Archive for December 2015

Rape Culture: The Real Thing

December 22, 2015

Rape Culture: The Real Thing, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, December 22, 2015

The first question to be asked about any proposed group of immigrants is, why do we need them? It would seem that, given our hypersensitivity to “rape culture,” those who require training to understand that “women have value” and that a smile does not represent consent to rape should receive low priority.

******************

We hear a lot about “rape culture” at American universities, but no one actually believes it. If we did, we wouldn’t send our daughters off to college. It appears there is such a thing, however; American liberals have just been looking in the wrong place. The New York Times headlines: “Norway Offers Migrants a Lesson in How to Treat Women.” We aren’t talking about etiquette lessons here:

Fearful of stigmatizing migrants as potential rapists and playing into the hands of anti-immigrant politicians, most European countries have avoided addressing the question of whether men arriving from more conservative societies might get the wrong idea once they move to places where it can seem as if anything goes.

But, with more than a million asylum seekers arriving in Europe this year, an increasing number of politicians and also some migrant activists now favor offering coaching in European sexual norms and social codes.

Norway has mandated anti-rape training for immigrants from “more conservative societies.”

The goal is that participants will “at least know the difference between right and wrong,” said Nina Machibya, the Sandnes center’s manager.

A course manual sets out a simple rule that all asylum seekers need to learn and follow: “To force someone into sex is not permitted in Norway, even when you are married to that person.”

Denmark and Germany are considering similar measures. The concern appears to be well-founded:

The first such program to teach immigrants about local norms and how to avoid misreading social signals was initiated in Stavanger, the center of Norway’s oil industry and a magnet for migrants, after a series of rapes from 2009 to 2011.

Henry Ove Berg, who was Stavanger’s police chief during the spike in rape cases, said he supported providing migrants sex education because “people from some parts of the world have never seen a girl in a miniskirt, only in a burqa.” When they get to Norway, he added, “something happens in their heads.”

He said, “there was a link but not a very clear link” between the rape cases and the city’s immigrant community. According to the state broadcaster, NRK, which reviewed court documents, only three of 20 men found guilty in those cases were native Norwegians, the rest immigrants.

In Europe, as in the United States, candor with regard to such issues is hard to come by:

Hanne Kristin Rohde, a former head of the violent crime section of the Oslo Police Department, said she ran into a wall of hostility when, in 2011 while still in the police force, she blamed sexual violence by foreign men on cultural factors and went public with data suggesting that immigrants committed a hugely disproportionate number of rapes.

“This was a big problem but it was difficult to talk about it,” Ms. Rohde said recently, asserting that there was “a clear statistical connection” between sexual violence and male migrants from countries where “women have no value of their own.” …

“There are lots of men who haven’t learned that women have value,” said Ms. Rohde, who wants mandatory sexual conduct classes for all new male migrants. “This is the biggest problem, and it is a cultural problem.”

The migrants themselves acknowledge that Western mores present a culture shock:

Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of sexual assault. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.

“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.

Norway, he said, treats women differently.

The first question to be asked about any proposed group of immigrants is, why do we need them? It would seem that, given our hypersensitivity to “rape culture,” those who require training to understand that “women have value” and that a smile does not represent consent to rape should receive low priority.

Israel Taking Major Steps to Battle Hamas’ Attempts to Smuggle Weaponry

December 22, 2015

Israel Taking Major Steps to Battle Hamas’ Attempts to Smuggle Weaponry

BY:
December 22, 2015 2:22 pm

Source: Israel | Hamas Smuggling Weapons

Palestinian boats parked in the fishermen's port in Gaza City, in the northern Gaza Strip

Palestinian boats parked in the fishermen’s port in Gaza City, in the northern Gaza Strip / AP

JERUSALEM—While Israeli gunboats patrol offshore to prevent rockets and other war-making materials from reaching the Gaza Strip, the major effort is being undertaken by customs and tax officials and intelligence units battling ingenious efforts by Hamas to use the daily delivery from Israel of commercial products to smuggle in weaponry in innocent guise.

In the past year, 20 tons of iron oxide, in cans with labels such as “paint powder”, have been seized by Israeli authorities at the Kerem Shalom crossing, the sole crossing point for trucks into the Gaza Strip from Israel. This, say Israeli authorities, is enough for use in more than 20,000 rockets.

In the past, Hamas had little trouble smuggling in whatever it needed through tunnels from Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, which abuts southern Gaza. The current Egyptian government, however, is attempting to cut off direct contacts between the Islamist regime in Gaza and jihadists in Sinai who have been battling the Cairo regime. For close to a year, the Egyptians have been bombing or flooding the extensive tunnel system from Sinai, severely curbing smuggling.

This has left Israel the sole route through which contraband material can be smuggled into Gaza in quantities to feed Hamas’ sophisticated arms-making workshops. For this effort, the Hamas military wing has organized its own brain trust, consisting of technicians and businessmen, who are permitted to bring in goods from Israel itself or from Israeli ports in hundreds of trucks every day through a single crossing at Kerem Shalom.

The Israeli counter-smuggling efforts have been led since the end of last year by the Shin Bet security service and it includes representatives from customs and other civilian agencies. A warehouse has been set up to store confiscated materials, including bullet-proof vests, boots, scuba diving equipment for frogmen, welding equipment, advanced cameras and generators. Much of the material is intended for use in rebuilding Hamas’ extensive tunnel system, which was severely damaged in last year’s war in the Gaza Strip, which lasted nearly two months.

