crown witness” Drazen Erdemovic, a Croatian mercenary who confessed to committing executions of Srebrenica Muslims and named half a dozen other individuals who had been members of his multi-ethnic mercenary group called “Pauk,” all paid to execute Muslims — though Erdemovic “forgets” by whom. In 2000, the Milosevic government arrested several Pauk members and charged them with war crimes for killing Muslim POWs, but when the Western-backed opposition took over, they were released. Leader of the Serbian Radical Party, Vojislav Seselj, testified in 2005 that the mercenary executioners were acting on orders from French intelligence. The fact that today Pauk members’ whereabouts are known to Western governments, that they obtain passports without hindrance and travel freely, serving in other conflict theaters including as part of the French Foreign Legion — and that the Hague has never sought to prosecute any of them despite the testimony of its star witness — makes the assertion hard to dismiss. While such a Western frame-up of the Serbs for “genocide” in Srebrenica could account for the bulk of executions (though nowhere near 8,000), it is not to the exclusion of individual acts of revenge, which despite the Serb military issuing strict orders to soldiers to behave in line with international law in their treatment of civilians and POWs — as even Erdemovic testified. One example is given on a news site in the context of a 1997 interview that Radovan Karadzic gave to the newspaper Vecernje Novosti:

No one is denying that there were individual crimes on the Serb side. Nonetheless, no one can credibly claim that these crimes were a result of the Serb leadership’s policy.

Here is an example. While investigating what really took place in Srebrenica, surrounded by the media fog in which lies, mythomania, and truths met each other, I interviewed a number of direct participants in the events [in Srebrenica]. The testimony by M.R., member of the Republic of Srpska Army who participated in the capture of Srebrenica is typical for most of them.

“They woke us up around midnight. They said, get up, get in truck, straight to Srebrenica. ‘What are we going to do there?’, I asked. The commander responded ‘you’ll see when we get there’.

“When we arrived, Srebrenica had already fallen, and thousands of [M]uslim prisoners were there. I was ordered to escort a bus full of [M]uslim prisoners. There was a full bus of them and I was alone…Then, I spotted two guys from my village (gives the name of the village). They were in the group which burned down my house, raped my sister, and killed my mother. I took them out of the bus and killed them right there, those Turkish mother****ers…”
…
Most of the prisoners in Srebrenica, soldiers from the Eight Operative Group, took part in the [M]uslim devastation and slaughter in east Bosnia in 1992 and later. The commander of the Operative Group was the war criminal Naser Oric who had been promoted to a brigadier and decorated by Izetbegovic with the highest decoration in the muslim Army “Golden Lilly”.

“Our soldiers were never decorated for crimes. We do not decorate our criminals. We try them,” said Karadzic.

The preceding lays the foundation for much of what is in the 2010 film “Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed,” which follows interviews and revelations by Bosnian-Muslim investigative journalist Mirsad Fazlic, who doesn’t appreciate the fictitious, black-and-white version of the Bosnian war that is perpetuated by the international community and by Bosnian officialdom, which still honors wartime president Alija Izetbegovic as a national hero when Fazlic and others know he was the opposite. The film really begins only at the four-minute mark, and its main shortcoming is the ubiquitous, stubborn marriage to the notion that the number “7-8,000 killed” is anything other than a concoction that the world has been working backwards for 16 years to make seem real.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Among numerous of the film’s jaw-dropping revelations — including the fact that the humanitarian convoys which the Serbs were allowing to pass to Srebrenica were being intercepted by Bosnian “hero” Naser Oric and sold on the black market (and including Srebrenica police chief Hakija Mehovic describing the meeting at which the Bosnian leadership floated a proposal by Bill Clinton that 5,000 Srebrenica residents be sacrificed) — are the following:

1. “Mladic had four tanks and 400 men. In reserve he also had 1600 armed locals. But Mladic didn’t trust them since they lacked discipline and would use every opportunity to revenge [Srebrenica warlord] Oric’s attacks on the villages. The Serbs were outgunned by NATO’s fighter aircraft, 450 Dutch peacekeepers and Oric’s 5,500 soldiers.” (The first fact is important as a contradistinction to the Mladic that has been presented to the public, and there is more in the film in that regard. The latter factoids are important to illustrate that Srebrenica was set up for the Serbs to overpower, with the Muslim side “winning by losing,” as Nebojsa Malic calls it.)

2. In reference to the 50 Serbian villages that were being attacked by the Muslims of Srebrenica: “Especially disturbing was a religious dimension to the killings. Men were castrated in an anti-Christian gesture of circumcision. Pregnant women were disemboweled with cuts in the form of a cross. Some people were crucified, nails driven through their hands.”

3. “In April 1993 military chiefs from both sides — General Sefer Halilovic and General Ratko Mladic — signed a UN plan for Srebrenica and the other cities to become demilitarized zones. The Muslims promised on their side to stop the aggression against the Serbs around the enclaves and against the 15,000 Serbs still living in the capital Sarajevo.” (The Muslim side naturally didn’t hold to their end of the bargain, but what makes the excerpt exceptional is the word “aggression” for once attributed to the correct side of the Bosnian war.)

4. “Islam will win, since Bosnia is an Islamic country.” (Graffiti on the walls of a destroyed building in Kravica, where on January 7, 1993 — Orthodox Christmas — Muslims destroyed the town, killing 49 men, women, and children.)

On the point of crosses being cut into Serb women’s skin, a reader recently brought my attention to the following Bosnian incidents:

I found interesting your choice of words – “Roasting Mladic” – because Dr. Zoran Stankovic had examined the charred bodies of Bosnian Serbs roasted on spits with their limbs cut off, which Bosnian Muslim soldiers jokingly termed “Bosansko Jagnje” (Bosnian Lamb).

That July 7, 2005 article [linked above, in Serbian] also mentions a boy Dr. Stankovic also examined, whom he just names Stojanovic, who left his fleeing family and returned to his home in Zvornik to look for his dog. He was later discovered with his chest ripped open in the shape of a cross.

In newer articles we see that he was an 11 year old Slobodan Stojanovic. The murderer was also revealed not to be a Bosnian Muslim soldier, but in fact Elfeta Veseli (AKA Hosovka), a 45 year old ethnic Albanian woman from the neighboring town of Vlasenica. Born in Urosevac, Kosovo & Metohija, she is the daughter of Rahman, a forester. Elfeta was recently tracked down living freely in Switzerland with her brother Muhamed Veseli. Bosnian authorities have made no request for her arrest and extradition.

Back to Srebrenica. If one can’t spare an hour to watch “A Town Betrayed,” below is a seven-minute primer on the subject matter:

Click here to view the embedded video.

