The Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has been rocked by three successive bombings that claimed the lives of dozens of civilians, according to police sources and media. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
The car bombing attack in the city’s district of Sadr City killed at least 63 people and injured dozens of others, AP reported citing Iraqi officials.
An SUV rigged with explosives was parked near a beauty salon in a busy market in the Sadr City neighborhood, Iraqi police reported.
The blast killed over 20 people on the spot while others succumbed to their wounds shortly after. At least 60 people were injured by the blast, and many remain in critical condition.
Shortly after the first blast, two more attacks were recorded in the city. One of them occurred in the Kadhimiya district of northern Baghdad – an area of the city considered a center of Shiite Islam. The attack claimed the lives of 18 people, Iraqi police and hospital officials told AP on condition of anonymity, adding that at least 34 people have been injured.
Five police officers are among the casualties in Kadhimiya district, officials added.
One more bomb that went off in the Sunni district of Jamiya killed seven and wounded at least 22 people.
The officials told Reuters that the death toll figures are likely to rise.
IS targeted Sadr City in February in a twin bombing attack, which claimed the lives of 70 people.
The group is ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim and considers Muslims adhering to other sects of Islam apostates and their enemies.
Sectarian violence remains one of the biggest security challenges in Iraq, since the US invasion of Iraq deposed its Sunni minority in power and installed a Shiite majority government.
Military officers and former officials of Saddam Hussein’s government, whose careers were ruined by the change of regime in Baghdad, were instrumental in Islamic State’s rise from a little-known Iraqi ally of Al-Qaeda to the most-publicized terrorist threat in the modern world.
I love the phenomenon of Western judges suddenly declaring that Muslim terrorists and rapists aren’t really Muslims… even though they know nothing about Islam. One of the classic examples was the Times Square Bomber.
But then Faisal Shahzad ruined everything by opening his mouth. “This is but one life,” he said. “If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system.”
The Judge did her usual liberal shtick, foolishly lecturing Shahzad on how moderate Islam is. She suggested that Shahzad should “spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people”.
But who knows better what Islam really represents, Faisal Shahzad or Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum?
A rapist who targeted schoolgirls was branded a “hypocrite” by a judge because he claimed to be a devout muslim.
Martin Steiger QC said that Mohammed Shaheen was “masquerading as religious” when jailing him.
Shaheen held himself out as a faithful believer – and said he was framed by his two victims.
Jobbing decorator Shaheen, a 43-year-old father-of-seven, raped and groped the underage teenagers and then ordered them to keep silent.
He also threatened to distribute a secret recording of her.
However Shaheen’s abuse of the pair came to light in 2014, after the older of the girls finally found the courage to confide in a schoolfriend.
So what is the basis for the claim that Shaheen was “masquerading as religious”? And since when is it the job of judges to determine religious authenticity?
Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a serial rapists. Many of his rapes are documented in Islam. The same things that ISIS is doing to Yazidi women were done by Mohammed to Jewish and other non-Muslim women. This behavior is considered a model for Muslims.
Muslim countries are more likely to punish women for being raped than men for raping them. The Hijab and the Burka began as measures to indicate that a woman is a man’s property so that she wouldn’t be raped.
Does Judge Steiger feel that Mohammed was only faking being a Muslim? And I mean the original Mohammed, not this latter day successor rapist. That’s a question no one will touch. Certainly not Judge Steiger. But there is no contradiction between being a devout Muslim and a rapist. There is a contradiction between not praying and being a devout Muslim. There is none when it comes to the rape and murder of non-Muslims. This has been considered ideal behavior in Islam since the days of the original Mohammed.
An Algerian man who almost killed his 25-year-old student victim shouted out ‘if Allah wills it’ in Arabic as he raped her in a darkened alley, a court has heard.
The man, identified only by his first name Rheda, is accused of following the student as she walked home from a nightclub at 5am in Hannover, Germany.
Afterwards, with his victim badly beaten, he is alleged to have climbed off her and asked her if she enjoyed it.
QADIYA, Iraq — In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.
He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.
When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.
“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands.
“He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.
Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s. Like some others interviewed by The New York Times, she wanted to be identified only by her first initial because of the shame associated with rape.
“He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship.
“He said that raping me is his prayer to Allah. I said to him, ‘What you’re doing to me is wrong, and it will not bring you closer to Allah.’ And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed. It’s halal,’ ” said the teenager, who escaped in April with the help of smugglers after being enslaved for nearly nine months….
Look at every country where Islam is dominant and you will see a total lack of freedom and democracy. Islam and freedom are absolutely incompatible. And yet, we are importing it into our western societies, thereby endangering our own freedoms. It is time to stop this foolishness.
Take Turkey, for example. Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has never made a secret of his aim to strengthen the powers of Islam. Contrary to what some want us to believe, Turkey does not prove that Islam and democracy are compatible.
For Erdogan, democracy is merely a tool. He once compared it to a tram: “You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”
Today, Mr Erdogan is stepping off.
The repercussions are felt not only in Turkey, but also in European countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, where large Turkish immigrant communities act as the fifth column of intolerance.
Indeed, the Turkish President not only oppresses free speech at home. He has embarked on a crusade to oppress it in Europe as well. And the large groups of Turkish immigrants in Western European countries are his henchmen.
Last month, the Turkish President demanded criminal prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann. The latter had ridiculed Erdogan with a critical poem on German television.
German Turks began to threaten Böhmermann to such degree that he had to request police protection and go into hiding. At the same time, the German authorities started criminal proceedings against the comedian, based on a 19th century German penal law which forbids insulting the representatives of foreign states.
The criminal proceedings were started with the explicit consent of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who, according to Böhmermann, has “served me for tea to a despot.”
Meanwhile, Erdogan’s appetite is far from over. This week, he demanded a German court to stop Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of the Springer publishing company, from defending the comedian.
Fear of violent Turkish immigrants also forced a hamburger restaurant in Cologne to shut down. Its owner, Jörg Tiemann, had put a burger with goat cheese on the menu, calling it “the Erdogan burger.” Erdogan supporters immediately responded with threats against owner and staff, forcing the restaurant to close its doors.
Then, there is the case of Ebru Umar, a Dutch journalist of Turkish descent. Four weeks ago, she wrote a column criticizing the Turkish Consulate in Rotterdam. Following the Böhmermann incident, the Consulate had called on Dutch Turks to report incidents of “insults” against Erdogan in The Netherlands.
One week later, while on holiday in the Turkish seaside resort Kusadasi, Umar was arrested and only released on condition that she not leave Turkey. On Facebook and Twitter, hundreds of Dutch Turks openly rejoiced in her arrest.
Her home in Amsterdam was broken into and vandalized.When walking the streets of Kusadasi, Umar was threatened on several occasions by Dutch Turks who had gone looking for her. “We will know where to find you when you return to the Netherlands,” they said. “You will get what you deserve.”
Last Tuesday, after three weeks, the Erdogan regime finally allowed Umar to return to the Netherlands.
Many of those threatening people in the West are third or even fourth generation immigrants to our countries. This proves that – barring a few exceptions – the integration and assimilation of Islamic immigrants into our Western society has failed.
Many of the Islamic newcomers are simply incapable of adopting our values. Indeed, they are a danger to these values.
We must protect these values. And one of the first things to do is to sever our links with regimes promoting Islam. These regimes cannot be our friends; they are dangerous.
It is an outrage that Turkey is still a member of NATO. The sooner we get rid of this Trojan Horse within our Western alliance, the better. We should dump Turkey.
Instead of doing this, however, our current Western leaders are welcoming Turkey.
There is little doubt that if Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the next President of the United States, she will be a cheerleader for Turkey.
Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), which is currently by far the biggest party in the Dutch polls. He is the author of “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me” (Regnery)
I’m a bit perplexed with the continued resistance of so many of my right-wing brothers and sisters to Donald Trump. If it’s just his brash style and vulgar taste, his preference for glittery gold over brushed nickel or flat black for his bathroom fixtures, I could understand it. I’m a flat black guy myself. But it’s so much more than that.
The latest “betrayal” is that Trump admitted his tax plan was negotiable Imagine that—a tax plan being negotiated between the administration and Congress! Never heard of that before…. oh, wait.
Never mind that the Trump plan, even negotiated, would be considerably lower than just about any on offer and well within the parameters of conventional GOP proposals. (Now be honest—who would you rather have negotiating for you, Donald Trump or Paul Ryan? Who do you think would get a better result?) Nevertheless The Donald, in the opinion of the cognoscenti, once more has shown himself to be a feckless character not worthy of support—and the Republican gulf widens.
Or so we’re supposed to believe, even though he has the nomination completely nailed down, signed, sealed and delivered, everything but set in bronze.
Meanwhile, to almost everyone’s surprise, the Democrats are still fighting, their internal enmity growing as Comrade Bernie wins primary after primary, sometimes by large majorities, and Lady Hillary clings to her super delegates like a three-year-old to a blanket. What happens if she loses California? According to West Virginia exit polls, a full third of Democratic primary voters are ready to defect to Trump. In the latest poll of swing states, Donald is already ahead of Clinton in Ohio and neck-and-neck in Florida and Pennsylvania. And the big show is just getting started.
It is the Democrats, not the Republicans, that have the problem, but you wouldn’t know it if you watched, say, TheKelly File or had your Internet perpetually wired to National Review or The Weekly Standard, where the writing is as elegant as the thinking, these days, is often fuzzy. The Democrats are fighting a real war of ideas, disreputable though those ideas may be, while the Republicans fight a status war among themselves, a battle over control, not, except in the margins, over ideology.
Am I wrong? Remind me again where Trump, at least currently, is not a conservative? Taxes, check. Deficit, check. Immigration, check. Sanctuary cities, check. Strong defense, check. Supreme Court, check. Veterans, check. Common core, check. Iran deal, check. Israel, check. Healthcare, check. Pro-life, check…. Oh, yes, Planned Parenthood. He thinks the part of that operation that treats cervical cancer is okay. What a sin.
But…but…but… he has those whacky ideas on NATO and nuclear weapons and trade.
Are they so whacky? Other nations maybe should pay the part of NATO they contracted to. And the Japanese and South Koreans themselves have been talking about building nukes. Wouldn’t you after eight years of Obama? And then trade, who would doubt it could have been negotiated better, considering how our foreign policy deals have been negotiated?
And of course there’s the matter of Muslim immigration. He wants that restricted for now. So do most Americans, according to polls. Again, this is the opening point of a negotiation. Who knows where it will end? But no one, other than the extreme left, would like to see the Syrian refugees pouring in. Trump will have the public on his side in preventing it.
As I said, the real problem is with the Democrats. They are the ones in true disarray and are likely to remain so through their convention. This is a huge gift to the Republicans if they can only suck it up, shelve their egos, get together and take advantage of it. It doesn’t matter whether you are a neocon, a social con, a libertarian, a financial con or just a plain con. Ideology is so last year. (Well not completely, but it doesn’t have to be on the front burner all the time, does it?) Just do it.
These days, US foreign policy is often contradictory, as we can see in Syria, where troops trained by the Pentagon are fighting troops trained by the CIA. And yet it remains perfectly coherent on two points – to divide Europe between the European Union on one side and Russia on the other – and to divide the Far East between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on one side and China on the other. Why? And can this be predicted?
For more than a century, in an attempt to explain and therefore anticipate US foreign policy, we have been visualising a struggle between the isolationists and the interventionists. The former adopted the line of the «Pilgrim Fathers», who fled old Europe to build a new world based on their religious beliefs, and therefore distant from European cynicism. The latter, in the tradition of certain of the «Founding Fathers», intended not only to seize their independence, but also to pursue the project of the British Empire for their own benefit.
Today, this distinction has lost almost all validity, since it has become impossible to live in autarchy, even for a country as vast as the United States. Although it has become commonplace to accuse one’s political adversaries of isolationism, no US politician – with the exception of Ron Paul – now defends such an idea.
The debate has shifted to a confrontation between the partisans of perpetual war and the adepts of a more measured use of force. If we are to believe the work of professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, the present policy of the United States is decided by a collection of interest groups, independent of the desires of its citizens [1]. In this debate, therefore, it is legitimate to note the influence, on the one hand, of the military-industrial complex, which dominates the US economy and whose interest is to pursue a state of «endless war» – and, on the other, the toll companies (software, high-tech, entertainment) who, although their production is more virtual than real, make their money wherever the world is at peace.
This analysis of the debate leaves aside the question of the access to raw materials and energy sources, which was dominant in the 19th and 20th centuries, but has lost its urgency, without having completely disappeared.
Since the «Carter Doctrine», which treats the access to hydrocarbons from the «Greater Middle East» as a question of «national security» [2], we have seen Washington create CentCom, move more than 500,000 men to the Gulf, and seek to impose control over the whole region. We remember that Dick Cheney, persuaded of the imminence of «peak oil», decided to prepare the «Arab Springs», and war against all the states in the region which it did not yet control. But this policy lost its meaning even while it was in appplication, because the United States, apart from their production of gas and shale oil, took control of the hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, in the years to come, the United States will not only have abandoned the «Greater Middle East», but may engage in a major war against Venezuela, the only middle-range power which could compete with and threaten their exploitation in the Gulf of Mexico.
In a series of interviews with The Atlantic, President Obama tried to explain his doctrine [3]. In order to do so, he replied lengthily and repetitively to those who accuse him of contradictions or weakness, particularly after the affair of the «red line» in Syria. He had indeed declared that the use of chemical weapons was a red line which should not be crossed, but when his administration alleged that the Syrian Arab Republic had used them against its own population, he refused to wage a new war. Leaving aside the question of whether the accusation was true or not, the President stressed that the United States had no interest in risking the lives of its soldiers in this conflict, and that he had chosen to economise their forces in order to face genuine threats against US national interests. This declaration of reserve is known as the «Obama Doctrine».
So what are these «genuine threats» ? The President didn’t say. At best we can look at the work of the US National Intelligence Council and the preceding remarks on the power of the interest groups. It appears that the United States has abandoned the post-9/11 «G.W. Bush Doctrine» of global domination to return to that of his father – commercial excellence. Once the Cold War ended for want of combatants, the era was dedicated only to economic competition within the deregulated capitalist system.
As a matter of fact, it was specifically to reassure himself that the era of ideological conflicts was really over that President Obama reached out to Cuba and Iran. It was indispensable to calm the opposition of these two revolutionary states, the only ones to contest not only US supremacy, but also international rules. The bad faith displayed by the United States in their application of the 5+1 agreement only goes to show that they do not care about Iranian nuclear technology, but are seeking only to restrain the Khomeinist revolution.
It’s in this context that we witness the return of the «Wolfowitz Doctrine», according to which everything must be done to prevent the emergence of a new competitor, and this begins with the bridling of the European Union [4]. However, this strategy seems to have been modified, insofar as Washington considers the awakening of China with even greater apprehension. So there is talk of the «Far East Pivot» strategy, consisting of withdrawing troops present in Greater Middle East, and repositioning them in order to control this new region and contain China. While the Pentagon has abandoned the neo-conservative lunacy concerning the destruction of China, it nonetheless intends to restrict Beijing to an entirely economic role, and prevent it from applying any political influence outside its frontiers.
And yet what we are now seeing is the contrary of the «Far East Pivot». The United States have certainly increased their presence in the Pacific slightly, but have above all set up a strong military presence in Central Europe. While war is still raging in Palestine and Yemen, in Syria and Iraq, and threatens to inflame Libya, a new conflict has begun in Ukraine. There are, however, two ways of interpreting this evolution.
On one hand, we may consider that the military deployment at the Russian border, and Moscow’s intended military reponse, are absolutely no threat to peace. Indeed, it seems both very dangerous and absolutely unnecessary to engage in such a conflict. The war in Ukraine will not be directed against Russia, but will constitute the artificial fabrication of a Russian pseudo-threat to Europe, with its sanctions and counter-sanctions, which will allow the United States to «protect» their credulous allies.
On the other hand, we may consider that the economic future of the United States is founded on their control of international exchange, and thus on the maintenance of maritime transport [5]. On the contrary, the development of Russia and China supposes their freedom from US trusteeship, and therefore the construction of continental commercial routes. This is President Xi’s project, with the construction of two «Silk Roads», one building on the antique traces of the route through Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean, the other through Russia to Germany. Two routes which today are interdicted by Daesh in the Levant, and by Ukraine in Europe.
The question of maritime transport was the central point of US strategy at the beginning of the 21st century, with the support of pirates from the Horn of Africa [6] – a strategy that ended when Moscow and Beijing sent their warships into the area. However, even though China had the Suez Canal doubled in size by Egypt, the access via the Bal el-Mandeb Straits remains officially under the control of Djibouti, and unofficially under the control of Al-Qaïda via the Islamic Emirate of Mukalla.
To the control of the commercial routes must be added the control of financial exchanges. This is the reason why the US Justice Department has promulgated rules which it is attempting to impose progressively on all the banks in the world. But here too, Russia has set up its own SWIFT system, while China has refused the convertibility of its money into dollars in order to avoid being shackled by US rules.
If this analysis is correct, the wars in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine will not end until Russia and China have secured another commercial route to Western Europe. On this subject, we can observe the current efforts by the United States to topple Belarus into their camp after having opposed it for so long – a way of consolidating the Ukrainian firewall and ensuring hermetic compartmentalisation between Western and Eastern Europe.
From this perspective, the commercial negotiations that the United States have undertaken with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP), and with the ASEAN (Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP) are not aimed at reinforcing their exchanges, but on the contrary, at excluding Russia and China from the market. Stupidly, the Europeans and Asians are concentrating on the choice of production standards instead of demanding the entry of Russia and China into the negotiations.
A final fact to be learned from Obama’s interviews with The Atlantic is that the United States intend to update their alliances and adapt them to their new strategic doctrine. So the support for the Saudi régime, which guaranteed a supply of Middle East oil, is no longer of any interest, and even becomes a burden. Or, the «special relation» with the United Kingdom which once had its importance in terms of control of the oceans (the Atlantic Charter), and the attempt to fashion a unipolar world (the Iraq war), no longer offers any particular interest and must be re-thought – without mentioning the costly support for Israël, which no longer serves a purpose in the Middle East, and which will not continue unless Tel-Aviv proves itself useful in other parts of the world.
The preceding remarks do not reflect the current Presidential campaign in the United States, which opposes the military-industrial complex and WASP ideology, represented by Hillary Clinton, and the toll industry and social pact of the «American dream», represented by Donald Trump [7]. The violence of this campaign attests to the necessity of re-balancing these forces after a period of the exclusive supremacy of war-mongering since 1995.
When the camp represented today by Trump finally wins, we should see the settlement of wars, but the outbreak of an oppressive coercion for the payment of patents and authors’ royalties. In the case that a win by this group should tarry, the United States will have to deal with the uprising of an angry population and riots. It will then become especially difficult to predict US foreign policy.
Every time the Syrian Arab Army beats the jihadists, new combatants arrive in Syria in their thousands. We are therefore forced to admit that this war is being cultivated from the exterior, and that it will last as long as soldiers are sent to die. So we must understand the exterior reasons which continue to maintain it. Then, and only then, can we elaborate a strategy which will spare lives.
The antique «Silk Road» linked Iran with the Syrian coast by crossing Iraq and passing by Palmyra. It is geographically impossible to open other main communication routes across the desert. Consequently, the city has become the central challenge of the war in Syria. After having been occupied for a year by Daesh, it was liberated by the Syrian Arab Army, and has just presented two concerts , televised in Syria and Russia, to celebrate the victory over terrorism.
