Hillary’s Deadly Iran Deal

By Shmuley Boteach 8-9-16

Let’s focus for a moment on two major headlines that appeared on the same day last week. The first claimed that Donald Trump was continuing to feud with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of murdered American war hero Humayun Khan. The second said that President Obama last January sent the Iranian regime $400 million in cash, which in all likelihood will be used to fund terrorism.

Now, I will never defend Trump’s gratuitous insults to so many groups, especially the grieving parents of a fallen American soldier. It’s unforgivable and Trump must apologize. The same is true of his immoral proposal to temporarily ban Islamic immigrants into the US, which I have repeatedly denounced.

But for all that, which is worse? Trump’s utterly offensive insults, or Obama secretly giving a terrorist regime nearly half a billion dollars in cold cash?

Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue Obama’s policies on Iran, handing over to the mullahs $150 billion and honoring the nuclear agreement that in about 10 years will make it legal for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Are Trump’s unforgivable verbal put-downs of Mexicans, Muslims and parents of fallen soldiers — disgusting as they are — worse than Hillary’s actions in funding a state sponsor of terrorism and facilitating the Iran nuclear agreement, which she proudly lists as an accomplishment?

There is the age-old Jewish question of whether words or actions are more consequential, to which the answer is clear: while words are always important, actions are infinitely more so.

Hillary’s participation in, and stated commitment to, continuing the funding of Iran — which will use the money to make orphans and widows, with Americans and Israelis at the top of the list — is the far greater danger.

There is no excuse for Trump’s appalling insults, whether about John McCain, a Mexican-American judge or — especially — the Khans. But, however reprehensible, these are still words.

The money that the President Obama is giving to Iran is not offensive; it is deadly. Hillary Clinton’s plans to continue to give Iran cold, hard cash will not just offend sensibilities. It will kill people.

In saying this, I accept that my argument only applies if Trump’s words are never translated into action. And I expect that they cannot be.

There is no reasonable way for Trump to enforce a ban on Muslim immigrants, a position that he might now, in any event, be retreating from. And while Trump may indeed build a wall between the United States and Mexico, I don’t see that wall, which I understand offends many, leading to the murder of innocents. Likewise, if Trump continues to insult the parents of fallen American war heroes, he will continue to invite the contempt and scorn of a large number of Americans, myself included. But it will not lead to American soldiers dying. President Obama’s plane-load of cash to Iran will.

Hillary allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon by continuing with the catastrophic Iran nuclear agreement, which Iran has repeatedly violated, can be potentially genocidal, as Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the Supreme Leader, has made clear.

I wish I could sit Trump down in a locked room and tell him I’m not going to let him out until he understands that I have a son serving in the IDF on the Israel-Lebanon border right across from Hezbollah, Iran’s terror proxy army. If Hillary wins the election, Hezbollah will get billions more money funneled from a Clinton administration that can, God forbid, further endanger my son’s life. “Can you therefore, Mr. Trump, rein in your gratuitous insults, so as not to hand Hillary the election? Have you no self-control?”

Sadly, I don’t have that kind of relationship with Mr. Trump, and I’m not sure he would listen to me if I did.

As an American Jew who believes that stopping genocide is the foremost issue of any age, my number one concern today is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and stopping its weapons flow to terrorists. But senior Obama adviser Ben Rhodes revealed to the New York Times that the administration, with Hillary as secretary of state, was negotiating with Iran even when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president.

In Christianity, personal salvation always comes before communal redemption. It’s the righteousness of the man that matters. In Judaism, however, communal salvation is paramount. A person’s character is subordinate to his actions and the mark he leaves on the world.

I could not care less about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. While others condemned him for demeaning the office of the presidency, I always maintained that his failure to stop the 1994 Rwandan genocide was infinitely worse. What Clinton did behind closed doors had no impact on our lives. But what he did not do to stop the Rwandan slaughter meant that for a period of three months, hundreds of Africans were being slaughtered every hour without anyone to save them.

What would the world look like if Franklin Delano Roosevelt had not been president, despite the fact that he died with his mistress in Warm Springs, Georgia — even though he had in Eleanor Roosevelt a wife who was universally admired?