In the clip above, look for the sentence by the apparently confused narrator: “Oddly enough, the Serbs cooperated.” One encounters these sorts of surprised musings about Serb reasonableness quite often, since the starting premise of the journalistic and political classes are wrong. Consistently throughout the Balkan wars, the Bosnian Serbs, like Serbian Serbs, were the side that wanted solutions and peace, including supporting every initiative to terminate hostilities in Bosnia (e.g. the “Town Betrayed” film mentions the Owen-Stoltenberg plan of 1993 which was rejected by Clinton, making the Muslims believe they could get more land in a better deal — as was the case when they rejected the 1992 Lisbon plan that would have stopped the war almost before it started.) Indeed, the book To End a War by the late professional Serb-loather Richard Holbrooke demonstrates this fact vividly as he spits venom, accusations, and condemnations at Milosevic even as he describes rather contradictory behavior, with Milosevic jumping through hoops for us and the Muslims. An example from the clip:

The Bosnian Parliament met in a hotel in Sarajevo to discuss the division of Bosnia. The session was used as a chance to invite a delegation from Srebrenica and tell them about the proposal to give up the Muslim enclaves in exchange for a free Sarajevo. Nine prominent Muslims from Srebrenica were invited to Sarajevo including Chief of Police [Hakija] Mehovic, Suljo Hasanovic and commander Naser Oric. They must fly over hostile territory. Mehovic is scared. “Initially the plan was to land in Han-Pijesak or Romanija for inspection. We refused, and then the Serbs let us straight through.”
…
[Oric didn’t come. No one knows why. Perhaps he thought it was a Serbian trick, because “that year, his Srebrenica fighters had killed many Serbian civilians.”] Others say it was because he already knew about the proposal.
…
[Chief of Police Mehovic:] “Alija told us about Clinton’s proposal. Chetniks [Serbs] would occupy Srebrenica and kill off 5,000 Muslims. A military intervention would follow. What did we think of that? We rejected this proposal. We thought it was outrageous to murder 5,000 people.”

The idea of an American president proposing that Serbian troops attack Srebrenica and carry out a massacre to justify a military intervention seemed utterly ludicrous. But the UN investigation shows Hakija’s words are not unfounded. UN report: “Some surviving members of the Srebrenica delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them that he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people.”

President Izetbegovic denied having made any such remark. He did admit he asked for an opinion on the land exchange.

Next is a short and shocking video clip titled “Hiding Genocide; Before the Srebrenica Massacre: Jihad In the Balkans”

Click here to view the embedded video.

And in the video below, part of the documentary film “The Avoidable War,” the speakers aren’t named in the segment. In order of appearance, they are:

1. Nik Gowing, an anchor and foreign affairs expert at Britain’s Independent Television News (ironically the network responsible for the skinny-Bosniak-man picture that fooled the world)
2. James Jatras, at the time an analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee
3. George Kenney, former desk officer at the State Dept.
4. Colonel David Hackworth, Army veteran and at the time Newsweek’s military correspondent (later becoming a Fox News military analyst who in 1999 told Albanian propagandist Joe DioGuardi that his war wasn’t worth a single American life and that he would drive his son to Canada if he were to be called up for it.)
5. Susan Woodward, at the time working for the Brookings Institution in Washington (and making few friends in D.C. thanks to her dissenting view on the Balkan wars)
6. Ted Galen Carpenter, of the Cato Institute
7. Haris Silajdzic (appearing in a news clip), Bosnian wartime foreign minister and serving as President Izetbegovic’s chief propagandist
8. Alexandra Stiglmayer, then a journalist and later hired by the Office of the UN High Representative in Bosnia (After writing an article for Newsweek about rape in Bosnia, here she answers the question, “Do you believe the numbers [30-50,000 women raped] are credible?” with the following: “They seem very high to me, and I don’t believe the sources because as I’ve investigated, they always go back to one government or another.” As the film exposes, “The European Community Commission, which estimated that 20,000 had been raped, dropped this claim from its final reports. After an exhaustive investigation, the UN concluded that 2,400 rapes had been committed by all three sides in the Bosnian conflict.”)
9. John Peter Maher, linguistics professor emeritus, Fulbright lecturer and formerly of the US Army Counter-Intelligence Corps

Click here to view the embedded video.

Continued:

This part of the film opens with British ambassador Lord David Owen, who recalls asking French UN General Philippe Morillon why he didn’t make public the UN report warning that the Bosnian government was behind staged attacks such as the Markale bombings, which were being blamed on the Serbs and getting the latter bombed by NATO. To which Morillon replied, “We have to live here.” Indeed, there had been three attempts on Morillon’s life by Muslim forces. In his book The Fall of Yugoslavia, BBC reporter Misha Glenny observed that the majority of UN and relief workers who had died in the conflict were victims of Muslim units. “The Bosnian government was quick to understand that most of the world viewed them as innocent victims. Throughout the war, they used this perception to undertake offensive actions and then portray themselves as victims.”

There is also a clip of recently departed former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger on TV saying that “Muslims are being killed in Bosnia-Hercegovina and this government has tried to demonstrate to the Moslem world we care about that, and want to try to do something about it.”

The last speaker introduced is Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Finally, below is a clip from the film “Sarajevo Ricochet,” which came to my attention upon the release by INTELWIRE of declassified State Dept. cables in late November. INTELWIRE is run by J.M. Berger, author of the new book Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam. First came the following alert:

Previously Classified Documents On Srebrenica Massacre And More

If you support government transparency, but don’t support the indiscriminate release of classified information, forget Wikileaks and check out the documents below.

The PDF binder linked [here] contains 2,000 pages of previously classified State Department documents on the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica…The cables also describe…the alleged killing of a U.N. peacekeeper by a Bosnian soldier around the time of the attack. [”When the battles for Srebrenica began, one of our thugs, probably on order, killed a soldier from the Dutch battalion. This helped dissolve the entire system of Dutch responsibility.” — wartime Bosnian MP Ibran Mustafic, “Planned Chaos“] …

Then came the “Sarajevo Ricochet” alert:

Declassified Cable From INTELWIRE Expands Wikileaks Revelation Of Iranian Arms Smuggling

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s only a 13-minute video (full version here), but to transcribe the most salient parts:

…UN peace negotiator in Bosnia Thorvald Stoltenberg witnessed the arms smuggling and claims the United States directly supplied the Bosnians. “We saw Iranian planes and American planes coming in with arms and military equipment…I saw it myself, the planes.”

Every American official interviewed by Berger denies that the United States directly provided weapons to the Bosnians, but most admitted that all other arms suppliers were welcome.

…By 1995 some 2000 jihadists had traveled to Bosnia according to the research of Esad Hasimovich. Soon, the jihadists also started to kidnap and kill soldiers and civilians serving in the UN peacekeeping mission to Bosnia. They created gruesome propaganda videos executing prisoners of war….

[Ambassador Peter Galbraith: ‘Mujahedeen atrocities weren’t a big issue.’]

But Esad’s investigation shows that mujahedeen war crimes rose to new levels in Bosnia during the last year of the war. Serb prisoners were tortured and executed in public places then buried in mass graves.

