Archive for January 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Parliament To Debate Barring Donald Trump From Entry Into The United Kingdom

January 8, 2016

Parliament To Debate Barring Donald Trump From Entry Into The United Kingdom, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, January 8, 2016

495px-donald_trump_by_gage_skidmore

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). England is now a tragic example of how speech regulation and criminalization becomes insatiable — producing a down spiral as more and more speech is found intolerable or criminal. The most recent example is the call to ban Donald Trump from entry into the United Kingdom as someone guilty of hate speech. While I have criticized Trump’s statements about barring Muslims from entering the country, he is entitled to voice his views on immigration and participate in a debate about how we are going to handle both immigration and national security concerns. The chilling thing about this debate in Parliament is not that it will succeed in barring Trump but that it would not be in any way out of order with prior content-based sanctions.

Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen comedians targeted with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here).

Now even debating the risks of Muslim immigration as a policy is deemed hate speech and sanctionable by many. A far more useful debate on January 18th in Parliament is to look at the rapid decline of free speech in England. It is of course not alone. We have seen politicians like Dutch politician Geert Wilders prosecuted over what should clearly be protected speech. England has blocked Wilders and even speakers like Michael Savage based on disagreements with what they believe and say. Likewise, in France, Marine LePen is under investigation for speaking her mind on immigration.

What is truly distressing is that this petition was started by someone described as a “journalist.” Suzanne Kelly celebrated the news that someone with whom she disagrees could now be barred from entering the country: “However the debate goes, this exercise has brought many people together to speak out against hate speech and prejudice. That is my reward, and one I’m very happy and moved by.” It is a curious reward for a “journalist” to rally a mob against unpopular speakers and seek to impose content-based speech controls.

Kelly appears the very personification of the problem of the addictive aspect of speech controls. Kelly, a contributing writer for the community website Aberdeen Voice, said “The more I looked at Donald Trump and the remarks he has made before entering the presidential race, the more my hackles were rising . . . There are few things a person in my position can do against a person like that but make use of this country’s wonderful laws and procedures.” Those “wonderful” laws involve punishing people with whom you disagree. Time will only tell is speech in the future by Kelly get the “hackles” up of others — who will call for her own silencing or sanctioning. Movements for censorship and speech controls tend to be like Saturn and devour their own.

Thus, we will watch on January 18th as free people rally around the concept of less freedom — calling for their government to curtail the freedom of everyone in order to silence those with whom they disagree. There is of course an alternative. Kelly could use that journalist identity and actually respond to Trump and his ideas. Now that is a novel concept.

 

Categories: Britain, Donald Trump, Freedom of speech, Islam - submission, Islamic invasion, Islamisation
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

After Bomb Test, North Korea, Iran Continue Illicit Nuke Cooperation

January 8, 2016

After Bomb Test, North Korea, Iran Continue Illicit Nuke Cooperation, Washington Free Beacon, , January 7, 2016

(Please see also, North Korea and Iran: The Nuclear Duo. — DM)

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, right, shakes hands with a top North Korean leader, Kim Yong Nam, at the start of a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013. Iran's supreme leader formally endorsed Hasan Rouhani as president Saturday, allowing the moderate cleric to take charge of a country weakened by economic sanctions over its nuclear program. Kim Yong Nam is in Tehran to attend a ceremony when Rouhani will take the oath of office in parliament Sunday. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani, right, shakes hands with a top North Korean leader, Kim Yong Nam, at the start of a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, Aug. 3, 2013.

Iran won’t even need to make any progress on its domestic nuclear program—once it perfects its ballistic missiles it could purchase a weapon from North Korea and all of the conditions and monitoring in the [nuclear deal] would be ineffective in detecting or stopping that. . . .

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

One day after North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a miniaturized hydrogen bomb, lawmakers and regional experts are warning that Pyongyang and Tehran are continuing an illicit clandestine partnership enabling the rogue nations to master nuclear technology.

Loopholes in the nuclear pact recently reached between Iran and the international community have allowed the Islamic Republic and North Korea to boost their nuclear cooperation, which includes the exchange of information and technology, according to material provided to Congress over the past year.

Iran is believed to be housing some of its key nuclear weapons-related technology in North Korea in order to avoid detection by international inspectors. Iranian dissidents once tied to the regime have disclosed that both countries have consulted on a nuclear warhead.

Following the test, however, the White House publicly denied that Iran and North Korea are working together, according to multiple statements issued by the administration on Wednesday.