The Shin Bet has thus far arrested 35 suspects on the Israeli side of the border, including West Bank Palestinians and Israelis—both Arabs and Jews. One Israeli Jew was charged with selling Hamas agents equipment that could be used in digging tunnels and manufacturing rockets. Confiscations are made either on the basis of searches at the crossing point or intelligence information.

Inspectors at the crossing noticed that a generator ordered from Gaza had an unusually large gas tank. Dismantling it, they discovered a small dismantled tractor intended for use in digging tunnels. It had no motor but that was found disguised as a small generator. A thinner ordered from a West Bank firm was discovered to be a liquid used in the production of rocket fuel. The firm was shut down but opened shortly afterwards in a different part of the West Bank. Dismantled drones, intended to take surveillance photos inside Israel, were found hidden inside air conditioners. One vigilant inspector was struck by the odd appearance of a block of marble. He was able to pry it open and found welding equipment.

Every truck arriving at the crossing must unload its merchandise and every item is carefully examined before being reloaded onto trucks from Gaza. New X-ray machines have been installed and the number of inspectors increased since the beginning of the year by 40 percent.

Despite all these precautions, Israeli officials presume that some contraband gets through. Nevertheless, Hamas’ war-making ability has been considerably constricted, they say, without a shot being fired.

The Islamic State nuclear doomsday

December 22, 2015

The Islamic State nuclear doomsday, Jerusalem Post, Farhad Rezaei, December 21, 2015

ShowImage (19)ISIS sets sites on Washington in new video. (photo credit:ISLAMIC SOCIAL MEDIA)

Whatever strategy IS uses to obtain its doomsday weapon, “The Perfect Storm” article and other sources indicate that the organization has amassed a considerable fortune of approximately 2 billion dollars.

According to Cantlie, IS has more than enough resources to purchase NR materials from traffickers or corrupt officials in Pakistan or elsewhere.

****************************

The emergence of jihadists known to be searching for nuclear and radiological (NR) material has lent a tone of urgency to the debate about ways to prevent nuclear terrorism. At the same time, the supply side of the equation has grown from inchoate attempts at smuggling to a more organized market in NR material. This combination of factors has arguably increased the probability of spectacular attack in the not so distant future. The reason for this assessment is based on a straightforward calculation: a nuclear or radiological device is the ultimate force multiplier and a NR attack is considered “spectacular” enough for jihadists to fulfill their divine mission.

Though not publicized, anxiety about the threat of individuals acquiring sufficient materials to perpetuate such an attack intensified after September 11, 2001. When immediately after the attack, a source codenamed “Dragonfly” informed American intelligence that al-Qaida had smuggled a nuclear device into the United States, National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice described it as a “problem from hell,” evoking a previous comment referring to the “sum of all our fears.”

Producing nuclear weapons, including the required materials – plutonium and uranium – is beyond the skills of terrorist groups. The level of skills needed for the fabrication of a sophisticated weapon are judged to pose a barrier for terrorists. However, terrorists may seek to weaponize radiological materials in other ways.

Though there is a large selection of radioactive isotopes, only a few are good candidates for terrorism: cobalt-60, strontium-90, yttrium-90, cesium-137, iridium-192, radium-226 and plutonium-238.

Two types of radiological attack are possible. First, the Simple Radiological Device (SRD) involves placing a radioactive material in a public place to create an aerosol or burning it to trigger vaporization. Second, a “dirty bomb” uses conventional explosives to disperse radiological material.

While the problem has been well articulated, preventing terrorists from shopping for illicit material has been difficult. In spite of decades of US effort to institute safeguards, the supply side of the terrorism equation has actually expanded. Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a haphazard business in stolen nuclear materials emerged.

The IAEA data represents only about 20 percent of all probable illicit traffic; the true number is impossible to calculate.

More worrisome, the decline in the number of cases reported may merely indicate more sophisticated operations of a maturing market. In the past two decades, criminal gangs have incorporated terrorist supplies into their traditional business such as narcotics and human trafficking.

In the realm of NR smuggling, these global networks bring together “suppliers, intermediaries and end-users.”

While the terrorism-crime nexus is global in scope, certain regional hubs hold a particular attraction for the Islamists.

The Pakistani node plays an important role for terrorists. Pakistan boasts one of the world’s fastest-growing arsenals, with weapons stored at bases spread across the country. In addition, Pakistan had embarked on the production of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNW), highly prized by terrorists because of their compact size and sophisticated assembly. The prospect of an “inside job” within the nuclear establishment cannot be ruled out and is high on the list of dangers.

Next in line are the conflict zones of Chechnya, Abkhazia and North Ossetia where conditions for the terrorism- crime nexus are particularly fertile. Geographical proximity to the Russian Mafia turned the region into a high-profile route in NR trade.

Criminal organizations have established sophisticated mechanisms for smuggling narcotics that could be simply adapted to trafficking NR material. Experience in avoiding detection, knowledge of safe routes and protection by corrupt officials would all assist them in the smuggling of radiological material.

Finally, with its well-established drug smuggling networks, the Turkish node offers easy access to NR shoppers. In the years up to 2009, Turkish authorities recorded 75 seizures of radioactive materials, including weapon-grade uranium (HEU), cesium-137, americium, antinomy, bismuth and scandium.

Theft of radiological material provides another opportunity. According to the IAEA, as of 2013, 2,477 incidents were reported to the agency, of which 664 involved the theft of NR material. Although stockpiles of HEU are better guarded today, they are not beyond reach of terrorist organizations.

The record of the Islamist terrorist groups demonstrates their deep commitment to creating an doomsday- style event. In this sense, terrorist organizations can be conceptualized as rational players akin to state proliferators.

On the one hand, Islamists can carry out a NR attack to cause mass casualties, create widespread economic havoc and inflict profound psychological trauma on the target population. On the other hand, jihadists consider such an attack an ideal way to precipitate Armageddon.

Abu Musab al-Suri, strategist of the jihadist movement, offered a similar postulate to establish a caliphate.

Al-Suri wanted to bring about the largest number of human casualties possible for America and its allies, a plan that involved obtaining WMD.

Influenced by al-Suri, Abu al-Harith al-Sawahiri, a member of al-Qaida in Yemen, published step-by-step instructions on a do-it-yourself plan to make a dirty bomb on the group’s Internet site.

Under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State moved closer to fulfilling its plan of a spectacular NR attack. At the theological level, through Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Baghdadi was in tune with the Islamist revivalists who sought to create a caliphate and who proclaimed the coming apocalypse.

Apocalypse aside, violence against the West is considered an essential part of IS strategic thinking, an idea first articulated by Abu Bakr Naji who provided a strategy that jihadists could follow to create a new Islamic caliphate. Naji also advised al-Baghdadi to attack the West to draw it into a counteroffensive in a wide swath of Muslim land, a conflagration expected to generate masses of jihadi volunteers.

But al-Baghdadi was under no illusion that small-scale terrorism would provoke the West, since even 9/11 was not big enough to trigger war between the civilizations. In any event, al-Baghdadi became convinced that nothing short of a NR attack would befit the caliphate.

Writings in the IS magazine Dabiq reflected this thinking. The article “The Perfect Storm,” apparently written by the captive journalist John Cantlie, declared that IS had every intention of striking the United States using a nuclear device, surpassing all past attacks. Indeed, Abdullah Ahmed al-Meshedani, a member of IS’s highly secretive six-man war cabinet, issued a manifesto proclaiming WMD to be a high priority for the group. The document, seized by an Iraqi special forces unit, was apparently distributed among top commanders to familiarize them with the IS’s NR doctrine.

Compared to its “sister” organizations, IS is well positioned to implement its apocalyptic plans. After occupying Mosul, IS confiscated 40 kg. of low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Mosul University. While LEU is not suitable for an SRD per se, IS claimed that the group had used it to construct a dirty bomb.

Whatever strategy IS uses to obtain its doomsday weapon, “The Perfect Storm” article and other sources indicate that the organization has amassed a considerable fortune of approximately 2 billion dollars.

According to Cantlie, IS has more than enough resources to purchase NR materials from traffickers or corrupt officials in Pakistan or elsewhere.

US-Iranian-Russian-Iraqi offensive launched to recover Ramadi from ISIS

December 22, 2015

US-Iranian-Russian-Iraqi offensive launched to recover Ramadi from ISIS, DEBKAfile, December 22, 2015

Ramadi_Map

Ramadi, the capital of the vast Anbar Province, was the second major Iraqi city to fall to the Islamic State after the devastating loss of Mosul. The importance of the offensive launched Tuesday, Dec. 22 for its recapture from ISIS lies chiefly in the makeup of the assault force, which is unique in contemporary Syrian and Iraqi conflicts.

DEBKAfile’s military sources name its partners as US and Russian army and air force elements, two varieties of Iraqi militia – Shiites under Iranian command and Sunnis, as well as the regular Iraqi army.

The Iraqi army is depicted as leading the assault. But this is only a sop to its lost honor for letting this Sunni city fall in the first place. The real command is in the hands of US Special Operations officers alongside Iraqi troops, and the Russian officers posted at the operational command center they established last month in Baghdad.

This Russian war room is in communication with US military headquarters in the Iraqi capital. It is from the Russian war room that the top commanders of the pro-Iranian militias send their orders. The most prominent is Abu Mahadi al-Muhandis, who heads the largest Iraqi Shiite militia known as the Popular Mobilization Committee.

Noting another first, our military sources disclose that Iranian officers liaise between the Americans and Russians on the front against ISIS. If this combination works for Ramadi, it will not doubt be transposed to the Syrian front and eventually, perhaps next summer, serve as the format for the general offensive the Americans are planning for wresting Mosul from the Islamic State.

When US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was in Baghdad last week to review the final preparations for the Ramadi operation, US officials were still insisting that the Iraqi army was fit for the heavy lifting after being trained by American instructors.

By Tuesday, US sources were admitting that pro-Iranian militias were also part of the operation.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report on the division of tasks as follows:

Iraqi army forces are attacking the Ramadi city center from the north; Shiite militias from the south. The US air force is pounding ISIS targets inside the town in order to cripple its ability to fight off the oncoming forces. The Russian air force is standing by, ready to destroy any ISIS reinforcements attempting to cross in from Syria to aid their comrades in beleaguered Ramadi.

Experts keeping track of the offensive have no doubt that it will end in success. The jihadists holding Ramadi are few in number – 400-500 fighters at most. However, cleansing the town after victory will presents a daunting difficulty. In Tikrit and the refinery town of Baiji, ISIS split its defense structure into two levels – one on the surface and the second hidden underground.

The top level was thinly manned by fighting strength, but crawling with mines, booby-trapped trucks and IEDs detonated by remote control.