For Esad, this is not just a Bosnian story. This is a story about the spread of global jihad. “It was something different from the war, because the Bosnian war was over in December of 95. But it was my mistake. For these groups, war was not over.”

…[Former NSA chief analyst John R. Schindler]: “By 1995 there were already European governments that were very concerned about some of the al Qaida footprints in Bosnia that [were] now spreading out across Europe. It’s not an accident that after 9/11, many of these governments quietly told Washington, ‘We told you, we were warning you about this a half decade ago and you called us crazy, not a team player, being difficult, paranoid.’ But the reality is it was several European governments who in the mid to late 1990s were far more proactive than the U.S. government in fighting al Qaeda and in my mind they’re allowed to say ‘Hey, we’ve been in this fight longer than you have, we got it long before you did. It was your policies that…facilitated a lot of this badness.”
…
On December 14th, 1995, the same day as the Dayton accord was to be signed, a key leader of the mujahedeen was conveniently killed. The Egyptian Anwar Shaban, commander of the mujahedeen forces and an ally of Osama bin Laden, was ambushed near the Bosnian border. In his bullet-ridden car, a notebook was found. Esad Hasimovic got a copy of the notebook and it reveals the discussions and postwar plans of the mujahedeen. It says they were prepared to attack the NATO forces that were coming into Bosnia to replace the UN peacekeepers. The mujahedeen wanted to use the country as a new European base for the global jihad.

For president Alija Izetbegovic this notebook would have been a devastating political scandal. Shaban had invited the president to several meetings with the mujahedeen shortly before the Dayton accord was signed. Shaban filmed the meetings and made detailed transcripts. In defiance of the terms he agreed to during the Dayton negotiations, Izetbegovic continued to promise the mujahedeen fighters they could stay in Bosnia. The record of these meetings was a nightmare for the Bosnian intelligence service. They knew Shaban planned to use the transcripts and photos to blackmail the Bosnian leadership. They also had another reason to be worried. Propaganda videos that included footage from one of the meetings carefully edited out the face of a man sitting next to the president. But the original picture reveals the man was Abu Mali, one of Osama bin Laden’s top allies in Europe. And Bosnian intelligence documents showed that the leaders of the mujahedeen, Shaban and Mali, were in close telephone contact with al Qaeda operatives and with Osama bin Laden personally.

More details, from the INTELWIRE alert:

…The plane was “fully loaded with arms,” including a number of barrels believed to contain chemical or biological weapons. It was not the first Iranian shipment of arms to Bosnian Muslims either.

The Iranian and Bosnian governments had previously asked permission from Tudjman to ship arms through Zagreb. The last time, Tudjman had said no, so this time all the supplies in the plane was labeled as humanitarian aid from the Red Crescent.

The 20 to 40 mujahideen fighters on the plane were more difficult to conceal. It’s important to note that these were probably not all (or even mostly) Iranians. Iranian nationals in Bosnia functioned more as trainers and intelligence agents, but Iran helped smuggle in fighters from around the Muslim world.

American military veterans were also flying into Bosnia to serve as trainers to the Bosnian mujahideen during the same period. Never-before-reported details of this program will be revealed in my forthcoming book on American jihadists…

As usual, the day after the well-attended ceremony for dead Muslim soldiers this week, Serbs mourned their dead civilians and soldiers alone, to press coverage that continues to vilify them as well as perpetuate all the mythology and inversions. Such as in this AP report by some idiot or Muslim named Radul Radovanovic:

Bosnian Serbs commemorate their dead

BRATUNAC, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) – Some 2,000 people turned out to remember Serbs – many of them soldiers [most not] – killed by Bosnian forces on Tuesday, claiming their suffering has been ignored as the world focuses on the notorious 1995 Serb slaughter [sic] of 8,000 [sic] Muslim Bosnians [soldiers] at Srebrenica.

The ceremony was held just 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the site of the massacre and came just a day after 40,000 people solemnly [cowardly] paid their respects on the 16th anniversary of the worst crime in Europe since the Nazi era.

Ethnic Serbs [sic: Muslims] kept Muslim Bosnians in Srebrenica besieged throughout the 1992-95 war for Serb dominance [sic: Muslim dominance] of Bosnia, culminating in the murder of thousands [sic: hundreds] of Muslim men and boys [of fighting age]. The International Court of Justice has ruled [sic: parroted] that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide [sic: of war, revenge and frame-up] and that Serbia could have prevented it. [It already did once.]

However, many ethnic Serbs in Bosnia see themselves as the victims of Bosnian aggression, claiming [there’s that word!] that over 3,000 Serb soldiers and civilians were killed in attacks. Neither the Serbian public nor those living in the Serb part of Bosnia have been ready to fully accept their role in the crime.

Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik complained at the military ceremony that while several Serbs are jailed for Srebrenica, nobody has stood trial for crimes committed against Serbs. [Correction: Naser Oric did, and was promptly acquitted.]

Dodik did not attend Monday’s ceremony, as has been the case for Bosnian Serb leaders for 16 years….The Serb commemoration has previously been used by some participants to insult Muslims by wearing T-shirts with the image of Ratko Mladic – the Serb general who led [sic] Srebrenica massacre. Though he is now facing a genocide trial, many Serbs still see him as a national hero.

Police said two Serbian Parliament lawmakers came from Belgrade carrying flags with Mladic’s image.

Jonathan Moore, the deputy to the U.S. Ambassador in Bosnia, said embassy representatives attended the commemoration for victims in Srebrenica but not the one in Bratunac a day later because they do not attend commemorations for soldiers on any side [What?], particularly not one that honors “criminals who committed offenses against civilians.” [So then what was the main ceremony if not precisely that?]

But, Serb family members of the dead mourned next to their loved ones’ graves. Slavka Matic said she lost two daughters and her husband in a Muslim attack on her village in 1993.

“I am alone in this world since then, and I don’t know what to do,” she said, and then broke into tears.

Even better was this part of an earlier, also inverted AP report:

…Serbs are bitter because the world honors Muslim victims annually but ignores the commemoration for Serbs a day later.

Serbs kept Bosnians in Srebrenica besieged throughout the 1992-95 war. In return, [sic: As a result of the fact that] Bosnians raided the surrounding Serb villages looking for food and weapons. Serbs say 3,267 of their soldiers and civilians were killed in those attacks, two-thirds of them civilians.

So that’s why one rapes, dismembers and beheads: because one is hungry. Only a Tanjug/B92 report was less shameless:

“High time for crimes against Serbs to be prosecuted”

BRATUNAC — It is high time for crimes committed against Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina to be prosecuted, Serb Republic (RS) President Milorad Dodik has stated.

He was attending a commemoration in Bratunac, honoring Serbs killed by Muslim forces under command of Naser Orić’s from Srebrenica during the war in Bosnia.

“We nurture no hatred or desire for revenge, but it is high time for monstrous crimes against Serbs to be prosecuted,” Dodik said, and added that selective justice cannot be accepted as was the case up until now, that is for the Serb side to be considered guilty for everything while no one is held responsible for the numerous Serb victims.
…
During the three years of conflicts, over 1,300 Serbs were killed in the territory of Srebrenica, Zvornik, Milici, Bratunac, Vlasenica and Osmaci, while a total of 3,267 Serbs, most of them civilians, were killed in the region of the Drina River and Birač.

Nobody has yet been held accountable before Bosnian courts for the crimes committed against Serbs in the region of the Drina River and Birač.

Not mentioned in any of the foregoing is of course the consistent inconsistency in treatment by the international community between the Muslims and the Serbs. The Number One Balkans rule is that what’s good for the goose is never good for the gander. Just one small example — though every international serving in Bosnia probably has a list — comes from retired NYC Police Lieutenant Robert Leifels, who served in Bosnia with the International Police Task Force in 1997-98 in the Zvornik region including Srebrenica:

I am very familiar with the Srebrenica Mothers. We had several operations dealing with their “weeping.” We needed interpreters but all their signs were in English with not a misspelled word. [i.e. international puppet masters] I am also familiar with the Serb moms who never complained.

We also had a couple of larger operations escorting Muslims around Zvornik region [today in Bosnia’s Serb Republic] so they could see their homes and get the “treasures” they hid before fleeing. Some Serbs asked me personally if UNHCR could do the same for them in the [Bosnian-Croat] Federation. The UNHCR flatly told me “We don’t do that.” I asked why and she just repeated herself.

Displaced Persons from Federation were given the royal treatment by the International Community; the Republika Srpska Displaced Persons got ignored.

Jihad Watch: Dearborn, Michigan – Muslims physically attack Christian groups

Excerpt:

The violent intimidation of anti-jihadists that I just saw in Stuttgart is coming to America. Authorities should act quickly and decisively to defend the freedom of speech, or it will most assuredly soon be gone. As Pamela Geller notes, these stories involve “two Christian groups, both under attack in a no-go zone zone in Dearborn, Michigan, in an increasingly sharia compliant America. Dearborn, the same city that refused to run my bus ads offering help to apostates (despite our win in the courts). On Friday, two separate groups were threatened and attacked because they came to Dearborn to stand for their beliefs. Whether you like their presentation or not is irrelevant. It’s free speech. Period.”

My comments:

Michigan can thank former Senator Spencer Abraham for the high Muslim population. Abraham said if he were to be reelected, he would increase the quota of Arabs coming from the Arab states, i.e., Muslims.

I have a copy of The American Muslim Council Report (AMC, of March 1996, where a whole page is dedicated to an interview with Spencer Abraham, who, by the way, is a Lebanese Orthodox Christian and supported Clinton in the war against the Serbs.) One question asked by AMC:

In which ways, if any, did the Muslim community play a role in your successful 1994 campaign for the U.S. Senate?

ABRAHAM: As you may know, I am very proud of my heritage and of the bipartisan support I received the American Muslim community during my Senate campaign. The community in Michigan and all over the United States encouraged and supported by candidacy–and for that I am grateful. I am working hard in the Senate to listen to the views of the Muslim community and to make sure that the community has a place to voice those concerns.

Abraham, if re-elected, said that he would increase the quota for Muslims to come to this country. Michigan has one of the biggest Muslim communities in the U.S. and one town now has call to prayer five times a day.

Getting back to AMC: Included in the report is a page devoted to Hillary Clinton with a portrait of her holding the Koran and words praising Islam. The Clintons were the first to invite the Muslims to celebrated their EID (after the month of fasting for Ramadan) at the White House. (See Friends of Hamas in the White House.)

Other AMC favorites were, Joe Lieberman, Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California, and Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, and of course, this was just for this AMC issue.

BTW: Senator Spencer Abraham was defeated in his quest for re-election. Some of my Serbian friends may remember my crusade against the Senator. I hope that in some small way, I was responsible for that defeat.

- Sparta

I have already warned everyone who would listen that the real story behind Weinergate was not Anthony Weiner having tweeted photos of his private parts, but the role played by his wife, Huma Abedin. (See Weinergate: Sleeping with the Enemy.) It certainly appears that Huma is in a long-term lesbian relationship with Hillary Clinton, and possibly is in a relationship of another sort with Bill Clinton.

Be that as it may, the real problem is that Huma Abedin has been peddling the pro-Pakistani, pro-Saudi, and pro-Islamic agendas through Hillary Clinton, first during the Clinton Administration, and now through the State Department in the Obama Administration.

Now it turns out that Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha Abedin, is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Huma’s brother, Hassan Abedin, has been working with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on the project of promoting the Muslim agenda in the West.

Obviously, the Clintons will never be willing to abandon their emotional and physical ties to the Muslim mole, Huma Abedin.

What we, as American citizens, must do is to demand that Hillary Clinton resign from her position as Secretary of State, and to ensure that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton ever again play any role in public life.

BOMBSHELL: Weiner’s In-Laws and the Muslim Brotherhood

I teased this story a bit on my June 12th program. For those of you who listened, you know what this is about. For the rest, former PLO member and ex-Muslim Brotherhood activist Walid Shoebat has unearthed some shocking discoveries. Among them is that Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law is a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. What makes this a national security issue is the fact that Weiner’s wife is also Hillary Clinton’s closest adviser.

Weiner’s In-Laws and the Muslim Brotherhood Connected

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

According to translated Arab sources, it has been learned that the mother of Huma Abedin – Huma is Anthony Weiner’s wife and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff – is an official member of the Muslim Brotherhood; Saleha Abedin belongs to the women’s division known as the Muslim Sisterhood.

What has not been validated by western media – which has been confirmed by Arab sources – is that Huma has a brother named Hassan Abedin who is a fellow with the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS). This adds to strong evidence that an extremely reputable British institution has been infiltrated.

The OCIS consists of an increasing number of Muslim Brotherhood members who sit on the Board. OCIS has Al-Qaeda godfather, Omar Naseef as well as the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader and suicide bombing supporter – Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi listed as OCIS Trustees. Naseef continues to serve as Board Chairman.

In 2009, Qaradawi’s role within Oxford and the Muslim Brotherhood was championed by the notorious Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi. OCIS has even presented an award for great scholarly achievement to Muslim Brotherhood member Shaykh Abd Al-Fattah Abu Gudda, who was an associate of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Even the Sunday Times acknowledges that the cradle of Islamic Jihad – Al-Azhar University – actively attempts to establish links with OCIS.

These Arab sources have been researched and translated by former Muslim and ex-PLO member Walid Shoebat, who successfully translated and exposed the words of Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in 2010; these discoveries helped to derail Rauf’s efforts to build the mosque. Shoebat also uncovered the Arabic statements of Mosab Hassan Yousef, the Son of Hamas author who allegedly converted to Christianity. Shoebat’s work revealed Mosab to have very unsavory and deceptive motives.

Now, back to the Abedins. As Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma accompanied the Secretary of State to the Dar El-Hekma women’s college in Saudi Arabia. Huma’s mother is the co-founder and a Vice Dean at the college.

The Shoebat Foundation has also translated Arab sources that identify Huma’s mother – Saleha Mahmoud Abdeen (aka Abedin) as a member of the woman’s arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. This information was obtained via Al-Liwa Al-Arabi, which released the entire list on the investigation done by Egyptian security, showing Saleha as a member. This arm is also known as the International Women’s Organization (IWO) or “Muslim Sisterhood.”

The ‘Dostor’ Egyptian newspaper confirms 63 International Missionaries from the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Sisterhood” branch that spans 16 different countries; it’s also confirmed by the Arab Centre for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.

This “Womens Division” of the Muslim Brotherhood can be found at the Muslim Brotherhood’s official website. Shoebat translates the relevant excerpt thusly:

“The Womens Organization’s goal in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood rules, is to gain and acquire a unified global perception in every nation in the world regarding the position of women, and the necessity of advocacy work at all levels in accordance to the message of the Brotherhood as written in Women in Muslim Society, and the rearing of women throughout the different stages of life.”

True to this cause, another member of the Sisterhood – as confirmed by the list – is Suheir Qureshi. She spoke alongside Saleha Abedin as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was brought in due to the connection to Saleha’s daughter. All three women spoke on issues of Women in Muslim Society. An Arabic news report of what happened during Hillary’s visit is translated by Shoebat. In that report “Suheir Qureshi spoke of how elated she was of Hillary’s historic visit.” Translating further, Shoebat reveals in English what was reported about the words of Huma’s mother as well as those of Hillary:

“Saleha Abedin spoke after Shuheir Qureshi and beamed in the presence of Secretary Clinton. Saleha’s speech preceded the former First Lady’s. Then Hillary stood. She donned a broad smile as she approached the podium… Clinton started with a strong word and she spent a long time complimenting Dr. Saleha Abedin regarding her daughter. Hillary explained that Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office. She ended her speech by speaking of Saleha Abedin’s daughter (Huma), that a person must be happy if mentioned in a positive light but there is no happiness that equals the compliment given to children in front of a parent.”

Exposed to State secrets, Huma’s marriage to Weiner also gives her inside access to the inner workings of Congress. It is sacrilege in Islam for Huma’s mother to accept the reality that her daughter is married to a Jew, a marriage that is considered null and void by the highest authorities in Islam

Huma’s brother has been key in furthering the Islamic agenda in the west. He is seen meeting with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on an agenda of “spreading Islam to the west.” He is well linked to Omar Naseef, a notorious associate of Al-Qaeda. According to a very detailed report from 2007, Naseef was identified as the likely force behind the Abedin family’s departure from Kalamazoo, MI to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia circa 1977.

Whether coincidentally, ironically, or both the Muslim Sisterhood was established in 1977.

In still another significant translation by Shoebat, in 2008, Dr. Mumen Muhammad wrote about why Huma vowed to stay with Hillary even if the latter were to lose the presidential nomination to Obama:

“Abedin assures in press releases her continuance on the path with Hillary Clinton, even if Clinton failed as a candidate. The candidate’s aids and other influential figures in the Democratic Party assure that they do not disregard Abedin running for election or taking her position in the political arena by the help in successive political administrations with the aid of the Clinton family itself.”

Indeed, the “Clinton family” played a key role in promoting the extremely powerful Turkish Imam and notorious Islamist Fethullah Gülen. In 2008, the former president heaped praise on Gülen, giving him a clean slate at the Turkish Cultural Center Friendship Dinner.

Gülen fled Turkey for the United States in 1998 – during the Clinton administration – after attempting to overthrow Turkey’s secular government, a charge over which he was indicted in 2000; the Turkish Imam still lives in the U.S.

More than a little sympathetic to Muslim Brotherhood’s goals, Gülen explained in a sermon that aired on Turkish television how his followers could best seize power from the Turkish government:

“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe… Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside.”

Gülen expressed this sentiment in another sermon as well:

The philosophy of our service is that we open a house somewhere and, with the patience of a spider, we lay our web to wait for people to get caught in the web; and we teach those who do.

Turkey’s president – Abdullah Gül – considers himself a follower of Fethullah Gülen (Gülenist) according to Wikileaks and also serves with Huma’s brother as an Oxford Centre Trustee.

It was also Hillary Clinton who signed a document less than one month prior to her trip to Saudi Arabia with Huma that lifted the ban on Tariq Ramadan, allowing him entry into the United States. Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Banna and has ties to Islamic terrorist groups.

Huma Abedin is a practicing Muslim and is still well-connected to her family. She also has access to highly sensitive State secrets – admitted by Hillary herself – as well as significant influence in the Obama administration.

To view the Sisterhood List and Defined Goals, click here.

Bill Clinton: Fethullah Gulen’s Contribution to the World, Turkish Cultural Center Friendship Dinner

Saleha Abedin, Huma Abedin’s mother:
Will Huma look like her in twenty years?

At first glance, Anthony Weiner’s use of the Internet as a vehicle for long-distance flashing might seem to be off-topic for a hard-news counterjihad blog. (No pun intended!) Other sources, such as Andrew Breitbart and Robert Stacy McCain, have already provided ample coverage, and yes, the jokes just keep on writing themselves.

But it turns out that there’s more to the story than that. Much more.

Politically incorrect comedienne Julia Gorin mines Weinergate for some new comedy gold:

Strauss-Kahn’s Weiner

June 08th 2011 10:41:56 PM – Posted by Julia Gorin

So it turns out that Anthony Weiner’s wife is a Muslim who works for Hillary Clinton. This explains a lot. He must have figured that if she likes Hillary so much, then — like Hillary — she wouldn’t mind if he showed his pee-pee to others.

Given that the man who married them was Bill Clinton, their fate was pretty much sealed right there.

(Ever notice how people will often marry people who look exactly like them?)

Now, I haven’t been following this story or the one about the other prominent Jew and his Muslim. That would be IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the devout West African Muslim hotel maid he allegedly tried to rape. First, I must explain that it wasn’t his Jewishness that made him force himself on the woman, but his Frenchness. Jews don’t tend to be rapists, just perverts.

Not that French tend to be “rapists” per se; it’s just a hazier term there since declining sex isn’t normal or common, and so “rape” as such isn’t common.

Regardless, the news of the Jew trying to rape a Muslim should at least satisfy this woman, who won an award from Hebrew University for arguing that IDF soldiers NOT raping Muslim women is a form of racism.

In other words, Strauss-Kahn may be a rapist, but at least he’s no racist!

My main objection to Anthony Weiner is not his having tweeted his genitalia; it’s his role as point man for policies that are profoundly destructive to the US. For that, the blame belongs to the ignoramuses in his district who elected him.

From the viewpoint of US national interests, the real EPIC FAIL here is all about Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, and her connection with the Clintons. It has been going on for a very long time, and it has largely escaped notice in the press.