John F. Kennedy saved the world from potential nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban missile crisis, even as he humiliated the world’s most glamorous woman with repeated affairs.

When it comes to leadership, it’s not personal morality that we look for, but public contribution to the world’s improvement. Hillary Clinton has promised to fund a government that hangs gays and stones women  — which speaks to a general unwillingness to confront evil.

In 2010, she gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu what’s been described as a 43-minute tongue-lashing on the issue of Israeli settlements and boasted to the Washington Post, “I was often the designated yeller” of the Obama administration to Bibi. Hillary wants to reward Palestinian kleptocracy and terror with the creation of a Palestinian state, even as PA President Mahmoud Abbas incites the murder of Jews in the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Can Donald Trump change his behavior and stop the insults? Perhaps not. If he continues, he is almost certain to lose the election. But Hillary’s pledge to continue to fund Iran must be even more strongly resisted.

Shmuley Boteach, whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous rabbi in America” is the author most recently of “The Israel Warriors Handbook.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Israeli Think Tank Says Iranian Desire to Destroy Jewish State is Part of Regime’s ‘Founding Vision’

David Daoud  8-16-15

Ayatollah Khamenei. Photo: wiki commons.

Israeli think tank, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, published a report on Sunday that extensively details Iran’s threats to destroy Israel.

In the report, the author, Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall, calls Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei the “chief agitator for the extermination of Israel.” He says this position is a continuation of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s “founding vision” that “the eradication of Zionism is an inevitable precondition for redeeming contemporary Islam.”

According to the report, this fight to destroy the Jewish state has been an axiomatic directive of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the founding of the theocracy in 1979, which could never be “questioned or strayed from,” and was an “objective to be perpetually and actively pursued.”

Segall asserts that this enmity has filtered down through the ranks of the Tehran regime’s military, intellectual and political leadership, and is a centerpiece of touted moderate President Hassan Rouhani’s foreign policy just as much as it was for infamous former President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad.

The Iranian armed forces, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the IRGC’s Quds Force have declared their readiness to attempt to destroy Israel once the order is given, says Segall, and have thrown their weight behind international anti-Israel activities, terrorist attacks, and even conferences that deny the occurrence of the Holocaust.

This hostility towards Israel, he asserts, allows Iran to fulfill two main aspects of Khomeini’s ideology: exporting the worldview of the ruling mullahs by posing as a champion of the Palestinian cause, expanding its regional influence in the process, and ultimately gaining enough power to pose a significant threat to Israel.

Therefore, Segall concludes, Iran keeps fanning the flames of anti-Israel hatred through supplying terrorist organizations and organizing rallies like the International Quds Day rallies calling for Israel’s destruction.

Don’t be duped about Muslim migration to the US

By Ted Belman

Donald Trump keeps referencing that Obama let in 10,000 “Syrian” refugees and saying that Hillary wants to increase it by 550%. The a small number but a large increase.  I decided to do some googling on the matter because I thought the number was more like a million.

The first article that I came up with was published on Dec 10/15 by NBC News titled Mass Muslim MIgration mostly a Mirage:

Donald Trump might be tapping into Americans’ wariness with his call to stop all Muslims from coming into the U.S., a new poll finds — but the flood of Islamic immigrants is a mirage.

Not one predominantly Muslim nation makes the list of top 10 countries of origin for legal immigrants in 2013, according to the most recent census figures compiled by the Migration Policy Institute.

At #14, Pakistan was the top-ranked Islamic country with 13,251 legal permanent residents — just 1 percent of the total 990,553 immigrants who received Green Cards that year, the figures showed.

“Definitely as a share of the foreign population, Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are small,” Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the organization’s U.S. immigration policy project, told NBC News. “But right now there is a lot of fear about terrorism and that affects how people perceive those numbers.”

There has been for several years a “perception that immigration has been out of control is disproportionate to the facts on the ground,” Rosenblum said. “The numbers of people immigrating to the U.S. have been pretty stable the last few years, and illegal immigration is much lower than it was a decade ago.”

“Now the total foreign population is a third Mexican and three-quarters Latin American and Asian,” said Rosenblum. “Europe accounted for just 12 percent of the foreign-born population in 2013. It was 75 percent in 1960.”

Two years ago, the top three Green Card recipient countries were Mexico, 135,028, China, 71,798, and India, 68,458, according to the figures.

Only 9,552 Iraqis and 1,463 Saudis got Green Cards in 2013. As for Syrians, whom Trump and much of the GOP wants to bar from the United States, just 3,366 were granted permanent residency.

When it comes to other Muslim countries, 10,294 Egyptians, 3,532 Yemenis, 2,783 Lebanese and 376 Libyans were allowed into the U.S. in that year.

Three-quarters of GOP voters think Muslim immigration is already too high and nearly the same percentage is convinced that Syrian refugees are too dangerous to let into the country, according to the poll.

After reading this article I was reassured. The problem wasn’t as big as I thought it was. I then did some more googling and learned that Muslims constituted about 1% of the US population, a manageable percentage. But I was wrong and was being misled.

One of my friends referred me to this link. https://www.facebook.com/TheKellyFile/videos/1813461242202066/

Be sure to watch it twice.

According to the Report, Obama has issued over 832,000 green cards to Muslim majority countries in his first 6 years of his presidency. In addition, 482,000 Muslims overstayed their visas and are not being sent back.. These  Muslims support Sharia  to an astonishing degree. In Afghanistan 99%, in Iraq 91% and in Pakistan 70%. When in the US 70% vote Democrat.

And now Obama is intending to allow in another 1 million Muslims.

Then American Thinker published an article by Elise Cooper entitled, Sen. Jeff Sessions: Trump Is Right on Muslim Immigration Ban.

Once again Donald Trump has opened a dialogue about a controversial issue.  As he did with illegal immigration, he has brought to the forefront his desire to keep Americans safe by temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S.  His critics are from the left and right, calling him a divider and a racist.  Those in the Republican establishment hint at preventing the ban by any means, including threatening to sue Trump if he becomes president and issues the executive order.  Too bad they have done nothing regarding President Obama’s executive orders.  American Thinker asked the chairman of Donald Trump’s national security committee, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), about this issue.

Donald Trump has called for a ban, stating, “Although the pause is temporary, we have to find out what is going on.  It will be lifted, this ban, when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen this country.”

Even those in the Obama administration question the vetting process.  People should not forget that FBI director James Comey has said several times that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct a thorough background check on all the Syrian refugees.  Just last week, CIA director John Brennan concurred that Syrian refugees cannot be fully vetted because there are no databases available and that ISIS is working to smuggle Syrians into countries through the refugee process.

A poll published in 2014 by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found that 13% of Syrian refugees have positive feelings toward the Islamic State terrorist group.  This means that 8,450 of 65,000 refugees Hillary Clinton wants to allow into this country could have terrorist ties or be radicalized.

Senator Jeff Sessions referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which shows that throughout the Obama administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the president’s watch.

Eric Bolling, whose book Wake Up America is due out next week, told American Thinker, “After Trump made his statement about temporarily banning Muslims from entering the U.S., the left and half the right went crazy.  Let’s not forget that the Orlando terrorist had contacts with those who were in Syria.  Let’s err on the side of caution until we fix the problem.”

He has a good point, considering that the driving force behind the San Bernardino terrorist attack was the wife.  She passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan, and nothing was ever uncovered about her online views on violent jihad.  Immigration officials also allowed into this country a terrorist, convicted in an Israeli court and later released in a prison swap, because they never caught her lies on the application.  In November 2014, a federal jury found her guilty of illegally obtaining naturalization.  Not to mention that all the 9/11 terrorists entered this country legally.

Senator Sessions told American Thinker, “Thirty refugees have already been convicted of terrorism, so we know they are not always peaceful.  Now the President is accelerating the speed of admitting Syrian refugees.”

The senator said, “We have no duty to morally or legally admit people.  The Immigration Naturalization Act says the president can refuse entry to ‘any alien or class of aliens he deems detrimental to the interests of the U.S.’  It is appropriate to be aggressive in our vetting.  Questions can be asked: do you believe in religious freedom, do you believe in sharia law or the Constitution, and do you respect minorities such as women and gays.  We are not required to admit people if their philosophies or principles are contrary to the Constitution.  We have to understand that most Muslims do not adhere to this extreme ideology, but there is nothing wrong to refuse admittance to those who distance themselves from our values.  We need to use common sense with the who-what-where of the threat.  It is the toxic ideology of Islam.”

A British poll in April of this year supports what Donald Trump and Senator Sessions are stating.  Among the results: 52% believe that homosexuality should be illegal, 47% do not want homosexuals working as teachers, 39% want their wives always to obey their husbands, 33% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet Muhammad, and about 25% favor replacing the British legal system with Islamic law.  Another recent poll found that 99% of Afghans believe in sharia law.  This is not good news for American values of freedom of religion, speech, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is not Donald Trump who should be criticized, but President Obama.  His policies to keep Americans safe at home are deeply flawed.  The president calls out his critics but never Islamic extremist radicals.  Unlike many other candidates, Trump has forced people to know who the true enemy is.

Senator Sessions noted, “Hillary Clinton had to back down and acknowledge the radical extremist threat and capitulated after Donald Trump called her out.”  President Obama also was forced to respond, calling a news conference to defend his policies and unfairly criticizing Trump.  Yet in agreement with Trump’s definition of who is the enemy are Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi, who blasted the Islamist extremists.  English prime minister David Cameron and French prime minister Manuel Valls, meanwhile, admitted that there is a war against radical Islam.

Instead of calling out Donald Trump, the Obama administration might want to listen to the senator and former law enforcement officers who agree with what Sessions told American Thinker: “federal officers have been restricted too much in their ability to conduct investigations.  You are not going to be very effective if you are intimidated in conducting basic inquiries.”  A retired FBI Agent summarized their feelings: “given the current philosophy of the administration, they do not want Muslims investigated unless there is clear information or evidence indicative of criminal activity.  Therefore, in evaluating these cases, the FBI is likely going to be very conservative in their approach to these matters unless they have clear and unambiguous factual information meeting the threshold of ‘predication.’”

When asked if he would agree to be Donald Trump’s vice president, the senator responded, “He is going to find someone a lot better than me.  I look forward to whoever he chooses, and I would be honored to consider such a request.”  Actually, it would be the American people who would be honored if he served.  Senator Sessions understands, unlike many of the current leadership, that this is a time to pause and to make sure a policy is in place that serves American interests.

People should be thankful that Donald Trump laid out the problems and what is needed to keep those in the U.S. safe: make sure people with radical and dangerous views that are contrary to the values of America be excluded from entering the U.S.

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews and author interviews and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Why aren't the regular arrests of Palestinian children by the Israeli Army given the justified coverage and attention in the global media?

Gail Ellis 1.3k Views

Let’s watch the following two videosAnd in and in and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPruuk-XuK8&ab_channel=NitaDumat

These children appear to be equally traumatized. But are you demanding to know why these children aren’t being given attention by the global media? Somehow I doubt it.

However, as useful for stirring up emotions as these types of videos are, videos of specific instances don’t tell us much, particularly when we don’t know any of the details of the specific arrest. Looking at the statistics can tell us more. A Palestinian source puts the number of children that Israel arrests as about 500-700 children a year. (see Military Detention) There are about 650,00 Palestinians in the West bank aged 12–18. That works out to an arrest rate of about 100 per 100,000, even if we take the high number of 700 . Compare to the following:

So Israel is arresting Palestinian children at a rate that is at is well below the enlightened Western countries.

And here’s another odd point. If we look at the casualty rates for civilians in the conflict, the numbers for Palestinian child fatalities show a disproportionate number of male teenagers aged 14–18 compared to females, while the numbers among Israeli civilian casualties caused by Palestinians do not. I have to assume that the arrest rates are similarly skewed (the 2013 UN report on children in Israel and Palestine only mentions 153 girls held in detention for BOTH of them), especially since people posting these types of videos only seem to be able to find boys in these types of interactions. Now why is that? Why aren’t girls being arrested? COULD IT BE because these boys have actually done something to warrant being arrested (such as throwing stones and Molotov cocktails for example)?

Well, none of girls except for this one. But I have to ask myself: If Israelis really are the bunch of vicious child killers that Palestinians would like the world to believe they are, why are THESE Palestinians just standing around watching as this girl exposes herself to mortal danger? That is child abuse. (Unless of course the girl’s parents have staged this, knowing perfectly well she’s in no danger - which, come to think of it, is also child abuse.)

While we are speaking of child abuse in the conflict, this is child abuse:

source: School Where Children Are Taught To Kill

Using children to dig attack tunnels (160 of whom died in the process) is child abuse. (see 'At least 160 children died digging tunnels for Hamas')

Showing school children pictures of dead children being carried along and praised as hero in their text books is child abuse. Inciting them on public television to throw stones and kill Jews is child abuse.

This kind of programming has an effect, as we can see in the following videos:

And yet, the pro-Palestinian advocates of children’s rights do not seem concerned that Palestinian institutions are urging children to commit such acts. They only start to become concerned when children get ARRESTED for doing these things. So my question would be, why is the global media not focusing on the indoctrination of Palestinian children that leads them to commit these kinds of acts to begin with (which if they are lucky gets them arrested, and if they are not gets them shot)?

Lastly a few points about your source. She states:

Although no Palestinian faction has claimed responsibility for the abduction, and most, including Hamas, deny any involvement, Benjamin Netanyahu is adamant that Hamas is responsible. The United Nations requested that Israel provide evidence to support their contention, but no evidence has been forthcoming,

As we know, Hamas admitted they did it. Hamas official admits group murdered 3 Israeli teens

She also states

What should we do, then? Palestine is quite literally being wiped off the map by a state that openly upholds Jewish supremacy and Jewish privilege

This is quite literally, exactly the opposite of the truth. Palestine didn’t even EXIST on the map until the Brits put it there in 1920, when the British Mandate for Palestine was created (for the stated purpose of facilitating the reconstitution of a Jewish national home through Jewish settlement in the ENTIRE area, including the West Bank and Gaza).

Prior to that that territory was part of the Turkish vilayet of Syria as you can clearly see on this map made by a Dutch cartographer in 1609.

When the Turks ruled it, they did not offer the Palestinians a state (nor did the Arabs living in the area demand one). Neither did the Jordanians and the Egyptians, when they controlled the West Bank and Gaza for two decades. (Nor did the Palestinians demand that they do so and actually, the PLO charter of 1964 expressly renounced all claims to the West Bank). In fact, the only people who have ever offered the Palestinians a state of their own, in spite of having a legal right to settle in the entire area per the San Remo agreements, the League of Nations Mandate, and Article 80 of the UN charter (which preserves all rights granted by the Mandate), are the Jews. Agreeing to put them on the map, so to speak, not wiping them off it.

So I put it to you that maybe global media are not paying attention to your source because she is not too reliable.

The Munich Massacre Is A Complete Coverup. The Munich Shooter’s Facebook Including His Family Background Shows He Is Not Iranian But A Syrian Islamist Pro Turkey

by Walid Shoebat on July 23, 2016 in Featured, General

Photo caption of Ali Sonboly’s Facebook page created by him with the Turkish flag (update July 23rd 2015) hovering in the background

They initially introduced his name as a western name “David S”. Then his name changed to Ali David Sonboly (which sounds western) when his real name is Ali Daud Sonboly/Sunbuli which is an Arabic name (better pronounced Sunbuli) and has an exclusively Arabic meaning: ‘from the wheat kernel’.

Sonboly is no Iranian. He is Syrian. His Facebook page showed that he is pro Turkey’s Islamists. That, plus he had a record with the Interpol and was being watched. He is also not a teenager as they show us, but an adult as videos showed. What the reader should conclude after reading is this: why is the eye witnesses account (which is substantiated by material evidence) contradicts media reports (which provide zero evidence that we can verify, just government claim). Let me shred the media’s narrative piece by piece.

First of all. There is only one way to spell Sonboly in the Arabic: سنبلي. In the English it can be spelled multiple ways like Sunbulli, Sonboly because Arabic vowels need to be added using English letters. This is why we find Muhammad spelled as Mohemmed or Mehemet or Mohammad …

But in Arabic, it is always the same spelling: سنبلي

Unless one knows Arabic, they do not know where to look. Examining clan Sonboly and even Sonboly’s own Facebook (archived here) we find no persian flags hovering anywhere. What we find are Turkish or Syrian flags or the combination of the two, just like the shooter’s Facebook shows. These are Syrian Islamists who are pro Turkey’s Erdogan. We also find Arabic and not a lick of Persian as their main language. This is unlikely a ‘Sonboly’ of the Persian variety.

Ali Daud (not David) Sonboly, did not simply have a  fetish for the red colored flag or the crescent moon. His clan is of Turkish origin living in Syria. Go ahead, peruse each of their Facebook pages yourself and see.

The case for this clan’s love of Turkey’s Erdogan is ironclad. Plus he lived in the Turkish neighborhood and his Facebook shows he was in Germany’s hauptschule college since 2011. He did not arrive there just two years ago. Someone up there in Germany’s government is fibbing advertising him as an Iranian which would make him a Shiite Muslim. This is done in order to avoid repercussion. Imagine Germans finding out that Turks and Syrian refugees who are entering Germany by the droves are the real culprit? For Germany, it was time to sweep it all under a Persian rug.

He posts a Turkish flag on his time line on July 23rd, 2015, a year before the attack

This is another Facebook page of Ali Sonboly. He’s been in Germany for two years is nonsense. He started school at hauptschule in 2011

The clan is from Homs Syria where some are scattered in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Canada. A quick peruse of this clan can show their love for Turkey (here, here this one lives in Chicago, sunni with a Hijab from Homs, Syria, see also here, and here, and here, and here these are anti-Assad pro-Turkey’s Jihad-loving brand of Islam.

And the Arabic version of Sonboly yields the same results. Ali Sonboly in the Facebook in Arabic connects him to some Erdogan/terror loving individuals.

One clan member, Ziyad Sonboly likes sniping and he is clearly Syrian with a Syrian flag. He too, just like Ali, could be painted as “loving shooting sprees”. And what Muslim terrorist is not enamored with shooting sprees? Name us a Muslim terrorist who would object to posting Anders Behring Breivik as a symbol or anyone who killed westerners?

They show you his face as a kid. But he is a mature individual. The photos provided from eye witness videos contradict what we are being provided by the media. Video shows his advanced in his age. What is up with the baby face? There are no photos of this man just as is? This is a big guy. He is not the tiny little 18 year-old bullied kid who looks like a Mormon missionary with peach-fuzz face. Just look at this photo and tell me, is this a kid:

Gunman in Munich, Germany. #Munich pic.twitter.com/9JjKI76uD0

— Dastardly_Pants (@Dastardly_Pants) July 22, 2016

In fact, the same city police chief Hubertus Andraes gave the media something different to feed on from what he initially shared: “the presence of a record by the Interpol”. This information was also confirmed in a local Portuguese newspaper (see below) which Al-Arabiya net confirms. Al-Arabiya is a reputable source.

All this was ignored, changed and swept under the Persian rug later on.

Al-Arabia makes an excellent point “according to the [initial] press release police, based on eye witnesses, said that there were 3 involved in the operation”. We also see 3 locations were incidents were reported.

We also have three dead Turks. Did they include some of the culprits as victims? If the culprit was dead, was there any report of an exchange fire with police? They say they injured him and then he killed himself. I say they killed him. But this is my personal conspiracy theory.

But my conspiracy theory beats Germany’s version, a right-wing conspiracy theory, carried out by a mysterious Iranian connected (or enamored with) “the far-right terrorist Anders Breivik”!

A right-wing pro-Breivik, Shiite Muslim Iranian fresh from Iran? What sort of a molotov cocktail is this?

And now, the same Munich chief of police Hubertus Andrae who knew that this man had a rap sheet at the Interpol says the gunman appeared to be just a crazy man “obsessed with shooting rampages”? Was that why he was monitored? What then is an Iranian doing with a Turkish flag and why is all his clan Islamists pro-Turkey Syrians? Was he and three of his Turkish victims the sacrificial lambs to gain sympathy for the Turks?

Three Turks among people killed in Munich attack: Turkish foreign minister – Reuters… https://t.co/uqWDO8yMD0

— Turkish News (@TurkishNews7) July 23, 2016

This would serve their master Erdogan and his agenda.

And Erdogan is already running with the story. Turkey’s Anadulu Agency is already cashing in promoting Erdogan’s agenda and Erdogan himself personally responded to the attacks stating:

“Turkey, which has become the target of countless terror attacks and acts of violence for many years, shares the pain of Germany, where our many citizens live.”

“On behalf of myself and my nation, I offer my deepest condolences to you, the friendly German nation and the families of those who lost their lives in this deplorable incident and wish a speedy recovery to all injured”

Sonboly was an excellent trained shooter. By watching the video it is obvious that he went through some training. Police are unable to explain where. Experts reveal that his 9mm Glock was professionally reversed after it was made useless to be sold as a model:

“It was bought from the black market which costs several thousand euros. Police so far has not identified the young man with arms dealers or the world of sport shooting or hunting contacts. One theory is that David S. bought the gun through Internet, one that had been turned off and sold as a design object, but was reversed by the young man to perpetrate the crime.”

We are told he killed himself after Police injured him. Maybe he did, but as a different brand of Muslim ‘suicide mission’ with a cause. An attack on Turks helps Turkey’s Jihad by the pen.

Is it possible that he is a Turkish agent, working in harmony with both Turkey and Germany to make a case for precipitating the flow of Turkish and Syrian refugees into Germany? It looks like Erdogan is going to come out and say that it was his people that were killed in the attack (he is already doing that) and thus they need more protections done on the part in both countries, Germany and Turkey.

Could it also be that Erdogan will use this as a reason to quicken Turkey’s integration into the European Union, under the pretext that Turks should be Europeans and enjoy all of the protections of the EU? Could it be, that Germany, upset at the disintegration of the EU that is transpiring, needs a nation as militarily powerful as Turkey to join the European Union to somehow fortify it from its fragmentation, and to join the universal military force of the EU that Germany is working on creating? None of this would surprise me.

Exactly what are Merkel/Erdogan brewing? A sweet refreshing Ottoman Karroub asal (şerbetçi), German beer, or some combination brew that refreshens both sides?

But it is not only Jihad propaganda. Erdogan’s cause is to paint anyone who criticize Turkey’s new agenda as “terrorists”. Erdogan’s main calling from Allah lately is to redefine terrorism. His definition fits Fethullah Gullen from the U.S. including all his opponents charging them with terrorism.

These are the facts, but is anyone listening?

AP Exclusive: Document shows less limits on Iran nuke work

By GEORGE JAHN

Jul. 18, 2016 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/140ca41aba7a42cda13792f07df4b8d3/ap-exclusive-secret-document-lifts-iran-nuke-constraints

VIENNA (AP) — Key restrictions on Iran's nuclear program imposed under an internationally negotiated deal will start to ease years before the 15-year accord expires, advancing Tehran's ability to build a bomb even before the end of the pact, according to a document obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

The confidential document is the only text linked to last year's deal between Iran and six foreign powers that hasn't been made public, although U.S. officials say members of Congress who expressed interest were briefed on its substance. It was given to the AP by a diplomat whose work has focused on Iran's nuclear program for more than a decade, and its authenticity was confirmed by another diplomat who possesses the same document.

Both demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to share or discuss the document.

The diplomat who shared the text with the AP described it as an add-on agreement to the nuclear deal in the form of a document submitted by Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency outlining its plans to expand its uranium enrichment program after the first 10 years of the nuclear deal.

But while formally separate from the bigger nuclear accord, he said that it was in effect an integral part of that pact and had been approved by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the six powers that negotiated the deal with Tehran.

Details published earlier outline most restraints on Iran's nuclear program meant to reduce the threat that Tehran will turn nuclear activities it says are peaceful to making weapons.

But although some of the constraints extend for 15 years, documents in the public domain are short on details of what happens with Iran's most proliferation-prone nuclear activity — its uranium enrichment — beyond the first 10 years of the agreement.

The document obtained by the AP fills in the gap. It says that as of January 2027 — 11 years after the deal was implemented — Iran will start replacing its mainstay centrifuges with thousands of advanced machines.

Centrifuges churn out uranium to levels that can range from use as reactor fuel and for medical and research purposes to much higher levels for the core of a nuclear warhead. From year 11 to 13, says the document, Iran will install centrifuges up to five times as efficient as the 5,060 machines it is now restricted to using.

Those new models will number less than those being used now, ranging between 2,500 and 3,500, depending on their efficiency, according to the document. But because they are more effective, they will allow Iran to enrich at more than twice the rate it is doing now.

Components other than centrifuge numbers and efficiency also go into the mix of how quickly a nation can make a nuclear weapon. They include how much enriched uranium it has to work with, and restrictions on Iran's stockpile extend until the end of the deal, crimping its full enrichment program.

But a comparison of outputs between the old and newer machines shows the newer ones work at double the enrichment rate. That means they would reduce the time Iran could make enough weapons grade uranium to six months or less from present estimates of one year.

And that time frame could shrink even more. While the document doesn't say what happens with centrifuge numbers and types past year 13, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told The AP that Iran will be free to install any number of advanced centrifuges beyond that point, even though the nuclear deal extends two additional years..

That will give Iran a huge potential boost in enrichment capacity, including bomb making should it choose to do so. But it can be put to use only after the deal expires.

Moniz noted that the limit on the amount of low-enriched enriched uranium Iran will be allowed to store will remain at 300 kilograms (660 pounds) for the full 15 years, significantly below the amount needed for further enrichment into a bomb. As well, the stockpile will remain restricted to a level used for reactor fuel that is well below weapons grade.

These restrictions translate into "serious constraints on ... (Iran's) nuclear program for 15 years," Moniz said.

In selling the deal to skeptics, the U.S. administration said it is tailored to ensure that Iran would need at least 12 months to "break out" and make enough weapons grade uranium for at least one weapon. Moniz said the document obtained by the AP posed no contradiction to that claim because "we made it very clear that we were focused on 10 years on the minimum one-year breakout time."

The document also notes that Iran will greatly expand its work with centrifuges that are even more advanced, including large-scale testing in preparation for the deal's expiry 15 years after its implementation on Jan. 18.

But State Department spokesman Mark Toner said that "the prohibition on Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon — and our ability to monitor the peaceful nature of its nuclear program — remains in effect indefinitely.

"The breakout time does not go off a cliff nor do we believe that it would be cut in half, to six months, by year 11," he said.

Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and the pact is being closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA says Tehran has essentially kept to its commitments since the agreement was implemented, a little more than six months after Iran and the six powers finalized it on July 14, 2015.

Marking the agreement's anniversary Thursday, President Barack Obama said it has succeeded in rolling back Iran's nuclear program, "avoiding further conflict and making us safer." But opposition from U.S. Republicans could increase with the revelation that Iran's potential breakout time would be more than halved over the last few years of the pact.

Also opposed is Israel, which in the past has threatened to strike Iran if it deems that Tehran is close to making a nuclear weapon. Alluding to that possibility, David Albright, whose Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security is a U.S. government go-to resource on Iran's nuclear program, said the plan outlined in the document "will create a great deal of instability and possibly even lead to war, if regional tensions have not subsided."

The bigger nuclear deal provides Iran with sanctions relief in exchange for its nuclear constraints. But before going into recess, the U.S. Congress last week approved a bill to impose new sanctions for Tehran's continuing development and testing of ballistic missiles, a program the White House says is meant to carry atomic warheads even if it is not part of the nuclear agreement.

It also approved a measure that calls for prohibiting the Obama administration from buying more of Iran's heavy water, a key component in certain nuclear reactors.

The White House has said removing the country's surplus heavy water denies Tehran access to a material that may be stored for potential nuclear weapons production. But critics note that the purchase was made only after Iran exceeded heavy water limits proscribed by the nuclear deal and assert it rewarded Tehran for violating the agreement.

___

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed from Washington.

Editors: This story has been corrected to fix the spelling of U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz's first name to Ernest, instead of Ernst.

.