The Russian Roots of Terrorism

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

I learned about the passing of former Washington Times columnist John Lofton as I was looking through an old file of clippings and found a Lofton gem entitled, “Where terrorism is rooted,” from the July 5, 1985, issue of the paper. It’s a reminder of Lofton’s important style of writing and the fact that the Islamists we face today learned their style of warfare from the Soviets, who established the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as “the fulcrum of the Soviet Union’s strategic approach” to world revolution, especially control of the Middle East.

At the time, President Reagan was battling the Soviet empire, including its support for international terrorist groups. Lofton reminded his readers of many facts about the Soviet-supported international terrorist networks. These facts are extremely relevant today.

Lofton quoted from Marx and Lenin, establishing the fact that the communists were advocates of terror from the beginning. He cited evidence of Soviet sponsorship and support of terrorist groups and personalities from the PLO, to “Carlos the Jackal,” to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the African National Congress in South Africa.

One looks back on what Lofton wrote about and has to conclude that the modern-day Islamic terrorists we face today grew out of these communist networks that the Soviets sponsored.

Discussing the communist Sandinistas—who have retaken power in Nicaragua—Lofton noted, “The Sandinistas were trained in Cuba and by the PLO. In August 1979, the European representative of the Sandinistas, Jorge Mundi, spoke of these ties, saying: ‘We have long had close relations with the Palestinians. Many of the units belonging to the Sandinista movement were at Palestinian bases in Jordan. In the early 1970s, Nicaraguan and Palestinian blood was spilled together in Amman and in other places during the Black September (a terrorist group) battles … It is natural, therefore, that during our war against Somoza we received Palestinian support for our revolution in various forms.’”

What Lofton was describing was a concrete example of how the communists and the Arabs and Muslims were collaborating in terrorism.

What we have learned since that time is that PLO chairman Yasser Arafat was actually a trained KGB operative. The case of Carlos the Jackal, the KGB-trained Marxist terrorist, is perhaps more significant. He converted to Islam.

In his column, Lofton had faulted President Reagan for not being aggressive enough in fighting the Soviets and their agents. Our problem today is that we have a President who pretends not to recognize the enemy and authorizes a half-hearted effort to stop one particular Islamist group in the Middle East, while failing to support freedom fighters in Ukraine against the main enemy—Russia.

It is not fashionable to accuse the Russians of having any ties to Middle East terrorism today. Indeed, some conservatives seem to think the U.S. and Russia can work together to defeat radical Islam.

The analyst and author Jeff Nyquist asks, “When we learn that a leading commander in ISIL was born in the Soviet Union and trained in Russia, we ought to wonder what is really going on?” Omar al-Shishani, the Russian commander in ISIL (also known as ISIS or the Islamic State), has been reported to be the group’s overall military chief.

We have heard repeatedly about Americans and Europeans fighting for ISIL, but little attention is being devoted to the Russian-speaking foreign fighters that make up the group. Their numbers are estimated at 500 or more. Omar al-Shishani is usually described as a prominent Islamic State fighter who is Chechen. In fact, he was born in the former Soviet republic of Georgia and was trained there.

Some reports suggest these fighters are opposed to the Russian-backed Assad regime in Syria and Russia itself.  But if this is the case, then why is Russia opposed to U.S. bombing of these terrorists? NBC News reports that the Russian foreign minister says airstrikes “should only go forward with Syria’s consent.”

Coming from a country that violated international law when it invaded Ukraine, this attitude makes no rational sense.

In a story headlined, “Russia condemns U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria,” The Washington Post reported this interesting piece of information: “Although the Islamic State has gripped Russian news media, there is far less public pressure to get involved in eradicating the militant movement than in the United States, where videos of militants beheading captives, including two Americans, dealt a shock to the country.”

It is indeed fascinating that ISIL has been targeting Americans and that the state-run Russian media, always anxious to label the freedom fighters in Ukraine as Nazis or fascists, are not rallying the Russian people for action against ISIS. Why? Some experts are speculating that Moscow is seeking a U.S. deal with Syria’s Assadm and even the Iranian regime, to work together to defeat this suddenly new menace. That, in turn, could lead to a deal to reward Iran with its own nuclear weapons program, supposedly as a check on Sunni “extremism,” as Obama calls it.

Before we jump to conclusions that Russia is on our side in fighting ISIS, it might be wise to examine the history of international terrorism, its Soviet roots, and Russia’s ties to these networks today. President Obama told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that the U.S. intelligence community had “underestimated what had been taking place in Syria.” So what do we know about this mysterious entity called ISIS? Could Russia be playing both sides in this conflict as part of a geopolitical game to safeguard its Iranian client state?

It might be worthwhile to consider that former NSA analyst Edward Snowden, still in the hands of the Kremlin, might have helped thwart efforts by the U.S. intelligence community to learn the truth about ISIL. It would seem to be in Moscow’s interest to hide its hand in this terrorist threat.

The urgency of this matter is impressed upon us by the revelation that the Islamist who beheaded a woman in Moore, Oklahoma had a Facebook photo of Omar al-Shishani.

As we attempt to understand the intelligence failure that Obama himself admits, it would also be wise to go back and examine the writings of conservatives like John Lofton, who were reporting the facts about Soviet terror 30 years ago. Lofton spoke with clarity and passion.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke eloquently on Monday about the “poisonous tree” that has given rise to groups like ISIS and Hamas.

That tree, the evidence shows, has its roots in Moscow. That’s where the PLO—and eventually Hamas—came from. In addition to supporting a Palestinian state that could threaten Israel’s existence, it is the Putin regime in Russia that is the major international sponsor of the Iranian terrorist regime today.

Our media think that because the Soviet Union died and a modern Russia supposedly emerged in its place, these issues are irrelevant. But the head of this new Russia is a former KGB spy who wants to reconstitute the former Soviet Union. He invaded Ukraine. Is it really too much to believe that the Kremlin has had a hand in the rise of ISIS?


Five books on WWII and Soviet subversion that challenge Ken Burns’ ‘The Roosevelts’ documentary

By: Benjamin Weingarten
The Blaze

Recently we noted that there was little if any dissent when it came to the efficacy of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies as portrayed in Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts” series, providing several titles challenging the pollyannaish view put forth. Amity Shlaes, an author of one of the books on our list, “The Forgotten Man,” followed up with two recommendations of her own, including Gene Smiley’s “Rethinking the Great Depression” and “The Great Depression: A Diary” by Benjamin Roth.

In response to our post, one reader, Diana West, Blaze contributor and author of the groundbreaking and highly controversialAmerican Betrayal,” suggested several books on FDR and his administration during World War II that similarly challenge the perspective put forth in “The Roosevelts.”

The "Big Three" at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. From left to right: Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Premier Josef Stalin. (Image Source: Wikipedia)

The major thrust of the books on West’s list — namely that Roosevelt’s cabinet and much of the federal bureaucracy was filled with Communists, fellow travelers, dupes and “useful idiots,” and that at the very least this influenced an FDR agenda that proved heavily favorable towards “Uncle Joe” Stalin and the Soviet Union, enabling its expansion and increasing its sphere of influence well beyond its borders — leads to a total paradigm shift when thinking about the World War II era. It bears noting that in “American Betrayal,” West herself seeks to draw a parallel between the modern-day whitewashing of Islamic supremacism, and influence of Islamic supremacists internal and external on America’s government, and that of the Communists and their sympathizers in Roosevelt’s day.

Below are West’s five book recommendations, which may challenge your perspective on and interpretation of the major events, figures and policies implemented during World War II. These titles provide context missing from not only Ken Burns’ documentary, but nearly all popular chronicles of this period of American history.

1. Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein

Stalin's Secret Agents

2. Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor by John Koster

Operation Snow

3. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy by John Dietrich

The Morgenthau Plan

4. American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West

American Betrayal

5. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by Herbert Hoover

Freedom Betrayed



Note: The links to the books in this post will give you an option to elect to donate a percentage of the proceeds from the sale to a charity of your choice. Mercury One, the charity founded by TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck, is one of the options. Donations to Mercury One go towards efforts such as disaster relief, support for education, support for Israel and support for veterans and our military. You can read more about Amazon Smile and Mercury One here.

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

You can find all of our Blaze Books interviews on Soundcloud and Stitcher, and subscribe to our podcast automatically via iTunes.


UN Season

Arlene from Israel

You will find that during this High Holiday season – and extending through Sukkot – my postings will be less frequent.  I hope that all who celebrated Rosh Hashana found it meaningful and joyful.


Besides being the High Holiday season, this is also the time of year when a new session of the UN General Assembly starts (hardly to be compared in one breath!).  This means – aren’t we lucky? – that various heads of state and assorted other persons address the GA.

Last Wednesday (which was the eve of Rosh Hashana), President Obama spoke.  Ben Shapiro, a skilled and perceptive analyst – as well as a Harvard-trained lawyer – has written a piece on that speech that summarizes the important points neatly.

Shapiro says Obama’s speech was “chock-full of moronic platitudes, internal contradictions, and morally disgusting sentiments.” He then proceeds to demonstrate this with considerable effectiveness.  I had hoped to cite extensively from this critique, but realize I must focus on other matters here.  And so I will simply call this to your attention, and suggest you read it:


His opening paragraph is not quite my style, but he is on the mark.


And then, sigh, there was the horrendous, and long-winded speech of Mahmoud Abbas before the General Assembly on Friday.  It was fraught with lies and accusations against Israel:

Most reprehensibly, he accuses Israel of having conducted a “war of genocide” against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

First speaking about the fact that three wars have been “waged by the racist occupying State in five years against Gaza…,” he then declares that (emphasis is mine):

“The difference today is that the scale of this genocidal crime is larger, and that the list of martyrs, especially children, is longer…

”And, the difference today is that the devastation caused by this recent aggression is unmatched in modern times

”This last war against Gaza was a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment, in a manner that makes it inconceivable that anyone today can claim that they did not realize the magnitude and horror of the crime.”

You can see the entire speech (if you have the stomach for it) plus commentary by IMRA director Dr. Aaron Lerner, here:



Abbas uses buzz words – genocide, martyrs, war crimes, occupation – without the remotest attention to factual reality.

Of course there is no mention of Hamas – either Hamas’s aggression against Israel or its use of human shields – for he is thoroughly in bed with Hamas (about which more below).

And his exaggeration is stupendous – e.g., “recent aggression unmatched in modern times,” when modern times are witness to Syria, the genuine genocide of Christians, and more.

Declaring that Israel “did not miss an opportunity to undermine the chance for peace,” Abbas says, “The occupation’s campaign specifically targeted the City of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, attempting to artificially alter the spirit, identity and character of the Holy City, focusing on Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

This is of particular note because it is of a piece with the on-going theme I’ve been writing about  – the attempt by the Palestinian Arabs to undermine and delegitimize Israeli sovereignty, most especially in Jerusalem. (About this exceedingly worrisome situation, too, I will have more to say soon.)

When he refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he means the Temple Mount, which in Arabic is actually Haram al Sharif (often translated as Noble Sanctuary, which has a more generic meaning).  What he has done is attempt to conflate the Mosque with the entire Mount, as if it has no other history or significance.


Of particular note is this comment by Abbas (emphasis added):

”I affirm in front of you that the Palestinian people hold steadfast to their legitimate right to defend themselves against the Israeli war machine and to their legitimate right to resist this colonial, racist Israeli occupation.”
He is claiming the right to be violent.  “Resistance” is a code word for jihad and terrorism.


Threats of violence aside, with this speech, Abbas has begun the game of attempting to secure international backing – via the UN – for a Palestinian state, while delegitimizing Israel.  He says (emphasis added):

“And now, where do we go from here?

“…It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question…

There is no meaning or value in negotiations for which the agreed objective is not ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital on the entire Palestinian Territory occupied in the 1967 war. And, there is no value in negotiations which are not linked to a firm timetable for the implementation of this goal.

“The time has come to end this settlement occupation…

”During the past two weeks, Palestine and the Arab Group undertook intensive contacts with the various regional groups in the United Nations to prepare for the introduction of a draft resolution to be adopted by the United Nations Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to push forward the efforts to achieve peace…

“This endeavor aspires to correct the deficiency of the previous efforts to achieve peace by affirming the goal of ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the two-State solution, of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, over the entire territory occupied in 1967, alongside the State of Israel and reaching a just and agreed upon solution to the plight of the Palestine refugees on the basis of resolution 194, with a specific timeframe for the implementation of these objectives as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative. This will be linked to the immediate resumption of negotiations between Palestine and Israel to demarcate the borders, reach a detailed and comprehensive agreement and draft a peace treaty between them.”


This venture is pie-in-the sky.  And I will enumerate here the most basic reasons why:

[] The United States has already called Abbas’s speech “unconstructive,” “provocative,” and “disappointing.”  The American position is that final borders must be resolved via negotiations.  The US almost certainly will veto what Abbas proposes.

[] The United Nations, including the Security Council, cannot create states.  It is not in the hands of the SC to declare a Palestinian State.

[] There is no “1967 border” (it was a temporary armistice line) and no legal justification for the claim that everything to the east of that line “belongs” to a Palestinian state.  In point of fact, SC Resolution 242 does NOT require Israel to return to that line, as it would not provide a secure border; it instead calls for the final border to be determined via negotiations.  What is more, SC Resolution 242 does not MENTION a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people at all.

[]  Resolution 194, to which Abbas refers, does NOT, as the Palestinian Arabs claim ad infinitum, mandate a “right of return.”  It was a resolution of the General Assembly, which can only make non-binding recommendations, and, in fact, put forth a variety of possible ways to resolve the situation, including settlement in a third country.

[] Abbas made no mention of this, but the PLO is in theory committed to the terms of the Oslo Accords, signed with Israel.  The Palestinian Authority, which was supposed to be a temporary administrative entity only, was actually created by the Accords.  Those Accords call for a final status agreement to be achieved VIA NEGOTIATIONS.  Abbas, by this action, is abrogating the Oslo Accords.   Nowhere in the Accords is there any statement that defines all of the land beyond the armistice line as “belonging” to the Palestinian Arabs. That is clear on the face of the matter, as Area C was assigned to Israel fully with regard to civil and military control. It does not spell out a “state” as the necessary conclusion of a final status agreement and it does not preclude building by Israel in area C.


The entire matter of Israel not being an “occupier” is at the core of the Legal Grounds Campaign.  I will come back to this again and again, but here simply note that there is significant legal backing for this position.  Judea and Samaria, at most, are unclaimed Mandate land.  Israel cannot be termed an occupier of this land, which was given to her under international law in the first place.


I note here that Abbas ends by saying that after the UN forces terms on Israel, the Palestinian State and Israel will immediately go to negotiations to settle final matters. What he is doing here is obvious: he knows the PA is supposed to negotiate terms, and, wary of being called on this, has proposed these “negotiations” after the fact.


Abbas spoke at the UN on Friday.  The very day before – after two days of negotiations in Cairo – Fatah and Hamas had announced that they had come to terms for a final agreement on a unity government, under Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.  That unity government will be taking charge in Gaza.


There are serious questions as to how long this will last, but right now this deal serves them both – it makes Abbas a “player” in what goes on in Gaza, and it allows reconstruction materials and funds to come into Gaza, which suits Hamas and which would not happen in the same way were Hamas alone in charge.  But this might be more realistically viewed as a temporary fiction, destined to ultimately fall apart.

Right now it is of no comfort that PA security forces will join with Hamas forces in Gaza to oversee the Gaza crossings.


There is no question in my mind about the fact that the tone Abbas assumed at the UN reflects this brand new unity reconciliation: he played down negotiations, defended the right to “resist,” focused heavily on Israeli “crimes” in Gaza, etc.  Not only is he factoring in Hamas positions, he certainly knows that there will be no negotiations with Israel as long as Hamas is a participant in the unity government.


Prime Minister Netanyahu is in New York.  He had a very positive meeting with of Indian Prime Minister Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last night, to discuss Iran and strengthening of bilateral ties.  Earlier yesterday, he lunched with Sec. of State Kerry, at which time. according to news reports, he lashed out regarding Abbas. And he has yet to meet with Obama.

But his primary purpose in coming was to address the UN General Assembly and, presumably, to counter the slanders of Abbas.  This he did early afternoon NY time ( evening Israeli time) – just a short while ago as I write.  He had promoted this talk as one that would be a “razor sharp” retort. And so I held off sending out this post until after he spoke.  But for me the razor was more than a bit dull.


I would not say that Netanyahu’s speech was without good points. They were there, and they make Israel’s case. But they are points we’ve heard from him before:

The possibility of peace is at risk because of militant Islam, whose goal is to dominate the world.  This cancer must be eradicated in all its forms.  But it seems that countries that support hitting ISIS oppose Israel’s attacks on Hamas – even though at bottom Hamas and ISIS are one and the same in their radical Islamic vision.

One place where the militant Islamic dream may be realized is Iran, which will be enormously more dangerous if it has nuclear weapons.  If you wouldn’t let ISIS have such weapons, you cannot let Iran have them either.  Iran’s nuclear capability must be fully dismantled.  To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.

Every time militant Islam succeeds, militants everywhere are emboldened.  Israel’s fight against Hamas is not just for Israel, it is the world’s fight.


Netanyahu then described the propaganda war that Israel had to fight as it was battling Hamas rockets.  In the course of doing this, clearly he was answering the charges of Abbas, but unfortunately was not explicit in saying so. What he did say:

The reality is that Gazan citizens were inadvertently and regrettably being killed because of Hamas’s use of human shields.  Israel sought to minimize the deaths – warning civilians with notices, etc.

“No other country has ever gone to greater lengths to protect civilians of its enemy.  The IDF upheld the highest moral standards of any army in the world.  It deserves admiration, not condemnation.”

What Hamas did was a war crime.  And Abbas, as the head of the unity government, bears responsibility.


He turned then to accusations leveled at the UN Human Rights Council, which – in deciding to investigate Israel and give Hamas a free pass – has things upside down.  The Council has given a clear message to terrorist regimes – use human shields, it works.

What the Council is doing is a manifestation of the return of anti-Semitism that we are now seeing.

Abbas at the podium accused Israel although he himself called for a Judenrein Palestine. “In what moral universe is warning civilians to get out of the way considered genocide?”


So far, OK, if unexceptional.  Some good lines, some good points.

But then… then he began to talk about “historic opportunity.”  We’ve heard this before as well: the new recognition of leading Arab states that they have concerns in common with Israel.  This has the potential for partnership.  These Arab states may help facilitate an Israel-Palestinian peace.

An Israeli-Palestinian peace?  The old template for peace must be updated to allow for Arab participation.

He is willing to make an historic compromise for peace.  Some territorial concession would be necessary. But what is important are “rock solid security arrangements.”  Withdrawal from Lebanon and from Gaza led to terrorist entities in these places.  We cannot allow ISIS into Judea and Samaria.

In any peace agreement, Israel has to be able to defend itself by itself.

This, I would presume, is Netanyahu’s way of countering Abbas’s proposal regarding “Palestine” to the 1967 line.  Such a formulation would not provide the strategic depth that is necessary for Israeli self-defense.  But he does not actually say this.

For me, this is insufficient, a cop-out.

What I had hoped to hear was a crystal clear statement that a Fatah that is joined with Hamas cannot be considered a partner for peace. That there can be no talk of negotiations, as fervently as Israel hopes for peace, until Fatah’s leaders renounce violence. As it is, just days ago, Abbas, right on the UN dais, defended Fatah’s right to violent resistance.  Before there can be peace, Fatah must demonstrate a genuine desire for it.  And this is something we’ve yet to see.

Did Netanyahu – always eager to please – feel the need to mention a willingness to compromise for peace because Abbas had accused Israel of undermining peace?  Truly do I hope that is not the case.

You can see his entire speech here:



Communist ‘recipe’ for U.S. revealed

By: Gina Loudon

Trevor Loudon used to get up at 2 a.m. each morning to bake dozens of loaves of bread.

But today, the former baker from Christchurch, New Zealand, is up early to catch communists at work, and the “secret recipes” he’s discovered have already shaken up American politics, exposing politicians, activists and former President Obama advisor Van Jones.

Loudon’s investigative work began after watching the rise of communism in his home country of New Zealand. Worried the same thing might happen in the U.S., he asked a former communist to explain how it happened.

That confidant, Loudon told WND, revealed the big secret of the Marxists is that they make small gains by infiltrating institutions that have political influence ¬– like churches, labor unions and universities – and spread their “yeast” from there. In time, the communists within rise up to infiltrate and control the much larger, mainstream political parties and institutions.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/communist-recipe-for-u-s-revealed/#IFeulHbKSLZCEIi1.99


Qatar Awareness Campaign – Introductory Letter


To the American Public:

In light of the wars and violent turbulence that currently engulf the Middle East and parts of Africa, a coalition of concerned citizens, journalists, and activists are launching a campaign to expose a most infamous and pernicious sponsor of Islamic terror: the Gulf state of Qatar.

Qatar, (pronounced “cutter,” or “gutter”), is, per capita, the richest country in the world ($93,352 in 2013). This is partly due to the fact that they control the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, the North Dome field in the Persian Gulf. It is also because Qatar has a mere 278,000 citizens, with a total population of 2.05 million; the remaining people in Qatar are a mix of well-paid ex-pats from countries such as the United States and Great Britain, and a substantial slave labor population.

A backer of international terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq, the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, exploit Islamic jihadi groups and their ties to illicit smuggling.

What is being smuggled?  Mostly narcotics and people – slaves.

Unfortunately, the United States is integrated into the Qatari “economy” as much as any other developed nation. Doha, Qatar’s capital, is home to two of the largest American military bases in the entire world, as well as familiar companies like ExxonMobil, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.  Doha also hosts a number of campuses for prestigious American universities, such as Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell. Other companies and organizations, ranging from the film production company Miramax to financial behemoths like Bank of America, have accepted significant amounts of investment by the al-Thanis.

Hamas, a Qatari client, launched a war against Israel this summer. There is an ongoing genocide across Iraq and Syria, with mass graves and grisly beheadings of Christians and Shiite Muslims. Boko Haram continues to rampage across Nigeria, threatening the political stability of Africa’s largest economy and population. Qatari fingerprints are on each of crises.

Over the course of the next month, companies, organizations, and individuals with significant investments and activities with and in Qatar will be identified and contacted with the reality of their host country. These letters, once published, will be sent to press outlets around the world.

We call on the parties identified in this campaign to review the evidence, which is all credibly sourced and vetted. In light of the terror, slavery, genocide, and narcotics trafficking, we urge the parties to demand that Qatar immediately cease any and all involvement in these activities.


Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Walid Shoebat

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch    **

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.


Benghazi was a State Sponsored Attack

By: Fortress of Faith
Right Side News

Dark Forces; The Truth About What Happened In Benghazi

Obama was AWOL Stevens Died Obama Lied

Fortress of Faith broadcast on 200 plus stations over 50 million potential listeners throughout the United States and Canada and here is today’s program and notes.

Today’s Podcast, listen here, below are the show notes transcript from today’s program.

What Really Happened At Benghazi?

The Quds Force special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards was responsible for the Benghazi attack and the killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith,  and two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

On today/s broadcast we had a special guest, Ken Timmerman. He has a new book “Dark Forces; The Truth About What Happened In Benghazi.” Ken is an investigative reporter. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for the work he has done to expose Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was a joint nomination with former UN ambassador John Bolton. His reporting showed that Iran shared some of the responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ken writes for magazines like New Max, Time Magazine, The American Spectator, etc. He lectures at the US Army War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Pentagon’s Joint Counter Intelligence Training Academy, etc.

Having spent 30 years as an investigative reporter in the Middle East Ken understood that we were attacked at Benghazi because we were weak. This is what happens in the Middle East, when you are weak you get attacked. When you are strong people respect you. Ken has seen this in Lebanon again and again.

Over the years Ken had developed a network of sources. Turing the attack at Benghazi he contacted one of his sources and he alerted him to the Iranian government in the area at the start of the anti-Gaddafi uprising in February 2011.

Ken used this source’s information. He went to contacts in the special operations community, people he had known for years, former CIA officers he had gotten to know over the years, etc.

In the case showing Iran’s connection to 9/11 he brought in testimony from defectors from Iranian intelligence organizations. He had spent what he described as “man years” debriefing these sources.

He was able to uncover that Benghazi was a state sponsored terrorist attack laid out by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s overseas expeditionary arm. They were spreading money in Benghazi like butter on toast, hired local militias. Even though the US government knows very well what happened, it will not talk about this in public.

Did you get that? The Benghazi attack was a state sponsored terrorist attack and the stat that sponsored it was Iran. I was really surprised when I heard this. I had not heard anything like this from any of my sources.

At the start of the anti-Gaddafi uprising in February 2011 Iran’s overseas expeditionary arm, who are professional terrorists, set up shop. The people knew who they were. As Persian speakers they stood out from the general population. They brought in people form Hezbollah who spoke Arabic. They used them for cover and to do the outreach and recruiting of jihadis and militiamen.

The Iranians were there from the beginning. They had their equivalent of our CIA annex. They were running things from their own intelligence complex. At the peak they had about 70 intelligence officers in Benghazi. At the time of the attack they were down to about 50 but they had brought in a two star general, who Ken names in his book. He is one of the senior leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This general had the authority to make command decisions, he did not have to refer back to his leadership in Iran.

This team conducted the surveillance, did the planning of the attack, handled all of the logistics, etc. They had penetrated the communications structure of the annex and State Department at the mission compound. They had learned the evacuation plans for the Benghazi complex. This explains why they were able to send their people directly to the safe haven where Ambassador Stevens was.

As you can see, this was anything but spontaneous. The Iranian government had been planing it for a long time.

There is another book “13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi” which agrees with what Ken has written in his book. This gives us two independent witnesses to these things.

Today’s Podcast, listen here, below are the show notes transcript from today’s program

SEGMENT TWO Why Did Iran Attack Benghazi?

What was the strategic purpose for the attack on our diplomatic outpost in Benghazi? Another question is the importance of the day, the anniversary of 9/11.

We underestimate the global aspirations of Iran. The Americans thought that when the hostages were released back when Reagan was elected that it was all over. This is not true. To Iran this was just one battle. They were, and are, still at war with us. For the Iranian regime this has been an unending ware with the United States of America. The big difference between now and then is that Iran is much more powerful, they have much more money, and they have have much greater skills. They are truly a global power in the way that the Soviet Union wanted to be. They are not yet a global nuclear power, but they are a global power. They have reach around the world and even in our back yard, in Venezuela. They accomplish this mostly through their intelligence organization and through terrorist operations.

The Iranians were targeting two things in Benghazi. First of all, they knew that the CIA was there sending weapons to the Syrian rebels through Libya. This was important because the Iranian regime was supporting Assad the president of Syria.

Syria was a big priority for Iran. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was in Syria fighting for Assad and actually turned the tide of the war last year.

Let’s clarify. The CIA was funding the Syrian rebels, which is ISIS today. The Iranians could not afford to have Assad fall in Syria. The purpose of the attack in Benghazi was to try to stop the CIA’s funding of the rebels.

The second reason was that Iran was very worried about the Arab Spring. They were afraid that the US would capitalize on this movement and be able to portray it as an American victory. They saw that the US was active in the overthrow of Gaddafi. There were not “boots on the ground,” but were active in the background.

The Iranians saw this and were worried because they knew that the Arab Spring had actually began in Terran in 2009 when three million Iranians protested the fraudulent elections in Iran. The protesters held up signs in English saying “President Obama, are you with us?” Of course Obama ignored their calls for help.

The Arab Spring spread next to Tunisia at the end of 2010 and Egypt in 2011, and finally to Libya in February of 2011. The wanted to stop it from returning to Iran and overthrowing the Iranian regime. They wanted to drive America out of Libya and to remind the people on the ground of what the Ayatollah Khomeini said at the beginning of the revolution, “America can do nothing.”

In 2009 Obama said that we do not interfere in elections in other countries when the Iranian people called for his help. On the other hand, he had no problem interfering in Egypt when it suited him to do so.

Let’s summarize this. The two reasons for Iran sponsoring the attack on Benghazi were the fact that the CIA was smuggling arms into Syria to the rebels and because of the American influence during the Arab Spring. They attacked the mission at Benghazi to make the Americans seem weak to the Libyans and the rest of the Islamic world. They wanted to be seen as the big dog in the neighborhood and that they were the ones to be feared. They succeeded in doing just that.

At that time we were not supposed to be giving arms to the rebels in Syria. We don’t know if this was legal or illegal because that information is still classified. The administration did leak information stating the the President had authorized the supply of arms to the Libyan rebels.

Syria was a different matter because we have yet to see any Presidential authorization to supply arms to Syria at that time. Some sources say that Obama felt that he had existing authority and that he didn’t need any new authorization. We are not sure that the President had that authority. This might explain the allegations that the State Department was destroying documents relating to Benghazi.

This might also explain why Obama has been so slow to respond to the threat of ISIS. If it is found out that we armed them it will be, to say the least, embarrassing.

Today’s Podcast, listen here, below are the show notes transcript from today’s program

SEGMENT THREE: The Events of the Day

Lets break down how everything happened on the day of the attack.

First of all, there was no demonstration in front of the diplomatic facility. Ad 9:40 PM the Libyan policeman starts his car and drives off. This left complete darkness in front of the mission. Two minutes later the State Department security officer sitting in the command center saw the security TV monitors explode with shouts and bodies and automatic weapons fire from about 20 to 30 terrorists, not demonstrators, who emerged out of the darkness and attacked the front gate of the compound. They were not outside chanting and demonstrating against the YouTube video. They came out of the darkness and attacked immediately.

There were four Libyan guards, two of whom ran away. They shot one of them in the kneecaps and made him open the gate. They then stormed into the compound. It was a terrorist attack from the very beginning. It was coordinated by the Iranians. They were outside doing the surveillance and giving the orders.

I don’t believe that the Iranians actually entered the compound. The left that to the Libyans they had hired, except or one very critical exception which I will explain later.

They used military hand signals as the silently made there way to the residential villa at the center of the compound where they knew that the Ambassador and Sean Smith had holed up because they had access to the secret evacuation plans. The safe have was section off from the main reception area of the residential villa by an iron gate.

Although they did rattle the gate, they never tried to break it open, the never tried to capture the Ambassador. This was an attempt to assassinate him. There was actually a fatwa h issued authorizing the killing of the Ambassador.

Once they made sure he was there they went upstairs, and on orders from the Iranians, they poured diesel fuel all over the residential villa and set it on fire. It was the diesel fumes that actually killed the Ambassador. They were so thick no one could see through them and people were asphyxiated very quickly.

When Sean Smith was pulled out through the window he was already dead. Our security people when back into the building more than a dozen times and could not find the Ambassador.

This was not a protest, it was a running gun battle that lasted over an hour and forty-five minutes. It was violent and viscous for all of that time. They had to shoot their way out of the compound to go back to the CIA annex.

Ty Woods was based at the CIA annex. Glen Doherty was actually in Tripoli working on CIA business. He, and a couple of other men, chartered a private jet and flew in and arrived at about 1:30 in the morning well after the first wave of the attack. He was held at the airport by the February 17 Martyrs brigade, who was supposed to be our ally and were under contract to us.

Instead of being our ally, they were manning roadblocks to keep people like Glen Doherty from coming to the aid of the Ambassador and the rest of people at the compound. When he finally was released and allowed to go to the CIA annex it was about 4:30 in the morning.

It was about 30 minutes later that Glen Doherty, Ty Woods, and some others rushed to the roof of the annex and were trying to target the attackers. That is when the mortars hit.

I said early that there was not direct Iranian military involvement except for on important thing. Here is that involvement. It was the Iranians that directed the mortar fire. It was very professional in the way it was done. Libya didn’t have any personnel capable of doing this.

We must ask, how soon did those in the State Department receiving the calls know that this was a terrorist attack? Was it hours into the battle, or did they know right away? And what did they do in response to the calls for help?

The answer to the first question is, they knew within a minute. We know that Alex Henderson with diplomatic security immediately sounded the alarm within the compound over the loud speakers. The one word used in the alert was not demonstration, it was attack. Then he got on the radio and called the annex. The CIA annex was less than five minutes away and they had an existing procedures and no one had to think about it, no one had to ask for authorization. They knew what to do.

Ty Woods heard the call and turned to the rest of his team and said “lets go.” They started getting into two SUV s and then the CIA chief of base that said no, guys, stand down, we don’t have authorization to go. The chief of base delayed them for 22 minutes. It was because of this delay that the CIA security team could not rescue the Ambassador. It was because of this delay that Ambassador Stevens died. All who have looked at this honestly believe that Ambassador Stevens would still be alive today had Ty Woods and his team not been delayed.

We don’t yet know if the order to stand down given by the station chief was his own decision or if it came from higher up in the administration. This is something the select committee investigating this will have to determine.

The information we have says the the station chief is telling people that he told them to “hold in place,” not to stand down while he was trying to get a couple of gun trucks from the February 17 Brigade. We have already seen whose side this group was on. After 22 minutes Ty Woods and his team just left and went to help out.

The British had left Benghazi in June because of an attack on their facilities. The head of security in Tripoli told the officials that they should leave at the same time, but they chose not to do so.

Today’s Podcast, listen here, below are the show notes transcript from today’s program

SEGMENT FOUR: Hillary Clinton and The State Department’s Response

Since Benghazi was a diplomatic station it fell under the responsibility of the State Department. Next we will take a look at the State Department’s response under Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton was formally notified of the attack by 10:00 PM Libyan time or 4:00 PM Washington time. She got a phone call and a cable from Greg Hix, the number two in command ant the embassy in Tripoli. 4:05 PM Washington time they put out an official alert over the State Department’s operation center so it went to entire national security operations apparatus. It went to the military, it went to the CIA, it went to the Defense Intelligence Agency, it went to the Joint Special Operations Command, it went to Africa Command, it went all across the government. This means that everyone knew within twenty minutes of the attack.

The scandal in this event is that there were automated procedures for this type of situation that should have kicked in. These procedures had been in place since the late 1980’s because of earlier attacks on US diplomatic facilities. We could have had jets there within 40 minutes and we could have special ops troupes there withing four hours. In other words we could have had our forces on the ground before the final attack on the annex.

Those orders were never given. General Hamm, who was in charge of Africa Command and who would have had to make that call, said that he did not have enough information about what was happening in Benghazi.

Let me just walk back a bit. They had a drone overhead by 11:00 PM local time so they were getting real time video feeds. They were getting cellphone calls. In the beginning they were getting secure communications from the ground in Benghazi and from the people in Tripoli. They also had satellites overhead. I’m not quite sure what more information they needed.

General Hamm also knew that his troupes would not be welcome in a State Department facility. One of his top operations officers said. ‘ Look, we understood that Hillary Clinton did not want the military coming to a US diplomatic facility. We knew that, we had been told that over and over again.” This explains why General Hamm was not in a big rush to get US troupes on the ground in Benghazi.

General Hamm had some special forces troupes in Tripoli and he begged them to keep them there for security. Ambassador Stevens said no because his Secretary (Hillary Clinton) did not want them there. In fact, when these soldiers left the compound at Tripoli, they not only had to take off their uniforms, they had to take off their boots. Hillary’s disdain for the military was well know, everybody got it.

Ambassador Steven’s life might have been save were it not for the contested stand down order. He might not have been saved had the military arrived, but it is probable that Glen Doherty and Ty Woods would not have died.

President Obama’s Response

The President was pretty much disengaged. He met General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Panetta at 5:00 PM Washington time. This was a per-arranged meeting, it was not for Benghazi. He was briefed for about a half an hour and then said that he had a fund-raiser the next day and had to get up early. He told them to do what was necessary to take care of the situation, but not to bother him.

What About The Video

The only other thing we know is that he had a phone conversation with Hillary Clinton. Immediately after that phone call she issued a statement from the State Department blaming the attack on this obscure video.

Not only had nobody seen this video, we now have the emails through the State Department that she was reading. They were coming from Benghazi and from Tripoli. We have the phone records and transcripts coming from her State Department officials who were up the food chain. Not a single one of the emails or phone messages mentions a demonstration because of a video. Despite all of this Hillary insisted it was because of a YouTube Video.

We must ask why the video was presented as the cause of the attack. Before this attack the video only had about 16 hits on YouTube. There is some evidence that after the attack the video was promoted by a company that doe4s productions for the military.

Was the video promoted to cover up the gun running? We really don’t know. This will have to be answered by the select committee investigating the issue. All I can say is that, to me, this looks an awfully lot like criminal behavior.

You can get Ken’s book from Amazon and you can visit his website here.

We will work to keep you updated on this subject.