Archive for February 2017

US Agents Tasked With Deradicalization Lack Arabic

February 2, 2017

US Agents Tasked With Deradicalization Lack Arabic, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, February 2, 2017

arabic-blackboard-quran-copyright-creative-commons-andrew-moore-size-640-320

A U.S. Department of Defense program to counter Islamist radicalization efforts is fell into difficulty because of the lack of skills of those tasked with running the program, according to former employees who have gone public.

The DoD says the program, subcontracted and  comprising 120 staff members, fights radicalization online  “through regular engagement, in-language, with regional target audiences online, using factual information consistent with our approved narratives.”

Yet according to ex-staff of the WebOps program, many employees could not speak Arabic properly, frequently mixing up words or even mistaking Arabic messages for other languages like Farsi or Urdu.

The agents would use keywords to identify which social media users were likely to be at risk of radicalization. However once in touch with someone who was at risk, staff of the deradicalization program made errors like mixing up the words for “salad” and “authority,” thus undermining their credibility.

As embarrassing, staff lacked awareness of the differences between the myriad Islamist groups. One ex-member said many employees “don’t know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.”

The program was subcontracted to the private corporation Colsa Corp. Former employees allege the company, which runs its own in-house internal assessment of the success of the program, encouraged them to indicate progress regardless of whether or not progress was taking place, in order to maintain funding.

A lack of language skills has long inhibited U.S. counter-radicalization efforts. After 9/11, intelligence sources said, less than a dozen CIA field agents spoke Arabic. In 2006 just 33 FBI agents had even limited familiarity with Arabic. That year, the House Select Committee on Intelligence concluded U.S. human intelligence – ie, the condition of its spying apparatus in terms of personnel, as being in “an entirely unacceptable state of affairs.”

In 2009, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence warned that the necessary organizational familiarity with the key languages of Pashto, Dari and Urdu for the government “remains essentially nonexistent.”

If the U.S. is serious about winning the “war on terror” then language fluency within the departments charged with waging that war needs to be brought up to the required standard.

Dutch Politician Jan Roos: Stop Building a ‘Little Middle East’ in Europe

February 2, 2017

Dutch Politician Jan Roos: Stop Building a ‘Little Middle East’ in Europe, PJ MediaMichael Van Der Galien, February 2, 2017

(Please see also, Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump. — DM)

eureferendumTHE HAGUE – On Thursday in front of parliament building journalists Jan Roos and Thierry Baudet stopped by with a petition signed by over 150 thousand people. The petition is supposed to give the public a say on the ratification of the EU Ukraine association treaty signed by Brussels last year and approved by Dutch parliament in 2015. Mister Baudet and mister Roos aim to increase participation in EU wide matters as they are concerned the Brussels institution is becoming increasingly undemocratic. For a referendum to be able to take place the petition will need to signed by at least 300 thousand people. (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto)

The leader of Dutch political party VNL (VoorNederland, a classically liberal party) is lashing out at “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.

Yesterday, Dutch outlet De Dagelijkse Standaard (I serve as its editor-in-chief) reported that increasingly more teachers at primary and high schools refuse to talk about certain issues due to fear of Muslim students.

They mention a similar situation in Turkey, led by the increasingly authoritarian President Erdogan, where homosexuality and terrorism are issues better ignored. The teachers say that there’s a “cultural conflict” in Dutch classrooms, and although some of them initially tried to hang on to liberal Dutch values, many have now given up.

VNL leader Jan Roos (VNL currently has two seats in the Dutch Parliament) rose to fame by leading the No campaign in the Dutch referendum about the EU Treaty with the Ukraine, which resulted in a stunning victory for the eurosceptic movement. Roos says that, although the classroom situation is certainly ridiculous, it can’t possibly come as a surprise to anyone:

Considering that the Netherlands further opened its borders to mass migration in the intervening years:

… it’s not exactly shocking that this situation has deteriorated.

Roos has little sympathy for those who blame “a lack of integration or assimilation” for these problems. The real problem, he explains, is “the multicultural dream forced upon us” by the establishment.

This stance marks an incredibly important distinction between traditional influential parties and newcomers like VNL (which was created only a few years ago). The former pretend that the country would be able to deal with mass migration if only the rules for integration and assimilation were clearer. Roos rightfully believes this not to be so. After all, you can’t “force” anyone to assimilate — or even expect them to — if they’re coming into the Netherlands by the tens of thousands every single year. This while the Netherlands has a population of a mere 17 million souls.

Says Roos:

Because multiculturalism was forced upon us, we were asked to become tolerant towards intolerance. In such a scenario intolerance always wins which means you’ll end up with an intolerant society. Our Western values will be wiped away in one fell swoop if these minorities [of intolerant people] decide what happens in our country.

That danger is increasing by the day. A new political party is run by Dutch Turks — or, as Roos calls them, “radical Turks” — who defend every outrage that occurs in Turkey while blasting Dutch culture and history at every occasion. This party currently has two seats in Parliament, just like VNL. The polls indicate they may very well hang on to those seats — and perhaps even win a few more — because of widespread support among the Turkish-Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch communities, who are far more observant of Islam than their counterparts in their countries of origin.

Because of our tolerant attitude towards oppressive cultures and our insane open-borders policy, Roos warns that “we are creating a ‘little Middle East’ in Europe.”

Another example of this development occurred at a ridiculous protest in the nation’s political capital of The Hague yesterday, where Parliament is seated (although Amsterdam is, of course, the Netherlands’ official capital).

Hamas was also present at that protest. But when, in a few years time, the intolerant people turn against their leftist protesters, they’ll come running to us, begging us to help them.

Those leftist protesters, who were waving their politically correct flags and shouting multicultural-loving slogans yesterday, “are cuddling their own downfall,” Roos continues:

The only end result of this can be that our Western values will be wiped out.

Of course, it’s great that teachers, who are generally rather progressive, have finally found the courage to speak out against these problems in their classrooms. But if we don’t act now, mass migration and our dreamy multicultural project will eventually result in the destruction of the free West and of every fundamental right — such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion — we hold dear.

Roos’ words sound remarkably like Geert Wilders’ views on this matter, but there are differences. Yes, he demands an end to mass migration and the grand multicultural project, but — unlike Wilders — he does not want to “ban the Quran”:

If people want to read that book, they are free to do so. The freedom of speech and the freedom of religion will continue to exist if VNL plays a role in the Dutch government, but they will be based on Dutch laws. Those who have trouble with the latter part of my statement — respect for Dutch laws and our values — our free to leave.

According to recent polls, VNL has a real shot at coming back in Parliament after the general election of March 15. Geert Wilders’ PVV, however, is leading with ease. It is followed by the VVD, the party currently at the head of government, which is blamed for the dreadful consequences of unlimited migration from the Middle East and for the slow recovery of the Dutch economy after the economic crisis of 2008.

Berkeley Riots Provoked by Freedom Center Campaign

February 2, 2017

Berkeley Riots Provoked by Freedom Center Campaign, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, February 2, 2017

killmilo

The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin (D), seemed to green-light the riots in a Twitter post. “Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable,” he tweeted, in a reference to Yiannopoulos. “Hate speech isn’t welcome in our community.”

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

Leftist UC Berkeley students and outsiders rioted last night to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from delivering a David Horowitz Freedom Center-sponsored speech demanding the end of “sanctuary campuses” that harbor illegal aliens. Milo’s address, which was canceled amid violent mob attacks, fire-setting, and wanton property destruction, had been scheduled to mark the launch of the Freedom Center’s #nosanctuarycampusforcriminals campaign.

“One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down,” Yiannopoulos, tech editor at Breitbart News, said after being safely evacuated from the campus.

“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley,” Mike Wright, a Berkeley College Republicans member told SFGate as smoke bombs exploded nearby. He said paint was thrown on his person. “It’s sad.”

“The so-called ‘sanctuary movement’ is a concerted effort by left-wing administrations in major cities to thwart the purposes of the Patriot Act, undermine federal immigration law, and cripple the efforts of the Department of Homeland security to protect American citizens from terrorist threats,” David Horowitz, founder and CEO of the Freedom Center, said on Jan. 31.

“Thanks to the efforts of left-wing activists and administrators, this seditious movement has now spread to our colleges and universities.”

Backed by the Freedom Center, Yiannopoulos, an outspoken gay, Jewish, Greek-born British citizen who ardently supports President Trump, was on campus to demand that federal grants to UC Berkeley be withdrawn and that university officials like UC President Janet Napolitano and Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks who endanger their students with their illegal alien-shielding policies be prosecuted.

UC President Napolitano, formerly President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, is under the microscope because, as head of the taxpayer-supported University of California system, she is deliberately harboring hundreds of illegal aliens attending UC system schools. She has forbidden campus police from working with immigration law enforcement and provided $5 million to aid the illegals UC is sheltering from ICE.

The University of California system even provides legal aid to illegal alien students who wish to keep breaking U.S. immigration laws.

The executive director of the University of California Undocumented Legal Services Center at the UC Davis School of Law explained to Rolling Stone in December what a sanctuary campus was.