The lower level, consisting of deeply-dug interconnected tunnel systems, was where ISIS fighters hid out and jump out at night for attacks. According to the experience gained in other Iraqi battle arenas against ISIS, neither the Iraqi army nor local Shiite militias have been able to plumb and destroy these tunnel systems. And so they could never really purge the Islamic State from “liberated” towns.

Ramadi will face the same quandary.

Brunei Sultan Bans Christmas

December 22, 2015

Clinton-Linked Sultan Bans Christmas Says celebrating Christian holiday ‘could damage the beliefs of the Muslim community’

BY:
December 22, 2015 11:59 am

Source: Brunei Sultan Bans Christmas

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks with Brunei's Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah as they sit for dinner at the Istana Nurul Iman Palace in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, on September 6, 2012 / AP

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks with Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah as they sit for dinner at the Istana Nurul Iman Palace in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, on September 6, 2012 / AP

The sultan of Brunei, whose government is a Clinton Foundation donor, has forbidden his citizens from openly celebrating Christmas, the Telegraph reports.

The small Asian nation’s government warned that honoring the Christian holiday would “damage the beliefs” of the country’s Muslim majority:

The conservative Muslim country on the island of Borneo stated the punishment would apply to anyone found sending festive greetings – or wearing Santa hats.

Non-Muslims are allowed to celebrate Christmas – but they must do so only within their communities and first alert authorities.

At least 65 percent of the 420,000-strong population of the oil-rich state are Muslims.

The Ministry of Religious Affairs said in a statement: “These enforcement measures are … intended to control the act of celebrating Christmas excessively and openly, which could damage the aqidah (beliefs) of the Muslim community.”

Brunei contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2002 to help construct the Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas, the Washington Free Beacon reported earlier this year. Former President Bill Clinton has also visited the country several times.

The sultan, Hassanal Bolkiah, has an estimated net worth of $20 billion and a lavish collection of planes, helicopters, thousands of luxury cars, and a 1,788-room palace. He has been accused of holding “sex parties” with underage girls.

After he made a recent decree to enforce sharia law—in which he said he would punish crimes such as homosexuality, sodomy, and adultery with the amputation of limbs, public flogging, or death by stoning—Hollywood celebrities boycotted the famous Beverly Hills Hotel, owned by the sultan.

Leftist Media Ignore Islamic Terrorists Groups

December 22, 2015

Leftist Media Ignore Islamic Terrorists Groups, Front Page MagazineDr. Majid Rafizadeh, December 22, 2015

tg

It is intriguing that mainstream media has focused on violent terrorist acts of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), a radical Sunni Islamist group, while they are deliberately avoiding raising awareness about other Islamist terrorist groups that are as brutal as ISIS, if not worse.

The other groups that I am referring to are primarily the Iranian-backed radical Islamist militias.

Brutal terrorist groups such as Kataib al-Imam Ali (KIA) are not any less violent than ISIS when it comes to the aggressive and horrific tactics they use against civilians. In fact, they are known for showing videos of cut-off heads and bodies burned over open fires. This particular group, which is backed by Iran, originated from the Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Shebl al-Zaidi is the secretary-general of Kataib al-Imam Ali and he is known for his sectarian and vicious tactics.

Another militia group that is known locally for its violent attacks is Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq. It reportedly receives approximately $2 million a month from the Islamic Republic.

There exist more than 100 of these Islamist terrorist groups and they are increasing on a daily basis as they branch out.

One reason behind the liberal media outlets’ failure to shed light on non-ISIS terrorist groups is that they do not want to criticize Iran. These outlets are heavily influenced by the Obama administration’s leniency toward the Islamic Republic. If President Obama views Iran as a constructive state actor, then the media put aside standards of professional journalism and follow in the footsteps of the President.

One of the crucial tenets of Journalism in Western democracies is that it should not be influenced, intimidated or guided by ruling politicians. Being independent and raising public awareness by presenting different ideas and facts is what makes a media outlet an informative outlet and a platform for advancing democracy.

If a Western media outlet is following what the White House likes or despises, then what is the difference between these outlets and Iran’s state media outlets, which are the mouthpieces of the ruling clerics?

In addition, media outlets and journalists seem to prefer simplicity to complexity. It is much easier for those journalists to talk about the Islamic State and their horrific acts rather than engaging in rigorous research on other stealth terrorist and radical militia groups. Unfortunately, a lot of reporters are not knowledgeable in this field and they prefer to do the easier task. It is easier for them to write about ISIS in the length of space and time they are given than to research all other Islamist terrorist groups.

The ultimate goal of these groups is to enter the political establishment of the state and inform decision-making from the top. Hezbollah succeeded at this in Lebanon and other Iran-backed Iraqi Shiite militia groups did the same on Iraq.

Furthermore, leftist media outlets appear to view these radical Islamist groups as “legitimate” groups because they are funded by a nation-state (in this case, Iran). Many of these groups report directly to General Soleimani or Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As a result, if a similar violent act is committed by one of these Iranian-backed groups, the mainstream media outlets are less likely to criticize them harshly.

Finally, in order to survive as news organizations, these outlets are more driven by the need to make a profit, than the need to raise awareness, As a result, they focus on increasing their ratings and attracting high numbers of readers and advertisers, rather than providing credible information to the public.

In spite of the fact that there are many Islamist terrorist groups around the world committing atrocities against civilians, only ISIS has received the attention of the liberal media. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between these outlets and ISIS. On the one hand, ISIS receives the publicity it needs from liberal media outlets. On the other hand, these networks increase their ratings, viewers, readers, advertisement revenues, and therefore their profit.  It is incumbent on media outlets to bring to the world the stories of non-ISIS Islamist terrorist groups as well, and put a spotlight on the sufferings of the multitudes of forgotten people, who are affected by these terrorist groups.

The United States and Islam: What Is Going On?

December 22, 2015

The United States and Islam: What Is Going On? Gatestone InstituteAmir Taheri, December 22, 2015

♦ The irony is that no major power in recent history has gone out of its way as has the United States to help, respect, please and, yes, appease Islam. And, yet, no other nation has been a victim of vilification, demonization, and violence on the part of the Islamists as has the U.S.

♦ The politically correct crowd has turned Islam into a new taboo. They brand any criticism of Islam as racist, ethnocentrist or simply vile, all crammed together in the new category of “Islamophobia.” Is it Islamophobia to question a religion whose Middle East leaders often preach “Death to America” and hatred for Western values?

♦ More prevalent than Islamophobia is Islamophilia, as leftists treat Muslims as children whose feathers should not be ruffled. The Islamophilia crowd invites Americans and Europeans to sacrifice part of their own freedom in atonement of largely imaginary sins against Muslims in the colonial and imperialist era.

♦ Many Muslims resent the kind of flattery that takes them for idiots at a time that Islam and Muslims badly need to be criticized. The world needs to wake up and ask: What is going on?

With Americans still trying to absorb the shock of San Bernardino massacre, the perennial debate about “why do they hate us” is on with more intensity than ever since 9/11. The irony is that no major power in recent history has gone out of its way as has the United States to help, respect, please and, yes, appease Islam. And, yet, no other nation has been a victim of vilification, demonization, and violence on the part of the Islamists as has the U.S.

Both Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson tried to appease the Islamist pirates of North Africa in the hope of persuading them to cease their raids on U.S. commercial ships and stop capturing Americans and selling them as slaves in the Mediterranean. They sent peace missions laden with gifts and cash, and flattered the pirates, successors to Kheireddin, the Red Bearded One, in almost lyrical terms. In the end, however, they had to take military action to cut the head off the snake. However, the episode was soon forgotten, except in the U.S. Marine Corps, where it became part of its folklore, and the U.S., a nation built on the principle of religious freedom, resumed its benevolent attitude towards Islam.

I remember back in the 1980s, the diplomat then in charge of the United Sates counterterrorism program, Robert Oakley, insisted that the U.S. will never be targeted by homegrown Islamist terrorists because it was “their final destination, their last best hope.”

That was the time when groups controlled by Ayatollah Khomeini kidnapped or killed Americans in the Middle East.

So what happened to make that “final destination” a stopover to paradise for martyrs?

Why do so many Muslims hate Americans to the point of wanting to massacre them in their offices as in 9/11 or at a Christmas Party at San Bernardino — despite the fact that the United States is the only major power in modern times to offer Muslims a helping hand when they needed it?

Wasn’t it President Woodrow Wilson who insisted at the end of the First World War that the main European imperial powers of the day, Great Britain and France, publicly commit to respecting the right of self-determination for nations freed from the Ottoman yoke? The Americans invented the idea of “mandates” under the League of Nations to prevent the European imperialist world-grabbers from turning their Muslim conquests in the Middle East into a new colonial galaxy. Without that, there would probably have been no independent Arab states in the Levant, at least for decades.

And wasn’t it President Harry Truman who in 1946 used eyeball-to-eyeball diplomacy against Soviet despot Josef Stalin to force him to take Russian occupation troops out of Iran’s northwestern provinces and forget about his plan of creating a Soviet Iranistan? (At the time the Soviets hadn’t yet developed a nuclear arsenal and thought twice before provoking a clash with the U.S.)

It was President Truman again who prevented the British from sharing out mandatory Palestine among their Arab clients, having already taken a big chunk of it to create an emirate for their Hashemite protégés on the east bank of the Jordan.

And it was thanks to U.S. sending the Marines in the nick of time in 1958 that both Lebanon and Jordan managed to retain their independence and avoided becoming early versions of what is Syria today.

Then we had the 1956 crisis, when Britain and France invaded Egypt to prevent the nationalization of the Suez Canal. Wasn’t it President Dwight Eisenhower who went against American’s oldest allies to let the Egyptians assert their national sovereignty?

From 1961 onwards, President John F. Kennedy exerted immense pressure on France and used his charm on General De Gaulle to accelerate progress towards Algeria’s independence. In 1997 Redha Malik, a former Prime Minister of Algeria and key negotiator with France, told me that throughout the Evian peace talks, the Algerian team knew it had “a strong friend in Washington.”

In the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, triggered by Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s quixotic attempt at imposing a blockade in the Strait of Tiran, the U.S. used its clout to persuade the Israelis to stop the war after only six days. In his memoirs, the long-standing Soviet apparatchik and future Prime Minister, Yevgeni Primakov, claims that the Israelis wanted to complete their destruction of Arab air forces by wiping out Nasser’s heavy weapons on the ground as well. It was under American pressure that the Israelis agreed to temper their appetite for victory and accepted a ceasefire under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Nasserist regime could live to fight another day, which came in 1973. In the October 1973 war, too, U.S. intervention helped restrain the Israelis, who had built up an invasion force under General Ariel Sharon a stone’s-throw from Cairo.

In the Camp David talks that led to peace between Egypt and Israel, intense pressure by President Jimmy Carter forced the Israelis to abandon plans to maintain “security enclaves” inside the Sinai Peninsula, thereby helping President Anwar Sadat recover all of Egypt’s lost territory.

In 1982 a multinational force, led by the United States, intervened in Lebanon to stop the Israeli advance beyond the Litani River. That force also helped save the lives of Yasser Arafat and his close associates in the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when, trapped in Beirut, they risked being captured or killed by the Israelis. President Ronald Reagan even arranged for Arafat and his entourage a safe passage to Tunisia, free of charge.

During the lengthy crisis that led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the U.S., having at first hesitated to intervene under President George H.W. Bush, assumed a leadership position under President Bill Clinton and helped save the lives of many Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where a Serbian ethnic cleansing master plan was in full application. Later, it was also U.S. military power that helped Kosovo’s Albanian majority, overwhelmingly Muslim, achieve independence. Ethnic Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova told me in an interview that he had counted on “Europe’s conscience to wake up” only to see that it was “the American cavalry” that in the end came to the rescue, while the Europeans “danced around the dying man.”

The U.S. was the only major power to have no state-owned oil company and thus never used its military clout to obtain a share of the Middle East’s energy resources.

Should Muslims hate Americans because they refused to disband their military bases on Islamic lands? Again, history shows that the U.S. was the only major power prepared to pack up and leave as soon as its hosts showed it the door.

In 1969, an astonished Col. Moammar Khadafy watched as the Americans closed one of their most important military bases in the Mediterranean, Wheelus, located on Libyan territory, as soon as his newly installed military government asked Washington to leave. A couple of years earlier, it had taken months of bloody battles and tens of thousands of lives before South Yemen was able to force Britain to close its base in Aden.

In 1979, the U.S. had 27,000 military personnel in Iran, operating “listening posts” set up as part of the strategic arms limitation accords to monitor Soviet missile tests. But when the new Islamic regime led by Khomeini asked the U.S. to close the listening posts, which had been approved by the Soviets as well, the Americans did no foot-dragging. The only Americans left behind were diplomats, soon to be seized as hostages by Khomeinist militants.

We witnessed a repeat of that in the 1990s on a grander scale, when the Americans simply packed up and left when the Saudis asked them to close their bases after driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, tangentially also saving Saudi Arabia from Iraqi occupation.

That the U.S. was a friend of Muslims and of Islam was again illustrated when American power helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and, later, liberate Afghans and Iraqis, a total of 50 million Muslims, from the vicious domination of Taliban and the Ba’ath Party.

In 2005, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Sharestani was publicly wondering why the Americans were not coming to “steal our oil,” which anti-U.S. propaganda claimed had been Washington’s key objective in toppling Saddam Hussein. We left there, too.

During the past six decades, the U.S. has been by far the largest donor of aid to more than 40 of the 57 Muslim-majority nations. In the 1940s and ’50s, tens of millions of Muslims were saved from starvation and famine thanks to U.S. food aid. And the Point IV program, launched by President Truman, helped eradicate a number of endemic diseases, including smallpox and malaria, which killed large numbers of Muslims each year.

Many Muslims nations have been annually receiving large checks from the U.S. for decades, among them Egypt, which gets $2 billion, and Pakistan, the homeland of San Bernardino killer Syed Farook, which gets $1 billion.

1395After the San Bernardino massacre carried out by jihadists Syed Farook (right) and Tashfeen Malik (left), the perennial debate about “why do they hate us” is on with more intensity than ever since 9/11.

When the last Islamic Caliph was driven out of Turkey in 1924, he went into exile first to France and then to the United States, where his descendants lived in New York. In fact, the last pretender to the Islamic Caliphate, Ertugul Osman V, died in Manhattan in 2009.

An open society, the U.S. has always welcomed Islamic exiles of all kinds, including some of its own bitter enemies. The only time that the pan-Islamist Hezbollah movement, founded and led by Iran, has ever held an international conference outside Iran or Lebanon was in Austin Texas in 1986, when a number of Latin American branches of the movement were created. Hundreds of former high-ranking Khomeinist civilian and military officials and clerics have ended up in the U.S. as exiles, while many others have their children attending U.S. schools and universities.

Today, half of Islamic Republic President Hassan Rouhani’s closest aides are holders of PhDs from U.S. universities, among them his Chief of Staff, Muhammad Nahavandian, a Green Card holder, and his Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif. (The other half consists of former holders of U.S. hostages in Tehran, among them Defense Minister Hussein Dehqan and Environmental director Masoumeh Ebtekar.)

Quite a few of Osama bin Laden’s 50 or so siblings are either holders of U.S. passports or green cards, along with thousands of other Saudis.

Unlike Russia, which has a 200-year history of war against Muslims, having annexed Islamic land at the rate of one square kilometer a day during the 19th century, the U.S. never annexed any Muslim-majority nation. And unlike China, which is still holding its Muslim minority, the Uighurs, in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) surrounded by a ring of steel, the U.S. is not trying to stop a Muslim nation’s aspiration after self-determination.

In the 1990s, when Saudi Arabia normalized ties with the People’s Republic of China, it shut down the offices of the Uighur exiles in Jeddah. Where did the exiles transfer to? The answer is: Washington DC, since neither Muslim nations nor Europeans would agree to host them.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. has been host to more than five million Muslims from all over the world, many of them fleeing brutal Islamist regimes in their homelands. In a conversation in 2002, Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis expressed the hope that Muslims in the United States and other Western democracies could become “beacons of enlightenment” projecting light back to their old counties. Many of us shared that hope.

Now, however, we see that the opposite is happening. Instead of exporting “light” back to the Muslim world, a growing number of Muslims in Western democracies have become importers of darkness in their new abodes.

Worse still, the politically correct crowd has turned Islam into a new taboo. They brand any criticism of Islam as racist, ethnocentrist or simply vile, all crammed together in the new category of “Islamophobia.”

Is it Islamophobia to question a religion whose Middle East leaders often preach “Death to America” and hatred for Western values?

More prevalent than Islamophobia is Islamophilia, as leftists treat Muslims as children whose feathers should not be ruffled.

The Islamophilia crowd does great disservice to both Western democracies and to Islam itself.

They invite Americans and Europeans to sacrifice part of their own freedom in atonement of largely imaginary sins against Muslims in the colonial and imperialist era. They also invite Muslims in the West to learn how to pose as victims and demand the rewards of victimhood as is the fashion in Europe and America. To the Muslim world at large, the message of Islamophilia is that Muslims need no criticism, although their faith is being transformed into a number of conflicting ideologies dedicated to violence and terror.

Never mind if Islamic theology is all but dead. To say so would be a sign of Islamophobia.

Never mind that God makes only a cameo appearance in mosque sermons almost entirely obsessed with political issues.

All that Western intellectuals or leaders need to do is stop flattering Islam, as President Obama has been doing for the past seven years, claiming that virtually anything worthwhile under the sun has its origin in Islam.

Many Muslims resent that kind of flattery, which takes them for idiots at a time that Islam and Muslims badly need to be criticized. The world needs to wake from its slumber and ask: What is going on?

Donald Trump and the American Future

December 22, 2015

Donald Trump and the American Future, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, December 22, 2015

dt_1

I have to confess that of late I have become increasingly pessimistic about the future of our country. For awhile I was hopeful that the electorate would finally cut through the fog of political correctness: the racist, collectivist, America-and-white people-are-guilty party line of the Democratic Party. Not so any more. Both the conservative punditry (with a few notable exceptions) and the Republican establishment are proving as feckless in resisting the left’s attacks, and as unfocused on the Democratic adversary as the Republican congress. The Democrats are at it full bore. Having gotten away with disarming the nation in the face of its enemies, and with promoting systematic racial discrimination, along with racist lynch mobs in the streets, the Democrats are busy on the attack. In their election campaign year, they are accusing Republican candidates of being racist and recruiters for ISIS. The only serious – i.e., bloody-minded – fire coming from the Republican side is directed at Donald Trump.  (Think about it – all the Democrats need is a damaged Trump. Then they can condemn Republicans for merely associating with him.) If Republicans want to join Democrats and match their viciousness in taking down the Republican front-runner, Hillary Clinton is going to be our next president.

The most recent explosion of outrage at Trump is his proposal for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we figure it out” – i.e., figure out how to vet Muslim immigrants so that we don’t allow anymore Tashfeen Malik’s into the country where they are determined to kill innocent Americans. Otherwise perfectly intelligent conservatives have joined the Democrat smear squad in denouncing Trump’s suggestion as unconstitutional, illegal, and un-American. In fact, as a cursory Internet search should convince anyone free of anti-Republican bigotry, Trump’s proposal is not only constitutional (foreigners seeking entry into the country have no rights under the US Constitution – only US citizens do. It is also perfectly legal. There is an actual U.S. code that says the president has the authority to ban “any class” of individuals he deems a threat to the American citizens.

Moreover, Trump’s proposal is obviously sensible – i.e., is justified by a realistic confrontation with the facts. According to a Pew Poll, 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan believe that leaving the Muslim faith should be punished by death. In Afghanistan the figure is 78%. While 64% of Muslims are not active terrorists, there was not a single member of the Muslim community in San Bernardino willing to alert authorities to the hateful, indeed murderous ideas of the shooter couple. Punishing apostasy by death is only a crystallization of the jihadists’ belief that all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to the Islamic faith should be killed. That is what the war that Islamists have declared on us is about. Donald Trump has done the country a service by putting this issue – previously unmentionable – before the American public. Thus far he is the only candidate with the guts to do this, and that is why he is leading in the polls by a wide margin.

According to a 2009 “World Opinion Poll” conducted by the University of Maryland, between 30% and 50% of Muslims in Muslim countries approve of the terrorist attacks on America. If 64% of Muslims think that infidels deserve death – and an impressive percentage approve of the attacks on America and the West – that amounts to between 500 million and 800 million sworn enemies of our country and our culture.  Say it’s only a tenth of those numbers. That’s 50 million or more potential killers for Allah, and supporters of killers for Allah. Keep in mind that these terrorists already have chemical and biological weapons. Is there any person not blinded by leftwing ideas that doesn’t think this presents a vetting problem for us in dealing with Muslim immigrants and visitors? Moreover, a vetting problem that we obviously haven’t begun to solve? However, perhaps Trump’s blanket ban, though constitutional, legal and temporary – is also impractical. The details as Trump himself would be the first to admit are still negotiable. A practical plan even one of reduced scope is better than none.

So why are conservatives treating Trump as a pariah? Clinton and Obama have the blood of hundreds of thousands of Christians and non-ISIS Muslims on their hands not to mention the American victims of their rules of engagement. It is they and their party who have undermined the war on radical Islamists for 22 years since Bill Clinton refused to visit the thousand victims of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Democrats have fought to try terrorist soldiers in civil courts where they would be given the rights of American citizens; they have fought to close Guantanamo, and have deliberately released terrorist generals to return to the battlefield and kill more Americans; Democrats have fought to abandon our military presence in Iraq, surrendering a hard won victory to ISIS and Iran; Obama and Hillary overthrew – illegally, immorally and unconstitutionally – the anti-al Qaeda government of Libya and turned that country into a terrorist hunting ground. Where are the Republican litanies high-lighting these betrayals?

In the meantime, jihadist mosques protected by Democrats continue to function – including the one attended by the San Bernardino shooters – the city of New York continues to bar first responders from monitoring mosques to see what they are preaching, 350 Sanctuary cities still refuse to cooperate with Homeland Security. All under the enemy-friendly doctrine that all Muslims belong to a protected species that cannot be scrutinized about their commitment to a religion that preaches hatred of non-Muslims, particularly Jews, and whose avowed goal is the political submission of the entire world to the Islamic faith.  On the other side, a Republican/conservative chorus has so tarred and feathered the Republican front-runner who is doing by default the work that they should be doing, that they have made it virtually impossible for him to win a general election. And make no mistake, they have also made it virtually impossible for any Republican candidate to speak frankly about the Democrats’ perfidy and the danger it poses to our country.

How much innocent blood do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have on their hands? How much innocent blood will be spilled in the next four years if Clinton is elected? These are the questions Republicans should be asking, not whether Donald Trump is a bigot. He obviously is not.  Impolitic yes. Racist no. Donald Trump has many faults but lack of political courage is not one of them. He seems motivated by concern for the pit into which this country has fallen under an administration with catastrophic priorities and uncertain loyalties. That is what Republicans need to think about when framing their next attacks. Otherwise the future is dim indeed.

One Million Migrants Entered Europe This Year

December 22, 2015

One Million Migrants Entered Europe This Year

Source: One Million Migrants Entered Europe This Year

Inter active map , here !

http://www.lucify.com/embed/the-flow-towards-europe/

More than one million migrants have crossed into Europe this year, the International Organisation for Migration as confirmed.

The number is four times larger than the total for last year, with the majority crossing the Mediterranean from Turkey to Greece.

The IOM says more than 800,000 travelled this way, most of them originating in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly half of the total figure came from Syria, while 186,000 were from Afghanistan.

Germany has already seen its total pass one million, but that also includes migrants from the Balkan countries within Europe.

Breitbart London reported in October on an interactive map showing the journeys of the migrant hoards as they cross from the Middle East and North Africa.

The map, by the Finnish company Lucify, uses monthly figures from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to show the scale of immigration into Europe.

Student Shakes Off Threats to Win Miss Iraq in Name of Women’s Rights

December 22, 2015

Student Shakes Off Threats to Win Miss Iraq in Name of Women’s Rights, NBC News,  and

(Finding anything even remotely hopeful about Iran is rare. This article suggests that some baby steps are being taken against Sharia law in Iraq.

— DM)

A 20-year-old economics student has shaken off death threats to rivals and a barrage of criticism to be crowned the first official Miss Iraq since 1972.

“I want to prove that the Iraqi woman has her own existence in society, she has her rights like men,” Shaima Qassem Abdulrahman told NBC News. “I am afraid of nothing, because I am confident that what I am doing is not wrong.”

More than 150 women applied for Miss Iraq pageant, which organizers said was a chance to “create life in Iraq” and “revive our country” after years of bloodshed and internal chaos.

But a backlash saw 15 contestants drop out of the competition, according to one of the judges, Iraqi fashion designer Sinan Kamel. Reuters reported that least two of these women had received death threats.

151221-miss_iraq_photo-1122_43308ffea562dea085e58865a2246e4d.nbcnews-ux-320-320

Abdulrahman, from the northern city of Kirkuk, said that she hoped “to reflect the culture of Iraq,” adding that Saturday’s competition was “not about beauty alone,” and it was not just a fashion show.

“I call all Iraqi girls to feel this experience,” she said after winning.

Abdulrahman had to convince her parents to let her enter after they initially banned her from participating.

“In the past I heard that such contests used to be held in Baghdad — I dreamed of being a part of one of these contests,” she told NBC News in October. She said the Iraqi people were “badly in need of such cultural activities” after the turmoil the country had been through.

Like many Iraqis, Abdulrahman has been directly affected by the violence brought to her country by ISIS. Two of her cousins were members of Iraq’s federal police until they were killed while fighting the militants.

Five of her fellow contestants were also forced to find new homes last year after ISIS overran the northern city of Mosul.

151221-miss-iraq-yh-1114a_9a254b73c2671e2046b4fd292e481d09.nbcnews-ux-600-480Participants wait for judges to determine the winner of Miss Iraq during the final round of judging in Baghdad. AHMED SAAD / Reuters

Iraq has a long history of holding beauty pageants. In the 1930s, women competed at monthly events including “Miss Baghdad” and “Baghdad’s Queen of Beauty,” according to an article published in Nina Iraq magazine.

Wijdan Burhan al-Deen, who won in 1972, was the last internationally-recognized Miss Iraq. She went on to represent her country at Miss Universe the same year.

Since then, pageants have been held under various monikers but none were in accordance with international standards — a prerequisite for having a shot at Miss Arab and then the global Miss World event.