10 min read

Biden Brings in Islamic Terror-Tied Operatives to Investigate U.S. Military for ‘Extremism’

GellerReport - By Pamela Geller - on May 26, 2021


Muslim Brotherhood supporters are recruited to help Biden destroy American soldiers. Democrat party of jihad and terrorism. Biden Brings in Islamic Activists to Investigate U.S. Military for ‘Extremism’Muslim Brotherhood supporters to help Biden destroy American soldiers.

By: Daniel Greenfield, May 24, 2021.  

A decade ago, Hina Shamsi was fighting on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation whose leaders had been convicted of providing material support to Hamas.As the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project, Shamsi, a Pakistani citizen, had fought fiercely for the Islamic terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. “We all must pledge — not one person more in Guantanamo, not in our names,” she recently declared.

But now the Pakistani advocate for Islamic terrorists has a new job: going after our soldiers.

Shamsi (pictured above left) is one of the terror lawyers who appears on a list of partners for the Biden administration’s crackdown on “extremism” in the military. The only kind of extremism that Shamsi appears to be an expert on is the Islamic kind and her expertise has been in denying it.

Furthermore, at least as of 2017, Shamsi had described herself as a Pakistan citizen with permanent legal residency in America.

She’s not the only apparent Pakistani citizen tasked by Biden to go after our troops.

Take Faiza Patel, another Pakistani immigrant, who co-wrote an article arguing against designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization. The article claimed that “the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious organization, a political party, and a social service provider” and that it had “disavowed violence decades ago.”

That would come as news to Hamas and its other active Jihadist network members.

In another co-written article, Faiza Patel claimed that laws against Sharia were Islamophobic.

Patel has worked for international organizations in Europe, including the International Criminal Tribunal, and was a member of a UN Human Rights Council working group which listed her as a member from Pakistan, not the United States, raising questions about her citizenship.

And yet Shamsi and Patel aren’t the worst of the list of partners for the Biden administration’s Countering Extremism Working Group (CEWG) published by OANN correspondent Jack Posobiec

While Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had announced the CEWG group to counter supposed “extremism” in the military, the list of CEWG partners contains a lot of Muslim lawyers and activists. In addition to Shamsi, there’s fellow Pakistani ACLU activist: Manar Waheed.

The list includes Wael Alzayat in his role as the CEO of Emgage. The national co-chair and founding member of the Islamic group is Khurrum Wahid who has been described as one of the country’s most prominent terror lawyers and whose clients include an Al Qaeda operative who plotted to kill President George W. Bush and Sami al-Arian who was linked to Islamic Jihad.

Wahid had been placed on a terrorist watch list and Emgage, as counterterrorism researcher Joe Kaufman noted, “holds events at terror-linked mosques”: including one founded by al-Arian.

Emgage’s board includes Dhabah ‘Debbie’ Almontaser who was forced out of her old job over t-shirts reading “Intifada NYC”. Nada al Hanooti, Emgage’s Executive Director for Michigan, is the daughter of Muthanna al Hanooti, a former CAIR leader who was accused of working for Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s intelligence agency.

Is that the kind of extremism expertise that the Department of Defense really needs?

Also on the list of Biden’s CEWG partners is Iman Boukadou:, the staff attorney for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC has a long history of defending and excusing Islamic terrorism. “I know many people in Hamas. They are very respectable,” its former president Hamzi Moghrabi had said. Former ADC president Hussein Ibish called Hezbollah “a disciplined and responsible liberation force” whose members “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner.”

Boukadoum was most recently hard at work fighting for Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who had been convicted of obstruction of justice in a case involving the flow of money to Hamas.

Ashqar ran for president of the Palestinian Authority while awaiting trial in the United States. He had argued that the evidence against him had come from a time when “Hamas was not designated as a terrorist organisation” and boasted that, “they wanted me to testify against my people. I said I’d rather die than betray my commitment to freedom and justice for Palestine.”

American military personnel are being put at the mercy of advocates for their worst enemies.

Biden’s DOD radicals have assembled a list of activists who have absolutely no credibility when it comes to extremism. Multiple “partners” for Biden’s Countering Extremism Working Group have appeared at events for CAIR, ICNA, and other terror-linked organizations. Some have appeared at events featuring advocates for Islamic terrorism, sharia, and violence against non-Muslims. They’re the extremists that Americans should be concerned about.

It was not surprising that Biden’s CEWG partner list would include multiple personnel from the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center including Heidi Beirich, formerly of the SPLC, currently running her own organization, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, which barely has a website.

Or that the only conservative on the list is the First Liberty Institute. FLI’s Michael Berry also appears to be the only person on Biden’s list who is qualified for this role as a Lt. Colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve who works as FLI’s Director of Military Affairs.

But to Biden, defending Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorists, is the only qualification needed for going after American soldiers. That tells us everything we need to know about Biden’s goals.

Biden’s Secretary of Defense Austin falsely claimed that, “this is not about politics or political views.” His list of partners makes it abundantly clear that this is entirely about politics.

The list consists almost entirely of organizations and individuals who supported Biden.

And that makes this look even more like a political purge of the military by a radical administration that began its time in office by abusing the military for political purposes, and has made it clear that it intends to eliminate any opposition within the military to its political views.

But it’s striking that a third of Biden’s CEWG partners are Muslim. Especially since the Biden administration isn’t looking for another Nidal Hasan in the hopes of averting another Fort Hood Massacre, but is instead trying to rewrite history to pretend that the greatest threat to our national security comes from Biden’s political opponents rather than from his Islamist backers.

The Obama administration infamously dismantled our counterterrorism programs and replaced them with Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Biden is dismantling CVE and siccing Islamist activists and their lawyers on the military to implement a ruthless purge of American soldiers.

Witnessing Gitmo lawyers licking their lips at the prospect of bringing the Jihad into the heart of the military against soldiers who bravely served our country but have no defense against being betrayed by their own government is as disheartening to us as it must be to them.

“Did we lose a war?” the ordinary American confronted with this reversal of terror may wonder.

And the answer is, “Yes, we did.”

Biden obviously do not trust the army!

Political controversies eroding confidence in the U.S. armed forces

relates to ‘Support Our Troops’ No Longer Automatic as Trust in Military Falls

Bloomberg - By Daniel Flatley and Roxana TironApril 15, 2021

Super Bowl flyovers, TV commercials celebrating veterans, yellow-ribbon bumper stickers: It’s long been reflexive for Americans of all political persuasions to “support our troops.” Following Sept. 11 and the deployment of troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, pride in the U.S. military and gratitude for troops’ service ran high, even among people opposed to those conflicts. In the years since 2000, multiple surveys have shown the public trusts the U.S. military more than any other public institution—more than organized religion and the Supreme Court, and vastly more than Congress.

But the increasing politicization of the military, a string of sexual assault scandals, the role of dozens of enlisted troops and veterans in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, and other factors have shaken that trust. According to a Reagan Institute survey conducted in February, confidence in the military has fallen by 14 percentage points since 2018—from 70% to 56%. The drop was significant regardless of age, gender, or party affiliation, and is in line with trends other researchers have observed.

Criticism of the military on Capitol Hill has intensified. Democrats say the Pentagon must do more to stamp out extremist ideology in the ranks following Jan. 6. “The news is full of examples of service members who have extremist beliefs,” Representative Adam Smith, the Washington Democrat who leads the House Armed Services Committee, said at a March 24 hearing on the issue. “It is also obvious that our military leaders are untrained in the symbols and language of these hate groups.”

Conservatives are lambasting military policies they regard as “woke.” Fox News host Tucker Carlson last month called maternity flight suits for women troops a “mockery” and a distraction from combating China and other threats. When military leaders rebuked Carlson, Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, took his side, claiming that the officers were stifling public dissent. He asked for a meeting with the commandant of the Marine Corps over the issue.

Jim Golby, who studies civil-military relations at the Center for a New American Security, says he can’t remember a time when perceptions of the military have been so polarized. “Different parts of the public are looking at the military and creating narratives that they don’t like,” he says.

Former President Donald Trump had a large role in driving this politicization. At the beginning of his presidency, Trump with great fanfare named retired generals to leading positions, including former Marines Jim Mattis as defense secretary and John Kelly as White House chief of staff. Almost as quickly as he claimed them as “my generals,” he turned on them. Trump also drew the military deeper into the culture wars, banning transgender people from serving (a policy undone by President Joe Biden) and opposing the Pentagon when it began a process to remove the names of Confederate leaders from military bases.

Last June, during a summer of nationwide protests against police violence, General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, marched across Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square with Trump for a photo op outside St. John’s Church. Law enforcement officers used chemical irritants to clear the park of peaceful protesters just prior to the event. Critics including prominent Democrats and former high-ranking officers said Milley’s presence lent the military’s imprimatur to a political event that undercut freedom of speech and assembly. Milley, who wore battle fatigues that day, later apologized for his role.

“President Trump’s rhetoric, particularly against senior officers toward the end of his term, probably helped open some of the gates” to distrust of the military among Republicans, says Golby. “The response to Lafayette Square helped open the floodgates on the Democratic side.”

Criticism over Lafayette Square may have contributed to the National Guard’s slow mobilization to help the U.S. Capitol Police on Jan. 6. The commanding officer of the D.C. National Guard said a senior Army officer expressed concern about the “optics” of sending troops.

Meanwhile, reports of sexual assault in the ranks have been rising. The killing of 20-year-old Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen at Fort Hood in Texas last year sparked outrage. Guillen’s family said she was harassed before being murdered (a soldier suspected in her death killed himself). The Army went on to fire or suspend 14 base leaders over a culture that it said fostered harassment and sexual assault.

“With the racial issues, with the sex assault issues, with the misogyny issues, the average American is saying, ‘Maybe the military isn’t the leader in all these areas,’ ” says Don Christensen, president of Protect Our Defenders, a group that works to end sexual violence in the military.

The Pentagon’s inability to curb rape in the ranks has led lawmakers to push for legislation that would move handling of sexual assault cases outside the chain of command, something the department has resisted. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has ordered a review of all the actions that have been taken on the issue to date. And on April 9, after a mandated period for all units to discuss the problem of extremism, the Pentagon announced plans to crack down on it with new regulations, screening, and training.

“The military is still the most trusted institution in America, and we take that trust and confidence very seriously,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “While hyper-partisanship today is certainly a concern, the men and women of the Department of Defense are focused on doing their job of protecting and defending the United States, and always earning and deserving the trust of the American people.”

The military still enjoys more support than most institutions in American life. In polls, clear majorities of respondents consistently say they have confidence in the military, a rarity for any public institution, according to Jeff Jones at Gallup. But opinion has been so high for so long that even a slight change is cause for concern among people who follow the issue closely. It’s possible, Golby worries, that the military could become like the Supreme Court, with Republicans and Democrats alike viewing some high-ranking officers as “theirs” and others as political opponents.

“If the military becomes politicized, it becomes more and more likely that the military could intervene in politics,” says Elliot Ackerman, an author and former Marine who served five tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. “And a military intervention in politics concerns me the most, whatever shape it would take.” —With Travis Tritten(Updated with a statement from the Pentagon in 13th paragraph.


Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehaviour acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.




All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified