Archive for January 7, 2016

Germany Cracks Down on Speech by Citizens Enraged over its Immigration Policy

January 7, 2016

Germany Cracks Down on Speech by Citizens Enraged over its Immigration Policy, Power LinePaul Mirenghoff, January 7, 2016

(Problem with Muslim abuse of women and other crimes? The solution is easy: crack down on freedom of speech.  — DM)

During my time at law school, I had to good fortune to study under a great scholar of the Constitution, rather than, say, a glib community organizer. That scholar was Gerald Gunther.

Gunther was born in Germany in 1927. His Jewish family had deep roots in Germany, and Gunther said they were reluctant to leave even as the Nazi government increasingly oppressed Jews. Young Gunther, unaffected by tradition, had no difficulty assessing the situation, and was hugely relieved when his family finally left for America in 1938.

In the early 1970s, Gunther visited Germany as a feted scholar to lecture on constitutional matters. When he returned to California, we asked him about his trip.

Gunther replied that the trip was fine and that the Germans couldn’t have been nicer to him. He added, however, that they still don’t really understand the concept of free speech.

More than 40 years later, the problem endures. The German government faces growing opposition to, and revulsion towards, a policy that suddenly has produced the mass influx of Muslim immigrants, including more than a few criminals. It has responded by, in the words of the Washington Post (paper edition), trying to “enforce civility.” The government is doing so by investigating and punishing inflammatory comments about immigrants.

The government has doled out fines and probation to people for engaging in such speech. It has also reached deals with Facebook, Twitter, and Google to have these outlets remove offensive posts.

The Post says that Germany is cracking down on “hate speech” with an eye to its Nazi past. But it ignores a key part of that past — the suppression of dissent. Germany hardly repudiates its past when the government curbs the right of citizens to express vitriolically their disgust at government policies and their consequences.

Many Germans, including some on the left, understand this:

Stefan Körner, chairman of Germany’s liberal Pirate Party, argued that democracies “must be able to bear” a measure of xenophobia. He condemned the government’s deal with social media outlets to get tougher on offensive speech, saying that “surely it will lead to too many rather than too few comments being blocked. This is creeping censorship, and we definitely don’t want that.”

Unfortunately, governments often want precisely that.

According to the Post, Germans can face incitement charges for comments aimed at creating hostile feelings against a particular race. Speech that strongly denounces the wave of rape apparently perpetrated by Muslims on New Year’s Eve and connects this criminality to the Muslims and immigrant perpetrators, and/or to the government policy through which they entered the country, could be deemed to fit this definition. Suppressing such speech should be unacceptable.

The Post’s article provides only a limited sense of what speech actually is being suppressed. Here’s one example, though:

In the town of Wismar in northeastern Germany, for instance, a judge in October sentenced a 26-year-old man to five months probation and a 300 euro fine after the man had posted on his Facebook page that refugees should “burn alive” or “drown” in the Mediterranean.

This comment is awful, but not much different than what Washington Post reporter Dave Weigel once said of Matt Drudge. In a free country, it shouldn’t be fined or otherwise punished by the government.

In another case:

The home of a 26-year-old Berlin man was raided by police, who confiscated his computer and phones after he had posted the tragic image of the dead 3-year-old Syrian boy whose body on a Turkish beach became a symbol of the refugee crisis. Along with the photo, he had posted: “We are not mourning, we are celebrating!”

The comment is deplorable. However, it should be unacceptable for the police to tell citizens what they must mourn and what they cannot celebrate, or to prohibit the expression of views on such matters. In a free country, speech crosses the legal line when it advocates violence, not before.

In her New Year’s speech, Chancellor Merkel told Germans they should not listen to “those with coldness, or even hate in their hearts, and who claim the right to be called German for themselves alone and seek to marginalize others.” That’s fine. But Merkel goes a dangerous step further when she employs censorship to ensure that Germans can’t listen to these people.

This basic understanding of free speech is still lacking 80-plus years after the rise of Hitler and 40-plus years after Gerald Gunther’s return to Germany.

Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal

January 7, 2016

Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal Transcripts of two telephone conversations between the two leaders which took place on February 25, 2011, are made public

10:31AM GMT 07 Jan 2016

Source: Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal – Telegraph

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a ‘prophetic’ warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse, phone conversations reveal.

Gaddafi’s dire prediction was made in two desperate telephone calls with Mr Blair on February 25, 2011 – as civil war was engulfing Libya.

In the first call at 11.15am, Gaddafi said: “They [jihadists] want to control the Mediterranean and then they will attack Europe.”

Excerpt from Col Gaddafi's 2011 phone conversations with Tony Blair

Excerpt from Col Gaddafi’s 2011 phone conversations with Tony Blair

In the call, lasting half an hour, Gaddafi insisted he was trying to defend Libya from al-Qaeda fighters. The presence of al-Qaedas would later be superceded by the rise of the so-called Islamic State.

“We are not fighting them, they are attacking us, ” he said, “I want to tell you the truth. It is not a difficult situation at all. The story is simply this: an organisation has laid down sleeping cells in North Africa. Called the Al-Qaeda Organisation in North Africa… The sleeping cells in Libya are similar to dormant cells in America before 9/11.

25 March 2004: Then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, left, with Gaddafi at the start of their meeting outisde Tripoli

25 March 2004: Then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, left, with Gaddafi at the start of their meeting outisde Tripoli  Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

“They have managed to get arms and terrify people. people can’t leave their homes… It’s a jihad situation. They have arms and are terrorising people in the street.”

In a second call made a little over four hours later, Gaddafi told Mr Blair: “I will have to arm the people and get ready for a fight. Libyan people will die, damage will be on the Med, Europe and the whole world. These armed groups are using the situation [in Libya] as a justification – and we shall fight them.”

Col Gaddafi warns of attacks on Europe in phone conversations with Tony Blair

Col Gaddafi warns of attacks on Europe in phone conversations with Tony Blair

Mr Blair had made two calls to Gaddafi to try to negotiate the dictator’s departure from Tripoli as civil war engulfed the nation. Three weeks later, a Nato-led coaltion that included Britain, began bombing raids that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi. The dictator was finally deposed in August and murdered by a mob in October.

Mr Blair had a developed a friendship with Gaddafi and had visted the Libyan leader at least six times after leaving Downing Street in 2007.

• ‘Dear Muammar’: Blair’s letter to Gaddafi reveals UK-Libya collusion
• Blair to face MPs over Gaddafi deal that snubbed UK terror victims

He cleared the phone calls with both David Cameron and Hillary Clinton, the then US Secretary of State, in an attempt to persuade Gaddafi to leave Libya with safe passage and to avoid further conflict.

The existence of the phone calls emerged last year and Mr Blair passed the transcripts to the Foreign Affairs Committee which is investigating Libya’s collapse. The committee of MPs published the transcripts on Thursday.

In the calls Mr Blair told Gaddafi: “If you have a safe place to go you should go there because this will not end peacefully and there has to be a process of change, that process of change can be managed and we have to find a way of managing it.

“The US and the EU are in a tough position right now and I need to take something back to them which ensures this ends peacefully.”

Mr Blair ended the call by saying: “i would like to offer a way out that is peaceful… keep the lines open.”

Gaddafi’s warnings appear to have been born out. Libya has collapsed following his overthrow. The country remains in the grip of civil war and much of it is in the control of Islamist extremists linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

Terrorists sent by Isil to France were responsible for the attacks on Paris in November amid growing concern jihadists are crossing into Europe from north Africa and the Middle East.

Crispin Blunt MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The transcripts supplied by Mr Blair provide a new insight into the private views of Colonel Gaddafi as his dictatorship began to crumble around him.

“The failure to follow Mr Blair’s calls to ‘keep the lines open’ and for these early conversations to initiate any peaceful compromise continue to reverberate.

“The Committee will want to consider whether Gaddafi’s prophetic warning of the rise of extremist militant groups following the collapse of the regime was wrongly ignored because of Gaddafi’s otherwise delusional take on international affairs.

“The evidence that the Committee has taken so far in this inquiry suggests that western policy makers were rather less perceptive than Gaddafi about the risks of intervention for both the Libyan people and the western interests.”

Blair’s calls to Gaddafi: the full transcripts

February 25, 2011 – 11.15am to 11.45am (click on image below)

February 25, 2011 – 3.35pm to 4pm (click on image below)

What is Sharia?

January 7, 2016

What is Sharia? What is the Threat, January 7, 2016

sharia-300x225

Earlier this week, UTT published the first in a series of articles about sharia (Islamic law) entitled “Understanding the Threat” which amplified the fact that sharia is the focal point and driving force behind everything jihadis across the globe are doing.

Today, we will breakdown what sharia actually is and its origins.

All Islamic sources define Islam as a “complete way of life governed by sharia.”

According to the most widely used text book in Islamic junior high schools in the United States (What Islam is All About), “The Shari’ah is the ideal path for us to follow.”

There are two sources of sharia:  the Koran and the Sunnah.

Islam is the system of life under sharia.  Those who submit to Islam and the sharia are called “Muslims.”

The Koran (also Quran or Qur’an)

According to Islam, the Koran is the “uncreated word of Allah,” who is the Islamic god, and the contents of the Koran were revealed to the Prophet Mohammad between the years 610 A.D. and 632 A.D. in the Arabian peninsula through an angel.  The Koran has 114 chapters or “suras” which are arranged in no particular order.  They are generally arranged by size from largest to smallest.  However, the first chapter is approximately the smallest, and the sizes of the chapter vary so this is not a perfect rule.

The Islamic scholars have authoritatively listed the chapters of the Koran in chronological order.  This is very important because Allah said in the Koran (2:106, 16:101) that whatever comes chronologically last overrules anything that comes before it.  This is called “abrogation.”  Allah revealed his message to Mohammad progressively over time.  By the time it was all revealed, what came last was the most important and overrules anything that was said earlier.

“It is a Qur’an which We have divided into parts from time to time, in order that though mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have Revealed it by stages.” (Koran 17:106)

So, for instance “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Koran 2:256) is overruled or abrogated by “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him” (Koran 3:85) which is why we get “Take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends…” (Koran 5:51).  Chapter 5 in the Koran is the last chronologically to speak about relations between Muslim and non-Muslims.

Chapter 9 is the last to discuss jihad.

“Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)

Furthermore, every verse in the Koran has been legally defined in the Tafsir.  The most authoritative Tafsir scholar in Islam is a man named Ibn Kathir.  For instance, the Tafsir defines a portion of verse 9:5 above as follows:  “This is the Ayah (verse) of the sword…’and capture them’ (means) executing some and keeping some as prisoners…’and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush’ (means) do not wait until you find them.  Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them.  This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam.”  (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol 4, pages 375-376)

tafsir-300x203

The Tafsir is taught at mosques in the United States on a regular basis.  There is no such thing in Islam as a “personal interpretation” of a particular verse of the Koran.

The Sunnah

The Sunnah is the example of the Prophet Mohammad who is considered the al Insan al Kamil in Islam – the most perfect example of a man.  If Mohammad did it or said it, it is an example for all Muslims to follow for all time.

His words and deeds are recorded in the authoritative biographies (Sira) and the collection of the Hadith or stories about him. In Islam there are many Hadith scholars, but the most authoritative are by men named Bukhari and Muslim.

The Prophet said, “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”  Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926. Volume: Jihad; Chapter: Fighting the Jews

The above quote from Mohammad is doctrine in Islam.  Mohammad said it and it is authoritatively recorded by Bukhari, the most authoritative hadith scholar in all of Islam.  This is why the above quote is not only in the Hamas Covenant, it is taught at the first grade level in Islamic schools.

Example:  Why is it okay for a 60 year old Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl?  Because Mohammad married Aisha when she was six (6) years old and consummated the relationship when she was nine (9). Mohammad is the perfect example, therefore, it is a capital crime in Islam to suggest this is wrong behavior.

The Koran, as understood with the Koranic concept of abrogation, and the Sunnah form the “Sharia” or the way for all Muslims to follow. This is a totalitarian legal system and cannot be altered or amended because it comes from Allah and was exemplified by the actions and words of Mohammad.  Therefore, when it comes to the definition of jihad, the obligation of jihad, the law of jihad, the obligation of the Caliphate (Islamic State), the rules under the Caliph, and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, there is no disagreement among any of the scholars.

If Allah said it chronologically last in the Koran, Mohammad said it, and Mohammad did it, how could there be a legal “gray area” in sharia?

  1. “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them, capture and besiege them,  and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush (strategem of war).” (Koran 9:5)
  2. Mohammad said:  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”  Hadith reported by Bukhari and Muslim
  3. Mohammad went out and fought many battles against non-Muslims until they converted to Islam or submitted to Islam.  Those who did neither were killed.

Any questions?

Iraq Offers To Mediate Fight Raging Between Saudi Arabia and Iran

January 7, 2016

Iraq Offers To Mediate Fight Raging Between Saudi Arabia & Iran, Fox News via You Tube, January 7, 2017

(How about a plague on both their houses? — DM)

 

The Muslim War on Women Comes to Germany

January 7, 2016

The Muslim War on Women Comes to Germany, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, January 7, 2015

mk

What happened is inevitable and it will go on happening. More surveillance cameras and patrols won’t stop it. Instead, as in the UK, it will go underground. Muslim men will groom and abuse troubled girls. The authorities will turn a blind eye until a decade later the story gets too big to be covered up. And by then thousands of lives will be ruined. The only way to stop it is to keep it out of Europe and America.

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

The city of Cologne’s website tells tourists that spending New Year’s there is “something to write home about.” It certainly is after the German city took in 10,000 mostly Muslim refugees last year.  There are 120,000 Muslims already in the city making them more than 10% of the population. It has been estimated that Cologne will become a majority Muslim city by the last New Year’s Eve of the century.

When the anti-Islamist group Pegida came out to protest last year, the Cologne cathedral turned out its lights to condemn them while pro-migrant activists smugly held up signs reading, “Refugees welcome”.

But for this New Year’s Eve, the crowd outside the Cologne Cathedral was dominated by young Muslim men who threw fireworks at police and sexually assaulted women and girls trapped in the crowd.

In a crowd of 1,000 men, hundreds of Muslim refugees prowled, assaulting and robbing any woman they could find. A police officer described seeing crying women stumble toward him after midnight. He managed to rescue one woman whose clothes had been torn off her body from a group of her attackers, but could not save her friends because the mob had begun hurling fireworks at him.

The eight men he arrested carried asylum papers. They were among the mob of refugees welcomed by the people of Cologne.

Mayor Henriette Reker, the refugee activist whose victory had been greeted with cheerful headlines from the pro-refugee press and shouts of Allahu Akbar by the locals, was forced to declare it a crisis.

Desperate efforts were made to suppress the crimes that had been committed, but too many women had been assaulted. More than 90 complaints had been filed. There was no telling how many more women had been too ashamed to go to the police. Or how many thought that there was no point because the authorities would not be on their side, but on the side of the Muslim refugee rapists.

A man spoke of being unable to protect his wife or teenage daughter from the mob. A British tourist fought against being forced into a car. A 17-year-old girl described being brutally violated and seeing other girls in the police station in the same condition. A 22-year-old woman recalled, “When I called for help, they laughed.” Even a volunteer policewoman had been molested.

Katia remembered walking through a “tunnel” made up only of “foreign men” who assaulted her on all sides. “Although we shouted and hit them, the men didn’t stop.” Instead they insulted and taunted her.

The provost of the Cologne Cathedral had warned anti-Islamist protesters, “You’re supporting people you really don’t want to support.” But it was the provost and pro-refugee activists who had supported people they really didn’t want to support. There is no way to know whether any of the smiling young people holding, “I Love Immigration” banners had fallen victim to those refugees they loved so much.

The over 1 million migrants brought to Germany by Merkel had already inflicted trauma on many women and girls while the offenders received little more than a slap on the wrist from the authorities.

Even pro-refugee activists working in camps in Germany had warned of a “culture of rape and violence” where unaccompanied women are viewed as “fair game” and rapes and sexual assaults are routine. A 16-year-old girl was raped on September 11 near a migrant shelter. Two Iraqis refugees had raped an 18-year-old girl behind a schoolyard. Another Iraqi raped a 17-year-old girl at a festival. A 7-year-old girl was raped in a park not far from where her mother was sitting.

Some of these cases were covered up. Others were dismissed as isolated incidents.

But the mass attack on nearly 100 women and girls by hundreds of men right in the center of the New Year’s Eve celebrations was too big to suppress. And when it broke, the outrage was tremendous.

Yet the rationalizations remain the same.

The authorities claim not to know who was responsible, but are somehow able to assure the media that none of them were refugees. Feminist groups protest broadly against sexual harassment, but insist that there “should be no racism under the guise of women’s rights.” When a handful of the perpetrators are finally brought to trial, their lawyers will claim that like so many Muslim sex offenders before them they were unfamiliar with European “culture” and were “overwhelmed” by all the non-burqaed women.

And those will be lies. The horrifying scene in Cologne is commonplace in the Muslim world.

While many remember the horrifying sexual assaults of the Arab Spring in Tahrir Square, including the attack on Lara Logan, such incidents are actually commonplace in Egypt, especially around Eid Al-Fitr. It doesn’t matter how the women are dressed. A 2006 story describes mass attacks on “any and every girl in sight, whether a Niqabi, a Hijabi or uncovered. Whether Egyptian or foreigner. Even pregnant ones.” 99% of Egyptian women report being sexually harassed. This behavior has is common in Muslim lands.

In Iraq, it’s eight out of ten women. In Afghanistan, rape and honor killings are routine. And this is the population that Germany’s mostly Muslim migrants are drawn from.

What happened is inevitable and it will go on happening. More surveillance cameras and patrols won’t stop it. Instead, as in the UK, it will go underground. Muslim men will groom and abuse troubled girls. The authorities will turn a blind eye until a decade later the story gets too big to be covered up. And by then thousands of lives will be ruined. The only way to stop it is to keep it out of Europe and America.

Islam was a declaration of war against women and non-Muslims by Mohammed and his followers. From the mob outside the Cologne cathedral to the rape rooms of the Islamic State, Mohammed’s followers continue fighting the dead warlord’s brutal and ugly war against women.

Mohammed had told his men that the majority of those condemned to hell are women (Bukhari 2:24:541), that they could rape non-Muslim women (Koran 4:24) and that women who weren’t wearing Hijabs or Burkas were fair game (Koran 33:59). This isn’t an aberration. This is Islam.

Due to Germany’s asylum laws, it’s unlikely that any of the foreign attackers will be deported for their crimes. Sexual assault isn’t “serious enough” for that. And as refugees, they probably couldn’t be deported anyway because they would face “persecution” in their homeland. The hundreds of Muslim men who assaulted women know that they have nothing to fear because nothing will happen to them.

Merkel made this mess. And the only way to undo it is to undo Germany’s asylum policies and likely its membership in the European Union. The migrant wave has fundamentally altered Germany’s demographics in a way that makes the country hostile to women. The only way for women in Europe to have a future is to fight the migration mob. Otherwise what happened outside the Cologne cathedral, what happens to the 99% of women in Egypt and what happens in the Islamic State will be their future.

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism

January 7, 2016

A Strategy to Defeat Islamic Theo-fascism, American ThinkerG. Murphy Donovan, January 7, 2016

Surely, whatever passed for American foreign or military policy in the past three decades is not working. Just as clearly, in case anyone keeps score these days, the dark side of Islam is ascendant at home and abroad. What follows here is a catalogue of policy initiatives that might halt the spread of Islamic fascism and encourage religious reform in the Ummah.

Some observers believe that the Muslim problem is a matter of life and death. Be assured that the need for Islamic reform is much more important than either. The choices for Islam are the same as they are for Palestine Arabs; behave or be humbled. Europe may still have a Quisling North and a Vichy South; but Russia, China, and even America, at heart, are still grounded by national survival instincts – and Samuel Colt.

Call a spade a spade

The threat is Islam, both kinetic and passive aggressive factions. If “moderate” Islam is real, then that community needs to step up and assume responsibility for barbaric terror lunatics and immigrants/refugees alike. Neither America nor Europe has solutions to the Islamic dystopia; civic incompetence, strategic illiteracy, migrants, poverty, religious schisms, or galloping irredentism. The UN and NATO have no remedies either. Islamism is an Ummah, Arab League, OIC problem to solve. Absent moral or civic conscience, unreformed Islam deserves no better consideration than any other criminal cult.

Western Intelligence agencies must stop cooking the books too. The West is at war and the enemy is clearly the adherents of a pernicious ideology. A global war against imperial Islam might be declared, just as angry Islam has declared war on civilization.  A modus vivendi might be negotiated only after the Ummah erects a universal barrier between church and state globally. Islam, as we know it, is incompatible with democracy, civility, peace, stability, and adult beverages.

Oxymoronic “Islamic” states need to be relegated to the dustbin of history. If the Muslim world cannot or will not mend itself, Islamism, like the secular fascism of the 20th Century, must be defeated, humbled in detail. Sooner is better.

Answer the Ayatollahs

Recent allied concessions to Tehran may prove to be a bridge too far. If the Persian priests do not abide by their nuclear commitments, two red lines might be drawn around Israel. Firstly, the ayatollahs should be put on notice, publicly, that any attack against Israel would be considered an attack against America — and met with massive Yankee retaliation. Secondly, any future cooperation with NATO or America should be predicated on an immediate cessation of clerical hate speech and so-called fatwas, those arbitrary death sentences.

Clerical threats to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” and “death to America” injunctions are designed to stimulate jihad and terror globally. The only difference between a Shia ayatollah and a Sunni imam in this regard these days seems to be the torque in their head threads.

Ostracize the Puppeteers

Strategic peril does not emanate from Sunni tacticians like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Abu Bakr al-Baghadadi. Nor does the real threat begin with or end with al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or the Islamic State. Lethal threat comes, instead, on four winds: toxic culture, religious politics, fanatic fighters, and furtive finance, all of which originate with Muslim state sponsors. The most prominent of these are Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

Put aside for a moment the Saudi team that brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Consider instead, the House of Saud as the most egregious exporter of Salifism (aka Wahabbism) doctrine, clerics, imams, and mosques from which ultra-irredentist ideologies are spread. The Saudis are at once the custodians of Islam’s sacredshrines and at the same time the world’s most decadent, corrupt, and duplicitous hypocrites. Imam Baghdadi is correct about two things: the venality of elites in Washington and Riyadh. The House of Saud, an absolutist tribal monarchy, does not have the moral standing to administer “holy” sites of any description — Mecca, Medina, or Disneyland.

The cozy relationship between Europe, the European Union, and Arabia can be summarized with a few words; oil, money, arms sales, and base rights. This near-sighted blend of Mideast obscenities has reached its sell-by date. The “white man’s burden” should have expired when Edward Said vacated New York for paradise.

Jettison Turkey and Pakistan

What Saudi Arabia is to toxic ideology in North Africa, Turkey and Pakistan are to perfidy in the Levant and South Asia. Turkey and Pakistan are Islam’s most obvious and persistent grifters. Turkey supports the Islamic State and other Sunni terror groups with a black market oil racket. Pakistan supports the Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS with sanctuary and tolerance of the world’s largest opium garden. Oil and drug monies from Arabia, Turkey, and South Asia are financing the global jihad. Turkey also facilitates the migration of Muslims west to Europe while sending Islamist fighters and weapons south to Syria and Iraq.

With the advent of Erdogan and his Islamist AKP, Turkey has morphed into NATO’s Achilles Heel, potentially a fatal flaw.  Turkey needs to be drummed out of NATO until secular comity returns to Ankara. Pakistan needs to be restrained, too, with sanctions until it ceases to provide refuge for terrorists. Pakistani troops harassing India could be more prudently redeployed to exterminate jihadists.

Sanctions against Russia and Israel are a study in moral and political fatuity whilst Arabs and Muslims are appeased midst a cultural sewer of geo-political crime and human rights abuses. If NATO’s eastern flank needs to be anchored in trust and dependability, Russia, Kurdistan, or both, would make better allies than Turkey. Ignoring Turkish perfidy to protect ephemeral base rights confuses tactical necessity with strategic sufficiency.

Recognize Kurdistan

Aside from Israel, Kurdistan might be the most enlightened culture in the Mideast. The Kurds are also the largest ethnic group in the world not recognized as a state. While largely Muslim, the Kurds, unlike most of the Ummah, appreciate the virtues of religious diversity and women’s rights. Indeed, Kurdish women fight alongside their men against Turkish chauvinism and Sunni misogyny with equal aplomb. For too long, the Kurds have been patronized by Brussels and Washington.

While Kurdish fighters engage ISIS and attempt to control the Turkish oil black market, Ankara uses American manufactured NATO F-16s to bomb Kurds in Turkey and Syria. Turkish ground forces now occupy parts of Iraq too. In eastern Turkey, Ergdogan’s NATO legions use ISIS as an excuse for bookend genocide, a cleansing of Kurds that might rival the Armenian Christian genocide (1915-1917).

195876_5_Kurdish angel of death

All the while, American strategic amateurs argue for a “no-fly” zone in contested areas south of Turkey. Creating a no-fly zone is the kind of operational vacuity we have come to expect from American politicians and generals. Such a stratagem would foil Kurdish efforts to flank ISIS and allow the Erdogan jihad, arms, and oil rackets to flourish. A no-fly zone is a dangerous ploy designed to provoke Russia, not protect Muslim “moderates.”

Putin, Lavrov, and the Russians have it right this time; Turkish and Erdogan family subterfuges are lethal liabilities, not assets.

Washington and European allies have been redrawing the map in Eastern Europe, North Africa, South Asia, and the Mideast since the end of WWII. The time has come to put Kurdistan on the map too. Kurdistan is a unique and exemplary case of reformed or enlightened Islam; indeed, a nation that could serve as a model for the Muslim world.  If base rights are a consideration, Kurdistan would be an infinitely more dependable ally than Turkey or any corrupt tribal autocracy in Arabia. America has a little in common with desert dictators — and fewer genuine friends there either. Indeed, at the moment America is allied with the worst of Islam.

Create New Alliances

NATO, like the European Union, has become a parody of itself. Absent a threat like the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact, Brussels has taken to justifying itself by meddling in East Europe and resuscitating a Cold War with the Kremlin. Indeed, having divided Yugoslavia, NATO now expands to the new Russian border with reckless abandon; in fact, fanning anti-Russian flames now with neo-Nazi cohorts in former Yugoslavia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

NATO support for the Muslims of one-time Yugoslavia is of a piece with support for Islamic troublemakers in Chechnya and China too. Throughout, we are led to believe that jihad Uighurs and caliphate Chechens are freedom fighters. Beslan, Boston, Paris, and now San Bernardino put the lie to any notion that Islamists are “victims” (or heroes). Indeed, the Boston Marathon bombing might have been prevented had Washington a better relationship with Moscow.

Truth is, America has more in common with Russia and China these days than we do with any number of traditional European Quislings. Indeed, it seems that Europe and America can’t take yes for an answer.

The Cold War ideological or philosophical argument has been won. Moscow and Beijing have succumbed to market capitalism. Islamism, in stark contrast, is now a menace to Russian, Chinese, and American secular polities alike. The logic of a cooperative or unified approach to a common enemy seems self-evident. America, China, and Russia, at least on issues like toxic Islam, is a match made in Mecca.

The late great contest with Marxist Russia and China was indeed a revolution without guns. Now the parties to that epic Cold War struggle may have to join forces to suppress a theo-fascist movement that, like its Nazi predecessor, will not be defeated without guns. The West is at war again, albeit in slow motion. Withal, questions of war are not rhetorical. Saying that you are not at war does not make it so. Once declared, by one party or the other, the only relevant question about war is who wins and who loses. Losers do not make the future.

If America and Europe were as committed to Judeo/Christian secular values as Islamists are committed to a sick religious culture, then the war against pernicious Islam would have been won decades ago. Or as Jack Kennedy once put it: “Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.

Trump Footnote

Donald Trump made several policy suggestions on the Islamism issue, one on immigration, the other on Mideast oil. On the former, he suggests a hiatus on Muslim immigration until America develops a plan or reliable programs to vet migrants. On Arab oil, he suggests, given the lives and treasure spent liberating Kuwait and Iraqi oil fields, America should have held those resources in trust and use oil revenues to finance the war against jihad, however long that takes. The problem with both Trump ideas is that they come perilously close to common sense, an American instinct in short supply these days.

 

UK Review of Muslim Brotherhood: Top 13 Quotes

January 7, 2016

UK Review of Muslim Brotherhood: Top 13 Quotes, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, January 7, 2015

(All bold face print is from the original article. — DM)

Egypt-Muslim-Brotherhood-Supporters-Flags-IPMuslim Brotherhood supporters (© Reuters)

The U.S. government rejected the conclusions of the British government’s 18-month review of its intelligence and policy towards the Muslim Brotherhood, concluding that the Islamist group is linked to terrorism and extremism. The comprehensive study welcomed outside contributors, of which the Clarion Project was one.

The British government rejected the myth that the Brotherhood is “moderate” and the patently false notion that it is “non-violent.” The Brotherhood and its ideology are now rightly seen as adversarial and measures will be taken to counter its threat. While the UK stopped just shy of banning it as a terrorist group, Prime Minister David Cameron said it will “keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.”

Here are the top 13 quotes from the British government review andPrime Minister Cameron’s official statement in no particular order:

1. “The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterizes Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.”

2.  “Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”

3.  “From its foundation the Muslim Brotherhood organized itself into a secretive ‘cell’ structure, with an elaborate induction and education program for new members…This clandestine, centralized and hierarchical structure persists to this day.”

4.  “The Hamas founding charter claims that they are the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Muslim Brotherhood treat them as such. In the past ten years support for Hamas (including in particular funding) has been an important priority for the MB in Egypt and the MB international network.”

5.  “From at least the 1950s the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood also developed an international network, within and beyond the Islamic world. Europe became an important base for the growing Muslim Brotherhood global network.”

6.  “The wider international network of the Muslim Brotherhood now performs a range of functions. It promotes Muslim Brotherhood ideology (including through communications platforms), raises and invests funds, and provides a haven for members of the Brotherhood who have left their country of origin to continue promoting Brotherhood activity.”

7.  “[F]or the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamization is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.”

8.  “Muslim Brotherhood organizations and associated in the UK have neither openly nor consistently refuted the literature of Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb which is known to have inspired people (including in this country) to engage in terrorism.”

9.  “[The review] concluded that it was not possible to reconcile these [MB] views with the claim made by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in their evidence to the review that ‘the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently adhered to peaceful means of opposition, renouncing all forms of violence throughout its existence.'”

10.  “In the 1990s the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates established public facing and apparently national organizations in the UK to promote their views. None were openly identified with the Muslim Brotherhood and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood remained (and still remains) a secret.”

11.  “[MB fronts] became politically active, notably in connection with Palestine and Iraq, and promoted candidates in national and local elections…sought and obtained a dialogue with Government….were active members in a security dialogue with the police.”

12.  “The Muslim Brotherhood have been publicly committed to political engagement in this country. Engagement with Government has at times been facilitated by what appeared to be a common agenda against al Qaida and (at least in the UK) militant Salafism. But this engagement did not take into account of Muslim Brotherhood support for a proscribed terrorist group and its views about terrorism which, in reality, are quite different from our own.”

13. “Senior Muslim Brotherhood figures and associated have justified attacks against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The U.S. government, without even conducting any kind of review of its own, issued a statement to the Investigative Project on Terrorism rejecting any ban or even any “de-legitimizing” of the Brotherhood at all.

“Political repression of non-violent Islamist groups has historically contributed to the radicalization of the minority of their members who would consider violence…The de-legitimization of non-violent political groups does not promote stability and instead advances the very outcomes that such measures are intended to prevent,” the U.S. government statement claims.

In other words, the U.S. position is this: Be held hostage by the so-called “non-violent Islamist groups.” Sure, the Muslim Brotherhood has a wing named Hamas that the U.S. officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization but it could be worse—at least not allo f the group’s members are engaging in violence.

Accept them as “moderates” as they wish, even at the cost of better Muslim alternatives. Don’t confront them. Don’t even “delegitimize” them for their radicalism and ideology because that might push them over the edge.

That’s not a mindset that understands what the threat is and certainly is not one that can defeat it.

The mountainous Arab Israeli gun problem has spiralled beyond control

January 7, 2016

The mountainous Arab Israeli gun problem has spiralled beyond control, DEBKAfile, January 7, 2016

Neshek_ArabsCENTER480

The mountainous quantities of illegal weapons, run-of-the-mill and exotic, in the hands of Israeli Arabs have grown to unmanageable proportions. No Israeli civilian police, or even military force, has the scale of manpower required to mount raids in Israeli Arab population centers – ranging from Galilee in the North, the Triangle and Jaffa in the Center and the Bedouin of the Negev – for a comprehensive campaign to impound them – not even if backed by tanks and commando units.It is pointless to call on all 1.5 million Arab, Bedouin, Druze and Circassian minority citizens to voluntarily surrender their guns. Almost every individual has at least one shooter. The accumulation would not shame any Middle East militia.

The authorities’ inability to deal effectively with this arsenal is not only shocking but has also made the Israeli underworld rich. And even more alarming, it provides a profitable link between terrorist organizations and both Israeli and Palestinian crime mobs and drug dealers. The failure to enforce order in some parts of the population, while other communities abide by the law, has created two parallel societies living by different rules.

The official data on the quantity of guns loose and unaccounted for are sketchy, bu the variety is hair-raising: grenade launchers; AT-3 Sagger and BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles; M-16 and Kalashnikov automatic rifles, submarine guns – mostly Uzis; heavy and light machine guns and mortars; explosive devices for remote detonation;  concussion, gas and stun grenades; diverse ammunition; magazines; IDF uniforms; protective and bulletproof vests; night vision equipment; and much more.

The approximate black market price list we have obtained includes handguns – 15,000 shekels; grenades – 2,500 shekels; M-16 automatic rifles – 50,000 shekels; explosive devices (depending on size and power) 15,000-25,000 shekels; hand grenade – 500 shekels.

Arab Israeli leaders, especially their representatives in the Knesset, have vocally and repeatedly appealed to the police to collect the weapons loose in Arab villages and cities. They see their prevalence as a major cause of the violence and disorder rampant inside those communities. This is no doubt true, but there is also an element of hypocrisy in their demand, in view of their own failure to address – and even exploit – the underlying causes of the epidemic

1. Israeli Arabs customarily resort to the use of guns rather than the law to resolve their disputes and conflicts of interest.

2. It has finally been admitted that 90% of the weapons in illegal hands today were stolen from Israeli army depots, some by traffickers in uniform. Those soldiers were not averse to flogging arms to gangs capable of turning against their own units.

According to DEBKAfile’s defense and counterterrorism sources, the remaining 10 percent, mostly handguns and submachine guns, are manufactured on underground production lines in the West Bank, Gaza or even within the Green Line in Israel. A small amount of the weapons is smuggled by land from the Sinai, Jordan and Lebanon.

Neshek_ArabsNORTH480

3. The IDF’s failure to properly guard its weapons and ammunition depots is stunning, scarcely illuminated by the figures the IDF has presented to various parliamentary committees:  From 2010 to 2015, an average of only 100 weapons per year were officially stolen from army bases, military vehicles and the homes of soldiers.

However, army and police officers familiar with the figures say the number is tenfold, more like 1,000 pieces of weaponry stolen year by year.

Officers and enlisted men whose weapons were stolen receive only light penalties. However, robbing arms depots has become endemic, with Bedouin in the south making the Negev training bases their “home ground.”
They follow IDF units on exercises and steal anything lying about, even cooking utensils and sleeping bags.

There is a sour joke in IDF tank and artillery battalions, that every maneuver has its “camp followers” of Bedouin gun and ammunition thieves.

4.  Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan, addressing the problem in a Knesset debate on Jan. 6, said that a comprehensive police roundup of illegal guns in Arab communities would immediately raise the charge that Israel was persecuting the Arab minority. He was answering charges of negligence hurled by Arab Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi.

5. The symbiosis that has developed between regular crime mobs and terrorists further boosts the illicit gun traffic. The availability of weapons encourages serious crimes. The “crime families” most notorious for their uncontrolled use of gunfire are to be found embedded in the Arab community, including the mixed towns of Lod, Jaffa and the Arab Triangle towns. Some of these mob chiefs may also contribute their violent services to Palestinian terrorist organizations.

Their activities certainly have a detrimental effect on the majority of their societies who are law abiding and uninvolved in criminal pursuits.

The problem could become more dangerous if the Bedouin, Druze or Circassian communities decided to rise up against Israeli majority rule, because their sons enlist for service in the IDF, the police and the prisons service. They are armed from head to toe, highly trained as soldiers and may be infected with the religious or national fanaticism sweeping the region.

In any case, there is no chance of the illegal guns and arms in every Arab home and gang arsenal being relinquished voluntarily. It is no good looking to national Arab leaders to lead any effort to collect them, because its much more convenient and politically profitable to blame Israel’s national authorities for the violence fostered by a culture that has made gun possession rife and a status symbol.

Saudi warplanes attack Iranian embassy in Yemen

January 7, 2016

Saudi warplanes attack Iranian embassy in Yemen

Iran Published time: 7 Jan, 2016 11:00 Edited time: 7 Jan, 2016 11:27

Source: Saudi warplanes attack Iranian embassy in Yemen – Iran — RT News

Iran has accused Saudi warplanes of attacking the Iranian embassy in the Yemeni capital Sana’a. Some guards were reportedly wounded in the attack, according to state news channel IRIB.
Iranian embassy in Sanaa. © Mohammed Huwais

The Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen says it will investigate the accusation, according to coalition spokesman Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, as cited by Reuters.

Asseri acknowledged that coalition jets carried out heavy airstrikes in Sana’a on Wednesday night, targeting missile launchers used by the Houthi militia. He added that the group has used civilian facilities, including abandoned embassies.

He said the coalition had requested that all countries supply the coordinates of their diplomatic missions, adding that accusations made on the basis of information provided by the Houthis “have no credibility.” 

It comes as Iran bans the import of all products made in Saudi Arabia. The Thursday decision was made in a cabinet meeting chaired by President Hassan Rouhani, according to Iranian student news agency ISNA.

The Saudi-led coalition, which is supported by the US, is targeting Houthi rebels aligned with former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who resigned in 2012 following a popular uprising against his rule.

The coalition has been heavily criticized for the way it conducts its airstrikes, and was accused of attacking a center for the blind in Yemen on Tuesday. It was also blamed for hitting a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Sanaa in December.

The instability in Yemen began during the Arab Spring protests in 2011. In 2014, Houthi Shiite rebels supported by pro-Saleh forces rose up and seized large territories in Yemen, including Sanaa.

The death toll from fighting in Yemen had reached 2,795 as of Tuesday, according to the UN. At least 81 people were killed in December alone.

 

Who Actually Represents American Muslims?

January 7, 2016

Who Actually Represents American Muslims?

by Samuel Westrop

January 7, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: Who Actually Represents American Muslims?

  • Activists participating in CAIR’s lobby day included Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim cleric, who, in response to the arrest of Al Qaeda operative Aafia Siddiqui, told Muslims to “grab onto the gun and the sword and go out and do your job.”
  • “[CAIR] is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda. CAIR opposes diversity in Islam.” — Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Muslim cleric and secretary general of the Italian Muslim Assembly.
  • Very few American Muslims seem to feel that CAIR is a legitimate voice for American Islam. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, about 88% of American Muslims said that CAIR does not represent them.
  • CAIR has been denounced by anti-racism groups, the federal government and by other Muslims. When legislators meet with CAIR, they help CAIR impose itself upon Muslim communities as a self-declared representative.

On November 12, 2015, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), with the support of a number of local Islamic groups in Boston, organized a lobbying day at the Massachusetts State House, ostensibly to advocate on behalf of local Muslims.

Nadeem Mazen, a director of CAIR’s Massachusetts branch (CAIR-MA) and an elected councillor for the city of Cambridge, explained: “We must be thought leaders and exemplars in our communities for basic social justice. And we’re meeting with our legislators to remind them that we are hundreds, thousands, and in many cases tens of thousands strong in their communities.”

Certainly, the discussions that took place fit the “social justice” narrative – the Boston Globe reports that participants argued for “increasing affordable housing, reforming school discipline, and reducing mass incarceration for non-violent offenders.”

But who exactly was behind this lobbying day? And what does it mean for American Muslims that such groups claim to represent their interests in state legislatures?

The chief organizing body, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is a prominent Islamic group, but which has a long history of involvement with extremist and terrorist causes. In 2009, during the Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis concluded that, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”

During the trial, CAIR was designated an “unindicted co-conspirator.” As a result of CAIR’s apparent links to a terrorist movement, the Justice Department in 2009 announced a ban on working with CAIR. The FBI also severed relations.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by three officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which, the Holy Land Foundation trial would later determine, was a prominent Hamas front group. One of CAIR’s Islamic Association of Palestine founders, Nihad Awad, is today CAIR’s Executive Director.

The Anti-Defamation League notes that CAIR has long expressed anti-Semitic and pro-terror rhetoric, adding that, “[CAIR’s] public statements cast Jews and Israelis as corrupt agents who control both foreign and domestic U.S. policy and are responsible for the persecution of Muslims in the U.S.”

The other groups involved in the lobbying day included the Muslim Justice League, which campaigns against counter-terrorism initiatives; and MassMuslims, a Boston-based organization that claimed to promote civic engagement for the region’s Muslims. Nadeem Mazen — a councilor in Cambridge, a director of CAIR-MA and the chief architect of the lobby day — founded MassMuslims in 2014. His group has promoted events with Omar Suleiman, a extremist preacher who describes homosexuality as a “disease” and a “repugnant shameless sin.”

In May, another MassMuslims official, Omar Khoshafa, invited the extremist preacher Yasir Qadhi to address students at Harvard. Qadhi has claimed that “Hitler never intended to mass-destroy the Jews,” and that the Holocaust is “false propaganda.” Khoshafa, who was quoted as a participant at the lobby day, describes Yasir Qadhi as “one of the foremost Muslim-American scholars and an amazing lecturer.”

Other activists involved with CAIR’s lobby day included Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim cleric, who, in response to the arrest of the Al Qaeda operative, Aafia Siddiqui, told Muslims to “grab onto the gun and the sword and go out and do your job.”

Abdullah Faaruuq, wearing a white skullcap, with CAIR at the Massachusetts State House.

But do any of these extremist connections matter if the purpose is simply to involve Massachusetts Muslims in the democratic process? The lobbying topics may seem relatively benign — affordable housing, school reform and prison incarceration rates. But a letter sent by the Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance to all State Legislators, and signed by a number of prominent Muslims explained that, “CAIR’s initial strategy is to assert itself as the political voice of Massachusetts Muslims by addressing some of the legitimate needs of the American Muslim community, but it will eventually be lobbying for the acceptance of a radical and hateful ideology, to the detriment of Massachusetts’s historically moderate, integrated Muslim population and the greater Boston community.”

By purporting to advocate on behalf of Massachusetts Muslims, CAIR appears to be seeking credibility as a voice of American Islam. When legislators meet with CAIR, they help CAIR impose itself upon Muslim communities as their self-declared representatives.

Very few American Muslims, however, seem to feel that CAIR is a legitimate ambassador for American Islam. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, about 88% of American Muslims said that CAIR does not represent them. Muslims all over the world, in fact, apparently do not think CAIR is a moderate or legitimate Muslim group: in 2014, the United Arab Emirates, a pious Muslim state, designated CAIR a terrorist organization, along with dozens of other Muslim Brotherhood organizations.

In reality, American Muslims are extremely diverse, and no single group can claim to speak on their collective behalf. American Islam comprises dozens of different religious sects and political movements, many of which advocate distinctly different ideas. But for Islamist bodies such as CAIR, it suits their agenda if American Muslims are portrayed as a monolithic community. If American Muslims can be seen as homogenous, then a group such as CAIR has a better claim to represent their interests.

Even CAIR’s own research, however, undermines their claim to speak on behalf of American Muslims. A 2011 report reveals that a majority of American mosques are not affiliated with any American Islamic body.

Addressing a conference in 2000, Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, a Muslim cleric and secretary general of the Italian Muslim Assembly, explained that, “[CAIR] is a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. It works in the United States as a lobby against radio, television and print media journalists who dare to produce anything about Islam that is at variance with their fundamental agenda. CAIR opposes diversity in Islam.”

In truth, CAIR only speaks on behalf of a small extremist ideology that, as discovered by federal prosecutors, emerged across the United States during the 1990s out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Although CAIR does not represent American Muslims, it managed, before the Holy Land Foundation terror trial in 2008, to persuade a great many people that it did. Enough time has passed that CAIR seems to believe it can try this move once again.

CAIR has been denounced by anti-racism groups, the federal government and by other Muslims. Its activities in the Massachusetts State House appear to be part of a larger effort to rehabilitate its image in the eyes of politicians and journalists.

While CAIR’s preferred topics of discussion may seem benign is irrelevant, the real threat is one of legitimacy. If State Legislators continue to meet with CAIR and journalists continue to write puff pieces about CAIR’s work, then we betray a worthy non-extremist Muslim majority while rewarding an extremist minority.

Who represents America’s Muslims? In truth, no one. And certainly not CAIR.