Syria has been at war now for more than five years. Those who supported the conflict first explained it as an extension of the «Arab Spring». But no-one today uses this explanation. Simply because the governments which developed from these «Springs» have already been overthrown. Far from being a struggle for democracy, these events were no more than a tactic for changing secular régimes to the profit of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is now alleged that the Syrian «Spring» was hijacked by other forces, and that the «revolution » – which never existed – has been devoured by jihadists who are all too real.
As President Vladimir Putin pointed out, primarily, the behaviour of the Western and Gulf powers is incoherent. It is impossible on a battlefield to combat both jihadists and the Republic at the same time as pretending to take a third position. But no-one has publicly taken sides, and so the war continues.
The truth is that this war has no interior cause. It is the fruit of an environment which is not regional, but global. When war was declared by the US Congress in 2003 with the vote on the Syrian Accountability Act, Dick Cheney’s objective was to steal the gigantic reserves of Syrian gas. We know today that the «Peak Oil» scare did not signal the end of oil reserves, and that Washington will soon be exploiting other forms of hydrocarbons in the Gulf of Mexico. The strategic objectives of the United States have thus changed. As from now, their objective is to contain the economic and political development of China and Russia by forcing them to engage in commerce exclusively by maritime routes which are controlled by their aircraft-carriers.
As soon as he arrived in power in 2012, President Xi Jinping announced his country’s intention to free itself from these constraints and to build two new continental commercial routes to the European Union. The first route would build on the antique traces of the Silk Road, the second would pass via Russia and on to Germany. Immediately, two conflicts appeared – first of all, the war in Syria was no longer directed at régime change, but at creating chaos, while the same chaos broke out, for no better reason, in Ukraine. Then, Belarus contacted Turkey and the United States, expanding the Northern barricade which splits Europe in two. Thus, two endless conflicts block both routes.
The good news is that no-one can negotiate victory in Ukraine against defeat in Syria, since both wars have the same objective. The bad news is that the chaos will continue on both fronts as long as China and Russia have been unable to build another route.
Consequently, there is nothing to be gained by negotiation with people who are being paid to maintain the conflict. It would be better to think pragmatically and accept that these are simply the means for Washington to cut the Silk Roads. Only then will it be possible to untangle the numerous competing interests and stabilise all the inhabited areas.
Haj Amin al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler Wikimedia Commons
Hamdallah termed al-Husseini, who was a close confidante of Adolf Hitler, as “the pure-hearted son” of the “Palestinian nation.”
***************************
Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Tuesday took part in the Seventh International Bayt al-Maqdis Islamic Conference in Ramallah, Samaria, in which he aired libel against Israel apparently on the background of its counter-terror actions.
In his speech, he called on the international community to get involved in order to “defend” the Arab residents of Jerusalem who are dealing with “illegal” activities from Israel “that oppose international law and human rights.”
Hamdallah’s call to take action against Israel urged international pressure so as to end the “occupation” and establish an independent Palestinian state along the 1949 Armistice lines, with Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.”
He accused Israel of trying to wipe out the “Arab national identity” of Jerusalem, which is in fact the ancient 3,000-year-old capital of the Jewish people. As part of his accusations, he alleged that Israel is rewriting history and expelling Arabs from the capital.
The PA Prime Minister went on to say the Conference is inculcating the path of former Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who infamously sealed a pact with the genocidal Nazi regime to wipe out all Jews.
Hamdallah termed al-Husseini, who was a close confidante of Adolf Hitler, as “the pure-hearted son” of the “Palestinian nation.”
In the Conference meeting PA minister of holy sites Yusuf Ida’is also referred to the infamous mufti.
“This Conference is a continuation of the First Islamic Bayt al-Maqdis Conference held by the deceased Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini on Palestinian soil in 1931, and here today we walk in his path according to the instructions of the (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas,” said Ida’is.
In an ironic twist given Hamdallah’s claims of rewriting history in Jerusalem, Bayt al-Maqdis is in fact the Arabicized version of the Hebrew “Beit Hamikdash,” which is the term for the Holy Temples that stood in Jerusalem.
Synagogue massacre averted, terror cell revealed Three Israeli Arabs arrested over terror plots to carry out massacre at Akko synagogue, attacks in Jerusalem.
Three Israeli Arabs from the Galilee region were indicted on Wednesday over a plot to carry out a series of terror attacks in the northern city of Akko and Old City of Jerusalem.
Wednesday’s indictment of the terror cell not only revealed the group’s existence, but shed light on the terrorists’ gruesome plans, which were inspired by one of the worst terror attacks in recent years.
According to the indictment, Ali Sobeah, Ibrahim Shami, and Mahdi Basel had planned a major terror attack on Israeli security forces near Damascus Gate in the Old City of Jerusalem. Their plan included both stabbing attacks and automatic firearms.
The group allegedly was looking for higher casualty levels than other similar terror attacks, and when they failed to acquire submachine guns, the attack was called off.
Several days later the three met in a mosque in northern Israel to plan out other terror attacks, including a shooting attack on Israeli soldiers.
Over the course of the next few months, the terror cell considered a number of possible attacks involving knives and firearms. According to the indictment, the group aimed to cause a mass casualty event and then “die as martyrs”.
Eventually the cell settled on two attacks: first, to slaughter Jewish worshippers praying at an Akko synagogue in northern Israel, then attack soldiers either at a local military base or in the Old City of Jerusalem.
The planned attack on the Akko synagogue was reportedly influenced by the 2014 Har Nof Massacre, in which four worshippers and one police officer were slaughtered.
Hoping to finally acquire firearms for the planned attacks, the group planned to use money Mahdi would likely receive as gifts for his upcoming wedding.
The terror cell selected a synagogue on Ben Ami Street in Akko for the attack.
In March 2016 Ali Sobeah and Mahdi Basel purchased submachine guns, along with ammunition and extra magazines. In April the two were arrested by Israeli security forces, who had uncovered the terror cell and its plot against the Akko synagogue.
A Muslim terrorist stabbed four people at a train station near Munich while screaming, “Allahu Akbar”. In between proclaiming the glory of Allah, he also shouted that his victims were all “unbelievers”. A woman heard him say, “Infidel, you must die”.
The German authorities came to the inescapable conclusion that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Instead the Muslim terrorist had been “mentally ill” and was probably not even fit to stand trial. The Koran wasn’t to blame. It was the fault of his psychological problems.
This isn’t surprising. It’s a well known fact that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Instead there are just a lot of people out there, of Muslim origin, suffering from a unique set of psychological problems that cause them to shout Allahu Akbar while trying to kill people who aren’t Muslims.
This should not however be attributed to the notoriously peaceful religion of peace.
Just last week the FBI busted James Muhammad who had been plotting to shoot up a Florida synagogue for the “glory of Allah”. Muhammad explained that he wanted to murder the men, women and children praying at the synagogue because, “I have a lot of love for Allah”.
Not only did this minor story receive only a fraction of the attention devoted to the truly important news that a Muslim teenage girl had Isis written in her High School yearbook, but Muhammad’s lawyer insisted at a bail hearing that he isn’t a terrorist, just suffering from mental problems.
Much like Ahmed Ferhani, who plotted to bomb a New York synagogue a few years ago to, in his own words, “send a message of intimidation and coercion to the Jewish population of New York City.” Ferhani however wasn’t just a racist terrorist, he’s also a cause célèbre for The Nation which five years later continues to advocate on behalf of an aspiring anti-Semitic mass murderer. The latest report from the left-wing magazine breathlessly informs readers that prison guards are being mean to poor Ahmed and that he never really meant to kill any Jews, but was entrapped due to his “psychiatric problems”.
Muhammad and Ferhani join Shahawar Matin Siraj who was convicted of plotting to bomb the Herald Square subway station in New York. Siraj was an illegal alien who worked at a Muslim bookstore and boasted, “I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in one day.” His family and defenders claimed he had a low IQ. His co-defendant, James Elshafay, suffered from, you guessed it, psychological problems.
Matthew Aaron Llaneza converted to Islam and tried to blow up a bank in Oakland. His defenders blamed mental problems. Muslim ISIS supporter Emanuel Lutchman plotted a machete attack in Rochester last year. Despite his contacts with ISIS, the culprit once again was mental illness.
Sami Osmakac plotted to bomb Florida nightclubs. He recorded a “martyrdom” video issuing a call to “Muslims worldwide” to carry out terrorist attacks and avenge Osama bin Laden. He declared that the toenail of a sinning Muslim is worth more than all the non-Muslims in the world put together.
You’ll probably be surprised to hear that his lawyer blamed “mental illness” and claimed that his client had been “entrapped”. As has every Muslim terrorist ever for 1,400 years since Mohammed.
Mansour Arbabsiar was dispatched by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington. His defense claimed that he was bipolar. His lawyer insisted that the fact that he had confessed to everything proved that he was mentally ill because his illness, “led him to believe that he could convince the agents to see things his way”. Him and every other criminal out there.
Even when Muslim terrorists don’t claim mental illness, the media is happy to plead it for them.
When Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans in the Fort Hood Massacre, Time and the New York Times suggested that he had somehow contracted PTSD from treating soldiers. In fact Hasan was a Muslim terrorist. No media outlet would stop claiming that he had PTSD long enough to read his letters in which he explained that he was a Jihadist, supported ISIS and killed American soldiers “for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers” and defending the “Islamic Empire”.
The defense for the surviving Tsarnaev terrorist who had carried out the Boston Marathon bombing went one better by blaming the “severe psychiatric disorders” of his parents. The Boston Globe, had interviewed psychologists to determine what possible “mental health conditions” he might have had.
Any mental condition will do when it comes to Muslim terrorists.
And the media never leaves any exculpatory stone unturned when it comes to finding a crazy excuse for a Muslim terrorist. The Los Angeles Times tried to find excuses for Syed Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino Muslim killer, by claiming that he had grown up in a home “racked by mental illness”.
If a Muslim terrorist isn’t actually mentally ill, maybe one of his relatives was mentally ill. Or maybe, like Hasan, he once met someone who was mentally ill and got PTSD all over himself.
Internationally all Muslim terrorists are also mentally ill. Zehaf-Bibeau opened fire at the Canadian Parliament. Terror apologists claimed that he was mentally ill. In the UK, Muhaydin Mire tried to behead a man while shouting, “This is for Syria”. He had ISIS material on his phone and pictures of the Paris and San Bernardino shootings. His brother claimed that smoking pot had given him a “mental problem”. Sydney hostage taker Sheikh Man Haron Monis, who had become infamous for sending threats to the families of dead Australian soildiers, had his actions blamed on “mental instability.”
Michael Adebowale, one of the Jihadists who brutally beheaded British soldier Lee Rigby on a London street, also went the mental illness route.
In Russia, Muslim monster Gyulchekhra Bobokulova beheaded a 4-year-old girl and displayed her head in the street while shouting, “Allahu Akbar. I hate democracy. I am a terrorist. I want you dead.” Faced with these bafflingly inscrutable statements, the authorities blamed mental illness.
It was the safe thing to do. It always is.
Mental illness requires nothing of us except horror. Islamic terrorism demands that we do something about it. And that’s the last thing that the authorities who helped make this mess want.
German authorities, like their American, Russian, Europe and Australian counterparts, don’t want to take on Muslim immigration. It’s much easier to shove some more money at mental health clinics.
And what is mental illness anyway?
In the West, the conviction that you must kill people in order to receive 72 virgins in paradise would be considered a mental illness. In Islam, it’s a mainstream belief. 89% of Pakistanis believe in genies. But then again genies are present in Islamic scripture. 89% of Tunisians believe in witchcraft. 72% of Iraqis believe in the “evil eye”. 1 in 5 Afghanis have witnessed an exorcism. Half of Pakistanis believe in fairies.
Saudi religious police have a special Anti-Witchcraft Unit and there are actual witch trials. Majorities of Muslims don’t believe that Muslims carried out the 9/11 attacks. 40% of Pakistanis believe that fathers have a right to kill their daughters if they engage in premarital sex. Half of British Muslims think that the Jews are in league with the Freemasons. A third believes that Princess Diana was murdered to stop her from marrying a Muslim.
Ideas and behaviors associated with mental illness in the West are mainstream in parts of the Muslim world which exist in a pre-rational medieval universe brimming with conspiracy theories, paranoid delusions, lack of personal responsibility, erratic emotions and an inability to apply reason to reality.
Western psychiatric benchmarks don’t mean much in the Muslim world where witchcraft is a major problem, Jewish conspiracy theories abound and genies are responsible for psychiatric problems. Killing your daughter or just non-Muslims in general is socially approved behavior. The Muslim world has fundamentally different social norms than we do. And that means very different concepts of sanity.
Misattributing Muslim terrorism to madness is convenient, but meaningless. It’s a way for us to avoid dealing with the difficult questions posed by Islam. And that avoidance is also a form of insanity.
WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton is coming under pressure, as federal investigators question her top aides about the private email scandal that is haunting the former Secretary of State’s campaign for the presidency.
Clinton is still reeling from news that her former staffer Bryan Pagliano’s emails are not in the possession of the State Department. Pagliano, who installed Clinton’s private server, pleaded the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in the growing criminal investigation.
“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that cover the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” a State Department spokesman said Monday. Pagliano’s missing emails are raising transparency alarms among observers of the case.
“The whole thing stinks to high heaven,” said Dan Metcalfe, the founding director of the Office of Information and Privacy within the Department of Justice and onetime chief DOJ official for overseeing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) matters.
As 147 FBI agents work on the investigation, Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills is feeling the heat. Mills and her attorney reportedly left her interrogation by the FBI, regrouped, and later came back when the FBI went off script. According to the Washington Post:
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said…
The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.
Clinton has yet to be called by investigators.
It’s now been nine months since Breitbart News broke the story that Clinton had multiple classified “Top Secret” emails on her private server, and that she had classified emails on her homebrew server that were classified when “originated.” As America waits to find out if the FBI will recommend indictment, and whether the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch will indict, the case against Clinton seemingly grows more solid.
The case hinges on whether or not Clinton violated the Espionage Act of 1913 (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) by possessing national defense information and allowing it “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”
Here are key pieces of evidence that could lead to a whole lot of trouble for Hillary Clinton:
Exhibit A: The Non-Secure BlackBerry
Hillary Clinton used a BlackBerry to send and receive classified emails during her time as Secretary of State, even though her device was so non-secure that she wasn’t even allowed to use it in her “Mahogany Row” offices on the seventh floor of the State Department.
Clinton did not get her BlackBerry from the Department. It appears that her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills actually did get their devices from the Department, but those devices were destroyed. The State Department testified in a civil court filing:
“[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department…
…Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.”
Now here’s where the BlackBerry issue really becomes important. Clinton was warned in 2009 to stop using her BlackBerry because her device suffered a security “vulnerability” when she visited East Asian countries, including China, on her first official State Department trip.
On March 11, 2009, a State Department official, whose name is redacted, sent an email to another State Department official, whose name is redacted. That email, obtained in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, might be the smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email case – at least as it pertains to Clinton possibly losing information due to “gross negligence.”
According to the official, Hillary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and asked him about BlackBerry use. Specifically, Clinton asked about the fact that the Department had “intelligence concerning the vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”
The official wrote:
After this mornings “management meeting” with the A/Secys, Secretary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and mentioned that she had read the IM and that she “gets it.” Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (DS) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.
Secretary Clinton has asked Ambassador Boswell for this information. Please prepare a short informal paper OR provide the A/Secy with a briefing on this matter. Your assistance is appreciated. The Secretary did not provide a “due date”…BUT the Ambassador would like to close this loop as soon as possible.
But Clinton continued to use her BlackBerry as late as 2011, two years after this warning, according to former State Department official Wendy Sherman. Sherman spoke Clinton’s BlackBerry use in a speech that was quietly recorded on video and released right before the Iowa caucus, which Clinton barely won over Bernie Sanders.
Exhibit B: White House Less Than Supportive
The Obama White House’s refusal to go to bat for Clinton publicly during this ordeal has been one of the most intriguing narratives of the election. Though President Obama helped her out a bit by saying that he didn’t think Clinton jeopardized national security, the Obama operatives who still remember the vicious 2008 primary season aren’t doing her any favors.
Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett dropped a relevant bombshell when she said that the White House sent official guidance to Clinton telling her to use a government email account. Clinton’s decision to ignore the White House’s warning does not bode well for her defense against the “gross negligence” portion of the Espionage Act.
Remember that brief, bizarre stretch of the campaign right around the February 1 Iowa caucus when Clinton was going out of her way to say nice things about Obama? That might not have been just a ploy to make her seem more electable than Bernie Sanders. It might have also been a ploy to protect her own legal interests by cozying up to a man with pardon power who oversees the Department of Justice.
Clinton confidante Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, sent Clinton a summer 2011 email with a spam link and the lines “Look what I’ve found” and “Here is a very nice offer. Enjoy!”
In her reply, Clinton indicated that she opened the spam link.
“Neera–did you send me this? If not, I think your email address book has been hacked. If so, why? Anyway, hope you’re well,” Clinton wrote back to Tanden.
On at least five documented occasions, Clinton received emails in her personal inbox that came from hackers, including hackers from Russia as part of a scheme in which victims’ personal data ended up getting sent to foreign computers including in Russia.
Here’s another very important piece of the puzzle: In September 2011, Clinton’s inbox was reviewed by outside IT professionals as part of a formal analysis of the security of her private email account. Those IT professionals found that Russian hackers had at least repeatedly attempted to get into Clinton’s information.
Why did Clinton have IT experts in to review her email account just weeks after Tanden sent her “hacked” email to Clinton?
One thing is clear: if those Russian hackers did gain entry to Clinton’s information, they would have had a field day. Why? It turns out Clinton’s server had an open webmail portal that gave potential hackers unrestricted access to Clinton’s personal information.
Exhibit D: She Avoided Signing Non-Disclosure Form
As Breitbart News exclusively reported, Hillary Clinton did NOT sign a mandatory OF-109 “Separation Statement” when she left the State Department.
That statement would have required her to affirm that she had returned all classified materials in her possession. Clinton’s top aide Cheryl Mills also avoided signing a separation statement.
Citizen researcher Larry Kawa provided to Breitbart News the most clear-cut evidence that Clinton avoided going through mandatory channels to return classified government information.
Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” on January 22, 2009. This document is known as an SF-312. It is standard for government employees to sign an SF-312 when they begin working in a role that gives them access to classified information. But she was also required to sign an OF-109, or “Separation Statement,” when she left the job.
That OF-109 document would have required her to affirm the following:
I have surrendered to responsible officials all classified or administratively controlled documents and material with which I was charged or which I had in my possession. I am not retaining in my possession, custody, or control, documents or material containing classified or administratively controlled information furnished to me during the course of such employment or developed as a consequence thereof…
But Clinton never signed an OF-109, even though the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual requires all employees to do so.
A Separation Statement exists for top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, and a copy of it was quietly released by the State Department. But the statement was never signed, by Mills or anyone else.
It was left blank.
Exhibit E: The Clinton Foundation
Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s server was operating on the same email network, and was housed in the exact physical space, as the server for the Clinton Foundation, indicating that they were sharing a server. That space was in New York City, not in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home, as she claimed. Daughter Chelsea Clinton’s office was also using the email network.
Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the clintonemail.com server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.
No wonder then that the FBI expanded its investigation to scrutinize possible public corruption on the part of the Clinton Foundation. And no wonder then that Rep. Marsha Blackburn asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the Clinton Foundation’s charitable status.
Exhibit F: Server Went Down Three Times
Clinton’s server went down at least three times during her tenure as secretary of state, including weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton never even told her own IT Help Desk at the State Department that she was using a private server, keeping them in the dark about her activities.
Furthermore, Clinton went so far as to hide the identity of the people running her private server, paying a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. That company, based in Jacksonville, enters its own meaningless contact information into official Internet databases so that its clients’ identities will not be exposed.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments