Italian journalist Giulio Menotti documents the madness that has overtaken British universities–a madness that is eerily familiar:
“Rhodes Must Fall” cry the students and professors outside Oxford, many of whom are themselves part of the Rhodes Scholarship group, the program built by the “racist” tycoon to allow foreign students to study at Oxford.
It’s exactly like students at Amherst and Harvard denouncing Jeffrey Amherst and Isaac Royall.
Meanwhile, across the UK, a general air of hostility is spreading against opinions that could cause even only a hint of distress in students, forcing theFinancial Times to publish an editorial: “It is in the interest of universities to maintain a free and fertile academic environment.”
Ditto in the U.S.
Iranian dissident Maryam Lamaze … was attacked and prevented from speaking at many UK colleges, like Goldsmiths and Warwick. Her hymn against religion and for Western free speech “offended” British students of Islamic faith.
At University College in London, a former student, Macer Gifford, was prevented from telling his experience in the ranks of Kurdish fighters committed to battle against the Islamic State. The reason? “In every conflict there are two sides and our college does not want to take sides.”
Should we be anti-ISIS? That’s too close a question for universities in Britain, as in the U.S., to call.
The University of East Anglia has just banned the use of the sombrero, because it is considered hateful towards Hispanic students.
Just like the recent fiasco at Yale. It’s odd, though. Doesn’t every kind of hat originate with one culture or another, and mustn’t all hats therefore be banned? And why stop with hats?
Oxford has canceled a debate on abortion, because women’s organizations had complained about the presence, among the speakers, of “a person without a uterus.” Don’t laugh, it is really happening at the university founded in 1096.
Don’t laugh, because feminists don’t have a sense of humor, either here or in the U.K.
The University of Cardiff has tried to remove the feminist Germaine Greer, “guilty” of not considering women and transsexuals as equals.
Transsexuals, slightly more common than unicorns, have opened up whole new horizons of insanity.
Meanwhile, these British “safe spaces” are used by apologists for Islamist cutthroats who gather support and are affiliated with these universities (“Jihadi John”, the late Isis executioner, was a brilliant student of Westminster).
I hadn’t realized that. Apparently “brilliant” students aren’t what they used to be.
Some days ago, the Telegraph published an article entitled: “The ideology of the ISIS dominates British universities.”
Why are so many students and professors attracted to evil? It was true in the 1930s, too, when German students and professors were among the most enthusiastic supporters of National Socialism, and when Nazis were weirdly popular–as it seems today–on many American campuses.
The same universities that are uncomfortable accommodating heterodox feminists and Islamic dissidents, such as the Queen Mary University of London, allow events under the banner of Islam where women sit separated from men, in accordance with the Sharia or Islamic law, as if they were in Riyadh or Tehran.
Because that’s diversity.
Muslim activist for women’s rights, Maryam Namazie, has been driven away by fanatic Islamists with the approval of the stupid gay militants. In British colleges it was Namazie who needed a “safe space” to deliver her speech, protected by bodyguards….
Much like the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Michelle Malkin here in the United States. And finally:
Meanwhile, British professors, writers, musicians, intellectuals and professionals are busy promoting initiatives to boycott the Jewish State and its professors.
All of this is nauseatingly familiar. My question is: why? Why have British universities gone off the rails in precisely the same ways as American universities? Steve has referred to the “spreading virus” of madness on American campuses, but the virus has apparently replicated itself in England. Why?
I mean the question seriously. Have British students and professors taken inspiration from their American cousins? Or vice versa? Is it because Leftism is an international movement? Do left-wing British professors and students, like their American counterparts, hate the society that sustains them, and does their hatred produce eerily similar symptoms? I don’t know the answer to these questions. But a contagion is loose that transcends, apparently, international boundaries.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
A pro-Islamist resolution, HR 569, was introduced in Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee on December 17th. Although it is quite unlikely that a binding law implementing the resolution will be enacted anytime soon, the resolution shows that troublesome views are held by many members of Congress.
The fight for the rights of women is among the most difficult aspects of the fight against Islam and Islamisation. The views expressed in HR 569, if implemented, would make that fight even more difficult.
Here is a list of the seventy-four members who supported H.R. 569:
Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms.Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs.Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr.Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character. [Emphasis added.]
[S]ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
. . . .
I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]
A problem with Obama’s stated desire to deal with Islam as it is, not as it isn’t, is that His perceptions of what it is and what it isn’t are essentially backward.
The House Resolution does not mention such Muslim “contributions” to America as those made at Ford Hood, Texas several years ago or those more recently made at San Bernardino, California. Nor does it mention their “contributions” of honor killings and female genital mutilation, about which more is provided later in this post. It bemoans the disparagements some Muslims have suffered due to their “contributions” and others simply because they are Muslims.
Here’s a particularly disturbing part of the bill, set forth under “Resolved:”
The House of Representatives
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim; [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; [Emhasis added.]
Note the inclusion in (3) of “hate speech” as a “hate crime.”
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker. [Emphasis added.]
In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to anotherif those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful. [Emphasis added.]
Hate speech, fighting words and hate crimes
HR 569’s apparent inclusion of anti-Muslim “hate speech” as a “hate crime” is inconsistent with American law and the American Constitution. However, it is consistent with Attorney General Lynch’s remarks shortly after the December 2nd San Bernardino Islamic attack. She then
complained that the First Amendment allows people to say hateful things and noted that many do so from the safety of their computer keyboard. It’s something, she said, the DoJ would “take action” against, especially when that speech “edges towards violence, when we see the potential to lift…that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric.” [Emphasis added.]
Later, in response to many objections, Ms. Lynch pulled back with this: “Of course, we prosecute deeds and not words.” Really?
Statements such as “Islam is the religion of death” or “Mohamed was a pedophile” could indeed “provoke” a devout Muslim and perhaps “cause” him to react violently. Are such statements “fighting words,” which we have “no right to speak?”
Can “hateful” words be construed as “hateful” actions or “hateful” deeds” and therefore “hate” crimes? Is the following passage from Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book Heretic, “hate” speech? Are her words “fighting words,” which the ABA material quoted above claims we have no right to speak? The quoted paragraph deals with an event in Somalia. However, she now lives in America, her books are sold in America and could offend devout Muslims in America.
In my homeland of Somalia, a thirteen-year-old girl reported that she had been gang-raped by three men. The Al-Shabaab militia that then controlled her town of Kismayo, a port city in the south, responded by accusing her of adultery, found her guilty, and sentenced her to death. Her execution was announced in the morning from a loudspeaker blaring from a Toyota pickup truck. At the local soccer stadium, Al-Shabaab loyalists dug a hole in the ground and brought in a truckload of rocks. A crowd of one thousand gathered in the hours leading up to 4: 00 p.m. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow— named after the Prophet Muhammad’s nine-year-old wife— was dragged, screaming and flailing, into the stadium. It took four men to bury her up to her neck in the hole. Then fifty men spent ten minutes pelting her with rocks and stones. After the ten minutes had passed, there was a pause. She was dug out of the ground and two nurses examined her to see if she was still alive. Someone found a pulse and breathing. Aisha was returned to the hole and the stoning continued. One man who tried to intervene was shot; an eight-year-old boy was also killed by the militia. Afterward, a local sheik told a radio station that Aisha had provided evidence, confirmed her guilt, and “was happy with the punishment under Islamic law.” [Emphasis added.]
She related that incident to point out that that sort of thing is, unfortunately, both Islamic and common. It is both, as indicated later in this article. Where, other than in Islamic lands, does it happen? Perhaps writing, publishing or selling any book that disparages the present condition of Islam “as it is” according to Obama, and seeks the reformation of what Obama insists upon calling the religion of peace and tolerance now, could be considered a “hate” crime. After all,
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, condemned [Ayaan Hirsi Ali as] “one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide.”
Neither HR 569, nor a criminal law based on it, will likely be passed anytime soon by either house of Congress. However, the mere introduction of such a bill, supported by seventy-four House members, is disturbing enough. It’s part of our multicultural, politically correct march for moral equivalence which ignores our — Judeo-Christian versus Islamic — distinctions between what is good and what is evil.
Was it good or evil to stone a thirteen-year-old Somali girl to death for her “crime” of having been raped by a gang of young men? Being raped was deemed to be her crime of adultery. Was her inability, and hence failure, to prevent her rape more or less evil than stoning her to death or, indeed, the rape itself? Few if any sane westerners would have difficulty answering such questions. Muslims? That’s different.
According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other current and former Muslims, Muslims are taught about “honor” from infancy. However, Islamic conceptions of “honor” are very different from Judeo-Christian conceptions. In Islam, “honor” consists of honoring one’s family and clan, and thereby Mohamed and Allah. “Adultery” by a woman dishonors her husband, family, her clan, Mohamed and Allah. It does so even if her “adultery” consisted of being raped. It warrants death by stoning. To react “dishonorably” by not imposing such punishments would be a weakness which would dishonor them all.
Those women are not fighting for free birth control, abortions or even health care. Nor are they fighting for safe spaces against microaggressions or where unpleasant views cannot be heard. They are fighting for the most important “women’s rights,” absent under Islam. Has Obama ever spoken about the work those and other brave women are doing or why they are doing it? If so, I am not aware of it. American “feminists,” other American women and men? Europeans? If they are not, and I am not aware of many who are, they should be ashamed of themselves.
[W]hile certain stoning-related passages have been removed from Iran’s new penal code, other passages in the new code refer to stoning, and stoning remains as a possible form of punishment under the new Iranian penal code.
Amnesty International has documented 76 cases of lethal stoning between 1980-1989 in Iran, while the International Committee Against Execution (ICAE) has reported that 74 others were stoned to death in Iran between 1990-2009.
Is Iran better than the Taliban? Here’s a video, with the obligatory remarks that stoning adulterers is mandated by the Bible and denials that this sort of thing is either widespread or Islamic.
Great. Should the Taliban be given a pathway to “the bomb?”
Pakistan?
Pakistan already has nukes. Should we help her to get more and better nukes?
Saudi Arabia has a criminal justice system based on a hardline and literal form of Shari’ah law reflecting a particular state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam.
The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4]including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10]and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13][Emphasis added.]
The 345 reported executions between 2007 and 2010 were all carried out by public beheading.[14] The last reported execution for sorcery took place in August 2014.[15][16] There were no reports of stoning between 2007 and 2010,[14] but between 1981 and 1992 there were four cases of execution by stoning reported.[17]
Crucifixion of the beheaded body is sometimes ordered.[7] For example, in 2009, the Saudi Gazette reported that “An Abha court has sentenced the leader of an armed gang to death and three-day crucifixion (public displaying of the beheaded body) and six other gang members to beheading for their role in jewelry store robberies in Asir.”[18] (This practice resembles gibbeting, in which the entire body is displayed).
In 2003, Muhammad Saad al-Beshi, whom the BBC described as “Saudi Arabia’s leading executioner”, gave a rare interview to Arab News.[5] He described his first execution in 1998: “The criminal was tied and blindfolded. With one stroke of the sword I severed his head. It rolled metres away…People are amazed how fast [the sword] can separate the head from the body.”[5] He also said that before an execution he visits the victim’s family to seek forgiveness for the criminal, which can lead to the criminal’s life being spared.[5] Once an execution goes ahead, his only conversation with the prisoner is to tell him or her to recite the Muslim declaration of belief, the Shahada.[5] “When they get to the execution square, their strength drains away. Then I read the execution order, and at a signal I cut the prisoner’s head off,” he said.[5]
As of 2003, executions have not been announced in advance. They can take place any day of the week, and they often generate large crowds. Photography and video of the executions is also forbidden, although there have been numerous cases of photographed and videoed executions in . . . spite of the law against them.
Europe is different
In Germany, the rape victim most likely will not be stoned to death for the offense of being raped.
Sweden?
Conclusions
“Honor killings” and other Islamic infringements on women’s rights in general are becoming more common in America. It has been estimated that there are twenty-seven honor killings in America each year. That estimate is probably low, because
Honor killings and violence, which typically see men victimize wives and daughters because of behavior that has somehow insulted their faith, are among the most secretive crimes in society, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
“Cases of honor killings and/or violence in the U.S. are often unreported because of the shame it can cause to the victim and the victim’s family,” Farhana Qazi, a former U.S. government analyst and senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies on Terrorism, told FoxNews.com. “Also, because victims are often young women, they may feel that reporting the crime to authorities will draw too much attention to the family committing the crime.” [Emphasis added.]
Even cases that appear to be honor killings, such as the Jan. 1, 2008 murder of two Irving, Texas, sisters that landed their father on the FBI’s most wanted list, cannot always be conclusively linked to a religious motivation. Without hard evidence, critics say, ascribing a religious motivation to crimes committed by Muslims demeans Islam. Yet, federal authorities believe they must be able to identify “honor” as a motive for violence and even murder if they are to address a growing cultural problem. [Emphasis added.]
Doesn’t alleging an Islamic motivation for any crime “demean” Islam?
The report, which estimated that 23-27 honor killings per year occur in the U.S., noted that 91 percent of victims in North America are murdered for being “too Westernized,” and in incidents involving daughters 18 years or younger, a father is almost always involved. And for every honor killing, there are many more instances of physical and emotional abuse, all in the name of fundamentalist Islam, say experts. [Emphasis added.]
an aspect of human nature that denies the enormity of any disaster where death is imminent because the mantra of its impossibility was accepted and believed by all. Regarding the Titanic, it was touted as the largest and the safest ship ever built (true at that time) … it is unsinkable (false, nothing man builds is disaster free). When the mantra is believed by all, including the builders … the designers who did not provide adequate life boats … the passengers and crew whose minds denied acceptance of the reality of disaster and peril as incomprehensible. This denial continued even while the disaster was unfolding. They either would not or could not admit or acknowledge the imminence of their peril of floundering in the icy cold sea of the North Atlantic. [Emphasis added.]
It can happen in America, America is already moving in that direction and will arrive there unless we prevent it. Are American feminists working on the problems? Very few, at most.
ISIS-Sinai Province has become the terrorist group’s most effective branch in the Middle East; Military Intelligence believe that an attack is likely be carried out in one of the towns near the Sinai border.
Yoav Zitun
The IDF has increased its intelligence-gathering efforts over the last couple of months on the Islamic State’s Sinai branch.
Military Intelligence has added ‘heavy’ and classified operative layers to its efforts to increase and improve the collection and monitoring of Islamic State’s Sinai Province, which accuses Israel of supporting and assisting the Egyptian army in its war against its militants – sufficient grounds for them to target the IDF.
In the past year, since the terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula abandoned al-Qaeda and swore allegiance to Islamic State, the Sinai Province has become not only the most effective ISIS branch in the Middle East, but also one of its most compartmentalized.
Islamic State – Sinai Province
The organization, which has thousands of armed militants – most of them locals – has recently started enjoying millions of dollars in aid from abroad and is able to carry out daily attacks against the Egyptian army. It is based and trains on a high level of secrecy, which makes it difficult for intelligence agencies to even single out its leader.
Recently, ISIS-Sinai Province has posted videos in which it calls for carrying out attacks against Israeli targets. The threat has not been translated into any concrete warnings, but Military Intelligence is working under the assumption that ISIS’s attack will take place without intelligence warning, and even if there is a warning, it will only come a short time before the attack.
Most of the IDF and Shin Bet’s monitoring of the Sinai is technological, due to the difficulty of using human agents to penetrate deep into the Jihadist groups. These groups are operating in a vast area of about 25 to 30 thousand square kilometers in the heart of the peninsula, an area that is largely mountainous with topographical conditions that create difficulties in photographing or tracking Islamic State’s trainings, headquarters and weapons warehouses.
ISIS- Sinai Province
Israel has admitted publicly only once to having helped the Egyptian Army in the Sinai Peninsula, when it sent a surveillance aircraft to try and locate the remains of the Russian plane that crashed on its way from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg.
Despite its focus on terror in the West Bank, and the fence that was completed last year along the Sinai border, the IDF has not lowered its guard along the 220 kilometer border from Kerem Shalom to Eilat: special ops forces remain on alert alongside regular army battalions. Three weeks ago, a surprise drill took place in the Southern Command to practice scenarios of large-scale attacks on Eilat and Nitzana.
In recent months, the Caracal Battalion has been training in built-up areas, practicing scenarios of ISIS attacks on one of the border villages.
On the Syrian border, the sole Islamic State branch is less significant than that of its Sinai equivalent. The Shuhada al-Yarmuq, who pledged allegiance to ISIS, have only tens or hundreds of militants. They have been busy over the past year fighting Jabhat al-Nusra which is affiliated with al Qaeda, considered the most significant jihadist group in the Syrian Golan.
Rouhani calls on Muslim world to unite to fight terror, Jewish state, says Israel only country wanting to see downfall of Syria
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani accuses Muslims of forgetting their common enemy — Israel — as they are distracted by atrocities committed by the Islamic State terror group.
Rouhani says the Islamic State group and other armed groups are defaming Islam by resorting to barbaric acts and that has led to Muslim states forgetting their common enemy: Israel.
Addressing a conference in Tehran, Rouhani suggests that destroying Syria won’t strengthen those governments in the region which support the anti-Assad rebels, and accuses Israel of wanting to see Syria destroyed.
“Does the weakening of Syria benefit its Muslim neighbors? Does the destruction of Syria lead to the strengthening of Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates or other countries? Who is pleased by Syria’s destruction other than Israel,” Rouhani says.
He also accuses archrival Saudi Arabia Sunday of promoting poverty and terrorism by continuing to bomb Yemeni rebels and supporting armed rebels fighting to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad in Syria.
Iran is one of Assad’s main allies and has provided his government with military and political backing for years.
— Agencies
Categories: Uncategorized
Comments:Comments Off on Iranian head: Islamic State making Muslims forget to fight Israel
“Israel will unleash a massive and merciless attack on Lebanon if Hezbollah retaliates for the assassination of Samir Kuntar,” European diplomats tell Kuwaiti paper • Israel has reportedly conveyed the warning to Hassan Nasrallah via a third party.
Daniel Siryoti, Lilach Shoval and Danny Brenner
Hezbollah terrorist Samir Kuntar was killed in Damascus on Dec. 19
“Israel will unleash a massive and merciless attack on Lebanon if Hezbollah retaliates for the assassination of Samir Kuntar,” European diplomats told the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas over the weekend.
According to the diplomats, Israel conveyed the stern warning to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah via a third party.
Israel security forces were expected to remain on high alert for a possible revenge attack in the coming days, despite the fact that Israel has not claimed responsibility for Kuntar’s assassinationlast week. Assessments regarding a possible retaliation by Hezbollah are based on warnings by Nasrallah that his organization would respond “anywhere, anytime and any way we see fit.”
A memorial ceremony for Kuntar will take place on Sunday in the Dahiyeh neighborhood of south Beirut, which is a Hezbollah stronghold. The Shiite terrorist organization’s official television station, Al-Manar, reported that Nasrallah was expected to deliver a speech at the event.
Meanwhile, despite the tensions, thousands of Israelis visited the Upper Galilee region in northern Israel over the weekend. Hotels, guesthouses and tourist hotspots were filled with visitors, while Galilee residents returned to their normal daily routines. However, a defense official said the army’s instruction to farmers in the area, to keep a safe distance from the border fence, was still in effect.
Arab media claims Israeli Air Force strike seven targets near Qalamoun Mountains • Reports vary as to whether targets were weapon stockpiles or arms convoy • Israel reportedly warns Hezbollah against retaliation over death or terrorist Samir Kuntar.
Israeli Air Force jets [Illustrative]
Syrian and Lebanese media reported Saturday that the Israeli Air Force struck Hezbollah positions north of the Qalamoun Mountains on the Syria-Lebanon border. Hezbollah denied the reports, and the Israeli defense establishment had no comment on them.
Arab media outlets said seven sites were targeted, and that considerable damage was noted in all of them. Some reports said the targets were Hezbollah weapon stockpiles, while others said the targets also included convoys traveling from Syria to Lebanon, believed to be en route to deliver long-range missiles to Hezbollah.
Reports of potential casualties in the alleged strikes were ambiguous.
Earlier Saturday the military informed the residents of the communities adjacent to the northern border that “sounds of explosions may be heard in the Upper Galilee area. Please be advised that these are scheduled, controlled detonation, and not a security incident.”
Tensions on the northern border increased last week following the death of Hezbollah terrorist Samir Kuntar, killed on Dec. 19 in an airstrike near Damascus.
Hezbollah accused Israel of assassinating the infamous terrorist, and vowed a “painful retaliation will follow.”
Channel 2 quoted Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Qabas as saying Israel had used a third-party intermediary to relay a message to Hezbollah, warning it against such action, which “may result in a wide-scale operation against the Shiite terrorist group, perhaps even if it spells a full-fledged military campaign.”
“The Israelis thought that we forgot Palestine and that they had distracted us from it. That is not the case. … Palestine will not be your land or your home. It will be a graveyard for you,” says Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in recording released Saturday.
Daniel Siryoti, News Agencies and Israel Hayom Staff
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: “The Israelis will soon see us in Palestine”
In a 24-minute audio recording, Baghdadi said, “The Israelis will soon see us in Palestine. This is no longer a war of the crusaders against us. The entire world is fighting us right now.”
Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Saturday directly warned Israel, saying, “We are getting closer to you every day.”
The ISIS leader continued: “The Israelis thought that we forgot Palestine and that they had distracted us from it. That is not the case. We have not forgotten Palestine for one moment.
“Palestine will not be your land or your home. It will be a graveyard for you. Allah has gathered you in Palestine so that the Muslims may kill you. The leaders of the jihad fighters will surround you on a day you think is far, but we see it as close. We are coming closer to you day by day,” he concluded.
Baghdadi also claimed that his self-styled “caliphate” was doing well despite an unprecedented alliance against it, and he criticized the recently announced Saudi-led Islamic military coalition against terrorism.
The reclusive ISIS leader said airstrikes by the international coalition only increase his group’s determination and resolve. The message was Baghdadi’s first since May, and comes amid battlefield setbacks that ISIS has recently faced.
“It is unprecedented in the history of our ummah (Islamic nation) that all the world came against it in one battle, as it is happening today. It is the battle of all the disbelievers against all the Muslims,” Baghdadi said.
He said the U.S.-led alliance does “not scare us … nor do they scatter our resolve because we are the victors in any event.”
Baghdadi taunted the United States for not putting boots on the ground. “They do not dare to come, because their hearts are full of fear from the mujahideen,” or holy warriors, he said.
“America and its allies dream of destroying the caliphate through their proxies and henchmen, and whenever an alliance of theirs fails or a tail is cut, they hasten to establish another, until they recently declared the Salouli [Saudi] alliance that was falsely called Islamic,” Baghdadi added.
If the Saudi-led alliance was truly Islamic, then it would fight the Syrian army and its Russian “masters,” as well as Shiites and Jews, Baghdadi said.
In the audio, Baghdadi also warned other nations taking part in the war against ISIS by saying: “We promise you, God permitting, that whoever participates in the war against the Islamic State will pay the price dearly.”
He also urged Muslims world over to join the fight, saying it is their Islamic duty to rise up everywhere.
In mid-December, Saudi Arabia announced the new, 34-member alliance against terrorism, to be based in the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh. But Shiite powerhouse Iran is not part of the new coalition; neither are Iraq and Syria, whose forces are battling to regain ground from the ISIS and whose governments are allied with Tehran.
Meanwhile, the assassination of a top Syrian rebel commander who led one of the most powerful groups battling Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces has dealt a significant setback to the opposition that could reshuffle the lineup of key players on the ground ahead of the planned peace talks in Geneva next month.
On Saturday, the Army of Islam and allied militant groups in Syria mourned the killing of Zahran Allouch, while government supporters and ISIS group cheered his death — a reflection of his role in fighting both sides in the Syrian civil war.
Allouch was killed in airstrikes that targeted the group’s headquarters during a meeting on Friday. He was instantly killed along with a number of senior commanders of his Army of Islam group and those of the ultra-conservative Ahrar al-Sham and the Faylaq al-Rahman groups.
The Syrian army claimed responsibility for the airstrike that killed Allouch, although many among the opposition blamed Russia, which has been bombing ISIS targets and other insurgent groups since late September.
Allouch was a controversial figure in the war and an authoritative rebel leader who commanded thousands of fighters on the doorstep of Damascus, the seat of Assad’s power. His death may have contributed — at least partially — to a delay in an agreed-on pullout of thousands of militants and their families from neighborhoods on the southern edge of Damascus.
The pullout, supposed to start on Saturday, was to involve mainly ISIS fighters who earlier this year overran the Yarmouk area, which is home to a Palestinian refugee camp and has been hotly contested and fought-over in the war, and two adjacent neighborhoods.
A Palestinian official in Damascus, Anwar Abdulhadi, told The Associated Press that the withdrawal is being delayed for “logistical reasons.” But Lebanon’s Hezbollah-run TV station Al Manar said that Allouch was a key figure in arranging the rare deal, and that his assassination has delayed its implementation. The report could not be immediately confirmed by the AP.
The Army of Islam swiftly appointed Essam al-Buwaydhani, a field commander known as Abu Hammam, as Allouch’s successor, and posted a video on the Internet late Friday saying Allouch’s killing “will only increase our fight” against Assad’s government and the Islamic State.
However, Aron Lund, a Syria expert, said the death of Allouch, who led the Army of Islam since it was founded around four years ago, could amount to “a decapitation strike” for the group.
Often, during the race to the White House, a watershed event occurs that seals its mark on the entire campaign and changes its course entirely.
In 1972 it was Senator Edmund Muskie, the leading front-runner for the Democratic Party, who, according to the newspapers, broke down in tears during an address he delivered on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.
The event marked his surprising demise, as it exposed an unstable character and discredited him as a worthy candidate. In 2015, it was the searing address delivered by none other than U.S. President Barack Obama following the San Bernardino terrorist attack on December 2.
Although Obama is not a presidential candidate but rather an outgoing president, one must not ignore the far-reaching effects of his words — as well as those he refrained from voicing — on the public and domestic political agenda on the eve that marked the beginning of the primaries.
Obama’s address after the tragic event has once again proven that he remains rooted and anchored in his worldview, according to which Islamic extremism is no more than a marginal phenomenon.
Not only were extensive parts of the address taken directly from his “Cairo speech,” (an address delivered on June 4, 2009 at Cairo University in Egypt), but the direct link he made between the massacre and the ease with which Americans can purchase assault weapons (as if this was the reason for the attack), proved that he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing since entering office with a straightforward agenda to open a new and appeasing page with the Muslim world.
Against the backdrop of this fixation, which he has exposed to an entire nation desperate for a strong and decisive leadership, one could understand Donald Trump’s recent uptick in the polls, despite his attacks against Islam and his demand to bar Muslims from entering the U.S.
However, at a time when Trump seems to go overboard in his unrestrained rhetoric against in-house ethnic groups, minorities and sectors, as well as diplomatic entities in the international arena, we have been witnessing a paradox — Obama’s languid response to the recent terror events has made room for Trump’s tempestuous style to fill in the void and provide large publics (not only the natural base of his supporters) with an answer to the security dilemma they are facing.
In light of the atrocities the Islamic State group has been conducting and the deterioration of security and order in Western Europe and the U.S. itself, many have been wondering why not give the keys to the white House to someone whose verbal aggression is his very essence?
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been extending the span of his influence in Syria using Uncle Sam’s flaccid policy to the fullest, also raises the question of why not make a dramatic shift of directions and give a chance to a candidate who is the exact opposite of the aloof Obama, who avoids using military force.
This is the main reason that explains the migration of votes to Trump, who in recent days opened a substantial lead over his rivals. Polls have shown that the outspoken candidate is reaching an astounding 40% support among Republicans.
Given all these, even Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, has reason for concern. Despite her efforts to distance herself from Obama’s legacy, let us not forget that she faithfully served as secretary of state during his first four-year term and is completely identified with his conciliatory approach on defense and foreign affairs.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments