Brookings Institution Partnered With Shanghai Policy Center Under Scrutiny for Spying

It is no surprise an American-Left implication has emerged linking the Brookings Institute, Communist China AND by extension of supporting the Dem (Marxist) Party – Quid Pro Joe Biden.

JRH 8/16/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

****************************

Brookings Institution Partnered With Shanghai Policy Center Under Scrutiny for Spying

Shanghai Academy acts as a front for Chinese spy recruitment, according to FBI

Brookings Institute building in DC/Wikimedia Commons

By Alana Goodman

August 14, 2020 5:00 AM

Washington Free Bacon

The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China’s intelligence and spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.

The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank’s hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the institution said. The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal government that has raised flags within the FBI.

The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Since the partnership began, the organizations have teamed up to host a 2018 conference in Shanghai and a 2019 joint workshop in Doha. Both events focused on Middle East cooperation with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing’s multinational infrastructure project that the U.S. government has described as a global security threat.

“We highly value our partnership with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences,” Brookings Doha Center director Tarik Yousef said at the joint workshop last December, calling the partnership a “very productive collaboration that is expanding, deepening, and allowing us all to better understand each other.”

According to federal court records filed by the FBI, the Shanghai Academy, which describes itself as “the second biggest academic organization and comprehensive research center in the fields of philosophy and social sciences in China,” is closely aligned with Beijing’s top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security. It has been used as a front group for Chinese intelligence collection and overseas spy recruitment, the FBI said.

The court records are part of a criminal case against retired CIA officer Kevin Patrick Mallory, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year for selling classified U.S. defense documents to China in 2017. Federal investigators said Mallory was recruited by a Chinese national who contacted him on LinkedIn and “represented himself to Mallory as working for a PRC think tank, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.”

According to the 2019 affidavit, the FBI believes that senior Chinese officials use Shanghai Academy of Social Science for “cover identities” and tap its employees as “spotters and assessors” of potential spies.

China’s Ministry of State Security, which has close ties to the academy, the affidavit says, is “focused on identifying and influencing the foreign policy of other countries” and conducts “clandestine and overt human source operations, of which the United States is a principal target.”

Joseph Bosco, who served as China country director under former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, told the Washington Free Beacon that think tanks such as Brookings are an attractive target for Chinese intelligence because they provide access to well-connected government insiders.

“A lot of the think tanks are populated by former government officials who have inside information on how the government works, particular policies,” he said. “They have connections to people who are still in the government, so they’re a wealth of potential information.”

A Brookings spokesman told the Free Beacon that Brookings is no longer affiliated with the Shanghai Academy, and that the partnership was “a two-year collaboration consisting of two events that explored political and economic relations between the Middle East and China.” The spokesman said the two groups did not exchange funds.

Chinese has a long history of spying in the United States and abroad, but its intelligence operations have drawn renewed attention this year due to a string of high-profile spy cases brought by federal prosecutors. In recent months, the U.S. government has charged multiple university professors and researchers, including the former chair of Harvard University’s chemistry department, with defrauding the government while working on behalf of Beijing. In July, the Trump administration ordered the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston, saying it was used as a base for espionage.

Brookings describes its Doha Center as an “overseas center of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.,” and a “hub for Brookings scholarship in the region.”

The center has advocated for increased cooperation between Middle Eastern countries and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which would temper U.S. influence in the region while increasing China’s economic and political leverage.

At a 2018 joint conference, Brookings Doha Center director Yousef was photographed shaking hands with Shanghai Academy chancellor Yu Xinhui in front of an orange background reading: “Academy of Social Sciences and Brookings Doha Center, MOU Signing Ceremony.”

Xinhui (Shanghai Academy Chancellor) &Tarik Yousef (Brookings Doha director) 2018 (Brookings Doha Twitter)

That event, which took place in Shanghai, included speeches and panels touting the benefits of the Belt and Road Initiative to both China and the Arab world. Speakers included Yousef, Brookings Doha Center research director Nader Kabbani, former Jordanian government official Ibrahim Saif, and numerous Chinese and Middle Eastern policy experts, according to the event schedule.

Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative is an ambitious long-term plan to build a Chinese-funded trade route—including ports, roads, high-speed railroads and airports—in countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, and Australia. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has described it as a “treasury-run empire” and a “risk to American interests” that would massively expand China’s sphere of influence, global military presence, and economic leverage over participating countries.

Nearly two dozen scholars at Brookings currently serve as advisers to the Biden campaign, including director of the Brookings China Strategy Initiative Rush Doshi and the director of foreign policy research Michael O’Hanlon, according to their biographies on the website. Other Brookings officials, such as Middle East senior fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, previously worked under President Obama and could be candidates to serve in a prospective Biden administration.

The most recent joint workshop held by the two groups took place last December at the Marsa Malaz Kempinski, a luxury hotel in Doha, and included “over 40 experts representing several distinguished international institutions,” according to a press release.

_________________________________

Alana Goodman is a senior investigative reporter for the Washington Free Beacon. She was previously investigative political reporter at the Washington Examiner and a senior reporter at the Daily Mail. Goodman has written for Commentary, the Weekly Standard, and the New York Post. She lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

ABOUT Washington Free Beacon

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in conjunction with the Think Tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has put together a report measuring Russia’s potential threat to American interests today.

In the Bush II Presidential years the AEI had a Neoconservative reputation in its policy advocacy. In this day and age Neocons are pretty much castigated by the American Left and American Right.

On a personal level I have been an admirer of Neoconservatism’s American Exceptionalism and a Foreign Policy based on military strength. Traditional Conservatives (sometimes called Paleocons) view this kind of aggressive Foreign Policy as a Big Government budget destroyer. There are those the American Left would label as the racist Right who castigate Neocons as ex-Communist Jews that can’t be trusted.

There is a large amount of truth to the “ex-Communist” association since a large number of early Neocon proponents were indeed Communists or at least Marxist sympathizers, BUT these rebels against Communism woke up to the ideological failures. Socialism (and yes this includes National Socialism aka Nazism) and varieties of Marxism have led to much of history’s oppressive regimes and the genocide of huge groups of human beings.

However, to label a “Communist” a “Jew” is a bit of an oxymoron. Communists are anti-religion atheists by nature and a good Jew practices the religious faith of Judaism. It is true there are people of a Jewish heritage that have repudiated the religious tenets of Judaism and embraced Marxist-Communist ideology. If one embraces Communism one rejects religion. That would make a Jew who became a Communist an ex-Jew. Incidentally, a person of Christian heritage, Islamic heritage, Buddhist heritage or any religious heritage who embraces Communism have rejected their religious heritage and have become an ex-whatever heritage.

Condemning all Jews because a few rejected their religious heritage should logically lead to the same condemnation of other people rejecting their religious heritage. I doubt Jew-haters follow that logic since one rarely hears the label that all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are evil because a few accept atheistic One World Government Communism. Hence the hypocrisy of hating Jews because of Communism is just plain racism. (Muslims hate Jews because their revered writings tell them to hate Jews [Percentages]. That’s a whole different kind of racism. One sees that kind of racism among idiot Christians who believe all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus when it was a secret night tribunal of Jewish leaders fearing a rebellion would displace status among their Roman overlords. Human fear and jealousy got Jesus Crucified. God’s love Resurrected the Son of God which offers Saving Redemption to ALL who Believe in the Risen Savior – to the Jew first then to the non-Jew.)

The American Left deride the Neocons’ American Exceptionalism as nationalistic anti-globalist rejectors of Socialism/Marxism.

Have Neocons made mistakes? DEFINITELY! The principle of nation-building based on American Republic Representative-Democracy only works in cultures amenable to the Western heritage. This unfortunate discovery became evident in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those cultures have been brainwashed into Islamic thought for too long for the populace to understand let alone accept Western Representative Democracy.

When Neocons have a warning about Russia in relation to American National Interests and National Security the benefit of the USA is what is in mind.

JRH 6/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

**********************

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

Russian Soldier

By Frederick W. Kagan, Nataliya Bugayova, and Jennifer Cafarella

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PDF)

Institute for the Study of War

[Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute]

June 2019

Russia poses a significant threat to the United States and its allies for which the West is not ready. The West must act urgently to meet this threat without exaggerating it. Russia today does not have the military strength of the Soviet Union. It is a poor state with an economy roughly the size of Canada’s, a population less than half that of the U.S., and demographic trends indicating that it will lose strength over time. It is not a conventional military near-peer nor will it become so. Its unconventional warfare and information operations pose daunting but not insuperable challenges. The U.S. and its allies must develop a coherent global approach to meeting and transcending the Russian challenge.

[Download the full report here and the Executive Summary here.]

The Russian Threat

President Vladimir Putin has invaded two of his neighbors, Georgia and Ukraine, partly to stop them from aligning with NATO and the West. He has also illegally annexed territory from both those states. He has established a military base in the eastern Mediterranean that he uses to interfere with, shape, and restrict the operations of the U.S. and the anti-ISIS coalition. He has given cover to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and Russian agents have used military-grade chemical weapons in assassination attempts in Great Britain. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, even in regional and local conflicts. And Moscow has interfered in elections and domestic political discourse in the U.S. and Europe.

The Russian threat’s effectiveness results mainly from the West’s weaknesses. NATO’s European members are not meeting their full commitments to the alliance to maintain the fighting power needed to deter and defeat the emerging challenge from Moscow. Increasing political polarization and the erosion of trust by Western peoples in their governments creates vulnerabilities that the Kremlin has adroitly exploited.

Moscow’s success in manipulating Western perceptions of and reactions to its activities has fueled the development of an approach to warfare that the West finds difficult to understand, let alone counter. Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are frequently subordinated in this way of war. Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, “Who knows if the Russians really did that? Who knows if it was legal?”—thus paralyzing the West’s responses.

Putin’s Program

Putin is not simply an opportunistic predator. Putin and the major institutions of the Russian Federation have a program as coherent as that of any Western leader. Putin enunciates his objectives in major speeches, and his ministers generate detailed formal expositions of Russia’s military and diplomatic aims and its efforts and the methods and resources it uses to pursue them. These statements cohere with the actions of Russian officials and military units on the ground. The common perception that he is opportunistic arises from the way that the Kremlin sets conditions to achieve these objectives in advance. Putin closely monitors the domestic and international situation and decides to execute plans when and if conditions require and favor the Kremlin. The aims of Russian policy can be distilled into the following:

Domestic Objectives

Putin is an autocrat who seeks to retain control of his state and the succession. He seeks to keep his power circle content, maintain his own popularity, suppress domestic political opposition in the name of blocking a “color revolution” he falsely accuses the West of preparing, and expand the Russian economy.

Putin has not fixed the economy, which remains corrupt, inefficient, and dependent on petrochemical and mineral exports. He has focused instead on ending the international sanctions regime to obtain the cash, expertise, and technology he needs. Information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings in Europe are heavily aimed at this objective.

External Objectives

Putin’s foreign policy aims are clear: end American dominance and the “unipolar” world order, restore “multipolarity,” and reestablish Russia as a global power and broker. He identifies NATO as an adversary and a threat and seeks to negate it. He aims to break Western unity, establish Russian suzerainty over the former Soviet States, and regain a global footprint.

Putin works to break Western unity by invalidating the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5), weakening the European Union, and destroying the faith of Western societies in their governments.

He is reestablishing a global military footprint similar in extent the Soviet Union’s, but with different aims. He is neither advancing an ideology, nor establishing bases from which to project conventional military power on a large scale. He aims rather to constrain and shape America’s actions using small numbers of troops and agents along with advanced anti-air and anti-shipping systems.

Recommendations

A sound U.S. grand strategic approach to Russia:

Aims to achieve core American national security objectives positively rather than to react defensively to Russian actions;

Holistically addresses all U.S. interests globally as they relate to Russia rather than considering them theater-by-theater;

Does not trade core American national security interests in one theater for those in another, or sacrifice one vital interest for another;

Achieves American objectives by means short of war if at all possible;

Deters nuclear war, the use of any nuclear weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);

Accepts the risk of conventional conflict with Russia while seeking to avoid it and to control escalation, while also ensuring that American forces will prevail at any escalation level;

Contests Russian information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings; and

Extends American protection and deterrence to U.S. allies in NATO and outside of NATO.

Such an approach involves four principal lines of effort.

Constrain Putin’s Resources. Russia uses hybrid warfare approaches because of its relative poverty and inability to field large and modern military systems that could challenge the U.S. and NATO symmetrically. Lifting or reducing the current sanctions regime or otherwise facilitating Russia’s access to wealth and technology could give Putin the resources he needs to mount a much more significant conventional threat—an aim he had been pursuing in the early 2000s when high oil prices and no sanctions made it seem possible.

Disrupt Hybrid Operations. Identifying, exposing, and disrupting hybrid operations is a feasible, if difficult, undertaking. New structures in the U.S. military, State Department, and possibly National Security Council Staff are likely needed to:

Coordinate efforts to identify and understand hybrid operations in preparation and underway;

Develop recommendations for action against hybrid operations that the U.S. government has identified but are not yet publicly known;

Respond to the unexpected third-party exposure of hybrid operations whether the U.S. government knew about the operations or not;

Identify in advance the specific campaign and strategic objectives that should be pursued when the U.S. government deliberately exposes a particular hybrid operation or when third parties expose hybrid operations of a certain type in a certain area;

Shape the U.S. government response, particularly in the information space, to drive the blowback effects of the exposure of a particular hybrid operation toward achieving those identified objectives; and

Learn lessons from past and current counter-hybrid operations undertakings, improve techniques, and prepare for future evolutions of Russian approaches in coordination with allies and partners.

The U.S. should also develop a counter-information operations approach that uses only truth against Russian narratives aimed at sowing discord within the West and at undermining the legitimacy of Western governments.

Delegitimize Putin as a Mediator and Convener. Recognition as one of the poles of a multipolar world order is vital to Putin. It is part of the greatness he promises the Russian people in return for taking their liberty. Getting a “seat at the table” of Western-led endeavors is insufficient for him because he seeks to transform the international system fundamentally. He finds the very language of being offered a seat at the West’s table patronizing.

He has gained much more legitimacy as an international partner in Syria and Ukraine than his behavior warrants. He benefits from the continuous desire of Western leaders to believe that Moscow will help them out of their own problems if only it is approached in the right way.

The U.S. and its allies must instead recognize that Putin is a self-declared adversary who seeks to weaken, divide, and harm them—never to strengthen or help them. He has made clear in word and deed that his interests are antithetical to the West’s. The West should therefore stop treating him as a potential partner, but instead require him to demonstrate that he can and will act to advance rather than damage the West’s interests before engaging with him at high levels.

The West must not trade interests in one region for Putin’s help in another, even if there is reason to believe that he would actually be helpful. Those working on American policy in Syria and the Levant must recognize that the U.S. cannot afford to subordinate its global Russia policy to pursue limited interests, however important, within the Middle East. Recognizing Putin as a mediator or convener in Syria—to constrain Iran’s activities in the south of that country, for example—is too high a price tag to pay for undermining a coherent global approach to the Russian threat. Granting him credibility in that role there enhances his credibility in his self-proclaimed role as a mediator rather than belligerent in Ukraine. The tradeoff of interests is unacceptable.

Nor should the U.S. engage with Putin about Ukraine until he has committed publicly in word and deed to what should be the minimum non-negotiable Western demand—the recognition of the full sovereignty of all the former Soviet states, specifically including Ukraine, in their borders as of the dates of their admission as independent countries to the United Nations, and the formal renunciation (including the repealing of relevant Russian legislation) of any right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states.

Defend NATO. The increased Russian threat requires increased efforts to defend NATO against both conventional and hybrid threats. All NATO members must meet their commitments to defense spending targets—and should be prepared to go beyond those commitments to field the forces necessary to defend themselves and other alliance members. The Russian base in Syria poses a threat to Western operations in the Middle East that are essential to protecting our own citizens and security against terrorist threats and Iran. Neither the U.S. nor NATO is postured to protect the Mediterranean or fight for access to the Middle East through the eastern Mediterranean. NATO must now prepare to field and deploy additional forces to ensure that it can win that fight.

The West should also remove as much ambiguity as possible from the NATO commitment to defend member states threatened by hybrid warfare. The 2018 Brussels Declaration affirming the alliance’s intention to defend member states attacked by hybrid warfare was a good start. The U.S. and other NATO states with stronger militaries should go further by declaring that they will come to the aid of a member state attacked by conventional or hybrid means regardless of whether Article 5 is formally activated, creating a pre-emptive coalition of the willing to deter Russian aggression.

Bilateral Negotiations. Recognizing that Russia is a self-defined adversary and threat does not preclude direct negotiations. The U.S. negotiated several arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and has negotiated with other self-defined enemies as well. It should retain open channels of communication and a willingness to work together with Russia on bilateral areas in which real and verifiable agreement is possible, even while refusing to grant legitimacy to Russian intervention in conflicts beyond its borders. Such areas could include strategic nuclear weapons, cyber operations, interference in elections, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, and other matters related to direct Russo-American tensions and concerns. There is little likelihood of any negotiation yielding fruit at this point, but there is no need to refuse to talk with Russia on these and similar issues in hopes of laying the groundwork for more successful discussions in the future.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

________________________

If There Is a Neocon Warning – Pay Attention

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2019

_______________________

CONFRONTING THE RUSSIAN CHALLENGE

1400 16th Street NW, Suite 515 Washington, DC 20036
ph. (202) 293-5550

Intro to ‘The Lessons of September 11th’

Intro by John R. Houk

By Justin O. Smith

Intro © September 5, 2018

How old were you on September 11, 2001? Were or are you old enough to remember what happened that Tuesday morning? I was 44.

I was off work that morning and was sleeping while most of New York City was going full bore with their work day. My wife and I were enjoying the cuddling of blissful sleep.

THEN

I got a phone call from a friend of mine. He told me to turn on my TV to any channel. I was shocked to hear a passenger airline had crashed into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC).

I can’t recall how long I was watching the television report and with the cameras on the smoking building – BOOM! Another passenger airliner crashed into Twin Tower.

TV reports began to filter in. This was no tragic accident. Passenger jets had been hijacked and deliberately flown into the WTC. Two other passenger jets were hijacked. One flew into the Pentagon and the other crashed in a field near Shanksville, PA.

Nearly 3,000 Americans died rapidly on 911 at the WTC, the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA. You can add to those deaths the thousands who died due to the effects of rescues and New Yorkers returning to affected area when the EPA or CDC should have warned of health hazards that brought on tragic illnesses:

The WTCHP has certified 37,000 people as suffering from serious respiratory or digestive illnesses, cancer, or a combination.

…

The Manhattan borough president, Gale Brewer, told the Guardian she had “heard very high numbers” of people were at risk of dying from exposure to World Trade Center-related toxins.

“Many more than 3,000 or 4,000,” she said. “It’s very sad. I believe it will eclipse the number who died on 9/11 itself, because so many people were on the pile, or came to help, and so many people worked in the area. We are going to be dealing with this for years and years.” (Bold Text by Blog Editor – 9/11 health crisis: death toll from illness nears number killed on day of attacks; By Joanna Walters; The Guardian; 9/11/16 06.00 EDT)

911 is the day Quranic, Hadith and Sira based Islamic ideology were honored by Muslim followers.

SEE ALSO:

BASIC THINGS EVERYBODY IN THE WEST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM; from Islam For Dummies

Prophet of Doom: Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words

JRH 9/5/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

************************

The Lessons of September 11th

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 9/2/2018 4:04 PM

It has been seventeen years, since Islamic terrorists used jet airliners as guided missiles to bring down the World Trade Center Towers and six years since Islamic terrorists overran the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and murdered four fine Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Most of us remember these days clear as a bell ringing out in the dead of night, and we swore that we would never forget what transpired on these days. We swore we would make certain it could never happen again.

And yet, through a multitude of continued Islamic inspired terror attacks, from those days to the present, America does not stand united in this war between civilizations or stand shoulder to shoulder in the war against Islamic terrorism and the evil ideology inherent to its core doctrines. Try reporting on the five Muslims in New Mexico, who were recently caught abusing and training children to become Islamic jihadi terrorists or the 35 similar and verifiable Islamic jihadi terrorist camps, along with a possible 200 more such camps, scattered across America, and just watch how fast the slurs of “racist” and “bigot” are thrown at any reporter’s good name.

America said, “We will never forget”, but from the manner in which we approach Islam and our Muslim population, it seems that many, especially the Democrats, have already forgotten, so anxious are they to appease Muslims and Islam in general and be seen as “enlightened and loving” and willing to “coexist”. They do not understand that “coexist” is simply a synonym for “surrender”.

Each time there is a new terror attack carried out on our homeland or a terror threat is neutralized and another Muslim terrorist is taken down by Homeland Security, or some other U.S. agency, the media goes into action, and it is ludicrous to watch. We stand united, we are not cowed, the terrorists will never win are repeated over and over by Congressmen, police chiefs, mayors and former U.S. presidents such as Obama, Carter, Clinton and Bush — the mantra of multicultural acceptance and tolerance, the same script, time and time again.

The truth is that life has not proceeded as normal, since American Airlines Flight 11 slammed into the side of the north tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.. Our sons and daughters were obliterated, burned alive and left crumpled in pieces inside the collapsed rubble of the Twin Towers, and the terror attacks have continued, largely unabated, from Boston to Chattanooga to San Bernardino.

Let’s not forget, as recent as December 11, 2017 an Islamic terrorist from Bangladesh attempted to murder Americans with a homemade pipe bomb in New York’s Port Authority Bus Terminal. Akayed Ullah was a Muslim who pledged his loyalty to the Islamic State. And then there’s U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Ikaika Kang, who just plead guilty in August to providing the Islamic State with military information and equipment, a drone, and training.

America must never forget September 11th and its lessons, so long as American mothers and fathers are still burying their sons and daughters, due to Islamic terrorism on our own soil. If September 11, 2001 was anything, it should have been a wake-up call and an in-your-face moment of realization that despite all the multiculturalist, socialist and communist Democrat and RINO assurances that Islam is “a religion of peace”, it is, in fact, and evil ideology that hates all others to the point of not resting, until all outside of Islam either submit and enter its sphere or die fighting, or until Islam itself is no more. Islam hates the “other”, the Christians and Jews, the Europeans and Americans. If anything, America should never forget September 11th and Benghazi, when Ambassador Chris Stevens’ body was dragged through the streets, by a crowd of howling, screaming Muslims, and just how deep Islamic hatred goes for all outside Dar al- Islam, the House of Islam. Whether in America, Europe or the streets of Cairo or Benghazi, wherever “peace missions” are pursued, Americans can never “coexist” with Islam and they should not even try.

I am constantly attacked by the Left, for failing in the commandment “forgive your brother as you forgive yourself”. Muslims are not my “brother” in any Christian sense of the word, because they themselves reject such a brotherhood based in love, and they are not seeking forgiveness, as their repeated attacks on the West clearly demonstrate; but rather they embrace a supremacist ideology based in hate and founded on conquest and subjugation. God might forgive evil deeds, but even Satan was still condemned to a lake of fire. I can forgive honest mistakes and deeds done in the heat of passion, by normally good people, but as far as evil perpetrated with clear purpose and a longtime strategy aimed at ending my people’s way of life and eradicating Judeo-Christian principles, I will never forgive such evil.

Is American life carrying on as normal, when now we see Christians attacked in Muslim “no go zones” like Dearborn, Michigan, for the “crime” of proselytizing near an Islamic festival?

How normal has life been for young Americans, such as Wyatt and Lucy Paterson, twins, who lost their dad in the Twin Towers, at the age of four? What about the survivors from the families of the other 2996 Americans murdered on that day? What about Genelle Guzman, the last survivor pulled from the rubble of the Twin Towers, who spent six weeks in the hospital undergoing surgeries on her crushed legs?

How normal has life been for Dorothy Woods, widow of Tyrone Woods killed in Benghazi, or Kate Quigley, whose brother Glen Doherty died fighting alongside Woods?

Life in America will never return to normal, as long as we fail to learn the lessons of 9/11 and keep buying the Leftists’ assertion that Islam is “a religion of peace” and the fool’s errand of “coexistence” with Islam, allowing Islam and the Muslim population to grow in America. Each time we remember the events surrounding 9/11/2001 and 2012 and all the Islamic terror and chaos that has followed, all Americans, who love America, must not only reject Islam’s status as a “religion”, but we must vow and work to eradicate Islam from America, by enforcing section 212 (f) of the 1952 McCarran Act, which focuses on any group like communists whose presence proves detrimental to the United States; and, we must halt all mosque construction and all Muslim immigration, since Islam is an evil and violent ideology focused on either America’s subjugation under Sharia Law or her ultimate destruction.

I will never forget 9/11, and neither should you.

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Intro to ‘The Lessons of September 11^th’

Intro by John R. Houk

Intro © September 5, 2018

____________________

The Lessons of September 11^th

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis

Paul Sutliff sent me a link to a Center for Security Policy (CSP) pdf link with this recommendation:

This is a must read. I am hoping to have at least one of the authors on my June 28th show when I move to Thursdays. This is a must read!

That show, by the way, is Civilization Jihad Awareness with Paul Sutliff on Blog Talk Radio. The show comes on live, but it is archived. You should go there and catch up.

The pdf is 20 pages with foot notes. Take your time and thoroughly read the CSP analysis. I could probably write a whole other post trying to introduce this extremely important analysis, but I won’t.

That which I say will little justice to the content presented, but here goes a brief thought. The central bad guy as to American National Security is Russia. You will discover that Russia is at the heart of the Muslim Refugee crisis smacking Europe. AND in relation to that you should understand the Russian goal is destabilization first in Europe and second in the USA. Russia even has tentacle infiltrating European Nationalist movements to foment societal chaos while also publicly supporting the Multicultural Left ideals. This duo strategy has only one purpose: cultural destabilization designed to disunite European resolve and alienate a united Europe away from America.

TRUST ME! Those brief words about “Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis” is only the mere tip of the iceberg that I pray you take the time to fully understand what the authors J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea are trying to enlighten you concerning the survival of our Western Culture via strategic concepts of National Security and National Interests.

JRH 6/5/18

Please Support NCCR

************************

Russian Strategy and Europe’s Refugee Crisis

By J.R. Nyquist and Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea

May 29, 2018

Center for Security Policy

INTRODUCTION

Forty years ago, a serious long-term problem confronting Moscow was the USSR’s fast-growing Muslim population. It was then speculated that the Soviet Union’s high Muslim birthrate would turn the USSR into a majority Muslim country by the middle of the twenty-first century. It is a strange joke, and more than a curious twist of fate, that NATO faces this same prospect today.

The Russian armed forces officially moved into Syria on 30 September 2015. Already a massive Muslim “refugee” invasion of Europe was underway, stretching through the spring and summer of that year. This migrant flood occurred without a dramatic change in the Syrian crisis. According to a report by investigative journalist Witold Gadowski, published in mid-September 2015, the people then pouring into the heart of Europe included more than refugees, and possibly included ISIS terrorist infiltrators.¹

Gadowski was a well-known war reporter, documentary film director, and winner of several journalism prizes in Poland and abroad. He went to Syria in 2015 and discovered that in the territory controlled by the Islamic State (ISIS), there was no chance for anyone to leave ISIS-controlled territory without permission. As he explained, the punishment for attempting to escape was crucifixion.²

In Gadowski’s opinion, the flood of refugees had been triggered by decisions made in Moscow, and perhaps in Tehran. In fact, the mass killing of Syrian civilians was an ongoing project of the Russian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad – whose troops were killing seven times more civilians than ISIS.³ Once the Russian bombers arrived, even more civilians were targeted.⁴

Of special interest, and contrary to public declarations, Russian and Chinese technicians were busy helping ISIS to maintain its captured oil rigs and refineries, while Russian trained Iraqi military officers (formerly in Saddam Hussein’s army), were leading ISIS forces against the Baghdad government (which government set up a joint intelligence headquarters in league with Iran and Russia).⁵ From this and other evidence it appears that Russia has been playing a double game in the Middle East.

Using the Iraqi oil infrastructure, relying on clandestine Russian technical support, ISIS earned $800 million in annual revenues by “selling more than 60,000 barrels of oil per day.” But this was not the Islamic State’s only source of income. According to Gadowski:

…the Islamic State trades artworks and archeological artifacts. It is not true that the monuments of antique culture are destroyed. They are sold and bring a large income. In 90 percent of the cases, this is happening through the Russian mafia. The Islamic State and the wave of refugees bring profits to the Russian, Turkish and Albanian mafias.6

In this matter the Russian mafia is not simply the Russian mafia, and the same can be said of mafia organizations which have appeared throughout the “former” communist world. As noted by Brian Whitmore of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, “Organized crime is now a major element of Russian statecraft.”⁷ According to Gadowski, Russia’s game is to “checkmate Europe, and to a lesser extent the United States.” Outwardly Russia pretends to fight ISIS. In reality, Russia helps ISIS. Essential to the plan, the Syrians were generating refugees by terrorizing civilians in Syria. As stated above, Gadowski believed that a secret Islamic State Terrorist Unit (AMNI) was placing fanatical killers among the refugees. In this way a vast network of suicide bombers and murderers entered Europe.⁸

After arriving in Syria, Russian air units launched bombing raids against Syrian civilians, adding to the refugee flow in late summer. Of course, the refugee crisis was well under way before the Russians arrived. It had peaked earlier. What the bombing showed, however, was Russia’s strategic intention. The Syrians and the Russians were following a pre-defined path. The bombers were the icing on a cake already baked. Long before the Russian bombers arrived other means of pressure had been employed by Syria – including the use of chemical weapons. Refugees (and terrorists) had long since flooded into neighboring Turkey. Through the spring and summer of 2015, the numbers were getting larger and larger. A significant proportion of these masses moved into Europe. This paper will present evidence and arguments that Russia and her allies (Syria and Iran) set this process in motion as part of a larger strategic design. The authors believe that Moscow does not act haphazardly. Rather, its moves are carefully thought-out in advance. The strategy being applied is complex, its objectives masked by disinformation and subterfuge, extortion and blackmail, organized crime and false flag terrorist operations.

THE ARAB SPRING

When rebellions began to break out in the Middle East several years ago, the former chief of Romanian intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, wondered why the first rebellions in the series took place “only in Islamic countries that are pro-American.” He asked why the rebels were burning American flags. He thought it suspicious that the United States had no advanced warning of the mass demonstrations that swept the Arab world from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. Pacepa noted that “on the first day of the Cairo uprising” the demonstrators “were carrying flags displaying the hammer and sickle.” He called this “a mistake caused by overzealousness….”⁹

The rebellion that began on 17 December 2010 in Tunisia, and spread across the Arab world, was an attempt to sweep away “moderate” Arab regimes. It was not a revolution for freedom or democracy. As Richard Miniter wrote in a 2011 Forbes article, “Virtually every element of the media narrative [on the Arab Spring] … is wrong or misleading.” The rebellion was not a spontaneous reaction to local dictatorships. According to Miniter, Egypt’s chief of intelligence warned Gen. David Petraeus in 2010 that Iran – a close ally and client state of Moscow – was preparing to “bring down [Egypt’s] Mubarak regime.”¹⁰

Miniter was told by intelligence officials that “Iran’s agents are behind the street demonstrations and violent attacks on government buildings.” ¹¹ Iran’s revolutionary activity throughout the region, however, was not merely Iranian. This activity was connected to Russia, and to Russia’s past support for the communist cause. According to an Iranian specialist, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, was educated in Moscow and may be a Russian intelligence asset. Worse yet, other top leaders in Iran were also educated in Russia, with ongoing ties to Moscow.¹²

In a recently published article by the Katehon Institute¹³ in Russia, B. Ozerov explained that the Soviet government in 1918 “was guided by understanding Islam as a close ideology to the communist doctrine.” After all, Islam favored ideals of equality, social justice, and the redistribution of wealth. According to Ozerov, Moscow’s initial plan in the region was “to transform Islam into an Eastern edition of Communism….”¹⁴

In a 4 July 1925 interview with the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was asked if he believed revolutionary turmoil in China, India, Persia and Egypt was bound to sweep away the Western powers. “Yes, I do,” said the communist leader, who added that the West would be “attacked on two sides – in the rear as well as in front.”

RELATED INSIGHTS OF V. KALASHNIKOV AND A. ILLARIONOV

In June 2013 J.R. Nyquist interviewed a disaffected KGB officer in Russia named Viktor Kalashnikov. In reference to Syria, the former KGB lieutenant colonel said, “It’s all about struggle against the United States. All allies are measured in terms of their anti-Americanism. If they are anti-American, they are our friends.” Kalashnikov then referred to the deployment of “terrorist armies.” Armies composed of terrorists, said Kalashnikov, were better than old-fashioned Soviet tank armies. They were more flexible, and cheaper than tanks. “The head of the Russian state has publicly warned the West that … arms deliveries to the opposition in Syria might result in terrorist attacks against Europe. That’s a clear causus belli – a real terrorist threat,” said Kalashnikov.¹⁵

When Nyquist advanced the idea that the Cold War was over, Kalashnikov scoffed. This is yet another topic, he said. “But we have to ask what happened to the Soviet Union in 1991. It was dismantled for the sake of reorganization and for the sake of Russian power.” The Soviet generals were not happy with the strategic situation. The large tank armies of the Soviet Union were, in Kalashnikov’s words, “a wasting asset, especially after 1983.”¹⁶

The core strategy, he explained, “was splitting Europe from America.” In the 1980s this was attempted with the threat of war. But now, under present circumstances, a different method would have to be devised. “What happened on 9/11 was just an omen of things to come,” he explained.

In Part 1 of the interview, headlined “Russia’s Islamist Alliance, Plans to Destroy NATO,” the former KGB lieutenant colonel, who had been trained as a strategist, attempted to draw the interviewer’s attention to Russia’s support for the anti-immigrant parties in Europe. Here Kalashnikov referred to Islam as a Russian weapon in the destruction of NATO. Realizing the interviewer was perplexed, Kalashnikov said, “Let me talk about [the neo-fascists] in Hungary. They are pro-Putin. They are nationalists, and of course, they are absolutely anti-Semitic and anti-American.”¹⁷

What did the anti-immigrant parties have to do with “terrorist armies” in the Middle East? What did any of it have to do with splitting America off of Europe? Here was a question requiring careful consideration. To answer this question, one might well imagine how NATO would have prospered if Hillary Clinton and Marine Le Pen had won their respective elections. What if Europe followed France’s lead? Would the politically correct Americans remain allies with the new Europe? “What I would suggest,” said Kalashnikov, “is that your anti-terror experts read Vladimir Lenin who provided the textbook for terrorists. How they should set up combat units; who is to be killed first and second; what strategy and tactics to adopt. Lenin developed a complete theory for using terrorism to take power and govern a huge state. That was the beginning of Soviet strategy, statehood and government, as well as international policy.”¹⁸

Was Kalashnikov talking about Europe?

More than one year after Kalashnikov’s curious pronouncements, a former Kremlin economic advisor named Andrei Illarionov, made an even more curious statement. In a December 2014 television interview, Illarionov noted that Europe had reached its lowest level of defense readiness. He also noted that Russia was openly threatening the West with nuclear war. Illarionov then made an astonishing prediction, adding that “the European nations will not be very much surprised, let’s say, if in the spring of next year, 2015, there will be some kind of massive political movement – let’s say a kind of ‘Islamic spring.’”¹⁹

Being Russian himself, having worked in the Kremlin, it seems obvious that Illarionov had access to high-level sources. The coming “Islamic spring,” he said, would not occur in the Middle East, “but in Europe.” He mentioned destabilizing effects on “certain European countries” where the crisis would “consume the energy and attention of European leaders at a time when Mr. Putin would try and fulfill his neo-imperial project….”²⁰

Illarionov was quite specific when he said the coming “Islamic spring” in Europe would involve “movements and activities … in European countries themselves.” When asked if this could be triggered by Russia, Illarionov said, “I am just warning … when it should happen … European societies should not be [too] much shocked and surprised.”

Illarionov’s prediction carries forward the suggestion that Moscow instigated the migrant crisis. For how else could Illarionov have known about an “Islamic spring” involving “movements and activities … in Europe”? His prediction was an unlikely direct hit. To know something in advance is to know something is being planned. Illarionov clearly predicted the most significant event of the following year. He also implied this event was planned to distract the West from Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. And this prediction fits perfectly with the analysis of Lt. Col. Viktor Kalashnikov, a resident of Moscow, who warned of Russia deploying “terrorist armies” in 2013. The fact is, people in Moscow knew what was coming. And why wouldn’t they? It takes enormous resources and real planning to move millions of people from the Middle East to the heart of Europe. A lot of people had to know in advance, if only to set up the needed transport system.

INSIGHTS OF A ROMANIAN GENERAL

Those who have lived under communist regimes, who were educated as strategists, are in a better position to properly evaluate recent events than their West European counterparts. During an August 2015 Adevarul Live television discussion, retired Army General Constantin Degeratu referred to the European refugee crisis as a “hybrid war” of aggression, conjured out of the Middle East by Russia. Superficially, the refugee crisis “completely covered the problem of the Russian aggression against Ukraine,” Degeratu noted. He then stated that the whole refugee operation was “well organized.” The general added, “Look at the people who are coming. They are better dressed and better fed than 10 to 15 percent of Romania’s population. This is a planned invasion, it doesn’t have a direct cause in the Middle East….” He then pointed out the logistical difficulties involved in moving millions of people hundreds or thousands of miles. “If somebody is to come from Afghanistan with a trolley to the border of Macedonia, this requires logistics.”²¹

As if to clarify Kalashnikov’s earlier point about Hungary, Degeratu pointed to a curious anomaly. “It is said that this threefold increase in the number of refugees compared to the numbers of last summer is taking everyone by surprise. But [this] occurred a week after Hungary completed the building of [a large border] fence. Doesn’t it seem interesting to you that first the fence was built and afterwards this migration started, in that particular area?”²²

Retired Army General Alexandru Grumaz was also on the program. He agreed that the migration was “well supported.” He added that Turkey also had an interest in pushing the refugees along, toward Europe. It was, said Grumaz, a crisis of European institutions. Degeratu said the problem of the refugee invasion could not be solved. Why? “Because it is managed by Russia and thus it is meant not to be solved, but to be maintained.” The general then said, “Russia’s interest is to maintain this crisis.”

“It is clear,” said Degeratu, “that if the European Union doesn’t want to live the nightmare … which says that in the years 2030 to 2040 more than 60 percent of the active EU population will be Muslim … then the European countries should decide if they want to survive as a civilization or not.” According to Degeratu’s strategic assessment, “We have to understand that we are the target of a war, and we may call it hybrid, or an asymmetrical war, but this migrant wave is a consequence of it.” He then summarized the perilous cost of the migrants for Europe, noting, “the cost for each one of these people is three times the minimum retirement pension in Romania!”²³

Surely, said Degeratu, “The political attitude [in Europe] with regard to this situation needs to change. So far, it’s been peace-time politics. Now we are the target of an aggression. Border control is absolutely mandatory.”

According to Prof. Przemysław Żurawski vel Grajewski, who was asked by Dr. Cernea to comment on Gen. Degeratu’s assessments, “The opinions of Gen. Degeratu are fully justified and I would subscribe [to] each of his statements….” Prof. Żurawski is one of Poland’s best political analysts. He teaches social science at the University of Łódz and the National School of Public Administration, serving in the National Council for Development, an advisory board to President Andrzej Duda. He is also a counselor to the current Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jacek Czaputowicz. According to Prof. Żurawski, the Russians are not responsible for all the refugees who have flooded into Europe, but it is certain “they did their best to make [the problem] larger … to confuse the political scene in European countries … as much as they can. Russia is the main ally of Assad and Iran….” These allies of Russia, he said, have maximized “the scale of the refugees.” Prof. Żurawski also pointed to “the semi-criminal FSB/local mafias and hybrid structures in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” These also played a role in moving refugees through the Balkans into the heart of Europe. “The conclusion is,” he said, “that Russia had instruments to maximize the troubles” despite Europe’s inability to find “a smoking gun.”²⁴

Prof. Żurawski also noted that, “Anti-immigrant parties in the West are usually pro-Russian (Front National, AfD); so deepening the crisis helps Russia’s followers in the West.” This point should not be overlooked. (Kalashnikov hinted at this factor with reference to Hungary more than a year before the refugee crisis began.) Here the manipulation of the European right that takes center stage. Moscow has every reason to believe the European anti-immigrant parties will gain political traction as the refugee crisis intensifies. Moscow, therefore, has reason to invest in the European right. Simultaneously, Moscow also uses its agents on the European left. These agents intensify the crisis through “politically correct” policies. As the left drives the crisis forward, the right opposition grows and seeks ready allies – and is driven into Moscow’s open arms.

This process may already be underway in Hungary where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has shifted toward Moscow.²⁵ The Chief of the Hungarian General Staff, Gen. Tibor Benkő, says that Hungary does not have to buy equipment exclusively from NATO countries. Russia is currently modernizing Hungarian Mi-24 and Mi-17 helicopters for $64 million.²⁶ Perhaps even more alarming is Prime Minister Orban’s tolerance with regard to Russian infiltration of the Hungarian right. Former Hungarian anti-communists are now celebrating Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, linking arms with Russian officials. According to authors Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri, Russia has invested political capital in “hate groups in Central Europe,” with financial ties “to violent organizations in Central and Eastern Europe as well….”²⁷ This is a conscious strategy:

In Moscow’s toolkit of active measures and hybrid warfare, the boundaries between violent and nonviolent tools are increasingly blurry. And this process is two-directional: not only can information be weaponized; violent organizations can be used as soft-power tools. The Kremlin is highly effective at infiltrating fringe parties and paramilitary organizations in Central Europe. They are easy to purchase or control, as these extremist groups tend to be small and easily manipulated.²⁸

What is the ultimate strategic value of the infiltration and manipulation of fringe parties and paramilitary groups? Keeping this question in mind, when we look at the present-day chaos in the Middle East, Russia’s past support for terrorist organizations of every kind becomes less and less of a riddle.

The former Romanian Minister for Communications and Information,²⁹ Marius Bostan, was asked by Dr. Cernea if he agreed with Gen. Degeratu’s remarks. Bostan replied, “From the perspective of my own experience in public service and politics, I do agree with Gen. Degeratu’s opinion that Russia is likely to have been involved in the migrant crisis and … it should be regarded as a hybrid war operation against the West.” Bostan emphasized that “a very important component of the hybrid war is the cultural dimension.” Here the Internet plays a key role. The Russian long-term investment in “propaganda, disinformation, opinion and behavior-shaping” cannot be underestimated. A short-term view would be a mistake. Bostan explained,

There is something about the Russian strategy that is difficult to explain to our Western allies. It’s the fact that Russia usually acts on both sides of a (real or manufactured) conflict. For instance, on [the] Internet we notice that Russian propaganda, disinformation or trolling activity on forums and social networks typically carry messages meant to create/amplify conflicts between different ethnic or religious groups – Romanians versus Hungarians, Poles versus Ukrainians, Christians versus Jews, etc. And they encourage at the same time groups with opposed views – far left anti-market tendencies [versus] libertarian ones, LGBT-rights [versus] conservative Christian activism, open-border multiculturalism [versus] anti-immigration movements, etc. Thus, Russia is able to provoke conflicts and crises, and to influence the public agenda of the countries it targets for subversion.

This ambivalence may seem paradoxical to Western minds, used to a binary logic according to which something cannot be black and white at the same time. Well, Russians are not Westerners. In the East, black and white may be defined in many different ways. Moreover, the Russian leaders still function according to a mentality shaped by Marxist dialectics, which says that progress results from the constant struggle between contrary elements.

It looks like the West is only now discovering that, for instance, Russian internet trolls simultaneously support a certain cause and its contrary.³⁰

Bostan has laid out one of Russia’s key strategies. He says this kind of strategy is “difficult” for the West to understand. As Rudyard Kipling expressed it, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” At some point in the future, however, the West must learn to appreciate Russia’s “scissors strategy” – “that Russia usually acts on both sides of a … conflict.” If there is one central lesson to be drawn from this study, Bostan has underscored it.

In their Atlantic Council article, “From Russia with Hate,” Péter Krekó and Lóránt Győri explain how Polish counterintelligence “is currently investigating Mateusz Piskorski, the leader of the Polish leftist party … as well as former activists of the far-right Polish Congress of the New Right (KNP) on charges of espionage on behalf of Russia.”³¹ Here is the classic Russian “scissors strategy” at work If the refugee crisis is part of a Russian scissors strategy, how does Russia benefit? First, political tensions are intensified between the European right and left; second, the right can be pushed toward Moscow by a variety of mechanisms; third, a general weakening of NATO develops under a scenario of “divide and conquer”; fourth, a general demoralization and loss of belief in existing institutions naturally follows.

In his interview with Epoch Times in November 2015, General Degeratu showed the depth of this understanding when he said we “should see who takes profit” from the refugee crisis. “Well,” he explained, the Russians profited, and many cracks appeared in NATO. “We see how ‘united’ Europe has been,” Degeratu added. “Full unity! There have been 50 voices in our European ‘unity.’”³²

Those who have set up the exercise have understood all our weaknesses and have exploited them properly. What else have they obtained … does anyone still speak about the Ukrainian crisis? Not anymore. There are also 1 million – in fact, 800,000 – refugees, from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, most of them from Donbass. Eight hundred thousand. There are 8,000 dead. Around 2,000 children and pregnant women have died in this crisis. We almost haven’t seen them on the (TV) screen, there have been no gatherings, there was no session of the Romanian Parliament….³³

Degeratu is extraordinarily perceptive, and other experts agree with his assessment that Russia is waging a hybrid war against Europe. “Maybe some of us are too militarily-minded and ask questions that shouldn’t be asked,” said Degeratu.

DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM A SYRIAN GENERAL ON RUSSIA’S DOUBLE GAME

There is a stunning revelation in the fragment of a September 2015 interview given to Witold Gadowski by Syrian Brigadier General Ahmad Aljjdeaa, a soldier with thirty years of experience in the Syrian Army who is also the deputy minister of defense in the Syrian government-in-exile. According to Gen. Aljjdeaa, “Russian officers are constantly present in the branches of the Syrian army supporting the regime of Bashar Assad….”

Then he added, “Russia is interested in confusion in Syria. There are also four military training centers in Russia, in which fanatics are trained, who then fill the ranks of the Islamic State troops (ISIS). Among the trained are also Chechens.”³⁴

Related to this, another curious headline reads: “In retreating from Iraq, ISIS terrorists

lost their Russian passports.”³⁵ The facts are reported as follows: “The Iraqi military, who at the end of last week occupied the university building previously held by ISIS in the city of Mosul, displayed what was found in evidence as the identification papers of Islamic State terrorists, which mostly turned out to be Russian.”³⁶

Again, it is a case of the “scissors strategy.” Moscow has perfected the fine art of stage-managing fake wars and phony splits with false fronts made up of “useful idiots.”³⁷ Russia’s deployment of terrorist and counter-terrorist forces in Syria and Iraq should surprise no one. This procedure was used during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s and again during the recent wars in Chechnya.³⁸

At this juncture it may be useful to recite a bit of history. In July 2005 the Russian KGB/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko told the Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita that Ayman al-Zawahiri (then Al-Qaeda’s second in command) was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in 1997. According to the former KGB foreign intelligence officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky, Litvinenko “was responsible for securing the secrecy of al-Zawahiri’s arrival in Russia … in 1996-1997.”³⁹

The Romanian intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mahai Pacepa, has described Moscow’s use of Arab terrorist organizations throughout the Cold War in his books.⁴⁰ We know that Russia stands firmly behind the Islamic terror regime in Tehran. Researcher Antero Leitzinger explained, “Modern terrorism was born within a year, 1967-68. International socialists (communists) started the fashion all over the world simultaneously, which should make us suspicious about the common roots. National socialists followed suit, turning Marxists of Muslim origin into Islamists of Marxist origin.”⁴¹

Among the closest associates of Khomeini, there were many Communists who had conveniently grown beards. Mustafa Ali Chamran had studied in California and Egypt before he founded a Red Shi’ite secret society. His pupils included later foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi, oil minister Mohammed Gharazi, and Lebanese fellow student in Berkeley University, Hussein Shaikh al-Islam, who led the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran. This occupation, shortly before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, focused Iranian radicalism into anti-Americanism…. Mohammed Beheshti, whose death at a bombing on June 28^th, 1981, remained a mystery, had resided in East Germany. Khomeini’s early companion and foreign minister, Sadegh Ghotbzadeh had successfully accommodated with the new regime. Both Ghotbzadeh and Chamran had received Palestinian terrorist training. As a student in the USA, Ghotbzadeh had been recruited by the [Soviet] GRU.⁴²

With regard to the Soviet-Afghan War, Leitzinger explained that Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) had developed special capabilities by the late 1980s, especially “how to manipulate Islamists and to make Communists (of the Khalq faction) to grow beards and join their declared enemies.” According to Leitzinger, “This ‘Khalq strategy” provided a successful alternative to the more orthodox “Parcham strategy” that relied on ideologically less unholy alliances.”⁴³

Leitzinger argued that the Russian secret services “gained a tight hold on international terrorism, and [especially] on Islamism” in the 1990s. The terrorist is, in essence, a special kind of agent provocateur. A Western analyst finds it difficult to see the Afghan-Soviet War or the first and second Chechen Wars as utilizing provocation techniques on a broad scale. Former CIA official T.H. Bagley and KGB defector Peter Deriabin noted, “Soviet provocation … remains little understood in the West. People safe in a democratic system may find it difficult to conceive that rulers would systematically use such hostile techniques against their own subjects.”⁴⁴

If Moscow’s wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya were built around terrorist provocations, and the objective was to radicalize and infiltrate Islam, and reorient Islam against the West, then the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya appear in a more intelligible light. The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan for conventional reasons, or to attain classical military control.

With the advent of the refugee crisis in Europe, with the likelihood of thousands of terrorists settled within a mass of protected Muslim refugees, the least sign of Russian involvement – or the involvement of Russia’s Islamist surrogates – ought to inspire a shockwave of alarm through Europe’s security establishment. Given the history of Moscow’s infiltration of Islam, and the mounting evidence of Russia’s double game, the Kremlin would be the most natural suspect in any close study of the refugee crisis. Arguably, any other focus would be irresponsible.

As reported by the BBC, U.S. Gen. Philip Breedlove, the senior NATO commander in Europe, said that Russia and Syria were “deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.” He cited Russia’s use of barrel bombs against Syrian civilians. What was the purpose of such indiscriminate attacks? The purpose was, he said, to “get them [masses of people] on the road” to Europe.⁴⁵

Masses of homeless people, adhering to an alien religion, is one problem for Europe. Terrorism is yet another. Since the refugee crisis began Europe has been hit with an unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks (not to mention rapes and robberies). First came the Paris killings of November 2015, then the Brussels bombings of March 2016, then the Nice truck attack and the Normandy church attack of July 2016. Then there was the string of Islamic stabbings across Europe.⁴⁶

Some of our sources (quoted above) have claimed that modern terrorism was introduced to the Muslims by the communist bloc half a century ago. This point must not be forgotten when evaluating the left’s strange love affair with Islam. “From the very beginning,” said former KGB Lt. Col. Konstantin Preobrazhensky, “the so-called Bolsheviks, or communists, were considering Muslims as the reserve [army], as the human resource for the world revolution. Not all … people know that the second appeal by Lenin, after the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917, was addressed to Muslim toilers….” Preobrazhensky continued:

At that time Islam was the religion of the oppressed … of the people colonized by the West. As Lenin said by the time of the … Communist International, ‘The West is existing at the expense of the East.’ Even now we can hear such conclusions, such ideas. And as soon as the Russian Revolution took place, Russian Muslims immediately supported it, so that the communist Muslim military organizations were formed. The Muslim communists were dethroning the local bourgeois Muslim governments which appeared in the Russian Empire⁴⁷.

MUSLIM REFUGEES TO EUROPE: A RUSSIAN POLICY

According to Antoni Rybczynski, “The migratory crisis in Europe is largely a work of Russian policy….” He further stated, “Already … when nobody expected Russian raids in Syria, Vladimir Putin warned that Europe would face the great problems associated with the influx of immigrants.” In this way Moscow supported Assad while undermining Europe.⁴⁸

Another Niezalezna.pl headline underscores this same idea: “Putin’s diabolical game, Exporting Muslim immigrants to Europe.” The article begins, “The Norwegian authorities believe that the refugees’ invasion of their country is a Russian provocation.”⁴⁹

In October 2015 the Czech Minister of Defense, Martin Stropnicky, suggested that Russia was possibly financing the transportation of refugees to Europe. “Although I do not have 100 percent proof of this information,” he said, “I cannot discount it either.”⁵⁰ Given all we know, his surmise is logical. It is sensible. Why wouldn’t Russia – which has armed Islamic terrorists throughout Asia – arm Islamic terrorists in Germany, Britain, France or Sweden?

According to a member of the Estonian National Defense League, Ants Laaneots, “Putin’s aim is the disintegration of the European Union and NATO, if possible.” Russia, he added, is promoting “Euroscepticism.”⁵¹ More likely, Russia’s strategy includes many subtle and indirect objectives. As with the work of the late Mohammad Fahim in Afghanistan, Russia can take over a NATO-defended country through the work of an enterprising criminal. Russia can thereby paralyze the heart of Afghanistan or the heart of Europe in a way that mocks European compassion.

The Chairman of the Supreme Council of Lithuania, Vytautas Landsbergis, made an observation on 15 September 2015 about the refugee crisis almost identical to others we have seen:

I was thinking who had to profit, and I know now. In the current crisis, the whole attention is focused on Europe. Nobody is speaking of Ukraine any more, although there are almost 2 million refugees there as well. Putin has chased them away, and nobody is proposing them to go where life is better….⁵²

According to Landsbergis, the current migration crisis is a threat to European civilization.

Europe has met a big danger for its own system, even for its own civilization. The Germans earlier had illusions, that they would manage to integrate a million Turks, that the Turks would become Germans and there would be no problem. It didn’t work. Ghettos were created, a state within the state, and these are big problems….⁵³

The Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko, speaking on TV Channel News One, stated:

The crisis of migrants in Europe arose because of Putin. The war in Syria began in 2011, but migrants flooded [Europe] like a large river in the spring of 2015. Russia made a decision after Europe imposed economic sanctions on Russia: ‘Let’s create problems for them.” They created a problem: $1,000 was allocated for the head of [each] refugee who will be taken from Syria to Europe. A million refugees are a billion dollars. This is nothing to Putin….⁵⁴

The cost to Europe, however, is much more than a $1 billion. Gerashchenko added that an atmosphere of xenophobia has been created in Europe along with the growing influence of various nationalist parties, which are known for their favorable position toward Putin’s Russia.

CONCLUSION

Whatever the causes of the Refugee crisis, Moscow’s strategists have taken full advantage of the situation. Those who know Russian policy best, who are geographically further east, know that Russia has something to gain. If a “smoking gun” is absent, in a strict sense, there is yet a loaded gun. One might say this gun is pointed at the heart of Europe.

With regard to proof, the strategist does not wear a white lab coat or follow some academic procedure to understand the world. He is not a prosecuting attorney who has to prove his case in a court of law. He is engaged in “a duel on an extensive scale” – which was Carl von Clausewitz’s famous definition of war. If military and political leaders only acted on the basis of scientific proof – or rely on proofs used to convince a jury – they would not be able to act at all. The soldier and the stateman exercise judgment on a more commonsense level.

Consider the following analogy: If it is 2 December 1941 and an American plane spots six Japanese aircraft carriers moving east between Alaska and Midway Island, a sensible strategist would assume that the Japanese were intending to attack the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor. The sensible strategist would be quite foolish to declare that “there was no proof” of a Japanese intention to attack. It would be pedantic, under the circumstances, to say there was “no smoking gun.” Strategy dictates an entirely different epistemology. The reported movement of the Japanese aircraft carriers would constitute a loaded gun, aimed at the U.S. Pacific Fleet. A responsible military leader does not wait for that gun to be fired. An American admiral, drawing the proper inferences, would know exactly what to do. He would alert the fleet at Pearl Harbor and take countermeasures. He would know, as one who directs fleets, that every enemy move speaks to intention. That must be the foundation of his certitude, of his practical knowledge.

In terms of the Muslim refugee crisis in Europe: reports of ISIS training camps in Russia, reports of GRU/SVR and Russian Mafia assistance to a massive influx of refugees, reports of Russian infiltration of terrorist organizations throughout the Muslim world, etc., constitute a loaded gun. We must judge these reports as strategists – not as social scientists or academics. This must be the foundation of a new strategic methodology for the Muslim Refugee problem. Clearly, this is not simply about Islam. Russian involvement is indicated. Russian strategy must be understood as part of a greater strategic whole in order to properly assess the larger situation.

NOTES

1 http://www.fronda.pl/a/gadowski-dla-frondapl-agenci-panstwa-islamskiego-wsrod-imigrantowf,57134.html?part=1

2 Ibid.

3 http://www.vocativ.com/news/224151/syria-government-assad-kills-more-civilians-than-isis/index.html

4 http://www.vocativ.com/news/247479/russian-airstrikes-killed-more-syrian-civilians-than-isis-fighters/

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

6 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

7 http://www.businessinsider.com/organized-crime-is-now-a-major-element-of-russia-statecraft-2015-10

8 http://ileanajohnson.com/2015/12/witold-gadowski-polish-journalist-talks-to-fronda-pl-about-syrian-refugees/

9 https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/02/usegypt_relations_under_attack_1.html#ixzz58Jw FkwoF

10 https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2011/08/18/the-exciting-notion-of-arab-spring-is-a-jedi-mind-trick/#2ab603254ce7

11 Ibid.

12 The former intelligence official was interviewed by J.R. Nyquist on condition of anonymity.

13 Katehon’s president is Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch with close ties to Aleksandr Dugin, previously the co-founder of the National Bolshevist movement (along with Eduard Limonov). This was a movement which combined nationalism and communism (i.e., a Red-Brown prototype movement). More recently Dugin changed his ideological formula, mixing pan-European or Eurasianist ideas with nihilistic metaphysics in order to justify a worldwide anti-U.S. alliance between traditionalist and Marxists. All this is interspersed with a thinly disguised Lenin-style anti-capitalist millenarianism which seeks to hasten the “end times” with the destruction of Carthage (i.e., the United States). Dugin’s pretense at Orthodox Christianity should not be taken any more seriously than his nationalist pretenses. His entire ideology is an arcane justification for a renewed USSR/Third Rome. His enemies are the old enemies of the USSR. His friends are the old friends of the USSR. Dugin’s philosophic sophistication is not to be taken seriously, though his past fascination with Aleister Crowley’s black magic craves closer investigation. Of course, Dugin’s flirtation with esoteric ideas has helped to win adherents on the alt-right, particularly among neo-pagans, occultists and Sufis. His supposed positive attitude toward traditional Christianity leads to the conclusion that he is consciously toying with dialectically opposite theologies and ideologies. Using conspiracy theory as a tool to advance his anti-U.S. agenda, Dugin also pretends to support President Donald Trump, making English language broadcasts praising Trump for stopping globalism and “the expansion of liberal ideology.” Dugin also praises Alex Jones and Infowars. To watch Dugin’s English language broadcasts, see – “The Mystic Shaping Russia’s Future and Bringing Back the Dark Ages, https://godsandradicals.org/2017/03/28/the-mystic-shaping-russias-future-and-ending-the-modern-era/. See also, http://www.4pt.su/en/content/who-aleksandr-dugin and https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/06/dugins-evil-theology-robert-zubrin/.

14 http://katehon.com/article/tragic-loss-red-pasha

15 http://www.trevorloudon.com/2013/06/exclusive-part-2-former-kgb-colonel-victor-kalashnikov-on-the-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-anti-western-alliance-with-islam-israel-syria-iran-and-the-kremlins-grand-strateg/

16 Ibid.

17 http://conservativeread.com/former-kgbs-victor-kalashnikov-dangers-of-putin-worship-russias-islamist-alliance-plans-to-destroy-nato/

18 http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/07/were-911-terror-attacks-false-flag.html

19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=27&v=F6vj0z_oZIs – at about 15 minutes into the interview.

^20 Ibid.

21 http://adevarul.ro/international/europa/adevarul-live-generalul-degeratu-despre-criza-imigrantilor-rusia-cea-genereaza-criza-acestei-migratii-excesive-1_55e05dbdf5eaafab2c014a6e/index.html

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

²⁴From Żurawski’s written reply to Dr. Cernea.

25 newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-meets-hungary-viktor-orban-agenda-gas-soviet-sanctions-551263

26 http://www.defence24.pl/geopolityka/wegry-sie-zbroja-orban-kupi-sprzet-w-rosji

27 http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

28 Ibid.

29 Bostan was minister from Nov. 2015 to July 2016.

30 Written response to inquiry of former Communications and Information Minister Marius Bostan to Dr. Cernea, dated 3 March 2018.

31 atlanticcouncil.org/component/content/article?id=35796:from-russia-with-hate-the-kremlin-s-support-for-violent-extremism-in-central-europe

32 http://epochtimes-romania.com/video/constantin-degeratu-criza-refugiatilor-a-fost-o-operatiune-organizata—1099

33 Ibid.

34 https://wpolityce.pl/swiat/260088-syryjski-general-oskarza-w-rosji-szkoleni-sa-fanatycy-ktorzy-potem-zasilaja-szeregi-panstwa-islamskiego

35 org/wycofujac-sie-iraku-bojowcy-isis-zgubili-swe-rosyjskie-paszporty/

36 Ibid.

37 See, especially,Yao Ming-le, The Conspiracy and Death of Lin Biao (1983). There it is explained how Gen. Lin Biao secretly prepared to wage a phony war with the Soviet Union in 1971.

38 See, especially, Bearden and Risen, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Final Showdown with the KGB (New York: Random House, 2003), p. 233.

39 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko#cite_note-69

40 Ronald Rychlak and Ion Mihai Pacepa, Disinformation: Former Spry Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism (WND Books, 2013). See also, Pacepa, Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Eana Ceausescus’ Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption (1990).

41 See also Antero Leitzinger’s article in the The Eurasian Politician – Issue 5 (April-September 2002), “The Roots of Islamic Terrorism,” http://users.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/issue5/roots.htm

42 In this matter Leitzinger offers citations from the following sources: Livingston & Halevy, Inside the PLO (USA, 1990), p. 153-154; and Kuzichkin, Inside the KGB – Myth and Reality (Frome, 1990), p. 302.

43 eitzinger referenced Finnish researcher Anssi Kullberg’s master’s thesis on Russian geopolitics focusing on the Islamic Renaissance Party founded in Astrakhan in June 1990, “under KGB surveillance.” Kullberg

44 Deriabin and Bagley, KGB: Masters of the Soviet Union (New York, 1990), p. 252.

45 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35706238

46 http://time.com/4607481/europe-terrorism-timeline-berlin-paris-nice-brussels/

47 Konstantin Preobrazhensky: “How the Russian Communists Run Islam.” https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Preobrazhensky+Konstantin+How+the+Russian+Communists+r un+Islamic+Terrorism+https%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3d0AqMCLqTRFo&PC=ACTS &refig=ebf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dPreobrazhensky%2bKonstantin%2 bHow%2bthe%2bRussian%2bCommunists%2brun%2bIslamic%2bTerrorism%2bhttps%253A%252F%252 Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253D0AqMCLqTRFo%26FORM%3dEDGNCT%26PC%3dACTS% 26refig%3debf0ef63163f4c948bcf96c60aeb434a&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=19EC1DC31D497F37 378719EC1DC31D497F373787&FORM=WRVORC

48 http://niezalezna.pl/77702-jak-putin-i-asad-produkuja-uchodzcow-rosjanie-stosuja-taktyke-z-wojny-czeczenskiej

49 http://niezalezna.pl/73114-diabelska-gra-putina-rosja-eksportuje-islamskich-imigrantow-do-europy

50 http://www.uawire.org/news/czech-minister-of-defense-it-is-possible-that-russia-is-financing-the-influx-of-refugees-to-europe

51 http://www.uawire.org/news/estonian-politician-russia-uses-the-migration-crisis-as-part-of-its-hybrid-war#

52 http://zw.lt/litwa/landsbergis-o-kryzysie-z-uchodzcami-winna-jest-rosja/

53 Ibid.

54 https://newsone.ua/news/politics/gerashhenko-krizis-migrantov-dlya-evropy-pridumal-putin.html

________________

Center for Security Policy HOMEPAGE

About CSP

The Center for Security Policy was founded in July 1988 by 30 national security policy practitioners united by an overarching goal – to perpetuate the time-tested policy Ronald Reagan used to such transformative effect during his presidency: “Peace through Strength.” Led by Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan Defense Department official and aide to Senators Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Tower, they founded a non-partisan, educational public policy organization with a single, overarching mission: secure freedom.

“What an exemplary organization you are — devoting yourselves to the pursuit of peace and national security. I can think of no loftier purpose or goal.” — 1995 letter from President Ronald Reagan to the Center for Security Policy

The Center has diligently advanced that goal ever since through a combination of: cutting-edge public policy research; the skillful and evolving use of multi-media platforms for outreach to – and impact with – the nation’s leadership and people; and, most uniquely, the creation and direction of coalitions to undertake effective advocacy.

In its early days, the Center for Security Policy became famous for … READ THE REST

Pentagon Gearing Up for Space Warfare

Are you or have ever been a Sci-Fi fan? I was an enormous fan in my teens and early adulthood. Today I am more a Sci-Fi dabbler than an obsessed fan. Here is the reason I share this hobby predilection.

Any future global war will have a military venue that most people do not imagine in the present unless – you have been or are a Sci-Fi fan.

I just read a Bill Gertz article in which the phrase “Space Warfare” is a serious military subject in which current military rivals are central figures. Science Fiction is a heartbeat away from being Science Fact in the National Security interests for the United States of America. (Unless of course Snowflake Obamanites guide our foreign policy into oblivion.)

JRH 3/8/18

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Pentagon Gearing Up for Space Warfare

New policy warns of counterattacks against space attacks

By Bill Gertz

March 8, 2018 5:00 am

Washington Free Beacon

**Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood** **/ Getty Images**

The Pentagon is preparing for war should China, Russia, or other adversaries attack vital American satellites and other space systems, a senior Pentagon official told Congress on Wednesday.

John Rood, undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before a House subcommittee that the Trump administration’s new defense policy calls for conducting military and other operations in response to space attacks, mainly by China and Russia.

Rood said American space systems are essential for “our prosperity, security, and way of life.”

“And [Defense Department] space capabilities are critical for effective deterrence, defense, and force projection capabilities,” he told a hearing of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces.

“Due to the critical importance of these assets, the national security strategy states, ‘any harmful interference with or attack upon critical components of our space architecture that directly affects this vital U.S. interest will be met with a deliberate response at a time, place, manner, and domain of our choosing.'”

The statement on space defense was the first clear policy announcement by a senior U.S. official outlining “declaratory policy” normally reserved for strategic nuclear weapons use.

The new policy represents a break from the policies of the Obama administration that sought to promote transparency initiatives and arms control agreements as a way to limit space weapons or conflict in space.

The policy likely will be opposed by arms control advocates, and by both China and Russia, which have been promoting agreements limiting space weapons at the United Nations while secretly building arms for space conflict.

Rood said the Pentagon has requested $12.5 billion in funding for the fiscal year 2019 that begins Oct. 1 for building up what he termed a “more resilient defendable space architecture.”

The request is $1.1 billion more than funding for last year on military space.

Rood, and Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the Omaha-based Strategic Command, testified on the command’s budget request of $24 billion.

Neither elaborated on what space warfare capabilities are being developed. The Pentagon also has not said how it would deter and defend satellites from attack.

Space defense so far has involved development of intelligence capabilities to identify and assess if an incident in space is an attack, or the result of a malfunction or disruption due to collision with space debris.

Military space “resilience” also calls for the Pentagon to rapidly replace or restore satellites after attacks or other disruptions.

The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, in a report last year, warned that the vulnerability of U.S. satellites to electronic attack was “a crisis to be dealt with immediately.”

The Joint Staff intelligence directorate warned earlier this year that China and Russia will have fully developed space attack weapons in place by 2020 that will threaten all U.S. satellites in low earth orbit—100 miles to 1,200 miles in space.

More than 780 orbiting satellites operated by 43 nations are currently in low-earth orbit and are vulnerable to electronic or kinetic attacks.

Satellites form the backbone of the U.S. military’s ability to conduct combined arms warfare over long distances. They provide communications, navigation, intelligence and surveillance, weapons targeting, and attack warning.

Analysts say anti-satellites attacks knocking out 12 Global Positioning System satellites, located in medium-earth orbit around 12,550 miles high, would be severely degraded military operations.

U.S. space weapons are likely to match anti-satellite weaponry developed by both China and Russia. That would include several types of weapons and capabilities, ranging from advanced missile defense interceptors modified for space attacks on satellites, cyber warfare capabilities to disrupt or destroy anti-satellite and space weapons systems both in space and on the ground, and lasers and electronic jammers.

A defense source said one of the more stealthy anti-satellite capabilities being considered is a laser weapon capable of overheating an orbiting satellite that would disrupt or destroy electronic components.

Small satellites with robotic arms capable of maneuvering and grabbing or crushing satellites also could be developed. Such satellites have been tested by China.

The experimental space plane known as the X-37B, that has been secretly tested on long-duration flights in space, is also said to be a potential platform for delivering weapons and fighting in space.

Hyten, the Stratcom commander, said in his prepared statement that the Pentagon and National Reconnaissance Office are implementing a “space warfighting construct.”

“This construct supports the national space policy and focuses on the forces, operations, and systems needed to prevail in a conflict that extends into space,” he said.

“Space is a warfighting domain just like the air, ground, maritime, and cyberspace domains,” Hyten said.

Currently, a defense and intelligence center called the National Space Defense Center [Blog Editor: NSDC info], located at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, runs 24-hour operations for rapid detection, warning, and defense from space attacks.

War games involving space war also are held regularly with U.S. military forces and allies, including Asian and European allies.

Hyten also revealed that U.S. adversaries will deploy hypersonic strike vehicles—that can travel at more than 7,000 miles per hour—in the next few years.

China has conducted at least seven tests of hypersonic vehicles and Russia as well has conducted several hypersonic missile tests.

The hypersonic vehicles are designed to defeat missile defenses.

Hyten urged speeding up U.S. development of hypersonic strike weapons as well as what he termed conventional prompt strike weapons.

“New long-range, survivable, lethal, and time-sensitive strike capabilities, such as a hypersonic (conventional prompt strike) weapon, will allow the U.S. to achieve its military objectives in these environments,” Hyten said. “This new weapon class prevents adversaries from exploiting time and distance and provides additional response options below the nuclear threshold.”

Rood said U.S. missile defenses currently are configured for countering missile threats from North Korea and Iran and are not capable of stopping strategic strikes from China and Russia.

The undersecretary described China and Russia as the “central challenges” for the Pentagon in an increasingly complex military threat environment. “Both Russia and China are seeking to reshape the world order,” he said.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), the subcommittee chairman, has been pressing for creation of a separate space corps within the Air Force.

Defense legislation passed last year calls for a study on the issue and for recognizing space as a warfighting domain.

“These were the first steps down a long path in the right direction,” Rogers said. “Much remains to be done here to ensure we’re postured to both successfully deter a conflict in space, and if need be, prevail over any adversary if a conflict extends into space.”

Rogers said for space defense, the Air Force has discussed the idea of shifting from large satellites to many smaller satellites. “But what I’ve seen so far in the FY ’19 budget isn’t convincing me we’re heading in that direction fast enough,” he said.

As part of the Pentagon’s budget for nuclear modernization, two modified nuclear weapons are planned.

One is a smaller warhead on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, to counter Russia’s development of a new nuclear cruise missile in violation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force Treaty.

A second smaller nuclear weapon will be a new sea-launched nuclear cruise missile designed to counter China’s large arsenal of medium and intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

The Pentagon also is bolstering the ground-based anti-missile interceptor force now located in Alaska and California. Twenty additional interceptors will be added to the 44 interceptors currently in place.

The added missiles are designed to counter North Korean and Iranian long-range missile threats.

Rood said the Pentagon is considering a third anti-missile interceptor base on the East Coast but has not made a final decision.

The third base will be part of the Pentagon’s forthcoming Missile Defense Review that is nearing completion.

Rood said recent disclosures of new strategic nuclear capabilities by Russia were known to the Pentagon. The statements were “not surprising but disappointing,” he said.

As for China, Rood warned that China is “developing a very large strategic offensive nuclear force.”

“Both countries are pursuing hypersonic weapons and other capabilities and their behavior in the cyber realm concerns us,” he said. “All of those things apiece are concerning and why in the national defense strategy we highlighted those two countries as our primary and central focus for our national security efforts going forward.”

Asked if the U.S. doctrine of mutual assured destruction used to deter nuclear conflict with China and Russia will endure, Hyten said: “I don’t think we have to worry about that for at least a decade.”

U.S. strategic nuclear capabilities will remain strong enough to keep the doctrine in place, he added.

Hyten said Strategic Command is interested in developing missile defenses capable of knocking out missiles in the early stages of flight.

Direct energy and cyber attacks are two possible weapons.

______________________

Bill Gertz is senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon he was a national security reporter, editor, and columnist for 27 years at the Washington Times. Bill is the author of seven books, four of which were national bestsellers. His most recent book was iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age, a look at information warfare in its many forms and the enemies that are waging it. Bill has an international reputation. Vyachaslav Trubnikov, head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, once called him a “tool of the CIA” after he wrote an article exposing Russian intelligence operations in the Balkans. A senior CIA official once threatened to have a cruise missile fired at his desk after he wrote a column critical of the CIA’s analysis of China. And China’s communist government has criticized him for news reports exposing China’s weapons and missile sales to rogues states. The state-run Xinhua news agency in 2006 identified Bill as the No. 1 “anti-China expert” in the world. Bill insists he is very much pro-China—pro-Chinese people and opposed to the communist system. Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once told him: “You are drilling holes in the Pentagon and sucking out information.” His Twitter handle is @BillGertz.

Email Bill | Full Bio

About Washington Free Beacon

“How stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” —Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address, January 11, 1989

The Washington Free Beacon is a privately owned, for-profit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the powers that be hope will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that is not being fully covered by other news organizations.

The Beacon’s chairman is Michael Goldfarb. Its editor in chief is Matthew Continetti. Sonny Bunch is the executive editor. Bill Gertz is senior editor. … READ THE REST

Islamic Terrorism in Manhattan

By John R. Houk, Editor

© November 1, 2017

Yet another Muslim with a legal record enviable for most Americans embraced the original theopolitical ideology taught by Islam’s founder Muhammad.

A Muslim Uzbekistan foreign national in the U.S. with a green card rented a Home Depot rig drove it to Manhattan NYC, found a relatively wide bike path that pedestrians also frequented. He drove the truck rapidly through the bike path killing eight and severely injuring many others.

The Muslim’s name -Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov.

Below is a collection of Clarion Project articles posted on 11/1 and followed by some criticism from Brigitte Gabriel from her appearance on Fox News The Story with Martha McCollum from 10/31.

JRH 11/1/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

NYC Terrorist: Lone Wolf … or Not?

By MEIRA SVIRSKY

November 1, 2017

Clarion Project

An ISIS ad encouraging jiahdi attacks on Halloween in France (Photo: ISIS propaganda)

ISIS had called on its supporters through social media to carry out attacks on Halloween. For example, in France, a country in which young people recently started celebrating the holiday, an ad appeared the day before Halloween with an image of a machete dripping blood over the Eiffel Tower.

The text on the ad (shown above) read: “Enjoy their gathering. Terrorize October 31” and “Get out before it’s too late,” seemingly a message to the French to abandon their country to jihadis.

The image was shared on a Twitter account that distributes news about Islamic State (ISIS), jihadi videos and images.

ISIS’ own magazine Rumiyah has extensively encouraged its followers to conduct “lone wolf” vehicular attacks, with one issue providing a step-by-step guide on how to procure a heavy truck and perpetrate such an attack.

In the guide, ISIS recommended to avoid “off-roaders, SUVs, and four-wheel drive vehicles” because they “lack the necessary attributes required for causing a blood bath.”

“Smaller vehicles lack the weight and wheel span required for crushing many victims,” the article stated, while double-wheeled trucks “[give] victims less of a chance to escape being crushed by the vehicle’s tires.”

While attacks such as the one in New York may have carried out by one person, calling such attack the work of a “lone wolf” is deceiving.

ISIS has built a sophisticated network that allows such individuals to be encouraged, tutored and ideologically supported every step of their twisted journey from the inception of the idea to the execution of a terrorist attack.

Social media is not localized. It is a powerful tool that has aided the Islamic State, without which a huge percentage of their successful recruitment of volunteers would most likely not have happened.

Young people who have grown up in the age of the internet are comfortable participating in virtual reality. Thus, online connections — through encrypted messaging, “inspirational” videos and even “personal” contact through video chatting — is as good as the real thing.

To call any terrorist in our day a “lone wolf” is a misnomer – and a dangerous one, as it takes the attention off finding and shutting down the trail of responsibility and focusing solely on the individual.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

+++++++++++++

NYC Aftermath: To Stop Terrorism, Destroy the Ideology

BY ELLIOT FRIEDLAND

November 1, 2017

Clarion Project

Aftermath of the truck attack which killed eight in Manhattan on Tuesday October 31, 2017 (Photo: DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

Tuesday’s terrorist attack in New York was carried out by a 29-year-old man who rented a Home Depot truck and drove it onto a bike path. Such forms of attack are extremely simple to carry out. They need no planning, no coordination with a central organization and are not difficult to obtain equipment.

They are therefore impossible to completely stop with security measures alone.

Counter-extremism organization the Quilliam Foundation said of the attack:

“This unfortunate incident once again highlights the importance of focusing resources on deradicalization work and implementing a better strategy to prevent extremism, as incidents of this nature are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for security services to predict and stop.”

New York is not unguarded. Entering the United States requires extensive security checks. Immigration from countries like Uzbekistan (the nationality of the terrorist) is complex and requires background checks.

Not only that, but once an attack is underway there are armed police everywhere. In this case, the terrorist was shot very promptly at the scene by a nearby uniformed officer.

The FBI and CIA carry out extensive surveillance operations around the world. They monitor correspondence, tap phone conversations and pay informants. They have spies inside foreign governments and inside terrorist organizations. They have reconnaissance satellites in space.

America’s security services work tirelessly to protect the country from every conceivable foe, and most of the time they succeed. The United States government spends over $16 billion annually to counter terrorism. They can even use drones to kill any designated target pretty much anywhere in the world.

But with all this technology and money, they cannot read people’s minds and cannot prevent someone from just deciding to run people over with a truck.

People decide to carry out attacks like that in the name of an ideology. An ideology they find powerful enough to die for it. All the security in the world cannot prevent individuals who believe in something from acting in the name of that belief: That killing random civilians will trigger the war between Muslims and the West that they crave and enable them to usher in a totalitarian caliphate.

They will always find new ways to attack and new ways to hide because it simply isn’t possible to eliminate every potential avenue of terror.

The only way to end radical Islamic terrorism once and for all is to discredit the ideology which fuels it.

++++++++

New York Terrorist Left Note Pledging to ISIS

BY ELLIOT FRIEDLAND

November 1, 2017

Clarion Project

Police in the aftermath of the truck attack which killed eight in Manhattan on Tuesday October 31, 2017. (Photo: Kena Betancur/Getty Images)

A terrorist mowed down cyclists in Manhattan with a truck on Tuesday, killing eight people and injuring at least 11 others. Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov drove a rental truck onto a bike path near the site of the World Trade Center and continued for several blocks before he crashed into a school bus.

Witnesses report Saipov emerged from the truck brandishing two guns and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” A uniformed police officer shot him in the abdomen. The guns were later revealed to be a paintball gun and a pellet gun.

Saipov, 29, was taken to hospital and is now in police custody. A note claiming the attack in the name of the Islamic State terrorist group was found in the truck. Saipov is an Uzbek national who came to the United States in 2010.

“This was an act of terror, and a particularly cowardly act of terror,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement, “aimed at innocent civilians, aimed at people going about their lives who had no idea what was about to hit them.”

U.S. President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray have all been briefed. The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has taken over the investigation.

“In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. NOT IN THE U.S.A.!” Trump tweeted in the wake of the attack.

The Islamic State (ISIS) has long called for supporters in the United States to carry out attacks in its name against civilians without waiting for coordination with the central leadership. In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, for example, the group called for attacks against relief centers gathering aid to help the victims.

In June this year, ISIS called on supporters to “kill civilians of the Crusaders, run over them by vehicles.”

At press time the attacker is believed to have acted alone.

Elliot Friedland is a research fellow at Clarion Project.

Twitter

+++++++++

VIDEO: Brigitte Gabriel interview on Fox News after the terror attack in NY

Posted by ACT for America

Published on Nov 1, 2017

http://www.actforamerica.org

____________________________

Islamic Terrorism in Manhattan

By John R. Houk, Editor

________________________

NYC Terrorist: Lone Wolf … or Not?

NYC Aftermath: To Stop Terrorism, Destroy the Ideology

New York Terrorist Left Note Pledging to ISIS

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples. More About Clarion Project

DONATE to Clarion Project

Something Else To Fret About: ISIS Mounting Dirty Bombs On Drones

You should be wondering the same thing that National Security and Homeland Security experts are taking seriously.

JRH 9/9/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Something Else To Fret About: ISIS Mounting Dirty Bombs On Drones

Drone Over City

By Tim Johnson from Special to McClatchy Washington Bureau

September 8, 2017

In Homeland Security

Here’s a fear that keeps counter-terrorism officials up at night: Extremists might use drones to drop dirty bombs or poison on Western cities.

It could just be a matter of time before Islamic State fighters take drone usage from the battlefield in Syria and Iraq to urban areas of the West, security officials say.

“I understand that an openly available drone, such as a quadcopter, which is able to hold a camera, can drop some dirty explosive device,” Friedrich Grommes, Germany’s top international terrorism official, told McClatchy on the sidelines of a national security forum.

“Even if only a few people are affected, it serves completely the idea of terrorism,” Grommes added. The payload would be “something which is poisonous. It could be a chemical or whatever is commercially available.”

Concerns about such tactics grew after Australian federal police said on Aug. 3 that they had disrupted an Islamic State plot to build an “improvised chemical dispersion device” that terrorists sought to deploy in urban areas. Plotters aimed to spread hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas.

Such a flying dirty bomb could be attached to a drone and used in Europe or North America, counter-terrorism officials said.

“That technology hasn’t quite crossed the Atlantic. It actually hasn’t left the battlefield,” said Chris Rousseau, director of Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, based in Ottawa.

Rousseau and other counter-terror experts spoke at the two-day Intelligence & National Security Summit 2017 in Washington.

After the panel, Rousseau spoke further about a drone carrying a terrorist weapon: “The question is at what point somebody’s going to get the idea to use that here.”

Extremists may not have the knowhow to manufacture deadly nerve or chemical agents, choosing simpler chemical components and combining them with an explosive, Grommes said.

“They will refrain from developing the complex chemical or biological attacks because they want to have the sudden spectacular blast,” said Grommes, who heads a directorate focused on international terrorism at Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND.

Counter-terrorism officials, speaking about other facets of the war on terrorism, said nations must not get complacent about a possible strengthening of al-Qaida, the extremist faction that launched the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, eventually retreating from Afghanistan to the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa amid sustained U.S.-led military pressure. The group has been overshadowed by the Islamic State.

In a reversal of al-Qaida’s earlier tactics, Sheikh Hamza bin Laden, son of the deceased al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, called in May for the group’s followers to embrace the kinds of “lone wolf attacks” used by Islamic State, its bitter rival, in which jihadists execute terror operations acting largely on their own and without direction.

Experts said the latest crop of terror attacks in Europe were largely carried out by men afflicted by anger more than driven by religious fanaticism.

Khalid Masood, a 52-year-old Briton who plowed a car into pedestrians on London’s Westminster Bridge on March 22, killing five people and injuring 50, left behind writings with “almost no real ideological content,” said Paddy McGuinness, Britain’s deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience.

Attackers find an outlet for rage in radical interpretations of Islam, McGuinness said.

“They are looking for something and they stick a sticker on it and they find their justification,” McGuinness said. “Their grip on their religion is so superficial as to be less than what you’d get by watching a television documentary.”

Rousseau, the Canadian official, echoed that belief.

“Religious ideology is very much the excuse,” Rousseau said, noting that little differentiates the anger of white supremacists and Islamic radicals.

McGuinness called on Britain’s allies to do more to remove radical Islamic content from the internet, where he said it becomes an echo chamber for radicals.

“People can radicalize very, very quickly,” McGuinness said. Just as some countries bar pedophiles from putting content on line, he said Western countries need to fight the presence of extremists online, “not allow them to be there.”

_______________

Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau at www.mcclatchydc.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

InHomelandSecurity.com is brought to you by American Military University | Online Degrees for Homeland Security Professionals

ABOUT THE BLOG

InHomelandSecurity.com is a top online resource for breaking homeland security news and analysis, brought to you by American Military University. InHomelandSecurity.com is maintained by a network of field experts who cover topics dealing with terrorism research, emergency preparedness, disaster response, border security, transportation and logistics, military intelligence, law enforcement, cybersecurity, and national security.

Check back daily for detailed analysis on breaking homeland security news from around the world.

Follow us on Twitter or Facebook for breaking news analysis or to discuss critical homeland security topics. Please join the conversation and provide your feedback.

Contribute to InHomelandSecurity.com

We are always looking for guest contributions from professionals, experts in the field, and guest writers. If you are interested in becoming a contributor or submitting a guest post, you can learn more about the contribution process by visiting our Terms of Use page.

Permitted Usage of Our Information

You are welcome to use, for any lawful purpose, the information that is posted to this site, provided that you link to and attribute InHomelandSecurity.com and the author of the content. Any 3rd-party material linked to or referenced on this site is subject to the rights of the owners of that material.

InHomelandSecurity.com is sponsored by American Military University. American Military University (AMU) is … READ THE REST

Terrorism and COGITO

John R. Houk

Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about the extreme vetting process that President Trump could use to quickly detect if a person has terrorist designs against the United States. Ehrenfeld has an idea based on some technology created in Israel yet commissioned by the United States Department of Homeland Security.

Check out this quote from Ehrenfeld on the technology:

An effective way to find out the applicant’s intentions would be screening through an efficient, unbiased, and non-intrusive system. Such a system was developed by an Israeli company with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, which the Obama administration refused to utilize.

The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threats among employees, etc.

COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system that can determine in 5-7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.

I did a little looking into this COGITO technology. My impression is the concept was initially developed for companies to use to vet their new employees with something more efficiency than a lengthy lie detector test. Evidently the COGITO technology can be streamlined for many psych detection purposes including terrorism.

In the process of investigating “COGITO” I discovered it is not an acronym for some scientific gizmo, rather it is an actual word. Here is an interesting definition for “cogito”:

1: the philosophical principle that one’s existence is demonstrated by the fact that one thinks

2: the intellectual processes of the self or ego

Origin and Etymology of cogito

New Latin cogito, ergo sum, literally, I think, therefore I am, principle stated by René Descartes
First Known Use: 1838 (Definition of cogito; Merriam-Webster)

Apparently SDS technology has taken a philosophical and retrofitted it to a psychological examination of discovering – so-to-speak – who a person is.

Here is the short version of the SDS COGITO technology that can be employed:

Suspect Detection Systems Inc.’s Cogito Data Center (Cogito DC) is a central knowledgebase and control server that serves as a complete analytical back office to the Cogito Rapid Interrogation System. Cogito DC will enable SDS customers to create a central storage base of all examinee data. The interrogation system collects an vast amount of data with each examination beginning with a scan of the examinees passport or identification card. The system then scans unique biometric identification information including fingerprint and iris (eye) imaging, and voice signature. The Cogito DC knowledgebase then aggregates and analyzes the interrogation results of all examinees. The system compares test results of potential suspects from common backgrounds, which then enables interrogators to perform intelligence analysis over the entire scope of collected metadata. (Cogito Data Center; SUSPECT DETECTION SYSTEMS INC.)

And here is an excerpt from the longer version of the technology behind COGITO:

General

The COGITO system is a technology-based concept and solution for the detection of suspects harboring malicious intent serves for detection of “Internal Threat” (employees of governmental agencies and enterprises that have destructive intents), Police interrogations and border security. The COGITO concept is derived from extensive interdisciplinary know-how in security, polygraph testing and field-proven security-related interrogation techniques.

The COGITO core technology is based on proprietary software – an “expert system” that emulates an investigator’s Modus Operandi by incorporating “soft decision-making” algorithms such as “Neural Networks” and “Fuzzy Logic”. All hardware elements are best-of-breed off-the-shelf third-party components. The technical solution is comprised of a front-end, the ‘Test Station’, and a back-office where multiple-station and multiple-site data is stored, managed and distributed.

COGITO presents a significant conceptual breakthrough that can assist international aviation and homeland security authorities in responding to increasingly sophisticated means of international terrorism. This concept is based on several well-established paradigms and assumptions.

Intent vs. Means

The COGITO concept focuses on detecting terrorist (malicious) intent as opposed to detecting the means (i.e. explosives or weapons). The value of detecting intent is based on several well-founded and proven assumptions. As proven in the 9/11 and many other terrorist attacks when entering a country, terrorists will not necessarily carry weapons or devices on their person. This has been well demonstrated in several international terror attacks. Moreover, terrorists with intent of perpetrating a chemical, biological or atomic terrorist attack are all the more not likely to carry such devices on their person while entering the United States through an official checkpoint or border crossing.

Stimulated Psycho Physical Reaction (SPPR)

The COGITO method is based on stimulating examinees with specific terrorism-related triggers using a “direct contact, interaction, conscious, portal” approach:

The COGITO method postulates that specific words or questions can force terrorist to generate a SPPR that is identifiably different than that of a non-terrorist’s SPPR to the same words or questions. Based on extensive field experience accumulated by Israeli security agencies, the only common characteristic to all suicide bombers and “effective terrorists” is their desire not to be caught by security authorities. The terrorist’s fundamental motivation to successfully perform the terrorist act and not be caught by security authorities clearly differentiates him from the innocent person not harboring such intent. This identifiable motivation is known as the “terrorist hunting–hunted syndrome” (THHS). In order to identify and isolate the terrorist, one needs to … READ THE REST ([COGITO] TECHNOLOGY; Suspect Detection Systems: Human Psychophysiology Behavour Analysis)

On a personal level and at least a palpable negative argument for this rather quick vetting process, I think this is something President Trump should seriously take a look at! ESPECIALLY since President Barack Hussein Obama rejected this technology as a foreign immigrant vetting process.

Now for the Rachel Ehrenfeld article.

JRH 1/29/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Protecting America from ill-intended refugees

By Rachel Ehrenfeld @ American Thinker

January 28th, 2017 2:17PM

American Center for Democracy (ACD)

This is an updated version of the article on American Thinker: Protecting America from ill-intended refugees –

President Donald Trump’s executive order on “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” has been met, as anticipated, with alarm by opponents at home and abroad. Some resent the new American president and his actions to protect the country, as he promised to do. Others, like the Muslim Brotherhood’s affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protest the suspension of U.S. visas to Muslim refugees and travelers from the radical -Islamic-terrorist prone countries Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia.

His executive order proclaims (emphasis added): “The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. In order to protect Americans, we must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes towards our country and its founding principles. Section 2 of the active order states that the policy of the U.S. is “(a) protect our citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and (b) prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.”

To prevent such individuals from entering the U.S., the executive order requests the development of a uniform screening program, which in fact would reinforce requirements that have been deliberately ignored by the Obama administration.

However, radical-Islamic terrorists are not limited to the countries list by the EO. There are unknown numbers of ISIS volunteers who returned to Europe and other Western nations, which the new EO exempts. But even if the screening is done by the book, and all necessary documentation has been obtained and verified, and the applicant declares he holds no ill intentions toward America and Americans, nothing available to the screeners today would easily reveal that he or she is lying.

An effective way to find out the applicant’s intentions would be screening through an efficient, unbiased, and non-intrusive system. Such a system was developed by an Israeli company with a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, which the Obama administration refused to utilize.

The Suspect Detection System (SDS) has developed counter-terrorist and insider threat detection technology named COGITO. This technology enables law enforcement agencies to rapidly investigate U.S. visa applicants (and other travelers) entering the country, insider threats among employees, etc.

COGITO technology is an automated interrogation system that can determine in 5-7 minutes if an individual is harboring hostile intent. The system interviews the examinee with up to 36 questions while measuring the psychophysical signals of the human body. The system has 95% accuracy and has helped security agencies globally to catch terrorists and solve crimes.

According to the company’s website, the SDS allows the screening of a large number of people in a short time. It “does not require operator training. One operator can handle simultaneously ten stations. It has a central management and database system that allows storing all tests results, analysis, and data mining, and is deployed and integrated with governmental agencies.” Using this system would eliminate the need to use often biased U.S. Consulate employees. Moreover, the SDS uses an automated decision-making system, which is “adaptable to a variety of different questioning contexts, different cultures, and languages. The examination lasts 5 minutes when there are no indications of harmful intent, and 7 minutes to ascertain it (with only 4% false positive, and 10% false negative).”

The COGITO is used in 15 countries including Israel, Singapore, China, India, and Mexico. U.S. airlines operating in Latin America are using COGITO to check their employees.

But last year DHS refused to use the SDS, claiming that it “would constitute an intrusion on the privacy of those screened by the system” and “[i]t may reflect on VISA applicants or Immigrant’s civil rights.” However, foreigners applying for a U.S. visa are not protected by American laws.

SDS capability to detect intent seems to fit President Trump’s promise of “extreme vetting” of Muslim refugees from high-risk regions. This and other similarly objective systems would not only assist in making America safer but also be in keeping its policy and tradition of accepting refugees who do not wish us harm.

~~~

*This is an updated version of the article on American Thinker: Protecting America from ill-intended refugees

____________________

Terrorism and COGITO

John R. Houk

_________________

Protecting America from ill-intended refugees

Support the ACD

About ACD

OUR MISSION

The ACD is dedicated to exposing threats to our free speech rights, political and economic freedoms and national security.

ACD is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. All contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

OUR DISTINCTION

ACD fills an important gap created by inadequate risk assessments of our cyberspace, GPS & UTC. We use our Threatcon programs, our multidimensional Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), and our experts to better inform government, public and private sectors’ policy makers.

CONNECTING THE DOTS

ACD’s synergistic approach to connect the dots on emerging threats is facilitated by extensive multidisciplinary global research in various languages. We publish our knowledge-based analysis and use the information to offer special tools to help prevent and mitigate such threats.

ACD’s Threatcon, offersindividually tailored programs of briefing and scenario gaming to encourage government, public and private sectors to cooperate in preventing and mitigating the risks to our political and economic freedoms and to our national security.

ACD’s Terrorist Finance Network Tracker (TFNT), a unique anti money laundering (AML) system, is using a multidimensional approach to build and regularly update a comprehensive database identifying operational and financial networks of transnational radical Islamic groups.

“Lean and agile, ACD/EWI is always ahead of the next threat: cyber attacks, market manipulation , the use of legal structures to inhibit free speech and stifle debate”- Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense

OUR IMPACT

ACD Initiatives: … READ THE REST

President-Elect Trump — Where He Stands on Radical Islam

After I got over the fact my GOP fav for President in Ted Cruz lost to now President-Elect Trump, I decided to find out what I could like about him. There are actually stands I am comfortable with, but this one gravitates toward the top of the list. That is to at least recognize the radical elements of Islam are not compatible to our Constitution and our American values. Trump’s thoughts on Islam hence includes vetting Muslim immigrants or Muslim refugees that might intend to come to America for nefarious reasons.

On a Christian level, I am quite displeased that Islamic sacred writings single out Jews and Christians as people to force submission to Islam or die as well as completely denying the central tenet that makes one a Christian; viz., denying that Jesus is the Son of God, Crucified to death and arose to life from death and ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. In Islam that belief is blasphemous worthy of death.

JRH 11/10/16

Please Support NCCR

***************

President-Elect Trump — Where He Stands on Radical Islam

Policies to watch once Trump has a perspective from the Oval Office: opposition to the nuclear pact with Iran and not arming Syrian rebels.

By CLARION PROJECT STAFF

November 9, 2016

The Clarion Project

President-elect Donald Trump accepts the presidency after receiving a call from Clinton who conceded the election. (Photo: video screenshot)

Donald Trump, president elect of the United States, spoke out on the campaign trail against radical Islam. Trump opposed the Obama administration’s pressure on former Egyptian president and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak to resign. That resignation paved the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East. Expect President Trump to support anti-Islamist regimes in the Arab world and those individuals in America.

Trump has also said he would shut down extremist mosques in America, which would be a welcome policy to stop radicalization of America’s Muslims. He will need an expert team of legal experts to accomplish that goal since opposnents [sic] will argue that the line between freedom of speech and religion and incitement to violence is razor thin.

Policies to watch once Trump has a perspective from the Oval Office will be his stated opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran and his opposition to regime change and arming the rebels in Syria.

Below is the platform that Tump [sic] campaigned on:

Domestic Islamists

Shut down mosques that preach extremism

Would revoke the passports of Americans who travel abroad to join the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). Initially advocated a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration and has since scaled it back to only Muslim countries with major terrorist activity. In his national security speech in June, he proposed using ideological vetting such as support for extremist beliefs or links to extremist groups (not necessarily terrorists) in deciding who gets to enter the U.S. He cited polls showing high levels of support for Sharia governance in countries like Afghanistan.

Egypt & the Muslim Brotherhood

Opposed the Obama Administration’s pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to give up power.

Intelligence

Supports enhanced interrogation of terror suspects (considered torture by critics).

Iran

Opposes the nuclear deal with Iran, calling it “terrible,” but “loves the concept” of a good deal.

Thanked by the wife of an American pastor imprisoned in Iran for bringing attention to his captivity.

Endorsed airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear program in 2007.

ISIS, Iraq & Syria

Only candidate to support Russia’s military intervention in Syria against rebels fighting ISIS, as well as ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Opposes involvement in the civil war and arming rebels.

Opposes a policy of regime change towards the Assad dictatorship.

“I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth. Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left.”

“I would hit [ISIS] so hard. I would find you a proper general, I would find the Patton or MacArthur. I would hit them so hard your head would spin.”

S. should not get involved in Syria by supporting the rebels or launching airstrikes in retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.

Opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Opposed the invasion of Iraq and any policy aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power.

S. should take Iraq’s oil and reimburse the countries who were involved in the 2003 invasion and give $1 million to the family of every U.S. soldier who died in Iraq.

Libya

Would only support military action in Libya against the Muammar Gaddafi leadership if the U.S. gets to take the country’s oil.

Gulf States

Would force Saudi Arabia and other countries to pay for the U.S. military presence that protects them.

Military Spending

Would increase military spending to foster deterrence.

________________

ABOUT CLARION PROJECT

There are times that require people to step out of their comfort zone, to step up for justice, tolerance and moderation. We know going in that the repercussions of taking action will draw a rain of accusations and attacks from the forces we are confronting.

We do it anyway. We do it because it must be done.

Founded in 2006, Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund Inc) is an independently funded, non-profit organization dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamist extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism.

Clarion’s award-winning movies have been seen by over 50 million people. They grapple with issues such as religious persecution, human rights, women’s rights, the dangers of a nuclear Iran and what the concept of jihad means for the West. Our dynamic … READ THE REST

Ryan Mauro – National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project

Professor Ryan Mauro is the National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the threat of Islamic extremism and provides a platform for voices of moderation and tolerance within the Muslim community. Clarion Project films have been seen by over 50 million people.

Mauro is a frequent contributor to Clarion’s dynamic website ClarionProject.org, providing insightful analysis of the latest news around the global on this subject. The site is viewed by over 250,000 visitors per month.

…

He is also a consultant to various government agencies, political campaigns and policy-makers and a professor of homeland security, counter-terrorism and political science.

Mauro has made over 1,000 appearances on international radio and TV programs from both the left of the right, including … READ THE REST

Trump the same as a Dem Administration?

Emphatically NO!

John R. Houk

Sifu is a Google+ comment contributor that usually makes a reasonable stand when he disagrees with me rather than a hysterical ad hominem attack. I appreciated that. Even though I do disagree.

These comments are between Sifu and I relating to the post “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. Sifu’s thoughts are in normal text and mine are in bold text as well as being indented.

JRH 10/12/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

Sifu Mode

22 hours ago

+John Houk He supports massive growth of government. That is his vision of “great”. How is that so different than Obama? Maybe he won’t be as weak. Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good. His goals are still very much in alignment with the liberals. Look at his recent history of support publicly and financially for Hillary and others on the left.

Hmm… I don’t see any massive growth of government EXCEPT in terms of an efficient military and National Security. In terms of National Debt and Gross Domestic Production I see government decrease. Obama is a globalist tending toward ending National Sovereignty – Crooked Hillary too. Is Trump a rabid Nationalist? NO, he is an America First Nationalist. Trump admires Putin’s leadership skills NOT his Russian imperialistic agenda. Trump is not Hitler! Hitler wanted a Socialist Despotic Aryan German Empire where nations were subservient and Jews dead. Trump wants to keep America good without Multiculturalist globalism destroying American exceptionalism. Trump’s goals are VERY MUCH unaligned with the American Left that supports the globalism of NAFTA and TPP! Trump supported the Clintons when it would benefit his business. He paid to get Clintons to play. The play benefited Clintons financially while charging for government favors. It is legal to donate. It is illegal to play for pay in government. It’s called corruption.

Those qualities can be good or bad. It depends on the underlying principles they are used to accomplish. Trump’s only consistent principle is to HIS PERSONAL DESIRES; see his history of the use of eminent domain. His ego and selfishness do nothing to inspire hope that those qualities would be used for good.

Trump worked within the law. Bill and Hillary worked outside the law and used power to become Teflon so no charges were filed. By the way Trump lost his imminent domain case and complied. Bill and Hillary LIED and people have died and American foreign policy has is in full disarray. Trump’s business is just fine.

Trump apolitical? That’s laughable. He is not PC, but that does NOT mean apolitical. He is VERY well versed in navigating politics and manipulating people to get what he wants. He is a very political personality; he simply hasn’t held office before.

Hmm … I believe history proves that wrong Sifu. You yourself mentioned how he has donating money to Dems. He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics, that’s solid business in the realm of profit and loss. In America we call that Capitalism. Capitalism has made America wealthy enough that foreigners who hate us want to dip into that wealth by hook or by crook (mostly crook). Donald Trump at worst is a business personality and not a power-grabbing-monger like the Clinton clan.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Emphatically NO!

Share this:

Like this: