FakeNews In an age where combating ‘fake news’ has become a top priority for those who claim to care about the truth, recognition that Israel is the longest-standing subject of fake news is long overdue.

Academic and media professionals, journalists and diplomats, governmental, non-governmental and international organizations have been rewriting the history of Israel – both ancient and modern – for decades, portraying Israel as an abhorrent state, guilty of the lowest forms of crimes. The concerted and massive effort to denigrate a modern state – in order to criminalize and dehumanize its people in the eyes of the international community – knows no precedent, even though the people that brought the world the Ten Commandments has always been at the receiving end of hatred and vilification.

The Nazi and Soviet regimes represented the apex of that hatred of the Jews in modern times. Today, anti-Jewish hatred has merely shifted its focus to the modern state of Israel, conveniently disguising itself as ‘anti-Zionism’, which is not, as is often claimed by its defenders, ‘legitimate criticism of Israel’, but simply a crude denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

What the anti-Zionists wish to deny the Jews they ache to richly bestow on the Palestinian Arabs, who do not constitute a separate people to begin with, but are an indistinguishable part of the Arab world, which has at its disposal 22 sovereign Arab states already, covering a territory of more than 13 million square meters (corresponding to 500 times the size of Israel or one and a half times the size of the United States). Palestinian Arab officials themselves have repeatedly stated this fact.

In a 1977 interview with Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism… As a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment


   Author(s): BRIAN LAWSON   Source: WHNT.COM

FBI Special Agent Roger Stanton (L) and suspect Aziz Sayyed (R)

A Huntsville Alabama man arrested last week on a terrorism charge is not scheduled for his first court appearance until July 5, according to Madison County court records. Aziz Sayyed, 22, was arrested Thursday and charged with soliciting/providing support for an act of terrorism, but officials did not spell out the specific charge.

In the court records released Tuesday, he is charged with second-degree soliciting/providing support for an act of terrorism. That is a Class C felony in Alabama and carries up to 10 years in prison upon a conviction. He is being held without bond, according to Madison County jail records.

(Image: FBI Special Agent Roger Stanton (L) and suspect Aziz Sayyed (R))

Police stopped Sayyed and took him into custody in the area of Church Street and Clinton Avenue on June 15. Investigators said Sayyed is a U.S. citizen, born in North Carolina. He had been living in Huntsville.

The FBI and local law enforcement officials called a press conference last week, announcing Sayyed’s arrest, but they provided no details about what he is alleged to have been involved in or why the arrest was made. Although details of the case could not be released.

Roger Stanton, the FBI special agent in charge, said, “We successfully mitigated a threat today with this arrest.”

Significantly, the arrest came as a direct result of a tip given to police. “If you see something, you need to tell us. You need to say something. This investigation actually started as a tip. It was a tip that something wasn’t right,” said Huntsville Police Department Chief Mark McMurray. They called their local law enforcement and luckily, we have this joint relationship with the federal government, and we all work these situations together to the end. This one was a very successful end, because it was concluded before it


   Author(s): LARRY HART   Source: HARTNATION.COM

The Third Jihad: A ReviewAs the years pass and 9-11 becomes more of a shaded memory for some and book history for our next generation we move closer toward forgetting the significance of that date and how it profoundly changed all of us forever.

In this world of instantaneous information, only a click away from just about anything , the lingering problem with radical Islam continues to hang on, even though most of us would just hope it goes away. The enemy is bound and determined to end Western civilization any way he can.

That is the focus of the documentary “The Third Jihad” the second DVD by the Shore/Kopping team on extremist Islam and the danger it poses to all of us. The first was “Obsession: Radical Islam’s war against the west”.

Watch the documentary for free: Click here

The Third Jihad covers a different aspect of Islam’s attempts at taking us over. Whereas “Obsession” concentrated on the violence against Western Civilization with America being central to that attack, this film concentrates almost entirely on the strategy to turn America into an Islamic country bound by Sharia law, without violence. This film takes a look at the more sinister underlying and acceptable part of Islam that wants to conquer through the peaceful transition from democracy to Sharia law.

What is so diabolical is that these Muslims are not al Queda, Hizbollah or Islamic Jihad. They are homegrown, work within the system, using democratic principles to spread their ideology.

This is the non-violent component of The Third Jihad, the constant pressure upon Western governments to accommodate Muslims along with the active proselytizing of Christians and Jews in Western countries, the end result is to establish a worldwide caliphate. That is a world which is totally Islamic and run by Sharia law, with all the oppression that system applies to women, gays, Jews, Christians, and the life threatening aspects to all those who do not bend to the Islamic will.

The film begins by introducing Zhudi Jasser an American Medical doctor, immigrated from the Muslim world and acts as the narrator of the film. Dr. Jasser like so many other honorable Muslim people tries to convince the more impressionable coming out of the Madrassas and the universities that the west is not their enemy and it is wrong to distort certain sections of the Koran and kill in Mohammad’s name.

There are handful of brave Muslim people speaking out against the insanity and trying to warn a lythargic west that the Jihadi threat is real. Noni Darwish, Walid Phares, Sari Nusseibeh, Walid Shoebat, along with Jasser , act like the prophets of the old testament, warning us about something, but are we listening?

One of the trademarks of the Shore/Kopping enterprise is the commentators that appear in their films. Experts in their fields, they make a strong case for the film’s thesis. One of those is Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus from Princeton University. Dr. Lewis is one of the foremost authorities on Islamic history in the west. He is also one of the few Islamic historians …



Restoring Israel’s Rights: The Levy ReportThe Jewish people’s considerable rights to the land of Israel are founded upon several bases:

Jews have been on the land for close to 4,000 years, most notably within eastern Jerusalem (where the Old City and the Temple Mount are located), and Judea and Samaria – all places where ancient Israelite heritage is marked. Jews, in fact, are the indigenous people of Israel, present not only historically, but with continuity over the centuries.

In modern times there are legal precedents for establishing the Jewish claim to Israel: This is with reference to the San Remo Conference, the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, confirmed in international law, and more.

These Jewish rights have certainly not diminished over the years. Yet there is a prevailing perception that this is the case – that there has been a rethinking of what properly accrues to the Jewish State of Israel. A revisionist perception, we might say.

This perception has been fueled by Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts, who – in insisting ad nauseum that Israel’s proper place is behind the “1967 border” – reveal themselves to be major advocates of the dictum that, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Of course this business of a “1967 border” is a lie: there was no border established to Israel’s east after the War of Independence ended in 1949, only a temporary armistice line. The armistice agreement was not even with a “Palestinian people,” but with Jordan. Nor did Security Council Resolution 242 require Israel to pull back fully from Judea and Samaria, which was secured defensively during the Six-Day War in 1967.

But why bother with facts when a myth more favorable to the political interests of the Palestinian Arabs can be successfully generated? Today, a good part of the world believes that Judea and Samaria consist of “Palestinian land,” which Israel must “return.” The president of the United States speaks in such terms. Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, called “settlements” (pejoratively), are referred to …



Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Fiqh Council of North America held a press conference in Washington today at which they declared that they had refuted the religious ideology of the Islamic State. They issued this lengthy “Open Letter” (not, interestingly enough, a fatwa) addressed to the Islamic State’s caliph Ibrahim, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, explaining how he was misunderstanding Islam.

Is this an Islamic case against the Islamic State’s jihad terror that will move Islamic State fighters to lay down their arms? Or is it a deceptive piece designed to fool gullible non-Muslim Westerners into thinking that the case for “moderate Islam” has been made, but which will not change a single jihadi’s mind? Unfortunately, it is the latter.

To be sure, Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council and all the signers of this Open Letter really do oppose the Islamic State. But they don’t oppose it because it is transgressing against the commands of what they believe to be a Religion of Peace. They oppose it because they want to establish a caliphate under the auspices of or led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic State constitutes competition. This is clear from their sly endorsements in this document of jihad, the Sharia, and the concept of the caliphate.

It begins with an “Executive Summary” which is then filled out in greater detail. I will intersperse commentary below, first in general terms on the Executive Summary, and then taking up the arguments on each point in detail.

Executive Summary
1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry- pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.

This is a null argument designed to appeal to non-Muslims who don’t know what is in the Qur’an. For unless one quotes the entire Qur’an and Hadith, this argument can be leveled against anyone: anyone can be accused of leaving out important points …



Muslim CaliphsQuestion: Who Were the Caliphs?

Answer: Men who have held the title of Caliph, the supreme religious and political leader of an Islamic state known as the Caliphate, and the title for the ruler of the Islamic Ummah, as the political successors to Muhammad.

In Islamic history, upon the death of Muhammad, his followers were faced with the decision of who should take his place as the leader of Islam. This leadership position was called the kalifa, which means “deputy” or “successor” in Arabic. The decision over who should be the first caliph (the anglicized form of kalifa) resulted in a division that has endured to this day.

One group of followers held that Muhammad himself had chosen 'Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his successor. Others insisted that Abu Bakr, Muhammad's good friend and father-in-law, be given the caliphate. In the end, Abu Bakr would become the first of four caliphs, each of whom contributed significantly to the development and spread of Islam.

Abu Bakr served as caliph from 632 until his death in 634. His first major accomplishment was to deal with the problem of the Bedouins (nomadic Arabs). Although some had converted under Muhammad, after his death they rejected Islam and refused to obey Abu Bakr. In 633, the caliph defeated the Bedouin revolt, known as the Ridda, and thereby secured the entire Arabian peninsula for Islam.

The experience served to convince Abu Bakr that Islam needed to expand beyond Arabia in order to be secure. He set his sights on the two neighboring empires he viewed as threats to Islam: the Sassanid Empire to the east in Persia and Iraq, and the Byzantine Empire to the west in Europe, Syria, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea. He declared a jihad against the Byzantine Christians, but died before he was able to carry it out.

The second caliph was Umar, another father-in-law of Muhammad, who had been named by Bakr as his successor. His caliphate lasted from …



Al Qaeda 7-phase master planBack in 2005, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein published al-Qaida’s manifesto. In his book, he outlined al-Qaida’s seven-point plan over a 20-year period: “An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps.” Ten years later, we can see how al-Qaida and other Islamic jihad groups have followed this plan to the letter – with remarkable success, thanks to the weakness, fecklessness and willful ignorance of Western leaders.

Journalist Yassin Musharbash wrote about Hussein and his book in the German publication Der Spiegel on Aug. 12, 2005, in an article entitled, “The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants.” Musharbash wrote, “[W]hat this small, slim man has to report is nothing less than the world’s most dangerous terrorist network’s plan of action: al-Qaida’s strategy for the next two decades. It is both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan conceived by fanatics who live in their own world.”

Der Spiegel appears to be laughing at the plan in this article. But read it now – 10 years on. Who’s laughing now? From Sept. 11 to “the awakening,” the focus on Syria, the overthrow of secular Arab regimes, the declaration of the Caliphate – it’s all there. The article declares it “unworkable” at the time – as well as “both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan.”

Musharbash wrote: “And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: The idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality.”

Has anyone contacted Yassin Musharbash, read that passage to him, and asked him what he thinks of the Islamic State’s declaration of the caliphate, and of the tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the world who take that declaration seriously enough to travel to Iraq and Syria to live and wage jihad in the caliphate?

It’s the delusionists who can’t reconcile reality. Virtually everything has happened as opponents of jihad have predicted for years. My decade-long warnings at my website, Atlas Shrugs (, and in my books and articles were met with scorn, derision and defamation. But I was right. The Islamic jihadists have achieved what they set out to do. The Islamic State is an al-Qaida spinoff.

Hussein’s book was not the work of a fantasist. Musharbash noted that “he has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network’s leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization’s master plan.”

Hussein himself explained: “I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.” The first of the seven steps to the caliphate was “the awakening” – Musharbash explained that “this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the U.S. into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby ‘awakening’ Muslims. ‘The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful,’ writes Hussein.”

Sept. 11 was to wake up the world to Islam. Did it not do just that? Didn’t the Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf say as much in 2010 when the vicious fight over that mosque was underway? “9/11,” he declared, “was a watershed, was a major milestone, and a major catalytic force in … .

Qatar and Its Neighbors Have Been At Odds Since the Arab Spring

   Author(s): AYMAN MOHYELDIN   Source:

Qatar-CrisisJust two weeks after President Donald Trump’s historic visit to Saudi Arabia, in which he called for Arab and Muslim unity to “drive out” extremists and terrorists, key Gulf Arab states and Egypt have severed diplomatic ties with the State of Qatar.

On Tuesday, Trump used Twitter to praise the diplomatic break as a key success from his trip, strongly suggesting that the president supports the isolation of Qatar.

Despite Trump’s seeming approval, the move by Saudi Arabia and other states has sent shockwaves across the region, creating a sense of tension while fueling speculation that the Arab world is about to witness yet another escalating conflict.

In addition to cutting off diplomatic ties, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have closed their airspace and sea-lanes to Qatari vessels. They have expelled Qatari diplomats, and Saudi Arabia, which shares the only land border with Qatar, announced the closure of that land crossing — a gateway for the vast majority of food produce that enters Qatar. That closure has already created a sense of panic among Qataris and led to a run on grocery stores.

For the first time in their history, Gulf states have imposed a siege on one of their own. What makes this particular diplomatic rift worrisome is the potential involvement of the United States. All of the countries at play are strategic U.S. allies. All of them are cornerstones to U.S. military and intelligence operations in the Arabian Gulf and beyond.

Qatar, the tiny emirate now being diplomatically frozen out of the region, is home to Al Udeid Airbase, home to about 10,000 American servicemen and a key strategic airbase for U.S. Central Command operations in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

What led to this existential crisis among the Arabian Gulf allies, known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)? How did it escalate so quickly? There are two parallel tracks to understand this timeline, one long-term and the other short.

Saudi, Egyptian and Emirati officials and residents say that at the core of their actions was the belief that for years, Qatar has been fueling the flames of radicalism and extremism, providing financial and moral support to groups long considered conservative, extremists or even terrorists by some. They believe Qatar is a force for destabilization in the region through meddling in the internal affairs of others.

They cite Qatar’s willingness to host exiled religious and political leaders from Egypt, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt has deemed the brotherhood a terrorist organization, and in 2013 its military forcibly removed the group’s president from power. Qatar has long housed the leadership of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel. And Qatar has allowed the Taliban, the violent and ultra-conservative Afghan group, to set up an office in Doha in an attempt to foster an Afghan reconciliation dialogue.

In addition, Qatar’s influence increased in stature over the years with the growth of its pan-Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera, a channel that was once celebrated as the first independent news channel of its kind in a region where information was traditionally the sole property of the state and its agencies.

In the post-Arab-Spring world, the region became bitterly divided between the countries that rejected the premise of cataclysmic change and those that welcomed it. In a nutshell, Egypt, Saudi Arabi and the Emirates viewed the Arab Spring with skepticism. They saw the fall of strong men as a pathway for the rise of Islamist parties and leaders that would ultimately upend the region’s stability, potentially affecting their own countries.

Qatar saw this change as an eventual reality and tried to engage with the current of Islamist populism that rode to power in the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Paradoxically, in some Arab Spring countries, like Yemen and Syria, Qatar was generally in line with

Democracy Under Attack © 2017 - All news articles and images are property of their respected owners. Frontier Theme