Still, the Iranian-North Korean nuclear axis is coming under renewed scrutiny by lawmakers in light of Pyongyang’s most recent detonation, which is the fourth of its kind in recent years.

Congressional critics now warn that the Obama administration cannot be trusted to clamp down on North Korea given its recent efforts to appease Iran by dropping a new set of sanctions that were meant to target its illicit ballistic weapons program.

Iran, on the other hand, thinks that the bomb test will give it “media breathing space” by drawing attention away from its own nuclear pursuits, according to Persian-language reports carried by state-controlled media outlets closely aligned with the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

“The entire world may well consider North Korea a failed state, but from the view point of the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps], North Korea is a success story and a role model: A state which remains true to its revolutionary beliefs and defies the Global Arrogance,” said Ali Alfoneh, an expert on the inner workings of the Iranian regime.

Prominent members of Congress are now warning that North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a sign of what could come from Iran, which they claim is closely following the North Korean nuclear playbook.

Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R, Fla.), chair of House’s foreign relations subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, described North Korea’s latest test as “a precursor to what we can expect from Iran in a few years.”

Iran, Ros-Lehtinen told the Washington Free Beacon, “is following the North Korea playbook” and “stands to be the main beneficiary of Pyongyang’s continued nuclear progress.”

“Iran and North Korea have a history of collaboration on military programs and have long been suspected of collaborating on nuclear related programs,” she said, noting that the Iran deal provides the Islamic Republic with the cash necessary to purchase advanced nuclear technology.

“Iran won’t even need to make any progress on its domestic nuclear program—once it perfects its ballistic missiles it could purchase a weapon from North Korea and all of the conditions and monitoring in the [nuclear deal] would be ineffective in detecting or stopping that,” she said.

“Let’s not forget, Iranians have reportedly been present at each of North Korea’s previous nuclear tests,” Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “We cannot turn a blind eye to ongoing ties between North Korea and Iran. President Obama must act now to stop these rogue nations from supporting each other’s nuclear weapons efforts aimed at harming America and our allies.”

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R., Pa.) expressed concern that Iran is following in North Korea’s footsteps, and that the nuclear deal will collapse just as  Bill Clinton’s agreement with North Korea did in the mid-1990s.

“This test is just the latest sign that North Korea is a regime hell-bent on building and developing a sophisticated nuclear program,” Meehan said. “The passage of the 1995 nuclear deal with [North Korea] came with it promises from the Clinton administration of accountability and transparency for Kim’s regime.”

“Those same sort of assurances are echoed today by the Obama White House as it seeks to assure us that its own deal with Iran will be more successful,” Meehan said. “The Iran deal and the North Korean deal were sold with the same promises, the same assurances, to the American people, sometimes even word-for-word.”

“When you put the rhetoric of the 90’s and the North next to the rhetoric of today and Iran, it’s hard to tell the difference,” he added.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.), a chief advocate for increased economic sanctions on Iran, highlighted what he called North Korea’s “alarming record” of “cooperating on missile development with Iran.”

With Iran set to receive billions of dollars in sanctions relief later this month, regional experts have informed Congress that the nuclear deal “creates conditions and incentives that are highly likely to result in the expansion” of Iran and North Korea’s illicit nuclear exchange, according to testimony submitted last year by Claudia Rossett, an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The deal fails to “cut off the pathways between Iran and nuclear-proliferating North Korea” and even has made “it safer for Iran to cheat,” according to Rossett’s testimony.

Additionally, sanctions relief gives Iran a chance to “go shopping in North Korea,” she said.

The Obama administration denied the ties between Iran and North Korea, telling reporters on Wednesday that “they’re entirely two different issues altogether.”

“We consider the Iran deal as a completely separate issue handled in a completely different manner than were the—than was the Agreed Framework with North Korea,” said John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, echoing similar remarks issued by the White House.

The administration’s hesitance to link the two nuclear issues has angered some critics of the Iran deal.

“This is exactly the kind of dishonest incoherence that the Iran nuclear deal forces its advocates to defend,” said Omri Ceren, the managing director of press and strategy at The Israel Project, a D.C.-based organization that works with journalists on Middle East issues.

“The Obama administration can’t admit that the [deal] provided the Iranians with hundreds of billions of dollars, some of which they’re going to invest in nuclear research beyond their borders, allowing them to get sanctions relief while advancing their program anyway,” Ceren said. “So instead they have to deny that there are links between Iran and North Korea’s nuclear program, even though that’s laughable.”