“Basically it’s a concept that says, ‘You’re safe here, and your immigration status, we won’t ask,’” said Maria Blanco. “’We won’t turn you over. We won’t turn your records over.’”

Not all the rioters were from Berkeley.

Many of those dressed black bloc-style so police can’t identify them appear to be associated with the “antifa” movement. Antifa may be short for anti-fascist but these thugs, usually a mix of anarchists and communists, use violent fascistic tactics against their targets. These terrorists do not tolerate opposing views. Before the riots broke out those gathered carried signs that read “hate speech is not free speech.” Signs from the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PLS) also showed up in Berkeley.

Antifa is also involved in the protests and melees at airports nationwide launched in opposition to President Trump’s Executive Order 13769 which as of Jan. 27 temporarily banned visitors from a handful of terrorism-plagued Muslim nations.

The Berkeley police had reportedly been given a “stand down” order which allowed rioters to generate mayhem. Later when the police declared the throng of troublemakers an unlawful assembly and ordered those present to leave, the mob chanted “you go first!”

After leaving the campus Yiannopoulos reflected on the night’s events in a video on his Facebook page.

I don’t want to get into wild conspiracy theorizing or pointing fingers but it’s been noted by a number of people including Tucker Carlson at Fox News that the police presence did not seem to be particularly aggressive this evening and that’s something that I witnessed and that my security detail witnessed too. There was a sort of sit back, let it happen approach.

I was evacuated, really, at the first sign of trouble. Trouble did get a lot worse after I did leave so I think I’d’ve had to leave anyway. So this event may never have got off the ground. It seems as though the university and police didn’t really want it to happen but the fact that on an American college campus, a place of higher education, a place of learning in America which I’d come to, as a visitor from the United Kingdom where we don’t have a First Amendment, hoping that this would be somewhere where you could be, do, and say anything, where you could express your views, express your opinions, crack some jokes, make people think, make people laugh, free from violent responses to political ideas. I thought America was the one place where that would be possible.

I am, of course, not the racist or the sexist or anything else that the posters that they put up claim that I am. They do that in order to legitimize their own violence against you. But even if I were, even if the things that they said about me were true, this still wouldn’t be an appropriate response to ideas.

The rioting is amply documented on social media.

Twitter is overflowing with video footage from Berkeley last night showing rioters beating people thought to be conservatives or supporters of Yiannopoulos or President Trump with poles and spraying mace into their eyes. One video appeared to show an unconscious man lying face down in the street being beaten with a shovel. The rioters even provided a soundtrack to accompany their violence, giving the insurrection a rave-like quality as “We Found Love” by recording artist Rihanna was blasted out by loudspeakers.

“Kill fascists” was spray-painted on a shop window. A Starbucks outlet was looted. ATMs at a Bank of America branch were smashed.

Of course any students participating in the mayhem yesterday should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and expelled from Berkeley. Teaching and administrative staff may also have been involved in the violence and if so they too should be dealt with severely.

But given the University of California system’s full-throated embrace of lawlessness, don’t hold your breath.

Local authorities aren’t much better.

The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin (D), seemed to green-light the riots in a Twitter post. “Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable,” he tweeted, in a reference to Yiannopoulos. “Hate speech isn’t welcome in our community.”

When things spiraled out of control, he backpedaled, tweeting, “Violence and destruction is not the answer[.]”

And don’t forget that the George Soros-funded slander shop, Media Matters for America, helped to lay the groundwork for the leftist violence surrounding Yiannopoulos in Berkeley and at other stops on his speaking tour. It has long urged colleges to prevent him from speaking, characterizing his mere words as harassment.

Berkeley, interestingly enough, was the home of something that called itself the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s.

But that was a long time ago.

Trump tackles three real problems

February 2, 2017

Trump tackles three real problems, Israel National News, Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, February 2, 2017

By exposing American media bias, Muslim terrorism and Europe’s hypocrisy, U.S president Trump is drawing attention to three major issues which should be addressed. He receives much flak from many directions. Part of it comes from people who have not yet digested that Barack Obama is no longer U.S president. However, Trump, as a democratically elected president, should also not behave, even unintentionally, as if he believes in Mussolini’s claim: “Many enemies, much honor.”

The three real problems Trump is tackling all have impact on Jews or Israel.

As far as leading media outlets are concerned, a number of them are weighty distorters of the truth. If one follows the publications of the Camera mediawatch organization[1] over the years one sees how the New York Times regularly expresses anti-Israel bias in both its news and op-eds.

In an interview, Ricki Hollander and Gilead Ini, two senior analysts at Camera, accused the paper of advocacy journalism. They said: “Both its editorial pages and news reporting lean heavily toward an anti-Israel perspective…the NYT poisons the public’s mind against Israel by shaping the perception of the Jewish state as responsible for many, if not most, of the region’s ills. It does this with double standards in reporting about Israel versus her enemies and recounting only half the story. It sanitizes the role of Israel’s adversaries, including terrorist organizations, and obsessively indicts Israel at every turn.”[2]

If Trump would listen to a strategist’s advice he would not attack all media at the same time. He would rather put an experienced media-observer to the task of analyzing the New York Times’ bias, and quote examples of it regularly. This would be far more convincing than an overall attack on the media. The other media outlets would not show solidarity with the NYT, because why back up somebody else’s bias, when he is being attacked? Focusing all attacks on one paper by providing regular examples of it, is far more convincing for the public at large than spreading attacks over general media. Punishing the NYT, for instance, by excluding it from White House Press conferences would then also be seen by many as justified.

A second important problem Trump has raised is that of the major terrorism coming out of parts of Muslim societies. The approach to deal with this important issue could have benefited from some professional assistance, so that the temporary entry-ban of people from seven countries could have stated upfront that it did not concern green card holders, citizens with dual nationalities, those who have helped the US military and a few other categories from the countries concerned.

It would be very advisable that in future, there is further improved vetting of immigrants including screening for anti-Semitism.[3] Trump has suggested this during his election campaign as a possibility and Jewish organizations should support him on this. Was Trump wrong when he tweeted “Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, now”?  That might have prevented 9/11. He concluded his argument by saying rightly that there was a horrible mess in Europe.[4]

This brings us to the third issue which has some bearing on Jews. Trump understands that the European Union has for many years maintained policies on various major issues which are the opposite of his policies. Is there anything more alien to Trump’s policies than the German open door attitude toward refugees which started in September 2015? Only a part of those entering were registered by the German authorities. Hundreds of thousands came in without any registration.

Trump wants a strong United States, not one weakened through opposition by European masochists. The massive European criticism of the US entry-ban, provides further proof that one cannot count on halfhearted Europe too much in the battle against terrorism. The same is true as far as keeping hate mongers out. The non-selective immigrant policies of Western European countries have led to a huge influx of anti-Semites, mainly from Arab countries.

One voice dissenting from the European critic-brigades was hardly heard. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano told the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that what Trump did was not in line with the Italian policy, yet, “Trump in his electoral campaign has made certain statements. On that basis he has won the elections. Now he carries out what he has said. He is not doing anything different from what he has promised.”

Alfano added: “Europe should not imagine that it can be both incompetent in managing the immigration issue and at the same time be respected for its judgments. It is not in a position to express opinions on the choices of others. Or do we want to forget that also in Europe walls have been erected.”[5]

Israelis understand the truth of what Alfano said. The EU claims to know what Israel should do with regard to the Palestinians, sometimes applying double standards which are the core of anti-Semitism. At the same time, the EU itself is in a major crisis. To paraphrase a regular statement of pseudo-progressives on Israel: By insisting that the Europeans start spending significantly far more on military issues –rather than being parasites living off the United States – Trump may well be saving Europe from itself.

Confronting media bias, Muslim terrorism, and European hypocrisy are all fields where Trump can make a major contribution to the upkeep of Western values – if he does not use overblown rhetoric. Then any good points he makes will get lost. Jews and Israel will benefit if he succeeds. One can only hope that Trump does not spread himself too thin by adding even more subjects to fight about.

________________________

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.camera.org/

[2]  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15413

[3] http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/22/trump-is-right-ban-antisemitic-immigrants-from-the-united-states/

[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825692045532618753

[5] http://www.corriere.it/politica/17_gennaio_30/alfano-quest-europa-non-puo-b5ea470a-e667-11e6-84c1-08780d9999f1.shtml

US funding of UN disproportionate

February 2, 2017

US funding of UN disproportionate, Israel Hayom, Clifford D. May, February 2, 2017

This may come as a shock: It’s possible a committee of officials from the Defense, State and Justice departments, as well as the National Security Council, will conduct a review of the disproportionate funding the United States provides to the United Nations and come to the conclusion that American taxpayers should spend less on an organization that is inefficient, corrupt and inimical to American interests.

Nikki Haley, the newly confirmed U.S. ambassador to the U.N., hinted at this radical departure from tradition when she said on Jan. 18 that while she would oppose “slash and burn cuts” to the U.N., she did want to ensure that the U.S. “gets what it pays for.”

One week later, The New York Times reported that it had “obtained” (in other words, someone in the government had leaked) copies of a “draft” executive order (in other words, an unapproved working document) that would “clear the way to drastically reduce the United States’ role in the United Nations and other international organizations.”

A serious question: Is the Times correct to assert that paying less would mean playing a reduced role? The U.S. gets one vote on the Security Council, just as Russia and China do. The U.S. gets one vote in the General Assembly, just as Iran and Venezuela do. How much money it forks over won’t change that.

The Times warned that such cuts “could severely curtail the work of United Nations agencies, which rely on billions of dollars in annual United States contributions for missions that include caring for refugees.”

A second serious question: Are there no other nations that could pick up the slack when it comes to funding efforts to care for refugees? No European nations, no members of the Arab League or the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?

The British Guardian jumped into the controversy, reporting that “U.S. allies have reacted with a mix of alarm and skepticism.” An unnamed “senior European diplomat” said: “It would potentially be brutal.” No one should be so cynical as to think that unnamed senior European diplomats would throw such terms around lightly.

Should the president sign the draft order, funding could be terminated to any international agency that contributes to systematic violations of human rights, is controlled by a state that sponsors terrorism, supports activities that circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran or North Korea, gives full membership to the Palestinian Authority, or funds abortions.

Third serious question: Based on the results of the last election, why should such organizations and activities continue to be funded by Washington?

The U.N. was founded, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, by statesmen with the best of intentions. Its charter sought to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.”

A fourth serious question: Can anyone seriously argue that the U.N. is achieving these goals?

Among the recently elected members of the U.N. Human Rights Council are China, Cuba, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The U.N. has never taken any serious action against genocide, as occurred in Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans, Sudan and Syria, nor against states that support terrorism, including Iran. Demonizing and delegitimizing Israel appears to be its main occupation.

Since the 1990s, there have been serious allegations of U.N. peacekeepers sexually abusing women and girls in the Central African Republic, Bosnia, Liberia, Cambodia, and other countries. Studies have identified U.N. peacekeepers as the source of the cholera outbreak that killed more than 8,000 people in Haiti a few years ago.

Reports of mismanagement, corruption and fraud throughout the organization have been numerous. Calls for reform and transparency have been unavailing. Does this really sound like a good investment for ordinary taxpayers?

Which raises a fifth serious question: How much are we paying? According to estimates by Heritage Foundation scholar Brett D. Schaefer, the U.S. shells out “approximately $8 billion a year in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations.” That’s more than is contributed to the U.N. by 183 of the U.N.’s 193 members combined.

There’s also this: Under U.N. rules, the 129 member states that contribute less than 1.3% can pass budgets over the objections of the U.S. and other nations that contribute much more.

Schaefer writes: “This explains why so many member states are blase about increases in the U.N. budget. The financial impact on them is miniscule and undermines incentives for them to fulfill their oversight role.”

It is telling that not one of the articles I’ve read in the major media lamenting the possibility of cuts by the U.S. to the U.N. bothers to mention how much the U.N. spends or how much the U.S. pays.

A piece in the Times does note that the U.S. provides the lion’s share of the funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations, adding: “At least one of these, the operation in southern Lebanon, directly serves Israeli interests by protecting the country’s northern border, though the draft order characterizes the funding cuts as serving Israeli interests.”

A not quite serious question: Has the Times laid off its fact-checkers? It’s no secret that the UNIFIL troops in southern Lebanon have become protectors of Hezbollah, the Iranian-funded terrorist group that rules the area. Following the 2006 war they were given a mission: to ensure that Hezbollah did not re-arm. How did that work out? Under the very noses of those peacekeepers, Hezbollah has installed more than 100,000 missiles in homes, schools, hospitals and mosques, all pointing at Israel.

RIGHT ANGLE: Blame Who’s Responsible

February 2, 2017

RIGHT ANGLE: Blame Who’s Responsible, BillWhittledotcom via YouTube, February 1, 2017

 

The Trumpocalypse Goes Global

February 2, 2017

The Trumpocalypse Goes Global, Power LineSteven Hayward, February 2, 2017

It isn’t just in the halls of Washington where Trump has everyone in an uproar. In the House of Commons over in Britain, the Corbynite Labour Party had a conniption fit, culminating in this nice exchange between Corbyn and Prime Minister Theresa May, who I must say is reminding me more and more of Margaret Thatcher all the time (about 1:30 long):

There was a similar debate up in Canada this week, too, but much less energetic and colorful, because Canada. (See below.)

Prediction: Trump is going to be a central issue in the upcoming French and German elections. The man’s political brand is going as global as his hotel brand.

What do they debate about in the Canadian parliament? Whether you can say “fart” in debate. Don’t they have a speech and debate clause? (3:38 long.)

Bonus! Nigel Farage gets in on the Trump action in the European Commission:

Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump

February 2, 2017

Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump

by Geert Wilders

February 2, 2017 at 4:00 am

Source: Debate in Dutch Parliament about President Trump

Geert Wilders:
President Donald Trump, what a relief! What a relief in comparison with the leftist dictatorship of the fearful cowardly and willfully blind leaders that we have in the rest of Europe and also here in this Chamber. It makes one cry. I tell you, finally America has a President, finally a Western country has a President who not only fulfills his promises, but also states that the security of his own citizens is his primary concern.

I tell you, Foreign Minister, that, in two weeks’ time, President Trump has passed an immigration policy that is more effective than that of your entire cabinet as long as it has existed. As long as it has existed. They did it. And I tell you something else. If we in the Netherlands, in Europe, had done what Mr Trump does – namely close the borders to people from places such as Syria – then these people, including terrorists, would not have come our way and then a lot of innocent people, innocent victims of terrorism in Europe, would still be alive today.

Speaker of the House:
And your question is?

Wilders:
So stop shedding crocodile tears. My question is: Learn from Trump and stop chickening out like cowards.

Foreign Minister Bert Koenders:
I would like to say to Mr Wilders that what he proposes is exactly what is ineffective in the fight against terrorism, namely the famous divide and rule. Ensure that the people in your own society no longer have any rights. Ensure that you look away when it comes to human rights. Ensure that the Iraqis, with whom our soldiers at the moment are fighting against ISIS, have no rights anymore and that the countries, from which terrorists obviously do not come, are the ones on this list.

The chaos we now see in the international world when it comes to air travel, does nothing to do increase the security of our people. On the contrary, it tears people apart. I will tell you one thing from my experience as foreign minister who frequently visits the Middle East: If you want to fight terrorism the worst thing you can do is to trample human rights, conduct a divide-and-rule policy and so-called screen people, whether they be Christians, Jews or Muslims, and not look at what can really protect us. I address you, because we are at the moment at a central point in the Netherlands and the world. We need to fight against terrorism together. If we fail to do it together, but exclude, then I guarantee you that the fight against terrorism will not be effective and that your position is one of insecurity.

Wilders:
A lot of words, but absolutely no content. What this minister, Mrs Merkel and Prime Minister Rutte have done – what is written large on their foreheads – is open borders. Come on in everyone, do come in. Even when you have a fake passport or no identity card, come on in everyone. And we’ve seen what happens then. We have seen that with the asylum influx, the tsunami of asylum seekers, which was already disruptive in itself, terrorists have come along from countries such as Syria – because you agreed with it, because you refused to check them – who, all over Europe, from Paris to Berlin, have murdered innocent people. You’d better stop talking about security! Just stop it. Because of the open borders and bringing people from Islamic countries here, attacks were committed in Europe. Stop the lies!

Koenders:
Balderdash, Mr Wilders, balderdash! Really, how are you even able to concoct such an amalgam. As if the Dutch government is responsible for the terror attacks. First, the people who commit these attacks are responsible. Second, you know damn well that, when it comes to refugee policy and counter-terrorism, you toss it all together, as if there is no screening, as if the threat of terror comes only from the outside – often people from one’s own society are involved – and as if trampling human rights and large groups of people does not lead exactly to what we want to avoid, namely radicalization and terror. You prescribe the wrong medicine. It will not work and you will make the country unsafe with it.

FAKE NEWS: Iraqi Woman “Killed by Trump” Died Days Before Travel Ban

February 2, 2017

FAKE NEWS: Iraqi Woman “Killed by Trump” Died Days Before Travel Ban, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, February 1, 2017

dan-rather-document-investigation

Don’t worry, Snopes and FactCheck will rate it mostly true. Dan Rather will explain that it’s the idea of the story that matters not the minor question of when the woman actually died. Brian Williams will claim that he personally tried to ferry her out of Iraq on a helicopter.

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

How can you tell the media is lying? When its cameras are rolling, its keys are clicking and its presses are printing.

You may have seen this latest horrifying Trumptrocity earlier today when it was being broadcast for all it was worth.

Green-Card Holder Dies a Day After Being Prevented From Returning Home by Trump’s Order, Report Says- TIME

Detroit Son: My Mom Died Waiting In Iraq Because Of Trump – Huffington Post

An Elderly Iraqi Woman Died After Trump’s Travel Ban Barred Her From the U.S.- New York Magazine

Detroit Mother Dies in Iraq After Trump Ban Blocked Her from Returning for Medical Treatment – Democracy Now!

Report: Woman dies day after being kicked off flight due to Trump Ban – MLive.com

Detroit Green Card-Holder Dies After She’s Stopped In Trump Travel Ban – Patch.com

Detroit-area woman dies after being turned away by Trump travel ban – Detroit Metro Times

This Immigrant’s Family Was Destroyed After Donald Trump’s Muslim Ban – Bustle

This is just shocking, horrifying, unbelievable.

A former American serviceman who served in Iraq, where he was born, says his sick mother died a day after being turned away from the U.S. as a result of President Donald Trump’s executive order abruptly banning entry to travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

“I was just shocked. I had to put my mom back on the wheelchair and take her back and call the ambulance and she was very, very upset,” Hager told Fox 2 Detroit, recalling the moment they were pried apart at the terminal. “She knew right there if we send her back to the hospital she’s going to pass away — she’s not going to make it.”

Hager and his family reportedly fled Iraq during the Gulf War. After spending four years in a refugee camp, they were resettled in the U.S., Fox 2 reports. A few years later, he decided to return to his home country as an American serviceman, working with the U.S. Special Forces as an interpreter and adviser.

Did I mention unbelievable?

The leader of a mosque in Dearborn has confirmed to FOX 2 that a man who claimed his mother died in Iraq after being barred from returning to the United States under a ban instituted by President Trump this weekend, lied to FOX 2 about when her death occurred.

Imam Husham Al-Hussainy, leader of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn, says Mike Hager’s mom did not pass away this weekend after being barred from traveling to the United States. The Imam confirms that Hager’s mother died before the ban was put in place.

After the story aired on FOX 2 and was posted on FOX2Detroit.com, we received many questions about the validity of Hager’s claims that his mother died waiting to be approved to come home. FOX 2 has confirmed that his mother died five days earlier.

According to Al-Hussainy, Hager’s mother had kidney disease and was receiving treatment in Michigan – where she lived – before traveling to Iraq to visit family. The Imam said she passed away on January 22, 2017, five days before President Trump instituted the travel ban.

Don’t worry, Snopes and FactCheck will rate it mostly true. Dan Rather will explain that it’s the idea of the story that matters not the minor question of when the woman actually died. Brian Williams will claim that he personally tried to ferry her out of Iraq on a helicopter.

But if Facebook really wants to fight fake news, maybe it can start with the media. The media is the main engine of Fake News.

Palestinian Columnist In Response To UN Secretary-General’s Statements On Jerusalem’s Jewish Connection: The Jews Have No Connection To Jerusalem Or Palestine At Large

February 1, 2017

Palestinian Columnist In Response To UN Secretary-General’s Statements On Jerusalem’s Jewish Connection: The Jews Have No Connection To Jerusalem Or Palestine At Large, MEMRI, February 1, 2017

(Not only that, but Joseph, Mary and Jesus were Muslims, not Jews. — DM)

Fatah and PLO officials lashed out at the new secretary-general of the UN, António Guterres, for remarks he made on January 28, 2017 to Israeli Radio. Guterres said that there is no doubt Jerusalem is holy to all three major monotheistic religions today, but it is “completely clear that the temple which was demolished by the Romans was a Jewish temple.”[1]

The Palestinian officials said that Guterres’s remarks encourage Israel to step up its measures against Jerusalem, constitute direct aggression against the Palestinian people’s rights in the city, and deal a blow to international efforts for peace. They also undermine the UN’s credibility and contradict truth, history and UNESCO’s resolution from October 2016 stating that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is a Muslim site.

‘Omar Al-Ghoul, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida who was an advisor to former PA prime minister Salam Fayyad, published a scathing article in which he demanded that Guterres apologize to the Palestinian people for the injustice of his remarks. Jerusalem and all of Palestine, from the river to the sea, belong to the Palestinian people, he wrote, and the Jews have no historical connection to them. He added that Jerusalem belongs to the Muslims and Christians alone, and that the Temple of Solomon never existed in Palestine.

The following are excerpts from his article and from other Palestinian responses to Guterres’s remarks.

guterresAntónio Guterres (image: english.alarabiya.net)

Fatah, PLO Officials: Secretary-General’s Comments Deal A Blow To UN’s Credibility, Encourage Terrorism Against Palestinians

PLO Executive Committee member Ahmed Majdalani called the UN secretary-general’s statements “a severe breach of policy and a blow to the UN’s credibility as an international body [reflecting] bias towards an occupying force.” He added: “The secretary-general should clarify his remarks, which undermine international efforts for peace and give the occupation a green light to step up its measures against Jerusalem… The UN secretary-general appears to be uninformed and not updated in the field in which he engages, and we remind him of the resolution by UNESCO, which considers the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the entire Haram Al-Sharif [i.e., Temple Mount] to be a sacred Islamic site designated for worship.”[2]

Fatah Revolutionary Committee deputy secretary Fayez Abu ‘Aita called the secretary-general’s statements “direct aggression against the Palestinian people’s rights in Jerusalem and [a show of] bias towards the occupation by legitimizing and empowering the illegal Israeli presence in Jerusalem.” He added that they “encourage Israel to use more terrorism against the Palestinian people, to attack the sites sacred to Islam and to Christianity, and to continue expanding settlement construction until the two-state principle is eliminated.”[3]

Columnist In PA Daily: Jerusalem And All Of Palestine, From The River To The Sea, Is Muslim Land

‘Omar Al-Ghoul, a columnist for the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida and advisor to PA prime minister Salam Fayyad during the latter’s term in office, harshly condemned Guterres: “The world expressed great optimism at Mr. António Guterres’s recent appointment as UN secretary-general, especially in light of his promise to reform this leading international institution in order to develop it and in order for it to be able to follow events around the world more quickly and vitally. But that optimism is apparently misplaced, since someone who wants to reform and awaken the international organization does not deviate from the UN Charter, or from its resolutions and rules, but must instead be wiser and bolder when taking political positions, instead of making offhand comments according to whims and narrow interests.

“António Guterres made a clear and obvious mistake towards peace and the political process on the Israeli-Palestinian track when he stated… that he believes in the connection between Jerusalem and the Jews. The secretary-general argued, contradicting the UNESCO resolution, history and facts, that in his opinion – which deviates from the truth and the facts – it is as clear as the sun is clear that ‘the temple which was demolished by the Romans was a Jewish temple.’ Thus, the new secretary-general fell into the trap of his own unbalanced view, because the issue of Jerusalem and the Palestinian-Israeli blood feud are not resolved by personal opinions. [Mr. Secretary-General,] your personal opinion is yours alone and not a binding position held by the UN or by the nations of the world. You, as secretary-general, must not involve the UN in positions that it does not need and that do not correspond with its regulations and resolutions. Furthermore, you have no right to err in flattering Israel due to considerations easily understood by any observer – because your remarks do not correspond to history or to the existing data.”

Jerusalem Belongs To The Muslims And Christians, Not To The Jews; Guterres Must Apologize Immediately To The Palestinian People And Leadership

“If you are interested in history, and committed to it, Mr. António, [then you should know that] Jerusalem and all of Palestine from the river to the sea, belong to the Palestinian people, and their history is its history. The establishment of Israel based on the UN Partition [Plan for Palestine,] Resolution 181, adopted in November 1947, and the Palestinian people’s consent to peace and the two-state solution on the basis of the June 1967 borders, absolutely do not mean that the history of Palestine changes. Jerusalem is Arab-Palestinian and belongs to the Muslims and the Christians, and not to the Jews – although this does not mean that Jews should be prevented from visiting it. The so-called ‘Western Wall’ is actually the ‘Al-Buraq Wall’ [Al-Buraq is the winged horse on which Muhammad ascended to Heaven]. Solomon’s Temple does not exists and never existed in Palestine. The Israelis have been excavating across the entire land for nearly a century since fully occupying it in June 1967 and have found nothing related to Judaism in all of Palestine, not just in Jerusalem.

“So on what grounds do you voluntarily express incorrect positions that have no connection to reality? What is your interest in doing so? Are you serving the peace process, or entangling and threatening it? Additionally, you express irresponsible views, such as that you ‘do not intend to take the reins of initiative in any political process between the Palestinians and Israelis.’ Why? What is your role as UN secretary-general? Are you the U.S., or do you speak for it? Does this not constitute conspiring with the racist Israeli ethnic-cleansing state and giving it a green light to continue its imperialist settlements? Is this the reform you want to bring to the UN?

“This grave injustice committed by the new UN secretary-general in the matter of the Palestinian-Arab Islamic-Christian and human Jerusalem means that he must immediately apologize to the Palestinian people and leadership, and rectify this matter by issuing a clear, direct, and explicit position in line with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization – UNESCO, which issued two resolutions on this matter in October 2016.

“You may issue no personal decisions on your own, because ever since your appointment as UN secretary-general, you represent not yourself but the entire UN, including its peoples, member states, resolutions, treaties, and regulations. Therefore, you are not authorizedto say whatever you think or whatever you, or the deviant countries you flatter, wish you to say – particularly not Israel and its ally the U.S.

“Have you have the courage to acknowledge [that this is what you have done] and to correct this shameful injustice?”[4]

____________________

[1] Jpost.com, January 30, 2017.

[2] Wafa.ps, January 29, 2017.

[3] Wafa.ps, January 29, 2017.

[4] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), January 29, 2017.