Archive for August 3, 2016

Islamic State has “fully operational branches” in 18 countries

August 3, 2016

Islamic State has “fully operational branches” in 18 countries, Jihad Watch

According to a leaked document, the Islamic State has “fully operational branches” in 18 countries, representing a tripling in the expansion of areas the jihadi group is now operating in around the world.

Not long ago, it was reported that the Islamic State was quietly preparing for the loss of the caliphate, due to the dwindling numbers of its jihad fighters in Iraq and Syria, which was attributed to the U.S.-led coalition and Russian-backed forces. Intelligence officials warned that this loss was already making the Islamic State desperate, so the jihad group was compensating for the loss via a new phase of jihad planning in the West, including more insidious and covert operations.

The Islamic State issues repeated calls for lone wolf attacks; it has foreign fighters in the tens of thousands; it has promised to infiltrate the refugee stream; and in today’s news, it was announced that 36-year-old Nicholas Young, a Metro Transit police officer in DC,  was arrested at his workplace, Metropolitan Police Headquarters in Washington, and charged with attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State, marking the first time a U.S. law enforcement officer has been accused of trying to aid the Islamic State.

Still, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their liberal cronies — at home and abroad — a group that sadly includes the Pope, refuse to publicly acknowledge that the West is at war with Islamic jihadists. Yet this is a religious war that could ultimately be a terminal threat to public safety and freedoms.

flags Islamic State

“Terrorism ‘heat map’ shows Isis network spreading across the world”, by Samuel Osborne, UK Independent, August 3, 2016:

Isis has “fully operational branches” in 18 countries, a leaked briefing document received by the White House has revealed.

The briefing map suggests a three-fold increase in the number of areas the terror group are operating in around the globe.

Previous US State Department documents from 2014 stated Isis were only active in seven nations…..

….It identifies the Isis “core” states of Syria and Iraq along with nations where it has “official branches”, including Algeria, Nigeria, Libya, the Sinai Peninsula, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caucasus area to the south of Russia.

The map also shows “aspiring branches” in Mali, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Isis has used pledges of allegiance by existing terrorist and insurgent group to establish franchises around the world.

The terror group has also encouraged lone wolf attacks throughout Europe.

Five Truths about Sharia

August 3, 2016

Five Truths about Sharia,Political Islam via YouTube, August 3, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states,

We know we are learning the truth about the Sharia because Muslims are telling us that we don’t understand it. A Washington Post guest writer put forth a refutation of the myths about the Sharia. Of course he makes deceptive arguments about Islam.

The Sharia is a process of applying the Sunna of Mohammed and the Koran to everyday needs. It is a method of enforcing every human to live a life just like Mohammed, down to the smallest detail.

No country bases all of its laws on the Sharia because the Sharia is not sophisticated enough to work in a modern world.

The Sharia is anti-woman because it includes wife-beating, polygamy, and sex slaves. Mohammed was involved in all of these.

The punishments of Mohammed included the brutality of assassinations, executions, torture and enslavement.

Sharia includes conquest because of the fact that Mohammed did not achieve real success until he waged jihad.

To know the Sharia, you must know Mohammed, because Sharia is Mohammed’s law. And the worst part is that the Sharia subjugates the Kafir.

Sunny Hostin: Saying the Media Is Biased Is ‘Dangerous and Wrong’

August 3, 2016

Sunny Hostin: Saying the Media Is Biased Is ‘Dangerous and Wrong’, MRC NewsBustersKristine Marsh, August 2, 2016

(Video at the link. Please see, for example, Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’  All Bold face print is from the original.— DM)

view

In a segment that seemed to be catered for the Media Research Center today, The View panel argued for half the show on whether or not media bias exists. ABC Senior Legal Correspondent Sunny Hostin was the most vocal liberal panelist who sparred with FNC’s Jedediah Bila who first brought up the topic. Before Bila could even finish her sentence, Hostin jumped in to shake her head emphatically and state that media bias didn’t exist. “That’s not true. Only if you watch Fox News everyday,” she added.

The topic first got brought up when the panel talked about Trump’s claim that the election might be rigged. Jedediah Bila brought up that it reminded her of another Republican complaint: media bias. Bila argued that there was indeed a liberal media bias but Republicans should just recognize it and move on. She couldn’t finish her thought, however because the other panelists jumped in to attack her point that media bias even existed.

BILA: This is similar to me when they say well, the media is biased. Yes, the media is largely biased against Republicans, deal with it.

HOSTIN: I don’t believe that.[Shaking her head] That’s not true.

BILA: No, it’s true, C’mon–

HOSTIN: That’s not true.Only if you watch Fox News everyday.

After cutting to a commercial break, Bila started off the segment by defending the idea that there is a liberal bias in the media.

BILA: It is biased. I accept the premise, what my argument was I accept the premises it was biased. In 2014 there was a poll and they concluded, Politico ran a study on it, 7% of reporters defined themselves as Republican. I think if you look across the media, you have to say, okay, there is a bias. The media tends to go to journalism school and look at academia. The majority tend to tilt left.

Hostin jumped in to condemn Bila’s claim as “very dangerous” before making up a wonky definition of “media bias.”

HOSTIN: That’s so ludicrous.

BEHAR: You mean only liberals go to college?

BILA [to Hostin]: You don’t think academia is biased in general?

HOSTIN: I think it’s very dangerous because what you’re saying because you’re saying the media is biased in terms of government influence over — and I think covert censorship. What you see in North Korea, and what you see in —

BILA: No, I’m not saying it’s from the government.

HOSTIN:–We don’t see that.  That’s a true definition of media bias, Jed.

BILA: [shaking head] No.

Curiously enough, of all people, Whoopi Goldberg and Sara Haines agreed with Bila that media bias exists. They didn’t agree wholeheartedly about why it exists or how it functions but they both agreed that there was media bias.

Hostin couldn’t be swayed, however. She continued her tirade, saying Bila was “throwing flames out there” by even suggesting that there was a bias in the media.

HOSTIN:  What we see here, we have true journalists. Like a Barbara Walters, like  an Anderson Cooper, like Morley Safer, like Diane Sawyer, Christiane Amanpour. I’ve worked with Christiane. I’ve worked with Anderson Cooper.They are true journalists. [applause] They are not biased.

BILA: There are some, there are some, I work with them all the time—

HOSTIN: This notion that the media is biased–You’re, you’re like throwing flames out there.

She later added:

HOSTIN: True journalists tell a story down the line, true journalists- So the suggestion you’re making is the media is biased, it’s dangerous and wrong.

Throughout the whole segment, Bila would repeatedly defend her opinion by qualifying, “I’m not saying every journalist is biased. I work with journalists all day long.” She was simply saying that “media bias exists.”

At the close, right before a commercial, Hostin threw in a final jab at Bila’s employer, Fox News Channel.

BILA: I’d like to see more of what you’re describing, though. I would like to see those old school people who came out and you legitimately couldn’t —

HOSTIN: They’re there.

BILA: But more of them.

HOSTIN: They’re there, Just change the channel, Jed. [applause] Just change the channel.

London streets to have 600 marksmen for ISIS

August 3, 2016

London streets to have 600 marksmen for ISIS, DEBKAfile, August 3, 2016

(London doesn’t need marksmen. Pope Francis should simply go to London and explain to the poor and disenfranchised Muslims that they don’t understand Islam. — DM) 

london ISIS

Armed police prepare to deploy from Hyde Park, central London, after Scotland Yard announced Wednesday, Aug. 3 that the biggest police force in Britain is to put its first 600 additional armed officers on public patrols on the main streets and landmarks of London, as part of its anti-terrorism plans.

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that, following the terror attacks in Europe, more marksmen were trained and operationally ready for public patrol up to a total of 1,500 firearms officers.

Although British cops are proud of traditionally not carrying firearms, the Met chief said “I think people understand that where you are going to have people as enemies who’ve got guns, we’ve got to have guns.”

Already, he added, “They pass through airports where we have armed officers, they pass through railway stations where they see firearms, and in some of our big iconic locations, we’ve already got armed patrols – if you look at Parliament, Downing Street – so it’s not entirely new.”

DEBKAfile’s exclusive counterterrorism sources can name the men behind the upsurge of Islamic terror violence in West Europe last month: the Nice attack on July 14, which left 84 dead; the suicide bombing in Ansbach in Bavaria, Germany, on July 24, which left 15 people injured, and the murder of a French priest at a suburban church in Normandy on July 26.

They are two Frenchmen: Amn al-Kharji (ISIS codename: Abu Sulayman al-Faransi), who is head of the Islamic State’s secretive external operations wing and, under his command, Fabien Clain (ISIS codename: Salim Benghalem), a convert to Islam who heads European terror operations.

It was Benghalem who picked the targets of the Paris raids last November 2015, which left 132 people dead and hundreds wounded, and the Nice truck bombing, which murdered 84 victims on July 14, Bastille Day.

This week, he orchestrated the first known jihadist attack on a Christian place of prayer in Europe after instigating the first ISIS attacks in Germany.

Up until recently, Western intelligence services used ISIS as the generic term for any jihadist attacks in a European city, be it Brussels, Istanbul, Nice, Munich, Wurzburg or Ansbach. But no high-profile ISIS executives were ever named, for fear of impairing their efforts to plant agents or informers inside the murderous organization’s operational ranks in Europe and the Middle East.

These efforts have so far got nowhere. These two top maser-terrorists have been agile enough to stay a step or two ahead of Western counterterrorism agencies. The weeks and months ahead are therefore likely to see more terror outrages at unknown locations, executed with assorted weaponry by unforeseen methods.

Europe is therefore on high terror alert, braced for more jihadist attacks. And the streets of London will see armed cops on patrol.

Corey Lewandowski Sparks CNN Panel Meltdown With Two Simple Words on Obama: “Harvard Transcripts”

August 3, 2016

Corey Lewandowski Sparks CNN Panel Meltdown With Two Simple Words on Obama: “Harvard Transcripts”, Independent Journal, August 3, 2016

(Referenced videos are at the link. — DM)

CNN contributor Corey Lewandowski used to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager.

Tuesday night on CNN, he showed America what that means, dredging up a request on President Obama’s college transcripts and asking whether he got into Harvard as a U.S. citizen.

Let’s just say two other people on the CNN panel were pissed at him for bringing it up, and the discussion got heated in a hurry, with one panelist telling Lewandowski:

“I’m going to Beyonce you: Boy, bye.”

Watch the full video above, and read the transcript below, via Media Matters:

COREY LEWANDOWSKI: I just think it’s important to remember, right, that the president of the United States has an obligation to still govern the country. And if he wants to engage in partisan politics, I don’t think this is the right venue for it. He wants to go on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton, absolutely he has the right to do that.

But that also means he becomes fair game for any retort that Donald Trump wants to put on him. And I just think that the decorum of the presidency of the United States, the East Room is not the place to engage in those partisan attacks.

ANGELA RYE: Don, let me just respond, really quickly to this. Let me be very clear on this. Donald Trump has been attacking the president long before he began campaigning for this important office. He is the one who was the spokesperson for the birther movement, and was calling for transcripts for — and saying the president was an affirmative action admittee of Harvard. So let’s —

LEWANDOWSKI: Did he ever release his transcripts from Harvard?

RYE: By the way, tell me about those tax returns, while you’re at it.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well you raised the issue, i’m just asking. You raised the issue, did he ever release his transcripts or his admission to Harvard University? You raised the issue, so just “yes,” or “no.”

RYE: Corey? Just a moment, I’m going to Beyonce you. Boy, bye. You just so out of line right now, tell your candidate to release his tax returns.

LEWANDOWSKI: Don’t raise the issue if you don’t want to address it.

RYE: Two words, tax returns. Tax returns.

LEWANDOWSKI: Harvard University transcripts. You raised the issue, did he ever release them?

Obama eyes takeover of presidential election security

August 3, 2016

Obama eyes takeover of presidential election security, Washington ExaminerPaul Bedard, August 3, 2016

Amid new claims from Republican Donald Trump that the fall election may be “rigged” against him, the Obama administration is considering taking a step toward nationalizing the cyber security of the process, according to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

“We should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process, is critical infrastructure like the financial sector, like the power grid,” Johnson told a media breakfast Wednesday.

“There’s a vital national interest in our election process, so I do think we need to consider whether it should be considered by my department and others critical infrastructure,” he said at the breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

DHS plays a vital security role in 16 areas of critical infrastructure. DHS describes it this way: “There are 16 critical infrastructure sectors whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

A White House policy directive adds, “The federal government also has a responsibility to strengthen the security and resilience of its own critical infrastructure, for the continuity of national essential functions, and to organize itself to partner effectively with and add value to the security and resilience efforts of critical infrastructure owners and operators.”

Johnson did not identify any current problems with security of the elections, but did note that there are thousands of localities that conduct elections differently.

“There’s no one federal election system. There are some 9,000 jurisdictions involved in the election process,” he said.

“There’s a national election for president, there are some 9,000 jurisdictions that participate, contribute to collecting votes, tallying votes and reporting votes,” he said.

Without giving many details of what his department of the administration had in mind, he did say that in the short term he would likely reach out to the 9,000 jurisdictions with advice on how to conduct security of the election.

Mike Pence Full Interview with Jenna Lee (Fox News) 8/3/2016

August 3, 2016

Mike Pence Full Interview with Jenna Lee (Fox News) 8/3/2016 via YouTube, August 3, 2016

The Pope and Holy War

August 3, 2016

The Pope and Holy War, Gatestone InstituteDenis MacEoin, August 3, 2016

♦ The West that jihadists now terrorize has allowed itself to be weakened. A combination of political correctness, fear of giving offense, fear of combat, and a reluctance to upset illusory stability has led to an incredible series of opportunities for the jihadists.

♦ We have dropped our guard and turned away. Not because we have no security forces. We do. But because we often are not looking at the right things: the texts and sermons that prefigure radicalisation.

♦ “[T]he Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. … We have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to establish sovereignty over the world and to guide all of humanity to the sound precepts of Islam and to its teachings…” — Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the morning of July 26, a priest serving mass, an elderly man of 85, Father Jacques Hamel,was butchered before his altar by one of two knife-wielding devotees of the Islamic State. His killer slit his throat and might very well have proceeded to behead him, as is the wont of many jihadi executioners. The followers of a faith that honours murderers as martyrs (shuhada’) created a martyr for quite another faith.

In both Greek and Arabic, the terms “martyr” and shahid mean exactly the same thing: “a witness”. Father Hamel was the latest in a long line of Christian martyrs who have been slain by men of violence, supposedly in order to attest to the sole truth of their faith. Many Muslim martyrs have died in much that way, but even more have given their lives while waging war (jihad) to conquer territories for Islam.[1]

The flag of the Islamic State reads “la ilaha illa’llah, Muhammadun rasulu’llah“. The words mean: “There is no God but God; Muhammad is the prophet of God”. Those two phrases are known as the shahada, the bearing of witness. You see it everywhere today, now in Syria, then again in France or the UK. But shahada also means martyrdom. And martyrdom while committing violence is what the killers of an innocent man of God achieved on that day when armed police found them and shot them dead outside the church they had desecrated.

On the following day, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, issued a statement on the event, and for a moment it seemed that he had finally got things right. He said the world was now at war. Decades after the war started, here was a religious leader and statesman who seemed to have awakened to the fact that Western countries have been unwillingly and ineffectively failing to wage a war against Islamic radicalism. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Islamic radicalism has been waging a war with us.

But then he blew it. What he then said was:

“It’s war, we don’t have to be afraid to say this … a war of interests, for money, resources. I am not speaking of a war of religions. Religions don’t want war. The others want war.”

What? Is slaughtering a priest at his altar linked to “interests, money, resources”? Were the killers driven by a longing for social justice, for more money, for access to greater resources? Did they think the violent death of a harmless priest would bring them any of that? They had not gone to steal any of the valuable altar table objects, the censers, the candlesticks, the crucifix, the monstrance. The killers had been shouting “Allahu akbar”, literally “God is greater” (than everything, especially, to Muslims, the supposedly non-monotheistic Christian Trinity and the Church). As we know only too well, “Allahu akbar” is a religious phrase that Muslims use often. It is the beginning of the call to prayer, the adhan, repeated six times, five times a day, preceded and followed by the shahada. It has been ringing in Western ears every time Muslims in Europe and North America carry out attacks or as a prelude to a suicide attack. It is precisely because Muslims believe that their God (named in Arabic as Allah) is superior to all other gods, because to them Islam is the greatest of all religions and lastly, because Islam is destined to conquer the world either by conversion or through violence.

What did Pope Francis mean when he said “Religions don’t want war. The others want war”? This is a man with access to endless colleges of scholars, to academics worldwide, to specialists in Islam and the Middle East. It is simply not true. To begin with, who are these “others”? Non-religious people? Atheists? Agnostics? Protestants?

In order to win a war, you have to be able to identify your enemy, understand his motives, figure out just what drives his soldiers to risk their lives in battle, know for what cause mothers and wives should send their sons and husbands to fight, knowing they may never return. Ignore all that, invent false motives for the enemy, or fail to know his ultimate aims, and you will lose. “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles”, said the great Chinese general, Sun Tzu, in his Art of War.

A day after that remark, the Pope sadly compounded his ignorance. A report in a Catholic magazine, Crux, stated that:

The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, “a small group of fundamentalists,” including in Catholicism.

“When fundamentalism goes as far as murdering … you can murder with your tongue and also with the knife,” he said.

I believe that it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence. It’s not fair and it’s not true,” he continued, adding that he has had a long conversation with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the Cairo-based Islamic university often described as the Vatican of the Sunni world.

“I know how they think. They look for peace, encounter,” he said. [Author’s italics]

Unfortunately, it is clear that the Pope (along with hundreds of politicians and religious leaders in the West, although not in Israel) does not know his enemy at all. If he thinks that “religions do not want war,” it is also clear he has never studied Islam or received truthful instruction in it from anyone. Here is why.

The later chapters of the Qur’an contain dozens of verses calling on the believers to go out to fight jihad or to use their resources to pay others to do so. The purpose of jihad is “the strengthening of Islam, the protection of believers and voiding the earth of unbelief”.[2]

According to a modern expert on jihad, “the Qur’an… presents a well-developed religious justification for waging war against Islam’s enemies”.[3]

Islam is not merely a religion; it is a system of governance. Here is Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood:

Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all spheres of life. It is a state and a homeland (or a government and a nation). It is morality and power (or mercy and justice); it is a culture and a law (or knowledge and jurisprudence). It is material and wealth (or gain and prosperity). It is an endeavour and a call (or an army and a cause). And finally, it is true belief and worship.[4]

What does this mean for non-Muslims? Banna again makes this clear:

This means that the Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission. Hence it is our concern, not that of the West, and it pertains to Islamic civilization, not to materialistic civilization. We have come to the conclusion that it is our duty to establish sovereignty over the world and to guide all of humanity to the sound precepts of Islam and to its teachings, without which mankind cannot attain happiness.[5]

1746Pope Francis (right), recently said that “I am not speaking of a war of religions. Religions don’t want war,” and “I believe that it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence. It’s not fair and it’s not true.” Hassan al-Banna (left), founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote that “the Noble Quran appoints the Muslims as guardians over humanity in its minority, and grants them the rights of suzerainty and dominion over the world in order to carry out this sublime commission.”

The Islamic Tradition literature, found in the six canonical collections, lays down descriptions of jihad and instructions on how to fight it. Please do not be misled by the oft-repeated obfuscation, “The greater jihad is a struggle with the self, a spiritual war”. There is no mention of this idea in the classical texts.[6] For centuries, jihad has meant physical warfare. Even the mystical Sufi brotherhoods have engaged in that extremely physical struggle.[7]

The Islamic prophet Muhammad led his men into battle on many occasions and sent out around 100 raiding parties and expeditions.[8] His successors, the caliphs, did the same. In the half-century after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., Muslim forces had conquered half the known world. Jihad wars continued to be fought on an annual basis by all the great Islamic empires, with no exception.

The first two major Islamic empires, that of the Umayyads (661-750) and their successors under a new dynasty of caliphs, the Abbasids (750-1258) carried out annual expeditions (usually two or more per year) against the Byzantine Empire (based in Constantinople). These raids were an ongoing tradition based on the earliest jihad wars in both the West and the East. They were never haphazard, but well planned. There were usually to two summer campaigns, often be followed by winter expeditions.

The summer jihads usually took the form of two separate attacks. One onslaught was called the “expedition of the left”. It was launched from the border fortresses of Sicily, whose troops were mainly of Syrian origin. The larger “expedition of the right” would be carried out from launched from the eastern Anatolian province of Malatya, deploying Iraqi troops. These jihad expeditions reached their height under the third major empire, that of the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinople in 1453, thereby bringing an end to the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople was renamed Istanbul and its chief basilica, Hagia Sophia, was turned into the imperial mosque of the Ottomans.

Today’s jihadist organizations, from the Islamic State to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, Hamas, al-Shabaab and hundreds of others are simply carrying out, on a broader canvas, the jihad wars of the nineteenth century.[9]

Jihadists seem to do this in preference to missionary work (although other groups such as the Pakistani Tablighi Jamaat do plenty of that) because their wars hark back to the days of Muhammad and his companions, the first three warlike generations. The term salafi, used now for the most radical Islamic groups, comes from salaf, or “ancestor,” but with a specialized meaning of the first three generations of Islam. Muhammad, his first followers, their children and grandchildren. Jihadists do it because, having lost military strength since the collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1918, they seem still to feel compelled to fight back against the power of the West, the triumph of the Christians (or in Israel, the Jews). God, in their eyes, promised his followers, the Muslims, that they would one day rule the world,[10] and for many centuries, Muslims may have thought that was actually happening. Then such hopes were dashed. Western empires started conquering, colonizing and ruling Muslim states, such as northern India, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and elsewhere — a reversal quite unthinkable.

To fight back, jihadists have chosen to use the best weapon at their disposal: terrorism. Worse, the West they now terrorize has allowed itself to be weakened. A combination of political correctness, fear of giving offense, fear of combat, and a reluctance to upset illusory stability has led to an incredible series of opportunities for the jihadists.

The young Islamist who killed the priest in France, for example, had been twice arrested for trying to head to Syria to serve with the Islamic State. At the time of the murder, the kindly authorities had forced him to wear an ankle bracelet with which to be monitored — but his curfew was only overnight. During the day, he was allowed to wander the streets freely. On that fateful morning, he decided to walk with his companion into a nearby church and fulfil his longings for martyrdom and for killing a Christian.

Unfortunately, Pope Francis could not be more wrong. One religion has wanted to fight wars from its inception. We have had more than 1400 years to guard ourselves against that, as when the Ottoman Empire was stopped at the Gates of Vienna in 1683. Now, we have dropped our guard and turned away. Not because we have no security forces. We do. But because we often are not looking for the right things: the texts and sermons that prefigure radicalisation.

Why do young Muslims turn from ordinariness to recruitment for the extremists? Young Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Baha’is do not move in that direction. Could it be because so many young Muslims, first in the Islamic countries, now in the West, are taught from an early age that Islam aspires to domination, that jihad is not an evil but rather an expression of their faith, that they suffer as victims of “Islamophobia,” that Western women are immoral, and that other religions are false?

It is time to wake up. We are indeed at war, whether we like it or not. “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you”, Leon Trotsky said.

Our enemy is an extremist version of Islam that has yet to undergo a reformation, one that takes Muslims not back to the seventh century, but forwards to the twenty-first and possibly beyond.

_________________________________


[1] “The concept of martyrdom developed differently in Islam than it did in either Judaism or Christianity. Martyrdom in Islam has a much more active sense: the prospective martyr is called to seek out situations in which martyrdom might be achieved.” David Cook, Understanding Jihad, University of California Press, 2015, p. 26.

[2] Rudolph Peters, Islam and Colonialism: The Doctrine of Jihad in Modern History, The Hague, 1979, p. 10

[3] Cook, p. 11.

[4] Hasan al-Banna, Message for Youth, trans. Muhammad H. Najm, London, 1993, p. 6

[5] Wendell Charles (trans), The Five Tracts of Hasan Al-Banna (1906-1949), University of California Press, 1978, pp. 70-73.

[6] “Traditions indicating that jihad meant spiritual warfare… are entirely absent from any of the official, canonical collections (with the exception of al-Tirmidhi, who cites ‘the fighter is one who fights his passions’; they appear most often in the collections of ascetric material or proverbs.” Cook, p. 35.

[7] “This paradigm persisted into medieval times, where we often find the Sufi groups fighting the enemies of Islam. For example, after defeating the Crusaders under Guy de Lusignan at the Battle of the Horns of Hattin (1187), the Muslim leaders Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi [Saladin] (1169-91) gave the captive Crusaders to several of his Sufi regiments to slaughter.” Cook, p. 45.

[8] A comprehensive and fully annotated list is available at Wikipedia.

[9] For details of these, see Rudolph Peters, passim.

[10] “He (God) it is who sent his Messenger [Muhammad] bringing guidance and the True Religion in order to make [Islam] dominant over all other religions” (Qur’an 9:33). The fifth verse of that same sura is known as the “Sword Verse”, because it is the first to encourage physical attacks on non-Muslims.

Prepare for possible ‘war on water’ over South China Sea tensions, Beijing tells citizens

August 3, 2016

Prepare for possible ‘war on water’ over South China Sea tensions, Beijing tells citizens

Published time: 3 Aug, 2016 11:33

Source: Prepare for possible ‘war on water’ over South China Sea tensions, Beijing tells citizens — RT News

© Guang Niu / Reuters

The Chinese defense minister has warned the tense situation in the South China Sea poses the threat of a direct confrontation and has called on the military, police and general population to be ready to defend the country’s territorial integrity.

Chang Wanquan made the statement while inspecting military installations in China’s eastern coastal Zhejiang Province, state news agency Xinhua reported, without giving the timing of the comments.

The seriousness of the national security situation should be recognized, particularly when it comes to threats posed at sea, Chang said.

The Chinese military, law enforcement and citizens must be ready for mobilization in the event of a “people’s war at sea,” he added.

The general public should be educated about national defense issues because national sovereignty and territorial integrity are at risk, according to the minister.

Chang’s statement comes amid unprecedented tensions over the disputed islands in the South China Sea, where Beijing has been building airstrips and military installations on reclaimed reefs and islands in waters also claimed by a number of other Asian states.

The US Navy has dispatched warships and military planes to the immediate proximity of the disputed islands, claiming it has done so to ensure the principles of freedom of navigation in international waters. Washington has been also involved in a number of military drills in the region.

Beijing has slammed the naval and aerial displays by the US as provocations, and reinforced installation on the islands with anti-ship missile and air-defense complexes.

China’s 2.3 million-strong People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is “fully confident and capable of addressing various security threats and provocations,” Chang said last weekend while addressing a summit dedicated to the 89th anniversary of the PLA’s founding.

On Tuesday, China’s Supreme Court issued a regulation reaffirming the jurisdiction of national courts over the country’s territory, including the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It warned citizens and foreigners alike of criminal liability for violations such as illegal fishing or killing endangered wildlife in the zone.

“People’s courts will actively exercise jurisdiction over China’s territorial waters, support administrative departments to legally perform maritime management duties, equally protect the legal rights of Chinese and foreign parties involved and safeguard Chinese territorial sovereignty and maritime interests,” the regulation stated.

Any fishing boats refusing to leave Chinese waters or caught fishing illegally there more than once in a year are subject to a fine, while the crew could be given a prison term of up to one year.

Foreigners who feel their rights have been violated by the Chinese authorities are free to deliver their claims to Chinese courts, the ruling said.

Hey guest, welcome to RT! Si

Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’

August 3, 2016

Mainstream Media: ‘Trump Boots Baby From Rally!’ Non-Media Witnesses: ‘That’s Pure Propaganda’, PJ MediaDavid Steinbergg, August 3, 2016

trump and baby

A good proportion of the global media-consuming populace currently believes that Donald Trump, at a rally in Loudoun County, Virginia, this week, angrily booted a crying baby from the premises during his speech.

But it turns out the story is not that “Trump Hates Babies.” The story is that dishonest media professionals understood that variations of “Trump Hates Babies” make for fantastic headlines.

Read this Facebook post from Will Estrada, who attended the rally:

Today I went to the Donald Trump rally in Ashburn, VA. Since I know good people can disagree over whether or not to support Trump, I am just going to post some candid thoughts below. I report, you decide!Since I am the chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, I was working with the campaign in advance of the rally. On Monday evening, a senior Trump staffer emailed me and asked me if I would be willing to give the invocation at the rally. I said I’d be happy to, but I also told him that as a born again Christian, I end my prayers with “I pray all of this in the name of Jesus.” Since I know that in this day and age mentionoing the name of Jesus can offend some people, I said I’d understand if they preferred that someone else give the invocation. His response to me was: “We know that’s how you pray, that’s why we asked you.”

After the welcome (by John Whitbeck), invocation (by yours truly), pledge (by Sheriff Michael Chapman), and National Anthem (by Briar Woods High School Teacher Nina Peyton), we waited back stage to get a photo with Donald Trump. And then – he was there, with a crowd of staff, Loudoun County Sheriff’s deputies, and Secret Service. I was immediately struck by his presence – he radiates confidence, but also I was struck by his soft spoken demeanor. He spoke softly and thoughtfully the entire time we were backstage.

The first person to get a photo with him was an older man. We had been chatting before-hand while all of us were waiting for Trump to arrive, and he introduced himself as Lieutenant Colonel Louis Dorfman and he had served in the 82nd Airborne. He shook hands with Donald Trump, and handed him his Purple Heart saying he wanted Trump to have it as thanks for standing up for wounded vets. Trump was surprised and said something like “I can’t take this!” We were all surprised and not expecting this. It was pretty cool to see the respect this veteran had for Trump.

Then it was my turn to shake hands with Trump and get my photo taken. I told Mr. Trump that I was the chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee and he immediately stopped and looked at me: “Will, how do I win Loudoun?” he asked me. We started talking and he called over one of his staffers. “George, these people here in Virginia know what we need to do to win Virginia.” And then – in a really cool turn of events – John Whitbeck, the GOP chairs of Prince William County and Arlington County, Trump’s campaign staffer, and me are all huddled in a corner, photos forgotten, strategizing on how Trump will win Virginia. Trump didn’t do a lot of talking. He listened to all of us, he made sure his staff had our emails, and he said that we would have everything we needed.

As we finished up the photos, Trump looked at all the Sheriff’s Deputies. “Let’s get them in the photo,” he said. And then he was taking group photos with all of the cops. They loved it. In fact, my favorite photo I took was all of the deputies with Trump (I’ll post it tomorrow). I was struck by how Trump didn’t forget the “little people.” Even though it was just a few of us and no media, he was relaxed and took the time to get photos with everyone.

The rally itself was super cool. Lots of energy, packed room (something like 2000 people had to be turned away because the auditorium was packed – and just on 24 hours notice!), everyone stood the entire time even though they all had seats. One thing I want to mention is the baby crying, because that has been national news. Contrary to news stories, it was a very funny thing, Trump was very supportive of the mom calling her and her baby “beautiful” and “wonderful”, and then when the baby kept crying he turned it into a joke. Everyone was laughing and it was actually very endearing and funny. Not at all anti mom or anti baby like the media has portrayed it to be.

Which brings me to the final point: I was there and saw and heard the entire event with the mom and baby. There was nothing to it. But then after I’m reading all the news coverage saying “Trump hates moms and babies!!!” I started to doubt myself. Did I really miss a huge story right in front of me? I started asking others who were there, including a husband and wife with young kids. And everyone in the room said the same thing: there was no story here. Trump was being funny and personable and going out of his way to make sure the mom wasn’t embarrased by making it a funny situation.

My conclusion is that the media is selling us a narrative. Be very skeptical of what the media is telling you, because I saw it with my own eyes and it was something very different.

Folks, that was a first-hand account from an attendee of the rally, who says he was unable to find another rally attendee who saw the exchange as anything but polite — and a forgettable, not-newsworthy event.

Meanwhile, the civilized world has since been informed by the media that didn’t bother to find a single rally attendee who saw the exchange as anything but polite.

Click to the next page to read what they instead chose to report.

Rolling Stone — Donald Trump Hates Babies: Why Bad Parents Make Bad Presidents:

Trump’s supporters were quick to dismiss the moment as a joke. But joke or not (it wasn’t), it was almost unfathomably cruel. He didn’t just humiliate a woman already dealing with the extraordinarily stressful situation of a crying baby in a public forum, he made it clear to a roomful of people he wants to vote for him in November that his needs always, always come first.

Rolling Stone — having learned nothing about checking multiple sources after Sabrina Erdely almost brought down the company — not only didn’t bother to see if any attendee witnessed the exchange differently, it jumped directly to the type of language that better fits the behavior of ISIS.

The Guardian — Donald Trump’s treatment of a crying baby reveals his total lack of empathy:

For a certain kind of Trump devotee, there’s nothing he can do that will repel them: as he himself has noted, he could stand on Fifth Avenue shooting people and they’d still vote for him.For others, though, it might play out differently. The most obvious group is women …

Well, it only “might play out differently” for women because the Guardian really wants it to play out differently for women, and thus attached the despicable headline.

Politico: Trump at rally: ‘Get the baby out of here’:

Later Tuesday afternoon, Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine couldn’t help himself from cracking a joke at Trump’s expense …

Politico printed a quote from the opposing vice presidential candidate, didn’t bother to print a quote from … a rally attendee.

CNNTrump: ‘You can get the baby out of here’

NPRTrump: ‘Get That Baby Out Of Here’

New York TimesDonald Trump Jousts With a Crying Baby at His Rally

Daily BeastDonald Trump to Baby at Rally: Crying Is for Losers

US WeeklyDonald Trump Tells Crying Infant’s Mom to Leave His Rally: ‘Get the Baby Out of Here’