Categories: Iran - North Korea, Iran scam, North Korean nukes, Obama and Iran, Obama and North Korea
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

North Korea and Iran: The Nuclear Duo

January 8, 2016

North Korea and Iran: The Nuclear Duo, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, January 8, 2016

(With the Iran Scam’s sanctions relief, Iran will soon have lots more money to outsource development of nuclear weapons to North Korea. North Korea desperately needs foreign currency and will be delighted to help, as it has done in the past and, apparently, continues to do. — DM)

pl (1)

There is no reason to believe that, as a result of the deal Iran is already sidestepping, Iran will suddenly stop all dealings with North Korea with regard to both countries’ nuclear programs. The Obama administration and the United Nations upon which it relies ignore the close relationship between the two rogue nations at the world’s peril.

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

North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on January 6th, which it claimed was a hydrogen bomb. Despite some skepticism as to North Korea’s claim that it had actually tested a hydrogen bomb, the Obama administration acknowledged that North Korea had indeed tested some sort of nuclear device. The administration condemned North Korea’s latest testing as a violation of a series of past United Nations Security Council resolutions.

“We do not and will not accept North Korea as a nuclear armed state, and actions such as this latest test only strengthen our resolve,” declared Secretary of State John Kerry.

Mr. Kerry is a bit late with his declaration. North Korea has had an active nuclear arms program for nearly a decade and has conducted three of its four nuclear tests during President Obama’s time in office. None of the sanctions contained in the Security Council resolutions have stopped North Korea from thumbing its nose at the so-called “international community” and conducting as many nuclear and missile tests as it wishes. Kerry’s declaration begs the question – “resolve” to do what? Pass yet another Security Council resolution with a few more symbolic sanctions and some additional travel restrictions on senior North Korean officials?

The Obama administration’s claim of “resolve” in dealing effectively with nuclear threats rings hollow. Its idea of what “resolve” means was demonstrated by the loophole-ridden nuclear deal with Iran, which contains no safeguards against Iran’s cooperation with North Korea on nuclear technology and development. No doubt the administration would offer North Korea a similar deal if its leader Kim Jong-un were as crafty as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in lulling President Obama and Kerry into a false sense of security.

Moreover, rather than work closely with China to maximize its leverage in defusing North Korea’s nuclear threat, the administration chose to prioritize climate change in its relationship with China above all other issues.

The administration’s solution to the North Korea problem is to double down on its failed strategy of relying principally on the UN for concerted “international” action. It joined Japan, a non-permanent member of the Security Council, in calling for the December 6th emergency session. After about two hours of closed door consultations, the Security Council issued a press statement condemning the test and vowing further unspecified measures in response:

“The members of the Security Council strongly condemned this test, which is a clear violation of Security Council resolutions1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), and 2094 (2013) and of the non-proliferation regime, and therefore a clear threat to international peace and security continues to exist. The members of the Security Council also recalled that they have previously expressed their determination to take ‘further significant measures’ in the event of another DPRK nuclear test, and in line with this commitment and the gravity of this violation, the members of the Security Council will begin to work immediately on such measures in a new Security Council resolution.”

Even if Russia and China were to come around and support another resolution under the enforcement provisions of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, it is hard to believe that it will make any difference. Before the emergency Security Council meeting even began, Russian UN Ambassador Churkin was already lowering expectations, saying softly to reporters: “Cool heads, cool heads” and “proportionate response.”

North Korea regards the UN Security Council, and the Obama administration for that matter, with about as much contempt as Iran does. Indeed, all North Korea’s leaders have had to do is look at how Iran has been treated when it behaves badly. Iran was rewarded with a deal that merely postpones its nuclear arms program in return for the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of many billions of dollars. Moreover, Iran suffered no consequences to speak of from its recent violations of the Security Council resolutions prohibiting it from developing or testing ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The Security Council held meetings but did nothing. As U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last December, “Beyond having Security Council discussions on the matter there’s been no follow-on action. Discussions are a form of U.N. action.”

For its part, the Obama administration put off the imposition of any separate U.S. sanctions it had been considering in response to Iran’s missile launchings as soon as the Iranians claimed that any such sanctions would violate President Obama’s “holy grail” nuclear deal.

The United Nations Security Council, as well as the Obama administration, tend to compartmentalize flashpoints erupting in different regions of the world. They refuse to acknowledge that Iran and North Korea have long been joined at the hip when it comes to the development of nuclear material for bombs and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them.

The Security Council holds separate meetings on Iran and North Korea, as if their respective nuclear activities have been completely unrelated to each other. And, as demonstrated by the following exchange between a correspondent and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest at the January 6th daily press briefing, the Obama administration is turning a blind eye to the dangerous risk of continuing cooperation between Iran and North Korea:

“Q: You mentioned Iran earlier, and I’m wondering if there’s a bit of sleight of hand there from the Iranians’ perspective — meaning they’re trying to, on the one hand, work with the international community to have sanctions relief, but on the other hand, it’s been widely reported that they’ve been working with the North Koreans, perhaps even using them as a proxy to continue development of their own nuclear ambition. Does the White House understand that view?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t speak to the veracity of those claims.

Iran and North Korea have been cooperating for decades on nuclear technology. As Ilan Berman, a leading expert on the Middle East and Iran, wrote last August in the National Journal, “over the past three decades, Iran and the Stalinist regime of the Kim dynasty in North Korea have erected a formidable alliance—the centerpiece of which is cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated during an April 2015 interview that North Korea and Iran could still be cooperating to develop a nuclear weapon. Moreover, according to an assessment of “Iran-North Korea-Syria Ballistic Missile and Nuclear Cooperation” published by the Congressional Research Service last May, “U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concern that North Korea might export its nuclear technology or fissile material.”

Iran “may still rely on Pyongyang for certain materials for producing Iranian ballistic missiles, Iran’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding,” the Congressional Research Service report added.

North Korea has also conducted several tests involving nuclear explosive devices, a technology in which Iran has reportedly shown interest and would be in a position to procure from North Korea.

In short, rebutting the claims by the Obama administration that its nuclear deal with Iran cuts off all its pathways to the achievement of a nuclear weapon capability, the title of Mr. Berman’s National Journal article says it all – “North Korea: Iran’s Pathway to a Nuclear Weapon.”

There is no reason to believe that, as a result of the deal Iran is already sidestepping, Iran will suddenly stop all dealings with North Korea with regard to both countries’ nuclear programs. The Obama administration and the United Nations upon which it relies ignore the close relationship between the two rogue nations at the world’s peril.

Categories: Iran - North Korea, Iran scam, North Korean nukes, Obama and Iran, United Nations
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Self-flagellation, hypocrisy and double standards in the Duma arson case

January 8, 2016

Self-flagellation, hypocrisy and double standards in the Duma arson case | Anne’s Opinions, 7th January 2016

(While we must condemn any extremism and violence that emanates from the Israeli side as well as from the Arabs, the self-condemnation that has been going on since the Duma arson-murder has gone overboard — anneinpt)

In my post on the arrest of Jewish suspects in the Duma arson-murder, there was a slightly heated discussion in the comments about the perpetrators, the numbers of their supporters, and whether Israel has done or is doing enough to counteract this level of extremism amongst Jewish youngsters.

Amiram Ben-Uliel, indicted for the Duma arson murder

I am of the opinion that while there is always room for improvement in education and for strong and moral religious leadership, there are times when the self-flagellation of the Israeli Jewish religious Zionist right-wing (I use all those adjectives advisedly) goes overboard and in the end serves not to improve the situation but to increase defensiveness and resentment on the one hand, and provide fodder for Israel’s haters on the other hand.

Finding the right balance is very difficult, especially when the self-flagellation is urged on and leapt on with glee by Israel’s Left.

I have the nagging feeling that I didn’t make myself clear enough in my post, and then I found a few articles which express my feelings and my attitude more eloquently. Here are just a few excerpts but I urge you to read the entire articles.

First, Arlene Kushner, always sensible and level-headed, in an excellent article “It is time” where she questions the entire basis of the case against the suspects.

On the part of the Jews of Israel, there was, first, a stunned sorrow, on learning that a baby had been destroyed, that a family had been attacked in their home. But then there was the difficulty of taking in the fact that it may have been Jews who did this. Jews are not supposed to behave thus. The visceral reaction was that such an act demeaned us, as a people.

There were demonstrations to register opposition to terrorism; rabbis who spoke out forcefully against use of violence for resolving societal problems; editorials that decried what our society was in danger of becoming and demanded communal soul-searching.

And so, there was a way in which it was possible to say that we had demonstrated that this is not what what we are – we had demonstrated to ourselves and before the world that we are different. We stand against violence.

And yet there was a point at which this ceased to resonate positively. There was too much breast-beating, a tone that echoed a sort of communal guilt that was not appropriate. Condemning the terrorism implicit in burning a baby is one thing. Assuming that our whole society is generating a terrorist mentality – because of one act that may or may not have been committed by Jews – is something else.

(I didn’t say this explicitly in August, but I would suggest now that this was galut mentality. This rush to assume guilt. Seeking answers and being ready to acknowledge the fact of a Jew who committed a terror act is one thing – this went further.)

Add to this the way in which our political adversaries and enemies chose to use the terror act in Duma to attack Israel.

And the way in which leftist Israelis sought to use this as a weapon against “religious Zionists,” “nationalists” – representing them as violent crazies who must be restrained.

…

As for the EU, their response to this incident was vile:

“The Israeli authorities should … take resolute measures to protect the local population. We call for full accountability, effective law enforcement and zero tolerance for settler violence,” declared a spokesperson for Federica Mogherini, head of foreign policy for the EU, in a prepared statement.

When, ever, did you hear an EU spokesperson say to Abbas or other PA leaders that it was time for them to take full accountability for the violence visited upon Jews by Arabs living in PA areas? When did they demand zero PA tolerance for violence? Rhetorical questions, of course. The EU does not see fit to predicate support for the PA on its accountability with regard to terrorism. And yet Mogherini’s spokesperson had the gall to speak about protecting the local Arab population from Jews.

Arlene addresses the problematic evidence that was posited – never officially presented so far – as “proof” that these Jewish youngsters committed the deed. She also writes about the alleged abuse and even torture carried out against the suspects in order to obtain confessions. She then notes:

It was explained by multiple persons – persons in gov’t and journalists – that the Shin Bet was dealing with a very serious situation that necessitated “toughness” – because these young people want to overthrow the government and are dangerous. Overthrow the government? That would justify a great deal. This was the original claim of Ya’alon that I referred to above.

But what does this mean? That the hilltop youth are thoroughly alienated by the government and would prefer one that works according to principles of Torah is likely true. But it’s a huge stretch from acknowledging this to saying they represent a “danger.” This, my friends, I find it difficult to believe. There has been no evidence to bolster this claim – not with all of the investigation of the group that has been done. A convenient charge to make, perhaps to justify actions that should not be justified How? How would they be a danger in any real sense? And if they are a danger, why have no indictments in this respect been brought?

What occurred to me as these charges were being made is that we have at least one Arab member of the Knesset (Hanin Zoabi) who speaks for the enemy – and yet she is still in the Knesset. But the young people are dangerous? Is there equity of judgment here, or is it a matter of what is politically correct, and what will fly?

~~~~~~~~~~

Still another explanation offered for why “tough interrogation” was required was that these young people represented a “ticking bomb.” By this was meant there was a real danger of their doing a second time what they had done once in Duma, so that information had to be secured quickly to prevent this from happening.

But this does not fly either. The arson at Duma happened at the end of July, and these young people were at large until approximately mid-November. That would have been plenty of time for them to perpetrate another terror attack, had that been their intention. There is no way to make the case for a ticking bomb here!

Just read the rest. I could quote the entire article here but for lack of space.

I now come to a very powerful article written (in Hebrew only) by Kalman Liebskind, an Israeli journalist with Maariv, Makor Rishon and other media. He writes about the hypocrisy of the Left on their glee at the indictment of right-wingers for the Duma murder. He also addresses withering criticism at the left, particularly the media’s double standards, when it comes to reporting on Arab terrorism as opposed to Jewish violence.

I will translate part of his article entitled “Dancing on the blood: The shock about the wedding video was a huge display of hypocrisy and cynicism“. But I urge you to read the entire article if you are a Hebrew speaker, and if not, get someone to translate it all. It’s long but very worth-while. (Hint to the uninitiated: do not use Google Translate!!).

The wedding of hate

The wedding video he referred to was this disgusting incident where where some of the celebrants at an Israeli wedding danced around waving guns and knives and stabbing a photo of baby Ali Dawabshe. Doubts still remain whether this was the action of Jewish extremists or a Shabak agent provocateur (which has precedent, e.g. in the case of Avishai Raviv and the Rabin assassination).

The Duma murder case, certainly after the effect of the wedding video, paralysed the majority of the national (rightist) camp. Not just paralysis, but withering real fear. Fear of “what will they say about us”, which is the worst kind of fear.

That fear – that maybe we won’t look good in the media, maybe they will smear us again, as they did after the Rabin assassination, as part of the supporters’ camp of the murderers – is a dangerous fear. It does not allow us to wonder and to criticise. It does not enable us to hold a complex discourse. It does not permit you to say you’re concerned about the torture, without the fear that it will turn you into Benzi Gopstein (an extreme right-winger). It doesn’t enable you to say that it was important to see the wedding video, but is equally important to remember that it described the behavior of several dozen people in all. This fear does not allow one to come out harshly against the rampage of all those involved in these investigations, to place question marks around the draconian measures taken against young people, who by now it is clear that some of them were not connected to the murder, and to wonder how the court served as a rubber stamp for anything asked of it.

…

So why do this paralysis and fear amongst the right-wingers in particular bother me so much? Because I have no expectations from the left and from the media. They are now in the midst of celebration. Once in a while they have a chance to put the national camp or the religious Zionist movement on the stake and mark them all a bed of killers, and such moments they sing “My Lord, My Lord, Let it never end.”

…

I have absolutely nothing to do with those who committed the murder Duma nor with the people who belong to the group that surrounds them. I am a Zionist, I believe in the State, I am against violence, in short: the complete opposite of the mutinous league of Meir Ettinger & Co. Therefore, my words are not said in order to defend them, but in order to say a lot of words in condemnation of those who cover these cases. Because if we are dealing with double standards, the media treatment of this group is infected with it.

This week, after I had internalized what had been explained to me, that this group should be treated like terrorists in every respect, I noticed that all the rules that apply to regular coverage of Palestinian terrorists, for some reason do not apply to them. Because when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, we are always busy trying to understand its origin. For an Arab does not murder just because he hates Jews. There is the occupation and there is despair, there are roadblocks and there is revenge for the death of his relatives.

And suddenly, I wondered to myself, where did all those people who usually seek reasons and justifications for terrorism?. After all, if the Arab murderers have good reasons, Jews too probably have several. Maybe it’s the Arab terrorism that brings death and destruction, maybe it’s the despair from our security forces who did not manage to put a end to this terrorism. Maybe it’s because of the Civil Administration which destroys illegal construction by Jews but not by Arabs.

But no. Now you will not hear these questions. There questions which are not asked. Like you will never hear, when Israeli Arabs carry out attacks or simply join Daesh, any discussion that will address the flowerbed in which they grew up, or the atmosphere that brought them to where they arrived. Arabs are individuals. They take charge.They do not have a supportive environment. They are “lone terrorists”.

In my eyes, to be clear, there are no good killers and there is no reason and never an excuse to justify violence. I’m just having trouble understanding why some murderers get “season-end discounts”, and some do not. And how is it that following the murder committed by Arabs, [TV channel 2 news anchor] Yonit Levy asked Minister Gilad Erdan why his government is not building a new Arab city, and yet there is no chance after the murder Duma, that he will be asked why the government is not building new settlements for Jews.

…

Regarding double standards, it must be explained as clearly as possible. Yes, the attitude towards Palestinians and towards Israelis in the interrogation rooms should not be the same. This is not a racist issue. The separation is not between Jews and Arabs, but between citizens of Israel and its enemies. The Palestinians are an external enemy. They are not part of us. We have no obligation towards them like we have for our own citizens. Incidentally, this difference not only must exist, it always has existed. We fought against external enemies with Merkava 3 tanks, against domestic enemies we do not. Not everything that is permissible in war against an external adversary, is allowed against an opponent at home.

…

I support the idea that everyone from this group who took part in violence should spend long years in jail. But I will not fall victim to the spin of the GSS [Shabak] which is trying to convince me that this group wanted to crown a king here and topple the regime. With all due respect, Meir Ettinger, age 20 and a bit, is not bringing down any regime and is not crowning any kings. Greater men than he have tried and not succeeded.

…

I’m not stupid. it’s clear to me that the media isnot dealing with this group of hilltop youth to this extent because it has a problem with those ten or 40 guys. This group is a decoy. Behind it lie the real goals, the more interesting targets. Religious Zionism. The settlers. I see the attacks on the settler society, the usual rubbish about the “flower-beds” in which these murderers grew up, and I’m horrified at the ability to incite and twist reality.

This society should not be receiving criticism, but the Israel Prize for Education. The settlement enterprise has raised children for years under incessant daily terror. There is hardly anyone who travels on the roads of Samaria, and was not at one time the target of attempted murder – by stones, firebombs or shooting. Amongst the settlement enterprise there is not one person who does not know someone who was killed: A friend, a neighbor or relative. There is hardly a school without a missing chair of a murdered child, or a chair on which sits an orphaned child whose father was murdered. And the one responsible for all this is the Palestinian Arab enemy who lives meters away. Reach out and touch him. The victims of these attacks see the society from whose midst the killers leave every day. They travel alongside them on the road, while their blood is boiling, but their hearts full of longing for their fallen friends.

And despite all of this, despite all the difficulties, all the pain, they bury their friends and continue to do good. To get up in the morning, go to work, to enlist and serve in the most contributing combat units, to give as much as possible. And, surprisingly, quite surprisingly, no one takes the law into their own hands. Almost no one takes revenge. A terrible Duma event such as this occurs once in many years. Those who are teaching this generation are succeeding, God knows how, to channel all the anger and all the sadness and frustration to better places. In Itamar they continue to do charitable kindness. In Yitzhar settlement they can alreay count the 5th kidney donor to an unknown recipient, and they will continue to recruit the sixth and seventh donors. I find it hard to see another society stand up to such ordeals and come out like that.

They are deserving of a salute for all this, they deserve a lot of living water to irrigate their flower-beds, and not cries of derision.

Liebskind goes on to talk about several other “scandals” that have made the headlines in Israel lately: a book banned by the Education Ministry from the school curriculum (not banned from the bookshops, please note); the “gas deal” enabling those whom the Left would call “oligarchs”, those people who invested their money in discovering Israel’s natural gas – to actually profit from their investment as well as enabling Israel to gain from it; a law proposed by the Justice Minister demanding transparency from foreign NGOs who mostly work to undermine Israel’s sovereignty, and then concludes:

This group [the Left] is trying in any which way to overturn our vote in the elections and make it meaningless. They took an educated decision not to enable the public’s elected representatives to rule or to advance their own world values in whose name they were elected. When 40-odd hilltop youth decide to undermine the legitimacy of the regime, it’s one thing. When the leading media leads this line aggressively, that bothers me a whole lot more.

There is one more article to which I would point you, by Ari Soffer in Arutz Sheva: Unravelling the Duma circus. He repeats much of the arguments of both Arlene Kushner and Kalman Liebskind but he also makes other interesting points:

What is the reason for this absurd dichotomy? For the circus of collective guilt and hysteria on the Left, and of self-delusion and conspiracy theories on the Right?

The answer is just one word: insecurity. The insecurity born of two millennia of exile is now amplified in our Jewish state, to the point that what should have been a professional, objective police investigation immediately morphed into a hopelessly politicized platform for all the emotional baggage of the Left and Right to be unloaded.

Underlying the reactions of both Left and Right are one or both of two fears. The first is that wretched psychological relic of the ghetto: “What will the world think?” As if our actions as a people must always be condemned to be judged against the yardstick of what others think.

The second fear is related, but more internal: What happens to our perceived moral superiority? It’s the Palestinians who commit acts of terror, not us, and an attack by Jewish terrorists would ruin this narrative which so many lean on as a psychological, intellectual and emotional crutch. Are we now no better than them?

(There is a third motivation, for those few poor Jewish souls who actually revel in guilt, those for whom Jewish guilt and notions of “we’re just as bad as/worse than them” is political currency. But that is a different story altogether.)

The response to either fear must either be to “prove” – to “the nations of the world” and/or to ourselves – that we are still good people, still better than the Palestinians. This can either be achieved by denying everything, or by preemptively confessing to every possible accusation (fair or unfair) and begging for forgiveness.

And yet, this is not a sane or rational response.

