Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2019

Are All Democrats Like Williamson?

Marianne Williamson's Anti-Semitic

9/11 Conspiracy

  • 09/20/2019 12:00 AM 
  • Source: AAN 
  • by: AAN Staff
Marianne Williamson's Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy
In an unearthed appearance on the infamous talk-radio show "Truth Jihad," White House hopeful Marianne Williamson floated an anti-Semitic and 9/11 truther conspiracy.

Mediaite's Reed Richardson has more:
 
According to a CNN story, Williamson made numerous questionable comments while appearing on the fringe radio show Truth Jihad, which is hosted by Kevin Barrett, who lost his job in academia for relentlessly pushing outlandish and unproven anti-government propaganda. During the show, the New Age guru didn't push back when Barrett floated his baseless myths that a "Zionist organized crime outfit" was the real culprit behind the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City, the Pentagon, and a downed airliner in Pennsylvania.

"I think the Republicans are in the hands of the Zionist organized crime outfit that has been dedicated to going to a war with Iran ever since they blew up the Trade Towers," Barrett said during their conversation.

"So you think that the Zionist organized crime unit were the ones who did 9/11?" Williamson responded, propagating rather than challenging the false smear.

"Absolutely, just Google Larry Silverstein," Barrett said, referencing the Jewish real estate developer who helped build the Ground Zero site in Manhattan.

In response to press inquiries, Williamson's campaign manager denied the candidate ever propagated hateful and demonstrably untrue conspiracy theories.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

This Is A Warning--Be Aware.

If the US and, more importantly, the Democrats, do not address this issue, we will be on the same path as Germany was on in 1932.

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?

Why is Ilhan Omar’s Islamophobia dodge working?
Her anti-Semite victimhood claim is based on a myth about a post 9/11 Muslim backlash that never happened.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
(April 12, 2019 / JNS – Jewish News Syndicate) 
Imagine if there was a member of Congress who openly supported an anti-Semitic movement, issued multiple statements promoting traditional themes of Jew-hatred and then gave a speech at a fundraiser for an organization founded as a front group for terrorists in which the 9/11 attacks were described as merely as “some people did something.”
And then imagine if the person who did all these things was embraced as a heroine and, more importantly, a victim of hate.
That’s the enviable position that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) finds herself in after doing all of the above in the space of just the three months since she was sworn in as a new member of Congress in January.
Her latest surge of publicity involved a speech she gave for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the pushback about her 9/11 comments, whereby many Democrats embraced her as the victim of a hate crime because The New York Post published a cover reminding her about the horror that “something” entailed.
Omar has received death threats in recent months, and there is no excuse for that. No one should be threatened with hate or death for expressing their views, even when they are hateful as some of Omar’s have been. But what demands our attention here is not the contents of her CAIR speech or even the Post cover with its depiction of the iconic photograph of the World Trade Center towers in flames, but rather a curious process by which a person who has made a name for herself largely on the strength of anti-Semitic incitement has been transformed into a victim.
In doing so, those who have rallied to her defense have resurrected the myth of a post-9/11 backlash against Muslims. That has shifted the narrative of that trauma from one of an Islamist terror war against the West into one that focused on the victimization of Muslims.
But the ability of Omar and her defenders to use it to effectively deflect charges of anti-Semitism and to essentially legitimize her as a public figure is something that out to alarm everyone, no matter what your politics or religious beliefs.
Omar, like her fellow controversial members of the Democrats’ freshman class, Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have gotten far more publicity than they probably deserve for their meager accomplishments so far. Still, the trio of radicals have not only mesmerized the media, but also proven to have considerably more influence over their party than most political observers would have thought.
Nothing demonstrated their unexpected power more than the way that Omar’s allies—led by the ubiquitous AOC—were able to prevent the House of Representatives from condemning her after she slandered supporters of Israel and Jews by claiming that they were buying Congress (“It’s all about the Benjamins baby”) and exhibiting “dual loyalty.”
Omar refused to back down and found herself the object of much public sympathy for what supporters claimed was an attempt to single her out solely because she was black, Muslim and an immigrant. Omar emerged triumphant from that fiasco. If there was any doubt about that, it was removed by the way Democrats instinctively moved to protect her from criticisms of her 9/11 remarks, and instead condemned the Post and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) as racists for calling her out.
In one sense, the kerfuffle is a typical inside-the-Beltway absurdity, with AOC asking Crenshaw—a decorated former Navy SEAL who lost an eye fighting in Afghanistan—what he has ever done to fight terrorism. But this is more than just the usual political tit-for-tat on Twitter.
In her speech to CAIR, Omar claimed that the group had been founded after 9/11 in order to defend Muslims against a backlash after the attacks. This is patently false. CAIR was founded in 1994 as a political front for the Holy Land Foundation, a group that raised funds for the Hamas terror group that was eventually shut down by the Treasury Department. Her support for CAIR is consistent with her backing for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
The debate about this mythical backlash has been going on for a decade, especially during the controversy over an abortive attempt to build an Islamic center within the shadow of the fallen World Trade Center towers. At that time, I wrote in Commentary magazine about the way false fears were being used to make Muslims appear to be the true victims of the slaughter. The mainstream media had accepted as truth the claims that Muslims had been the subjects of a wave of discrimination after 9/11, even though there was no objective proof to back up that assertion.
To the contrary, the U.S. government, the mass media and American popular culture had bent over backwards to avoid stigmatizing Muslims. As FBI hate-crime statistics in the years after 2001 showed, there had been no  discernable evidence of a backlash of hate. During those years and the following decade since the World Trade Center mosque debate, statistics consistently showed that Jews remained the prime focus of religious hate in this country with anti-Semitic attacks or incidents of any kind far outnumbering those against Muslims.
Decent persons—Jewish and non-Jewish, Republican or Democrat—cannot allow this big lie to stand unopposed.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Mueller's Record On Investigations Is Not Stellar


Robert Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

Robert Mueller Has Been Botching Investigations Since The Anthrax Attacks

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the anthrax attacks following 9/11 -- one of the most important of his career -- did not go well, to say the least.
Daniel Ashman
By 
Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump’s side.
We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle’s office. The terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The world panicked.
Under Mueller’s management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now brag about spending “hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case.” Let’s take a closer look at Mueller’s response to understand the context of the investigation — who his people investigated, targeted, and found guilty.
The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax, setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers. Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax: Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from “bumping into a suitcase,” and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for “skin irritation.” A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes.
So how did Mueller’s investigative team handle the case?
Mueller issued a statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found “no direct link to organized terrorism.” The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the FBI continued, Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.
A few weeks later, the FBI released a remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the letters, where it was written in bold block letters, “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great.” Instead, they focused on a “linguistic analysis,” stating that the letter’s writer was atypical in many respects and not “comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case lettering.” The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled American with bad personal skills.
The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became “mission oriented” following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a Muslim.
Mueller’s FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit — a “flag-waving” American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
There was no direct link from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI’s own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill. The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.
While Hatfill’s dignity and life was being trampled on by America’s secret police, Mueller took a stand. But on a different topic.  He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an American in the FBI’s largest-ever investigation.
Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million dollars.
After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI’s face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins, another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and had been doing so for years. It wasn’t until five years after the attack that Mueller’s men decided Ivins was a target.
The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but Frontline documented this was not true. Ivins was “familiar” with the area from which the anthrax letters were mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the case showing it was impossible for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters.
The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive — so sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented, “This is not your mother’s anthrax” — that was likely produced by a nation state or Al-Qaeda.
Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under “relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo.” He committed suicide.
One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor stated Ivins was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and they were “confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks.”
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks, did not believe that Ivins was the sole actor. Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI’s case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the FBI’s science and conclusions were not solid.
A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI, alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.
Mueller made his position known, saying, “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation,” and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes.
The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn’t go after al-Qaida for the anthrax letters because he couldn’t find a direct link. But then he targeted American citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone (except Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert).
Now he’s running the Trump-Russia investigation.
Daniel Ashman is the author of two books, "Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Come On CBS--Ignoring 9/11 Is Sick And Obvious


CBS Leaves Out 9/11 in Islamic Terror Attack Statistic

Starts tallying number of deaths on Sept. 12, 2001



BY: 
CBS excluded the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from a statistic on the number of terrorism "incidents" in the U.S. during an interview Monday with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on "CBS This Morning."
CBS used a graphic to illustrate the number of terrorist attacks committed by far-right and Islamic extremists since 2001. The graphic showed that "far-right extremists" were responsible for 62 incidents that resulted in 106 deaths, while "Islamic extremists" launched 23 attacks that resulted in 119 deaths.
The graphic noticeably left out the Sept. 11 terror attacks, with CBS only counting extremists attacks from Sept. 12, 2001 to Dec. 31, 2016.
A total of 2,977 people were killed in the 9/11 terror attacks carried out by al Qaeda.
The graphic appears at the 2:53 mark in the video.
CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell asked Sessions what the Justice Department needs to do since attacks by far-right extremists have been more frequent.
"This is believed to be the largest white supremacy demonstration in over a decade," O'Donnell said, referring to the violence perpetrated by white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va. over the weekend. "We went and looked at the data, and in fact, between 2001 and 2016, there were nearly three times as many attacks by right-wing extremists than Islamic extremists in the U.S. What does the Justice Department need to be doing?
Sessions said the Justice Department is focused on domestic terrorism and will continue to make it a high priority.
"The Justice Department is focused on that. I'm briefed three times a week by the FBI on terrorism and terrorism related issues," Sessions said. "That includes briefings on domestic terrorism. And we will continue to focus on that. It will be a high priority of the Department of Justice."
Late in the interview, CBS aired another graphic that listed the number of hate groups operating in the United States. The source for CBS' information was the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has a history of bias and being a left-wing advocacy group. It has been reported that SPLC overstates the number of hate groups and classifies organizations with which it disagrees as hate groups.

Screenshot/YouTube
CBS was not the only network to omit the Sept. 11 terror attacks from its reporting.
MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle did not include 9/11 on Monday when she claimed that right-wing extremists have killed three times more people than Islamic terrorists.
"Reverend Al [Sharpton], I want to start with you. Between 2001 and now, we have seen three times more deaths caused by right-wing extremists than Islamic terrorists," Ruhle said.
Ruhle did not cite the source of her claim.
Several reports show that since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have killed more Americans than right-wing extremists. According to New America, a Washington, D.C. think tank, Islamic terrorists have killed 95 people in the 15 years after 9/11, while far-right extremists have killed 67 people in the same time period.
BuzzFeed also recently published an article on a report that left out a major Islamic terrorist attack.
BuzzFeed published a piece last week titled, "This Report Says More LGBT People Were Killed so Far in 2017 Than in All of 2016." The report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs claimed there have been 33 hate-violence-related homicides targeting LGBT people so far in 2017, while there were 28 such hate-violence-related homicides in 2016.
The report left out the June 2016 Pulse Night Club shooting in Orlando, Fla, which took the lives of 49 people. There is no indication why the group left out the shooting, during which a man named Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi before opening fire on the gay nightclub.
BuzzFeed noted the absence of the Pulse shooting in the subhead.
"Advocates said the statistic — which doesn't include the Pulse nightclub shooting — ‘should be a wake-up call.'"

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Another Obama Victory--Al Qaeda And Taliban Taking Control Of Afghanistan


House Panel Expert: U.S. ‘Losing in Afghanistan’ as Al-Qaeda Grows Stronger

1

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

WASHINGTON D.C. — Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is growing stronger with the resurgence of the Taliban in recent years and “remains a direct threat” to America more than a decade and a half after the United States began targeting both terrorist groups in response to 9/11, an expert tells House lawmakers.

In October 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan, and the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been raging since.
President Donald Trump inherited chaos and overall deteriorating security conditions in the war-devastated country.
Under former President Barack Obama’s watch, the Taliban seized more territory in Afghanistan than during any time since the U.S. military removed the jihadist group from power in 2001 and the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) gained a foothold in the country.
The U.S. military “downplayed this problem of the Taliban” during Obama’s tenure, Bill Roggio, an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and editor of the Long War Journal, told the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism.
“If that’s the attitude of the U.S. military towards the Taliban inside Afghanistan, we will continue to lose this war,” he later added. “We need to reassess Afghanistan… our policy in Afghanistan is a mess frankly, and the Trump administration needs to decide what to do and how to do it quickly.”
“The Taliban—al-Qaeda relationship remains strong to this day. And with the Taliban gaining control of a significant percentage of Afghanistan’s territory, al-Qaeda has more areas to plant its flag,” also said Roggio in his written testimony.
Last Friday, the Taliban carried out its deadliest-ever attack on a major military base in northern Balkh province that left as many as 250 soldiers dead.
Although the U.S. military argues the Afghan conflict is at a “stalemate,” Roggio told the House panel that America is losing the war.
“We are losing in Afghanistan… and The Taliban controls or contests at least half of Afghanistan,” Roggio told lawmakers, adding in his written testimony:
Al-Qaeda’s footprint inside Afghanistan remains a direct threat to U.S. national security and, with the resurgence of the Taliban, it is a threat that is only growing stronger. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan has not occurred in a vacuum. It has maintained its strength in the country since the U.S. invasion, launched a new branch, AQIS [al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent], and established training camps with the help and support of the Taliban.
Roggio testified alongside Dr. Seth Jones from the RAND Corporation and Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown from the Brookings Institution.
Echoing the U.S. military, the experts told lawmakers that Russia and Afghanistan’s neighbor Iran are providing military assistance to the Taliban, adding that neighboring Pakistan provides sanctuary to the terrorist group as well as its al-Qaeda and Haqqani Network allies.
According to the Pentagon, the Haqqani Network poses the “primary threat” to the American military in Afghanistan.
The experts noted that a U.S. military withdrawal from the war-devastated country would spell trouble for America’s national security.
The United States has already invested nearly $120 billion in nation-building efforts in the country.
Despite the threat posed by the Afghan Taliban, the group is not officially listed as a terrorist group by the United States like its ally al-Qaeda and its rival ISIS.
Roggio pointed out that although ISIS’s presence in Afghanistan is a problem, the Taliban remains a bigger threat.
ISIS is considered an enemy by both the al-Qaeda and the Taliban, considered the strongest group in the country.
“The reason the Taliban matters is the Taliban and al-Qaeda, they remain tied at the hip,” testified Roggio. “The Taliban refuse to surrender al-Qaeda members — Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. They continued to fight side by side. Al-Qaeda serves as a force multiplier.”
“The Islamic State is on the fringe. It’s a small problem in Afghanistan compared to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Pakistani jihadist groups that operate there (in ISIS’ Afghan stronghold Nangarhar province),” he added. They operate primarily in four districts in Nangarhar province and have a minimal presence in the north, and it certainly is a problem.
This week, ISIS in Nangarhar killed two U.S. troops and wounded another, the Pentagon revealed.
“Our efforts seemed to be focused on the Islamic State at this point in time while largely ignoring what the Taliban is doing throughout the country and that is directly challenging the Afghan military. They’re going toe to toe; They’re raiding their bases; They’re taking control of territory,” said Roggio.