I find it problematic that both a prominent US Congressman and the current Secretary of State are, literally as well as figuratively, in bed with a Muslimah.

Talk about sleeping with the enemy!

If Hillary Clinton had a lesbian affair with Huma Abedin then everything in Weinergate fits

(h/t: Sparta)

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

People are motivated to follow their darker instincts by lust for money power or sex.

In mid 2007 rumors started to circulate about Huma Abedin a stunningly beautiful staffer working for Hillary Clinton. The wagging tongues of Washington asked logical questions about Huma. “If Hillary is bisexual (as had long been thought and occasionally uttered in public), what is the nature of her relationship with the dark eyed enchanting Abedin, a young lady from a strict Muslim family?”

“Is the fact that Huma was never seen twice in the same designer outfit and lived in a $649,000 condo explainable because she was trading sexual favors with Hillary for a fabulous lifestyle?” “If so what does that make Huma?”

“How did Huma, whose government salary was listed as $9,999, live as she did?”

“Is Hillary Clinton a lesbian?”

Is Huma Abedin her lesbian “kept woman?”

In 2007 Michael Musto a Village Voice columnist who writes about gay issues commented that Hillary might be “Gayle King-ing” Huma, that is getting her a higher profile in order to head off media scrutiny about her and why Clinton would be “hiding” Huma and the true nature of their relationship.

In her tell all book about her affair with Bill Clinton Gennifer Flowers wrote that when she asked Bill if Hillary is a lesbian he laughed and made reference to her being more experienced with women then he is.

The purpose of this essay is NOT to prove Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin are lesbians, but to raise the question: If they are daughters of Sapphos wouldn’t it have been a good deal for Anthony Weiner to become Huma’s beard or faux husband?

Killing any rumor of a lesbian relationship between Hillary and Huma would be very helpful to Hillary’s drive to be elected president, and a “President Hillary Clinton” would be enormously helpful to Weiner’s long held dream of being elected Mayor of New York City.

The coverage of Weinergate has nibbled around the edges. The reports have carefully avoided mentioning the scandal’s “third rail”: the relationship between Huma Abedin Congressman Anthony Weiner’s wife and her former boss Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, if this is the root of the relationship between Huma and Weiner the whole ugly affair falls into place.

Bill Clinton understands all to well what it’s like to live with a women like Hillary. He knows what it can drive an ordinary man to do. Anthony Weiner’s tweets to a porn star may be motivated by more than mere curiosity.

The biggest motivators driving human behavior are money power and sex. This one has all three.

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Much more here.

Zimbio: Hillary Clinton’s Lesbian lover Huma Abedin?

(h/t: Sparta)

The August issue of American Vogue featured an article on Huma Abedin, the traveling chief of staff for presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. As observed on Gawker http://gawker.com/news/huma-abedin/, the Vogue article is lengthy but lacks substance similar to the Observer piece in April. Huma is characterized in short as a control freak, beautiful and a force to be reckon with. Yet, there isn’t much evidence of her intellect and capabilities outside of showing composure in designer clothes and accessories and having a keen understanding of political dynamics in the Middle East having lived there until her teens and raised by parents who are professors and of Indian and Pakistani descent. She has worked for Clinton as an intern/aide since graduating from George Washington. I just don’t see how she can be sought out for her expertise in matters related to the Middle East when she hasn’t worked in an objective international capacity outside of being Clinton’s aide. If she has, the authors of the artices in Vogue and the Observer should have pointed that out rather than rely on just the opinions of others. How about demonstrating the woman’s true smart rather than focusing on how smart and polish she looks in an Yves Saint Laurent suit?

It is worrying too that high power people in Washington like Senator Clinton is heavily relying on the advice of people who haven’t had extensive professional experience in international politics. Even if she grew up in the Middle East, I think that things have changed drastically in the 12+ years she has been away in Washington at college and working for Clinton. Somehow I don’t think that growing up in Saudi Arabia was so bad.

I’m sure that Senator Clinton have some very smart people working for her which makes me surprise that they allow such articles to be printed. Not so much the fact that the articles has a lot of fluff painting Huma as a super-woman, a wonder-kid. By putting forth the image of Huma and Hillary has dynamic, stylish, professional women, they are widening the gap between Senator Clinton and middle America, a weakness of her campaign. I would hope that America is ready for a woman president. However, I’m not sure if America knows how to relate to a woman presidential candidate and the fact that she’s an accomplished lawyer/politician woman makes it even worse. There’s no need to paint a perfect picture of these women to give the average Joes and Janes out there more reason to stay clear of Hillary Clinton…

Much more here.

Also see:

• Hillary’s Lesbian Affair with Muslim Aide?
  (h/t: Sparta)
• The missing woman in Weinergate
  (h/t: Sparta)
• Like most Americans, Rep. Anthony Weiner can’t afford to quit the DC day job
  (h/t: Speranza)

But wait, there’s MORE:

Saleha Abedin, Huma Abedin’s mother:
Will Huma look like her in twenty years?

Anthony Weiner’s mother-in-law, Saleha Abedin, is connected with Muslim Brotherhood

From GoV Archives: The Forgotten Story of Nasir Oric’s Greatest Hits

Originally published at Gates of Vienna.

This past week, after sixteen years in hiding, the fugitive Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic surrendered to the authorities, and has been extradited to the Hague to stand trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia under the aegis of the United Nations.

General Mladic is was the commander of Bosnian Serb forces during the Bosnian civil war in the mid-1990s. His experiences during the war have drawn the interest of prosecutors in Serbia, who hope he can testify about other war crimes — those committed by Bosnian Muslims against Serbs.

The media do not even consider the possibility that the “genocide” in Srebrenica might have been largely manufactured in a propaganda coup by the Bosnian Muslims. General Mladic has already been convicted in the press, and the outcome in the Hague — assuming the defendant survives for the duration of the trial — is predetermined.

The Serbian authorities are hoping for testimony from Gen. Mladic about a particular Bosnian Muslim military leader, Nasir (or Naser) Oric, who is alleged to have committed a series of atrocities during the war. He was previously acquitted by the war crimes tribunal, but Serbian prosecutors believe that Gen. Mladic may be able to supply evidence of additional crimes on the part of Nasir Oric.

The following article provides a glimpse into what Mr. Oric did during the war. It’s from the archives of the Srebrenica Research Group, and was originally published on July 16, 1995 in The Toronto Star:

Fearsome Muslim warlord eludes Bosnian Serb forces
by Bill Schiller

BELGRADE, Yugoslavia — When Bosnian Serb commander Gen. Ratko Mladic swept triumphantly into Srebrenica last week, he not only wanted to sweep Srebrenica clean of Muslims — he wanted Nasir Oric.

In Mladic’s view, the powerfully built Muslim commander had made life too difficult and too deadly for Serb communities nearby.

Even though the Serbs had Srebrenica surrounded, Oric was still mounting commando raids by night against Serb targets.

Oric, as blood-thirsty a warrior as ever crossed a battlefield, escaped Srebrenica before it fell. Some believe he may be leading the Bosnian Muslim forces in the nearby enclaves of Zepa and Gorazde. Last night these forces seized armored personnel carriers and other weapons from U.N. peacekeepers in order to better protect themselves.

Oric is a fearsome man, and proud of it.

I met him in January, 1994, in his own home in Serb-surrounded Srebrenica.

On a cold and snowy night, I sat in his living room watching a shocking video version of what might have been called Nasir Oric’s Greatest Hits.

There were burning houses, dead bodies, severed heads, and people fleeing.

Oric grinned throughout, admiring his handiwork.

“We ambushed them,” he said when a number of dead Serbs appeared on the screen.

The next sequence of dead bodies had been done in by explosives: “We launched those guys to the moon,” he boasted.

When footage of a bullet-marked ghost town appeared without any visible bodies, Oric hastened to announce: “We killed 114 Serbs there.”

Later there were celebrations, with singers with wobbly voices chanting his praises.

These video reminiscences, apparently, were from what Muslims regard as Oric’s glory days. That was before most of eastern Bosnia fell and Srebrenica became a “safe zone” with U.N. peacekeepers inside — and Serbs on the outside.

Lately, however, Oric increased his hit-and-run attacks at night. And in Mladic’s view, it was far too successful for a community that was supposed to be suppressed.

The Serbs regard Oric, once Serb President Slobodan Milosevic’s personal bodyguard, as a war criminal.

But they don’t want to send him to the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. They want to track him down and kill him.

The only songs they want sung of Nasir Oric are funeral dirges.

But that hasn’t happened. [ … ]

Also see:

• Bare Naked Islam: Why didn’t we see these photos before Bill Clinton chose to support the Muslims in Bosnia? (WARNING: Graphic Images)
  (h/t: Steen)
• The West, Islam, and Sharia: The Other Crimes of Bosnia: Don’t Forget About The Jihad
  (h/t: Gramfan)
• Srpska Mreza: Srebrenica “Massacre”
• Srebrenica Research Group documents

LGF Comment Poster in Response to Pamela Geller on the Serbs: Geller Should be Chained to a Wall

Posted by Julia Gorin

The letter by Mr. Edward Spalton (included further down in this blog) was sent out to local British papers and Euro-skeptic political journals, he informs me. Mr. Spalton is Vice Chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, “a cross-party group trying to extricate our country from the European Union,” and he frequently writes on matters relating to Serbia, “as they are part and parcel of the European ‘empire’,” he explains, adding, “I have taken an interest in the Balkans since the early Nineties when I got the feeling that reporting in the mainstream media was very badly skewed – and, boy, was I right!”

The tantrum-prone Charles Johnson, proprietor of the Little Green Footballs blog which was briefly conservative in the immediate post-9/11 era but whose love for Muslims has grown in direct proportion to the pro-Muslim propaganda we’ve been enduring since that day, has a sort of “Geller Watch” in which he tries to paint anti-jihad activist Pamela Geller as a vile nut job. The pitch reaches new levels when she touches on — guess what — the Balkans. Here is what Pamela posted this weekend (original emphasis included), followed by the usual sort of response that LGF does on the topic (look for the ubiquitous buzz phrase to stifle debate — you know what it is — “genocide denier”):

Distorting History

By Pam Geller

Why aren’t the Bosnian Muslims held to the same standard as the Serb Christians? Why is this fabricated narrative protected so fiercely? The left is spitting bullets every time I post on Bosnia. They are so vested in establishing a militant Islamic state in the heart of Europe. Why?

The American people were fed an endless supply of distortions and deceptions in order to grease Clinton’s war. It began with a lie. How long will these human rights activists and international law clowns ignore the Serbian people and their stories? Refuting the Bosnian Lies.

The international community jumped to manufacture a “genocide” of a couple of hundred people, when real genocides like the millions of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians by the Muslims are systematically ignored, demied [sic]. Enough. When does the truth get a hearing? Scroll here.

This letter in the [Edmonton] Journal speaks truth to lie:

Mladic’s record distorted
Edmonton Journal May 31, 2011

Re: “Mladic trial a time for Balkan truth,” Opinion, May 28.

Thanks for the ambitious headline: “Mladic trial a time for Balkan truth.”

We can only wish that truth were the goal of The Hague.

The Journal says that “Unquestionably, justice is the prime imperative behind the arrest and coming trial of the Balkans’ dreadful Ratko Mladic.”

Using the preface “unquestionably” doesn’t make it unquestionable.

The Journal says that “It is true that in the most passionate of conflicts, nothing will shake some people from false or distorted versions of past events.”

Serbians and the many reputable critics who have witnessed the reporting and trials that came out of these civil wars will firmly support that statement. What is a false version of past events? Could it be that changing the definition of genocide to fit the crime Mladic is accused of is a falsehood?

Thousands of Serbs around Srebrenica were slaughtered, tortured and beheaded by Muslims based in the Srebrenica “safe haven.” There was no question about who did it: Naser Oric, the leader of the killers, photographed his victims and bragged to Western journalists. This man got a light sentence – a slap on the wrist.

Who would believe that Mladic will get a fair trial?

There was never a Serbian plan, much less a Mladic plan, for a greater Serbia, but sloppy reporters, including The Journal, in using those words.

Anybody can pick up a package of past articles written about the conflicts and spit it out again. The Journal coyly states that if Mladic is convicted it will be for specific, verifiable crimes, but he has been convicted again and again in the press until he is finally being sent to this kangaroo court to tie things up.

The Serbian people are a dignified, justice-loving people whose story is ignored.

N. Jakovac, Toronto, Ont.

What the media refuses to report on are the facts.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur June 6, 1996
Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre

For the first time, a senior U.N. official has admitted the existence of a secret U.N. report that blames the Bosnian Moslems for the February 1994 massacre of Moslems at a Sarajevo market.

Yasushi Akashi, the Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the former head of the U.N. mission in Bosnia, told the German Press Agency dpa that the secret report is “no secret.”

An international outcry over the massacre, in which 68 civilians perished at Markale marketplace, led directly to a toughening of Western policy towards the Serbs, who were widely blamed for the incident.

But there have been persistent rumours at the United Nations ever since that a U.N. report clearly blamed the Moslems for firing on their own people in order to create international sympathy and get the West to fight on their side against the Serbs.

Until Thursday, U.N. officials strongly denied the report existed, even after it was quoted in press reports.

Akashi told dpa that not only did the first report exist, but that some journalists already had a copy. He said the details were in a 1995 story by U.S. journalist David Binder, who quoted from the confidential report.

According to Binder, the report said U.N. peacekeepers were prevented by Moslem police from entering the site in the aftermath of the explosion. No doctors were allowed on the scene and the 197 victims were carried away to hospital within 25 minutes.

After studying the crater left by the mortar shell and the distribution of the shrapnel, the report concluded that the shell was fired from behind Moslem lines. U.N. monitors reported no Serbian shelling that day from points near the marketplace.

The official U.N. report that was subsequently released said the evidence as to who fired the shell was inconclusive, since it originated from an area where Moslem and Serb lines were very close. The two reports represented divergent views, but the United Nations chose to publish the neutral report and keep the other secret.

The incident led to a NATO ultimatum to Bosnian Serbs to withdraw their heavy weapons from around Sarajevo.

At the time, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said: “It’s very hard to believe any country would do this to their own people, and therefore, although we do not exactly know what the facts are, it would seem to us that the Serbs are the ones that probably have a great deal of responsibility.”

CORROBORATED IN THESE 3 CLOSING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS AKI REPORT from Dec. 2007:
Bosnian Serb leaders have claimed that the attack was engineered by Bosnian Muslim forces to lay blame on the Serbs and some UN officials in Bosnia have speculated that it may have been the case.

[Dragomir] Milosevic has argued that Muslim forces were entrenched in Sarajevo from where they shelled Serb positions, thus making the city a “legitimate target”.

Since its founding in 1993, the ICTY has indicted 161 individuals, mostly Serbs….

A source and reader of Pamela’s (Armaros), whom I’ve fought with in her comments section because he’s still a bit brainwashed on the Balkans (but more fair-minded than most), sent her the following email containing Johnson’s post yesterday:

When you call out “genocide denier” no wonder the hate follows. Funny this is what he is claiming to be fighting:

Pamela Geller, Genocide Denier

“…Today, Pamela Geller crossed the line into outright genocide denial, claiming that only a “couple of hundred people” were killed in Srebrenica by Serbian commander Ratko Mladic. The truth, of course, is that Mladic oversaw the massacre of thousands of innocent Muslims — including many children — who had sought safety from the genocide being perpetrated by Serbian forces in other parts of Yugoslavia. And that’s just one of his many documented war crimes.

“And it gets even worse. Geller also claims that Muslim forces fired on their own people to create international sympathy, and that the well-documented attempted genocide by Serbians was completely fabricated.

“Her despicable post supporting the mass murder of Muslims: DISTORTING HISTORY – Atlas Shrugs…”

How can the separating of the men of fighting age and allowing the women and children to join the UN camp [be] genocide? Even if they killed 8000 that would be a serious war crime but not genocide.

Armaros gets it.

And we should thank Pamela for putting herself out there on this, the untouchable subject.

OH, these were two of the comments to the LGF post:

By ‘albusteve’: “Geller has become a demented freak that should be chained to a wall…her reckless fabrications ought to be criminal”

By ‘Summer’: “You know……you’d think that the b—h would learn some day…”

Notice that, like the Muslim world, LGF readers and bloggers don’t seem to believe in free speech. I mean, if Geller should be chained to a wall and all.

Notice something else, a consistent pattern when it comes to the Balkans. It doesn’t matter if the Serb-exculpatory information is coming from a report by an otherwise Serb-hostile UN, or from an AFP dispatch (as in Pamela’s post), or from Amnesty International, HRW, any number of UN generals or officials — or even from more honest members of the designated victim sides. The charge is always the same: “Geller says…” or “Gorin says…” and stuff like ‘These blinded-by-anti-Muslim-hate bitches have lost their marbles.’ I don’t think that Generals Satish Nambiar, Lewis MacKenzie, Philippe Morillon and Mauro Del Vecchio are crazy bitches — as aren’t the Dutch UN battalion or Canadian former ambassador James Bissett, nor the score of non-Gorin, non-Geller columnists who have been trying to call attention to the fallacy of the official Bosnia and Kosovo narratives (on which policy continues to hinge and certain state-building projects are based). What reminded me of the phenomenon in which the people and reports that Pamela or I quote are completely ignored as sources (and instead Pamela and I magically become the only sources of what we’re saying) was the following letter posted at the 1389 blog. I’m in the process of finding out which publication it was intended for and whether it was ultimately published there or not:

Sir,

The capture of General Ratko Mladic has brought the Balkan situation to the fore again. Very successful EU and NATO propaganda has created an impression in the public mind which is at considerable variance from the facts.

Readers might like to guess which Balkan leaders said or wrote the following:

A. “Genocide is a natural phenomenon in keeping with the human-social and mythological divine nature. It is not only commended but commanded by the Almighty…”

B. “Protect brotherhood and unity…nationalism always means isolation from others, being locked in a closed circle and stopping growth…”

C. “There can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non Islamic institutions. The Islamic movement can and must take power as soon as it is morally strong enough, not only to destroy the non Islamic power but to build a new one….”

The answers may surprise.

They are:

A. Franjo Tudjman – leader of Croatia, backed by EU/NATO
B. Slobodan Milosevic – Serbian leader branded as “the butcher of the Balkans” by EU/NATO
C. Alija Izetbegovic – Muslim leader of Bosnia, backed by EU/NATO

So it is no surprise that things are not quite as portrayed with General Mladic. Atrocities there certainly were at Srebrenica but on both sides, as testified by the Canadian UN Commander, General Lewis Mackenzie. He states that the Muslim forces used the UN “safe haven” at Srebrenica as a base for murderous attacks against surrounding Serb villages in which thousands of civilians were killed.

So when the Bosnian Serb forces arrived in the town, they were not in a forgiving mood and many murders undoubtedly took place but, as for the claim of 8,000 killed, “the math just doesn’t add up”. Neither does anyone committing genocide allow women and children safe passage -as Mladic’s forces did.

Whilst saying that two wrongs don’t make a right, General MacKenzie believes that the Serbs were fooled into their attack to provide a
pretext for NATO air strikes, rather like those in Libya today.

I received corroboration of General Mackenzie’s view in discussion with James Bissett who was Canadian Ambassador in Yugoslavia at the time.

The Muslim Commander, General Nasir Oric, got off at the Hague tribunal but I doubt whether General Mladic will.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Spalton

All the facts aside, I’ll ask an obvious question that I’ve asked before: Are we really still supposed to mourn Muslim soldiers? Really?

In closing, to Mr. Spalton’s “Guess Who Said” list, at least three other statements off the top of my head could be added:

D. “One can’t be bothered with prisoners.”

E. “A breach must be made. Kill all that stands in front of you. I am permitting and ordering that the enemies be killed using all necessary means, knives, bombs, hunting knives, teeth.” “Can we rape?” [You have the right to do anything you want.]

F. Serbian women should be used to satisfy potential Albanian rapists.

Answers:

D. Bosnian-Muslim commander Naser Oric, as paraphrased by UN General Philippe Morillon.

E. Quote and paraphrase of Hamdija Delalić, commander of the V corps’s 502 brigades of the Muslim military, talking to his soldiers in a video, in which he calls for an attack on Serb-aligned Muslim moderate Fikret Abdić’s area.

F. Paraphrase of leading ethnic Albanian politician in Kosovo, Fadil Hoxha, at an official dinner in 1986.