Could it have been Jewish extremists? Of course – we know there are fanatics capable of this. Meir Ettinger and others have even circulated booklets instructing how to conduct attacks in order to collapse the government and help usher in the crowning of a “king.”

Could it have been an Arab feud dressed up to look like a “price tag action”? Anything is possible, and that has actually happened in a minority of more minor cases, but it’s obvious that this is not the most likely option, and investigating the former avenue first is hardly proof of some kind of anti-Jewish bias.

…

Every single nation or community in the world has its extremists: from White Supremacists and Christian fundamentalists, to extreme Hindu nationalists, even Buddhist extremists in Burma – and of course Muslim extremists, who commit daily atrocities throughout the globe. But societies must not be judged by the actions of a few extremists but by the reaction of the wider society to them. In Israel, the reaction, from Left to Right (beyond the very furthest fringes), has been nonstop condemnation. In Palestinian society, the response – whether from the “moderate” Fatah or the “extremist” Hamas and Islamic Jihad – has been praise, glorification, encouragement and incitement of anti-Semitic terrorism. We condemn it, while they revel in it – that speaks volumes.

We need not “prove” our moral worthiness because the facts speak for ourselves. Those who would judge the people of Israel differently to any other nation should be dismissed out of hand as the bigots they are. We certainly don’t need to prove ourselves to them (nor is there any point in doing so).

But if we wish to end this phenomenon of double-standards by others, then we must stop applying them to ourselves as well.

We would do well to take Soffer’s words to heart, as well as to internalise the messages provided by Arlene Kushner and Kalman Liebskind.

Categories: Israel, Palestinians
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hundreds of armed Hamas terrorists march in J’lem

January 8, 2016

Watch: Hundreds of armed Hamas terrorists march in Jerusalem Massive funeral of terrorist attended by thousands, including Hamas terrorists waving knives, machetes, and firing automatic weapons.

By Ari Yashar

First Publish: 1/7/2016, 10:00 PM

Source: Hundreds of armed Hamas terrorists march in J’lem – Defense/Security – News – Arutz Sheva

Hundreds of masked and armed terrorists from Hamas’s Al-Qassam Brigades “military wing” took part in a terrorist funeral attended by thousands in Jerusalem earlier this week, in an alarming show of force.

The multitude of terrorists fired in the air with automatic assault rifles, and waved knives and machetes in a spectacle common in Gaza, but as rare as it is shocking in the capital.

Video from the incident – which took place in the northeastern Shuafat neighborhood just roughly 100 meters from the French Hill neighborhood and near Hebrew University – was exposed by Channel 10 on Thursday night, after footage from it surfaced on YouTube.

The occasion was the funeral of Mohammed Saeed Ali, whose body was recently returned by Israel despite security cabinet decisions calling not to return the bodies of terrorists as a deterrent measure, and so as to prevent the funerals from being used to recruit new terrorists.

On October 10, Ali surprised security forces who asked to see his identification at the Damascus Gate of the Old City, and was caught on security camera lunging at them and stabbing two officers, causing a third to be accidentally shot by security forces who responded and shot the terrorist dead. Two of the officers suffered moderate wounds, while the third was in serious condition.

When Ali’s body was returned earlier this week, thousands formed a human river in the streets of Shuafat just a stone’s throw from French Hill, with the sound of rapid machine gun fire puncturing the air.

Amid the gunfire, and while waving knives and machetes, the masses chanted: “this is how Mohammed taught us! How to slaughter the Jews! Wave the swords! We are the people of Mohammed Deif!” Deif is the Hamas terror chief who survived a sixth attempt on his life during 2014 Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, after Israel delayed the assassination strike.

Hamas enjoys strong support in eastern Jerusalem, and in 2007 won in the region in the Palestinian parliamentary elections.

The terrorist group, which has the genocide of Jews written into its charter, has recently stepped up its calls for shooting and suicide attacks, urging the current terror wave to be taken up a notch.

In response to the video from the funeral, the Israeli police said in a statement: “the police are conducting enforcement activities in the Shuafat refugee camp, which is supervised by an orderly crossing from Jerusalem in which all those going in and out of the camp are checked.”

Just on Thursday evening a 16-year-old Arab terrorist armed with a knife was arrested at the checkpoint leaving Shuafat on his way to conduct a stabbing attack.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

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 Line,  Paul 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.

Categories: Freedom of speech, Germany, Islam and women, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamophobia
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 6 Comments

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

By

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)

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

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?

Categories: Abrogation, Hadith, Islam, Islam and Christianity, Islam's war on Jews, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic myths, Islamic perversions, Islamic supremacy, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Koran, Mohammad, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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)

 

Categories: Iran, Iran - human rights, Iraq, Obama - Middle East, Obama and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia - Human rights
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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.

Categories: Germany, Hijrah, Islam and women, Islamic culture, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Merkel, Obama and Islam, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »