(Infowars generally presents unfounded conspiracy theories and I generally ignore them and it. This article, however, appears to be appropriately sourced and legitimate. As the MEMRI-TV blurb beneath the video states,
In an address delivered at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Sheikh Muhammad Ayed said that the European countries are not motivated by compassion toward the refugees, but by their need for labor. “We shall conquer their countries,” he declared in the address, which was posted on the Internet on September 11, 2015.
— DM)
Top Iman Sheikh Muhammad Ayed recently gave a speech in which he asserted that Muslims should use the migrant crisis to breed with European citizens and “conquer their countries”.
Speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Ayed stated that European countries were not rolling out the red carpet for migrants because they were compassionate, but because Europe was in dire need of a new source of labor.
“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement….they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees,” said Ayed, adding, “Soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing.”
“Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst,” he added.
“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”
Ayed stated that “whether you like it or not,” Americans, Italians, Germans and the French will be forced to take the “refugees”.
“We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: these are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you,” concluded Ayed.
Ayed correctly outlines the fact that Europe is facing demographic disaster because its citizens have stopped having children.
Italy’s current birth rate of 8.4 per 1,000 people is the lowest since 1861 and the picture is much the same across the rest of Europe, where population is only increasing as a result of mass immigration.
Birth rates in the west are far lower than those in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, which is where most of the migrants are coming from.
The notion of using mass migration as a form of stealth jihad is outlined in the Koran, which states, “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance.”
“To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,” writes Robert Spencer.
(Assume for the sake of argument that the Islamic Republic is only half as evil as the Islamic State. That’s hardly a persuasive argument in favor of the “deal” with Iran. –DM)
As Congress votes next month on whether to support the nuclear agreement Team Obama has negotiated with Iran, two assessments are necessary.
One is content-oriented-looking to the four corners of the document to understand exactly what Iran is being allowed legally to do, as well as the impact it will have on our national security.
Fully understanding that, the other assessment is then to analyze Iranian intentions-looking outside the document to determine the likelihood of full compliance by the mullahs.
As Congress undertakes the first assessment, it seems, unfortunately, to pay less heed to the second. But, as the latter demands understanding what the mullahs’ ultimate goal is, in addition to their commitment to achieving it, it is most relevant.
Interestingly, to better understand the mullahs’ ultimate goal, we need only look to ISIS-a group in pursuit of a similar one.
Before we do so, however, consider the following hypothetical: based on what we know about the group today, would Congress even consider negotiating the same nuclear deal with ISIS that has been negotiated with Iran? We hope it would not. The very thought of any agreement paving the way for a nuclear-armed ISIS would be an interminable nightmare for the world community.
The blatant savagery of ISIS undermines its credibility as a candidate with whom to hold nuclear negotiations. A group whose sole creative contribution to society has been to develop increasingly horrific ways of executing victims (and proudly displaying them on video) does not make for a responsible nuclear negotiating partner.
We may have thought the burning alive of caged Jordanian pilot Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh earlier this year represented the extreme of ISIS brutality. It did not.
We have seen other victims paraded out, hands tied behind their backs, forced to kneel in front of their ISIS captors who-unbeknownst to the captives had buried explosive devices where they were kneeling-move safely away before detonating them. The sight of flying body parts then met with cries of “Allahu Akbar” from among the ISIS savages.
We have seen videos of Arab Christians similarly being positioned and beheaded by ISIS captors.
We have reports of an ISIS leader who, by night, raped his 11-year-old slave girl and, by day, strapped her to the windshield of his vehicle to afford him concealment from snipers as he drives.
The savagery of ISIS knows no limits. Its soldiers, after executing a Muslim father, strapped an explosive device to the baby child he left behind, detonating it to demonstrate to trainees the weapon’s battlefield impact upon the human body.
ISIS justifies its savagery on a Quranic mandate to pursue Islam’s ultimate goal: a global Caliphate by which to rule all inhabitants under sharia-a system of laws stripping its own believers of human dignity and non-believers of their lives.
But it is interesting that the ultimate goal for Islam sought by ISIS is really no different than that sought by Iran’s mullahs.
The brutality of ISIS, the irrationality of its leadership, the darkness that strips it of any humanity, the avowed purpose of its very being-all of this is mirrored within the mindset of Iran’s mullahs. Iran’s mullahs are ISIS wolves in sheep’s clothing.
ISIS is driven by a virulent Islamic ideology, unprotected by state boundaries, seeking to impose sharia upon the world. Iran is driven by a virulent Islamic ideology, protected by state boundaries, seeking the very same global objective.
The two mindsets evolved from one Islamic tree, branching out into different sects following Muhammad’s death. While differences evolved in culture, political systems, eschatological beliefs concerning the “Twelfth” or “Hidden Imam,” the role economics plays, etc., what we should find disturbing is, regardless of which sectarian branch prevails, for us, the end result is the same. Whether a Sunni ISIS Caliphate or a Shiite Iranian one were to dominate, infidels would be forced either to convert to Islam or die-with death imposed by whatever means available.
It is the commitment to an Iranian Caliphate that should concern us more than the commitment of ISIS to one. The mullahs believe for theirs to evolve, global chaos needs to occur-with man a catalyst in triggering it. Thus, providing them with a path for a nuclear-armed Iran gives the mullahs the means to fulfill the prophecy of Islam to which they adhere.
The Western mind rationalizes Iran would never initiate a nuclear strike for fear of retaliation. But the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that prevented a Cold War from turning hot will have no impact upon Iran. Its mullahs see this life as but a means of ensuring their arrival in the next-a paradise of unlimited sexual desires with “recycled” virgins promised by Muhammad. Such is their reward for striving in this life to make the world an infidel-free one.
We see the evil of ISIS by the sins it commits. Why do we fail to see it in the deeds of Iran’s mullahs who mirror them? Perhaps it is because ISIS boasts about its inhumanity while the mullahs are less vocal about theirs.
To fully understand the mullahs’ commitment to their ultimate goal, we need view it through the most innocent of eyes.
The best insight into the soul of a nation’s leadership is examining how it treats its most treasured asset-its own children.
Peering into the soul of Iran’s leadership, one sees only darkness.
As Iran’s mullahs came to power in 1979, the violence against the Shah was soon redirected against their own people, claiming thousands of lives. Some were children who, lacking knowledge about sharia, were held accountable, nonetheless, for violating it and summarily executed. Sharia was to rule over all, even those of a tender age incapable of its comprehension.
For Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the sacrifice of children in this life was deemed acceptable to ensure ascendancy to the next. As he proclaimed in December 1979, “Could anyone wish his child to be martyred to obtain a good house? This is not the issue. The issue is (achieving) another world”-i.e., martyrdom of a child is justified in furtherance of Islam.
The extreme to which Khomeini took this was documented during Tehran’s eight-year war with Iraq.
Seeking to reduce Iranian army losses suffered penetrating Iraqi positions heavily defended by minefields, Khomeini issued a call for children to march through these fields to clear a route of attack. Each child was presented a plastic key beforehand, which, Khomeini promised, unlocked the gates to paradise. An estimated 500,000 children were so sacrificed.
A child’s life today in Iran continues to hold little value-children are still executed for acts deemed criminal under sharia. Accordingly, Tehran fails to comply with the Convention on Rights of the Child-an international commitment it made to protect its own children.
The virulent ideology of both ISIS and Iran’s mullahs merge on the common ground they share in totally devaluing the life of a child, evidenced by their unconscionable willingness to use children as weapons of war-whether it be to clear minefields, to serve as suicide bombers, or to execute prisoners.
The mullahs’ willingness to sacrifice the lives of their children should not be lost on us. If they, in pursuit of their ultimate goal, are unwilling to honor international commitments protecting their own children, only a fool can expect them to honor the international commitments set forth in a nuclear agreement.
He, too, is a fool who accepts President Obama’s claim that the Iranian leadership’s cries of “Death to America” are simply made for domestic consumption, ignoring Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s recent warning, “Saying death to America is easy; we need to express death with action.” If Congress approves Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, Rouhani’s wish to replace hopeful words for America’s death with action to achieve it will take a deadly step forward.
Next month’s vote on the Iranian nuclear deal will reveal to us just how many fools we have in Congress.
(With which of Choudary’s precepts do the Mad Mullahs of Iran disagree? — DM)
A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.
“Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim… if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire… so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.” — Anjem Choudary.
“Under the Shari’ah, the false Gods that people worship instead of Allah will be removed, like democracy, freedom, liberalism, secularism etc.” — Anjem Choudary.
“We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!” — Anjem Choudary.
Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims… as a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison…” he warned, “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”
Anjem Choudary, one of the most outspoken and provocative Islamists in Britain today, has been remanded in custody, charged with the terrorism offense of encouraging people to join the Islamic State.
The charge is related to Choudary sending messages to his nearly 33,000 followers on Twitter, allegedly encouraging them to join the Islamic State — the radical Sunni Islamist group that has taken control over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and has threatened to attack targets in Europe and North America.
The effort to prosecute Choudary — well known for his relentless efforts to implement Islamic Sharia law in the UK — indicates that the British government intends to follow through on its recent pledge to crack down on radical Islam in the country.
It remains to be seen, however, if Choudary’s detention will serve as a deterrent to other Islamists in Britain. A recent BBC poll found that 45% of British Muslims believe extremist clerics who preach violence against the West are not “out of touch” with mainstream Muslim opinion.
Choudary was originally arrested in September 2014 during police raids in London, as part of an ongoing Metropolitan Police investigation into Islamist-related terrorism. He was subsequently released on bail while police continued their investigation.
On August 5, Choudary, 48, and an associate, Mohammed Rahman, 32, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court and were charged with repeatedly violating Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 between June 2014 and March 2015.
Addressing the court, Sue Hemming, the head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the Crown Prosecution Service, said:
“It is alleged that Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman invited support for ISIS [also known as the Islamic State] in individual lectures which were subsequently published online. We have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute Anjem Choudary and Mohammed Rahman.”
When asked by the judge to indicate how he would plead, Choudary said: “Cameron and the police are guilty.” The judge replied that he took that to mean that he would be pleading not guilty. Choudary will remain in police custody until August 28, when he is set to appear at the Old Bailey, the Criminal Court of England and Wales. If convicted, Choudary faces up to ten years in prison.
Until now, Choudary, a lawyer by training, has managed to avoid prison by treading the fine legal line between the inflammatory rhetoric of Islamic supremacism and the right to free speech. He has never been convicted of any offense.
Choudary is the former leader of the Muslim extremist group, al-Muhajiroun (Arabic: “The Emigrants”). Al-Muhajiroun, which celebrated the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, was banned in January 2010.
Since then, al-Muhajiroun has repeatedly reinvented itself under an array of successor aliases. These include, among others: Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path, Islamic Dawa Association, London School of Sharia, Muslims Against Crusades and Need4Khalifah, all of which have also been banned.
A study published by the London-based Henry Jackson Society in September 2014 found that one in five terrorists convicted in Britain over more than a decade have had links to al-Muhajiroun.
A report published by the British anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate in November 2013 concluded that al-Muhajiroun was “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history.”
Al-Muhajiroun is said to have also played a major role in radicalizing Michael Adebolajo, who was found guilty of murdering (and attempting to decapitate) the British soldier Lee Rigby outside London’s Woolwich Barracks in May 2013.
Choudary said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim, and also praised Adebolajo as a “martyr.” He said:
“Allah said very clearly in the Koran ‘Don’t feel sorry for the non-Muslims.’ So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.
“That’s what I believe so I’m not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims. We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don’t, then obviously if they die like that they’re going to the hellfires.”
Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary (right) praised one of the murderers of British solider Lee Rigby (left) as a “martyr” and said Rigby would “burn in hellfire” as a non-Muslim.
Police say that Choudary’s rhetoric has become more incendiary since June 2014, when the Islamic State proclaimed itself to be an Islamic Caliphate, a theocracy ruled according to Sharia law. Since then, police say, Choudary has repeatedly crossed the legal threshold for criminal prosecution for encouraging terrorism, such as justifying the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley, and the British aid worker, Alan Henning.
Choudary believes that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is “the caliph of all Muslims” and that Shariah law will eventually “be in command even in America and in Britain and in China and in Russia and everywhere else.”
The expansion of the Caliphate, the global implementation of Sharia law and Islamic supremacism are common themes in Choudary’s Twitter universe, where — through a daily barrage of anti-Western tweets — he repeatedly admonishes his nearly 33,000 followers to avoid assimilating into British culture.
“A Muslim always prefers: Shari’ah over Democracy, Submission over Freedom, Khilafah over Secularism, Jihad over oppression, Allah over [Prime Minister David] Cameron!”
“The Khalifah [Caliphate] must ensure that no non-Muslim criticizes Islam or tries to convert Muslims to their own false belief, only Islam is propagated.”
“The cycle of violence that we find ourselves in can be resolved. Muslims, Christians & Jews can live peacefully under Shari’ah! #Chattanooga.”
Choudary, who was born in the UK, has also explained how he feels about his British citizenship:
“We are Muslims first and Muslim last. Passports are no more than travel documents. If you are born in a barn that doesn’t make you a horse!!”
Choudary, who is married and has four children, enjoys a comfortable lifestyle that is being paid for, year after year, by British taxpayers. In 2010, the newspaper The Sunreported that he takes home more than £25,000 (€35,000; $38,000) a year in welfare benefits.
In February 2013, Choudary urged his followers to quit their jobs and claim unemployment benefits so that they could have more time to plot holy war against non-Muslims. He said Muslims are entitled to welfare payments because they are a form of jizya, a tax imposed on non-Muslims in countries run by Muslims. According to Sharia law, the jizya is a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
“We [Muslims] take the jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-Muslim]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar. We take the money.”
Meanwhile, Choudary’s Twitter followers have threatened violence unless he is released. In one tweet, a supporter used the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary with a picture of Big Ben and the flag of the Islamic State. Another tweet said: “The black days is coming to Britain if it doesnt [sic] release the Muslims.” Yet another said: “O Allah! Whoever has harmed them, then harm him, n whoever has shown enmity to them, then show enmity to them.” And another: “The shariah of Allah is the only solution for UK. #democracy is rotten.”
According to data compiled by an online analytics company, the hashtag #FreeAnjemChoudary was shared nearly 600 times in first the 24 hours after Choudary’s detention, potentially reaching 700,000 people. The data shows that most of Choudary’s supporters are living in the West: 69% of Choudary’s supporters are tweeting from Britain, Canada and the United States, and another 10% tweeting from Australia.
Choudary says he is not afraid of going to prison, which he describes as a fertile ground for gaining more converts to Islam. “If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison,” he warned. “I will radicalize everyone in prison.”
(The conflict between Shiite and Sunni factions has been going on since shortly after the death of Mohamed. Obama is not likely to bring reconciliation. — DM)
This article will analyze the strategy of creating an equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites as a means to promote peace in the Middle East. It will examine the meaning of the strategy in political terms, how realistic it is, and what its future implications might be on the region and on the United States.
“It is worth noting that the first Islamic State created in the Middle East in the last 50 years was not the one created in the Sunni world in 2014 and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” Rather, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran created in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and currently ruled by his successor, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who maintains – even following the Iran deal – the mantra “Death to America,” continues to sponsor terrorism worldwide, and commits horrific human rights violations.
********************
Introduction
In an interview with Thomas Friedman of The New York Times (“Obama Makes His Case on Iran Nuclear Deal,” July 14, 2015), President Obama asked that the nuclear deal with Iran be judged only by how successfully it prevents Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb, not on “whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran” or “whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran.” However, in many interviews he has given over the last few years, he has revealed a strategy and a plan that far exceed the Iran deal: a strategy which aims to create an equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites in the Muslim world.
President Obama believes that such an equilibrium will result in a more peaceful Middle East in which tensions between regional powers are reduced to mere competition. As he told David Remnick in an interview with The New Yorker, “…if we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion…you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare” (“Going the Distance,” January 27, 2014).
In discussing the Iran deal, the President recalled President Nixon negotiating with China and President Reagan negotiating with the Soviet Union in order to explain the scope of his strategy for the Middle East and the Muslim world. President Obama seeks, as did Presidents Reagan and Nixon with China and the Soviet Union, to impact the region as a whole. The Iran deal, even if major, is just one of several vehicles that would help achieve this goal.
This article will analyze the strategy of creating an equilibrium between Sunnis and Shiites as a means to promote peace in the Middle East. It will examine the meaning of the strategy in political terms, how realistic it is, and what its future implications might be on the region and on the United States.
The Meaning Of The Equilibrium Strategy In Political Terms
Examining the strategy of equilibrium requires the recollection of some basic information. Within Islam’s approximately 1.6 billion believers, the absolute majority – about 90% – is Sunni, while Shiites constitute only about 10%. Even in the Middle East, Sunnis are a large majority.
What does the word “equilibrium” mean in political terms? In view of the above stated data, the word “equilibrium” in actual political terms means empowering the minority and thereby weakening the majority in order to progress toward the stated goal. However, the overwhelming discrepancy in numbers makes it impossible to reach an equilibrium between the two camps. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to believe that the majority would accept a policy that empowers its adversary and weakens its own historically superior status.
Implications For The Region
Considering the above, the implications of the equilibrium strategy for the region might not be enhancing peace as the President well intends; rather, it might intensify strife and violence in the region. The empowered minority might be persuaded to increase its expansionist activity, as can be already seen: Iran has extended its influence from Lebanon to Yemen. Iranian analyst Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini stated in an interview on September 24, 2014, “We in the axis of resistance are the new sultans of the Mediterranean and the Gulf. We in Tehran, Damascus, [Hizbullah’s] southern suburb of Beirut, Baghdad, and Sanaa will shape the map of the region. We are the new sultans of the Red Sea as well” (MEMRITV Clip No. 4530). Similarly, in a statement dedicated to the historically indivisible connection between Iraq and Iran, advisor to President Rouhani Ali Younesi stressed that, “Since its inception, Iran has [always] had a global [dimension]; it was born an empire” (MEMRI Report No. 5991).
In view of this reality, this strategy might create, against the President’s expectations, more bitterness and willingness on the part of the majority to fight for their status. This has already been realized; for example, when Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen after facing the Houthi/Shiite revolution, which it perceived as a grave danger to its survival, and created a fighting coalition within a month to counter it. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has previously demonstrated that it regards Bahrain as an area where any Iranian attempt to stir up unrest will be answered by Saudi military intervention. According to reports, Saudi Arabia has been supporting the Sunni population in Iraq, and in Lebanon, a standstill has resulted because Saudi Arabia has shown that it will not give up – even in a place where Iranian proxy Hizbollah is the main power. Hence, the strategy of equilibrium has a greater chance of resulting in the eruption of regional war than in promoting regional peace.
Implications For The United States
Moreover, this strategy might have adverse implications for the United States and its interests in the Sunni Muslim world: those countries that feel betrayed by the strategy might, as a result, take action against the United States – hopefully only politically (such as changing international alliances) or economically. These countries might be careful about their public pronouncements and might even voice rhetorical support to U.S. policy, as the GCC states did on August 3, but the resentment is there.
Realpolitik Versus Moral Considerations
The analysis presented here is based on principles of realpolitik: in politics, one does not align with the minority against the majority. However, sometimes other considerations take precedence. Morality is such an example: the Allies could not refrain from fighting Nazi Germany because it was a majority power – ultimately, they recognized the moral obligation to combat the Third Reich. However, with regard to the Middle East, the two adversaries are on equal standing: the Islamic Republic of Iran is no different than the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. President Obama and Secretary Kerry would be wrong to think that Mohammad Javad Zarif, the sophisticated partygoer in New York City, represents the real Iran. Zarif, his negotiating team, and President Rouhani himself, all live under the shadow and at the mercy of the Supreme Leader, the ayatollahs, and the IRGC.
“It is worth noting that the first Islamic State created in the Middle East in the last 50 years was not the one created in the Sunni world in 2014 and headed by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” Rather, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran created in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and currently ruled by his successor, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who maintains – even following the Iran deal – the mantra “Death to America,” continues to sponsor terrorism worldwide, and commits horrific human rights violations.
The undated document, titled “A Brief History of the Islamic State Caliphate (ISC), The Caliphate According to the Prophet,” seeks to unite dozens of factions of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban into a single army of terror. It includes a never-before-seen history of the Islamic State, details chilling future battle plans, urges al-Qaeda to join the group and says the Islamic State’s leader should be recognized as the sole ruler of the world’s 1 billion Muslims under a religious empire called a “caliphate.”
“Accept the fact that this caliphate will survive and prosper until it takes over the entire world and beheads every last person that rebels against Allah,” it proclaims. “This is the bitter truth, swallow it.”
Unlike al-Qaeda, which has targeted terror attacks on the United States and other western nations, the document said Islamic State leaders believe that’s the wrong strategic goal. “Instead of wasting energy in a direct confrontation with the U.S., we should focus on an armed uprising in the Arab world for the establishment of the caliphate,” the document said.
First the Muslim world. Then the world. It’s a straightforward strategy, one that Osama bin Laden flirted with but never truly committed to. Though he celebrated the Arab Spring, ISIS would reap its rewards.
Retired Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who also reviewed the document, said it “represents the Islamic State’s campaign plan and is something, as an intelligence officer, I would not only want to capture, but fully exploit. It lays out their intent, their goals and objectives, a red flag to which we must pay attention.”
The failure to target the radical Islamic ideas behind the group has given its fighters the opportunity to spread, Flynn said. “If I were in their shoes, I would say,’We are winning, we are achieving our objectives,’” Flynn said. “They have demonstrated an incredible level of resiliency and they will not be defeated by military means alone.”
We have yet to try defeating them by military means.
(The views expressed in this post are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM) Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
The current “deal” is based on a long-standing scam
Part I of this series, published on July 14, 2015, pointed out what should be a glaring consistency in the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” first made available on that date, and the November 24, 2013 Joint Plan of Action: neither provides for any “anytime -anywhere” inspections of Iran’s nuclear weaponization or missile sites. That consistency has been little remarked upon elsewhere.
Secretary Kerry now acknowledges that he never sought such inspections.
Leaving aside the twenty-four day lag between an IAEA request to inspect suspect facilities — which Kerry says is just fine — he claims that we now have a “unique ability” to get the U.N. Security Council to force inspections and reinstate sanctions. However, any effort to do so would almost certainly be vetoed by one or more Security Council members. The permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — five of the members of P5+1 which approved the “deal.”
“I think this is one of those circumstances where we have all been rhetorical from time to time,” Sherman said in a conference call with Israeli diplomatic reporters. “That phrase, anytime, anywhere, is something that became popular rhetoric, but I think people understood that if the IAEA felt it had to have access, and had a justification for that access, that it would be guaranteed, and that is what happened.” [Emphasis added.]
Speaking to the BBC after the nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers was reached, Kerry said that the more than $100 billion that Iran is set to receive “is going to make all the difference in the world is just – it’s not true.”
Acknowledging Iran is an international player in wreaking terror across the globe, Kerry said, “What Iran has done for years with Hezbollah does not depend on money.” He similarly stated Iran’s support of the Houthi rebels against the government in Yemen has not “depended on money.” [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
In its most recent report, the State Department wrote, “Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.”
In 2010 alone, State reported “Iran provides roughly $100-$200 million per year in funding to support Hezbollah.”
Secretary Kerry is almost certainly wrong, on that as on other aspects of the “deal.”.
Here’s Megan Kelly’s wrap up.
Iran may reject the “deal.”
There are at least glimmers of hope that Iran may reject the “deal,” unanimously endorsed by the UN Security council today.
A UN Security Council resolution endorsing Iran’s nuclear deal that passed on Monday is unacceptable, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander Mohammed Ali Jafari was quoted as saying by the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
“Some parts of the draft have clearly crossed the Islamic republic’s red lines, especially in Iran’s military capabilities. We will never accept it,” he was quoted as saying shortly before the resolution was passed in New York. [Emphasis added.]
On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.
Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.
“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.
. . . .
In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.
The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.) [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
[W]hile the interim agreement of Nov. 2013 provided that Iran would ratify the AP within one year, there is no such deadline in the final Iran deal. The AP is merely to be applied “provisionally,” while the Majlis decides whether to accept it or not.
Meanwhile, if the Obama administration has its way, the U.S. Congress will have no opportunity to amend the deal–and will have to accept the lifting of international sanctions regardless of whether legislators accept or reject the agreement. [Emphasis added.]
Iranian leadership’s opposition to the “deal” appears to have come from Iran’s Supreme leader and the Iranian Parliament has the authority to reject the “deal.”
As expected, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s reaction to the nuclear deal was utterly different from that of President Hassan Rouhani. Right after the agreement was announced on July 14, Rouhani appeared on state television and praised the outcome. Yet when he and other officials visited Khamenei’s home a few hours later, the Supreme Leader did not say anything about the deal apart from a few lines thanking the negotiators. This reticence signaled to hardliners that they should increase their attacks on the agreement. [Emphasis added.]
America’s Supreme Leader, on the other hand, has been pushing vigorously to force the U.S. Congress to approve it, with no way to change it.
The “deal,” and Obama’s foreign policy in general, are rooted in His affinity for Islam
Obama may or may not be a Muslim. However, He thinks very highly of Islam and deems it the “religion of peace.” It would be ironic were Obama’s Iran “deal” to be rejected by Iran.
Obama is the first US president who genuinely conceives of Islam as not inherently opposed to American values or interests.
. . . .
It is through this Islamo-philic prism that the Obama administration’s attitude to, and execution of, its foreign policy must be evaluated – including its otherwise incomprehensible capitulation this week on Iran’s nuclear program. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
The inspection mechanism provided for in the nascent deal make a mockery of Obama’s contention (July 14): “… this deal is not built on trust; it is built on verification,” and, “Because of this deal, inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location… [They] will have access where necessary, when necessary.”
One can hardly imagine a more grossly misleading representation of the deal – so much so that it is difficult not to find it strongly reminiscent of the Muslim tactic of taqiya (the religiously sanctioned deception of non-Muslims). [Emphasis added.]
Indeed, immediately following the announcement of the agreement, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, made a stunning admission to CNN’s Erin Burnett. Starkly contradicting the president’s contention of “access where necessary, when necessary,” Rhodes conceded, “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere,” which is diametrically opposed to the impression he conveyed in April this year when queried on this issue. [Emphasis added.]
In His capacity as America’s Imam in Chief, Obama has consistently claimed that the “religion of peace” has nothing to do with the Islamic State or with Islamic terrorism (of which he claims there is none) — such as the recent murder of four members of the U.S. Marines and one member of the U.S. Navy — committed in the name of Allah. The Daily Beast has posted some of the terrorist’s writings. They include these statements:
“I would imagine that any sane person would devote their time to mastering the information on the study guide and stay patient with their studies, only giving time for the other things around to keep themselves focused on passing the exam,” Abdulazeez wrote. “They would do this because they know and have been told that they will be rewarded with pleasures that they have never seen.”
This life is that test, he wrote, “designed to separate the inhabitants of Paradise from the inhabitants of Hellfire.”
. . . .
“We ask Allah to make us follow their path,” Abdulazeez wrote. “To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.” [Emphasis added.]
Obama apparently considers the Islamic Republic of Iran to be Islamic — and therefore peaceful — despite its widespread support for its terrorist proxies. That may explain the credence He gives to Supreme Leader Khamenei’s alleged fatwa preventing Iran from obtaining nukes. Obama and Khamenei have frequently referred to it in support of that proposition, although no text been produced. According to a Washington Post article dated November 27, 2013,
Oddly, the Iranian Web site does not provide the text of the original fatwa — and then mostly cites Western news reports as evidence that Khamenei has reiterated it on several occasions. The fatwa does not appear to be written, but in the Shiite tradition equal weight is given to oral and written opinions.
. . . .
Just about every Alfred Hitchcock thriller had what he called a “MacGuffin” — a plot device that gets the action going but is unimportant to the overall story. The Iranian fatwa thus appears to be a diplomatic MacGuffin — something that gives the Americans a reason to begin to trust the Iranians and the Iranians a reason to make a deal. No one knows how this story will end, but just as in the movies, the fatwa likely will not be critical to the outcome. [Emphasis added.]
Even if one believes the fatwa exists — and will not later be reversed — it clearly appears to have evolved over time. U.S. officials should be careful about saying the fatwa prohibits the development of nuclear weapons, as that is not especially clear anymore. The administration’s statements at this point do not quite rise to the level of earning Pinocchios, but we will keep an eye on this issue. [Emphasis added.]
“Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain,” he said. “And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek. [Emphasis added.]
“As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy,” Obama said. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. [Emphasis added.]
Isn’t that special! Why, in light of the alleged fatwa, does Iranian television broadcast simulations of nuclear attacks on Israel?
A short animated film being aired across Iran, shows the nuclear destruction of Israel and opens with the word ‘Holocaust’ appearing on the screen, underneath which a Star of David is shown, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Tuesday.
Khamenei’s Death to America rants are considered an excellent reason to have a “deal.”
Similarly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was fond of saying “God Damn America.”
Obama apparently understood Khamenei’s words, but perhaps He didn’t understand Jeremiah’s words.
Conclusions
Elected on a platform of Hope and Change, Obama has brought us many changes; very few, if any, of those changes provide a basis for hope, at least until He has left office. Some will be difficult, if not impossible, even then to ameliorate. During His remaining time in office, He will continue to do His worst to eliminate any vestigial hope we may have. The “deal” with Iran is only one of the many changes for the worse that He has wrought.
(Not much chance of that. General al-Sisi supported the large masses of Egyptians who wanted then President Morsi deposed. He was later elected President of Egypt. Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood — which uses terrorism to gain and keep power — is an Obama favorite. Besides, al-Sisi’s efforts to reform Islam run counter to Obama’s delusion that Islam, as it is and has long been, is a wonderful religion of peace. — DM)
The silence was truly deafening. Not a sound from Archbishop Desmond Tutu or Alice Walker or the eager boycotters of Israel or the United Nations Human Rights Council about the brutal massacre of more than 70, perhaps 100, Egyptian soldiers and civilians by Islamist terrorists in the northern Sinai peninsula.
Since Israel, after the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, withdrew all its forces and all settlements — including Yamit — by 1982, the Sinai peninsula has been plagued by terrorist attacks, especially against tourists, by kidnappings, and by violence. After the 2011 Egyptian revolution and consequent uprisings, a major terrorist group emerged and became even more belligerent after the coup that deposed President Mohammed Morsi on July 3, 2013. This was Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM) that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against both Israeli interests and Egyptian personnel.
These assaults included an attack in July 2012 against a Sinai pipeline, a rocket strike in August 2012 on Eilat in south Israel, suicide bombings in el Tor in southern Sinai in May 2014, downing an Egyptian military helicopter in a missile attack, car bombings and hand grenades in Cairo, assassinations and attempted assassinations of Egyptian officials, beheading of four individuals in October 2014, an attack on a security checkpoint, and the June 29, 2015 murder in Cairo of Hisham Barakat, the Egyptian Prosecutor General, who in only two years in office had detained hundreds of members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was the most senior Egyptian government official murdered.
In November 2014, ABM declared its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS) and accepted the new self-appointed Caliph. It appears to have several hundred trained operatives and collaborators. There are different opinions about the actions of the Sinai Bedouin population, especially that of the largest of the 10 major tribes, the Tarabin tribe in northern Sinai, a tribe that is notorious for drug dealing, weapons smuggling, and human trafficking in prostitutes and African labor workers. Tarabin is said to have called for unification of all the tribes against the terrorists, but rumors of clashes appear to be untrue, and some even allege collaboration with the terrorists. What is true is that local Bedouin tribesmen, alleging discrimination by the state against them, have launched attacks against government forces in Sinai.
Over the last two years ABM, now regarding itself as a dedicated affiliate of IS, has tried to undermine the rule of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. It has attacked Egyptian army posts, and security centers, and also the UN Multilateral Force in northern Sinai, that oversees the terms of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and tried as well to infiltrate Israeli territory.
There had already been terrorist attacks on October 2014 and January 2015 when more than 30 were killed on each occasion in northeast Sinai. The most dramatic deed of ABM, which now seems to have changed its name to Province of Sinai, (POS) was the series of simultaneous coordinated attacks on July 1, 2015 on fifteen army centers of security forces and checkpoints in northern Sinai. The attacks, including three suicide bombers, killed at least 70 soldiers and civilians.
Evidently POS, imitating its mentor IS that has taken and now rules cities in Iraq and Syria, wanted to take over the city of Sheikh Zuweid, close to Israel, and cut off Rafah from al-Arish.
The danger to all of the democratic countries is immediate for a number of reasons. The first is that the success of the terrorists in their daring ambushes, control of the roads, taking police officers hostage, and planting mines in the streets, indicates not only their disciplined activity but also the influence of IS operatives directly and indirectly through training. IS in Iraq and Syria has operated in just this aggressive and disciplined fashion. All authorities responsible for security in the United States should be conscious of and take account of this highly organized success and of the threat of future similar attacks in the U.S. itself.
The second reason is that Hamas in Gaza is providing support to POS with weapons and logistical support, and even with Hamas terrorists taking part in operations. These have come from Hamas commanders in the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades that have been prominent for anti-Israeli attacks, including suicide bombings against civilians inside Israel. One particular active commander is Wael Faraj, who has smuggled wounded fighters from Sinai into Gaza.
A third problem is the obvious attempt to undermine and aim at the overthrow of President Sisi, a voice of sanity in the Muslim world. He has courageously criticized the extremists of his religion. In his remarkable speech at al-Azhar University in Cairo on January 22, 2015, he said that fellow Muslims needed to change the religious discourse and remove from it things that have led to violence and extremism. The Muslim religion, he said to imams, is in need of religious reform.
Since he assumed power on June 8, 2014, Sisi has attempted to stem the tide of terrorism by reinforcing the Sinai, restricting traffic, imposing curfews in the area, and demolishing homes of suspected terrorists in Rafah. He sought to create a buffer zone along the border with Gaza, and to destroy the tunnels built by Hamas. But clearly Sisi needs help to survive. It is imperative for the U.S. together with Israel to provide that help to the overwhelmed Egyptian army and intelligence services.
Israel is acutely aware of the danger. POS captured armored vehicles on July 1, 2015 that it can now use to penetrate the border fence between Sinai and Israel. That fence is unlikely to deter a trained terrorist group that now has combat experience. Israel responded by closing roads and two border crossings as a precautionary measure. But all the democratic countries, especially the United States, and also the United Nations because of its Multilateral Force, are now aware that the Islamist terror is at their doors as well as at the outskirts of Israel, and should act accordingly.
“If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the West, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.” — Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.
“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war… Mohammed was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone… He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war. — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State.
While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is.
The BBC has rejected demands by British lawmakers to stop using the term “Islamic State” when referring to the jihadist group that is carving out a self-declared Caliphate in the Middle East.
Lord Hall of Birkenhead, the BBC’s director general, said that the proposed alternative, “Daesh,” is pejorative and using it would be unfair to the Islamic State, thereby casting doubt upon the BBC’s impartiality.
Prime Minister David Cameron recently joined the growing chorus of British politicians who argue that the name “Islamic State” is offensive to Muslims and should be banned from the English vocabulary.
During an interview with BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program on June 29 — just days after a jihadist with links to the Islamic State killed 38 people (including 30 Britons) at a beach resort in Tunisia — Cameron rebuked veteran presenter John Humphrys for referring to the Islamic State by its name.
When Humphrys asked Cameron whether he regarded the Islamic State to be an existential threat, Cameron said:
“I wish the BBC would stop calling it ‘Islamic State’ because it is not an Islamic state. What it is is an appalling, barbarous regime. It is a perversion of the religion of Islam, and, you know, many Muslims listening to this program will recoil every time they hear the words ‘Islamic State.'”
Humphrys responded by pointing out that the group calls itself the Islamic State (al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah, Arabic for Islamic State), but he added that perhaps the BBC could use a modifier such as “so-called” in front of that name.
Cameron replied: “‘So-called’ or ISIL [the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is better.” He continued:
“But it is an existential threat, because what is happening here is the perversion of a great religion, and the creation of this poisonous death cult, that is seducing too many young minds, in Europe, in America, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
“And this is, I think, going to be the struggle of our generation. We have to fight it with everything that we can.”
Later that day in the House of Commons, Cameron repeated his position. Addressing Cameron, Scottish National Party MP Angus Robertson said that the English-speaking world should adopt Daesh, the Arabic name for the Islamic State, as the proper term.
Daesh, which translates as Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (Syria), is the Arabic equivalent to ISIL. Daesh sounds similar to the Arabic word “Daes,” which means “one who crushes something underfoot,” and “Dahes,” which means “one who sows discord.” As a result of this play on words, Daesh has become a derogatory name for the Islamic State, and its leaders have threatened to “cut the tongue” of anyone who uses the word in public.
“You are right to highlight the longer-term challenge of extremism and of radicalization. You have pointed out the importance of getting terminology right and not using the name ‘Islamic State.’ Will you join parliamentarians across this house, the US secretary of state and the French foreign minister in using the appropriate term?
“Do you agree the time has come in the English-speaking world to stop using Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL and instead we and our media should use Daesh — the commonly used phrase across the Middle East?”
Cameron replied:
“I agree with you in terms of the use of Islamic State. I think this is seen as particularly offensive to many Muslims who see, as I see, not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women, and murdering people because they’re gay. I raised this with the BBC this morning.
“I personally think that using the term ‘ISIL’ or ‘so-called’ would be better than what they currently do. I don’t think we’ll move them all the way to Daesh so I think saying ISIL is probably better than Islamic State because it is neither in my view Islamic nor a state.”
Separately, more than 100 MPs signed a June 25 letter to the BBC’s director general calling on the broadcaster to begin using the term Daesh when referring to the Islamic State. The letter, which was drafted by Rehman Chishti, a Pakistani-born Conservative MP, stated:
“The use of the titles: Islamic State, ISIL and ISIS gives legitimacy to a terrorist organization that is not Islamic nor has it been recognized as a state and which a vast majority of Muslims around the world finds despicable and insulting to their peaceful religion.”
Scottish Nation Party MP Alex Salmond, in a June 29 newspaper column, wrote:
“We should start by understanding that in a propaganda war language is crucial.
“Any description of terrorists which confers on them the image that they are representing either a religion or a state must surely be wrong and an own goal of massive proportions. It is after all how they wish to refer to themselves.
“Daesh, sometimes spelled Daiish or Da’esh, is short for Dawlat al Islamiyah fi’al Iraq wa al Sham.
“Many Arabic-speaking media organizations refer to the group as such and there is an argument it is appropriately pejorative, deriving from a mixture of rough translations from the individual Arabic words.
“However, the real point of using Daesh is that it separates the terrorists from the religion they claim to represent and from the false dream of a new caliphate that they claim to pursue.
“It should become the official policy of the government and be followed by the broadcasting organizations.”
The BBC, which routinely refers to Muslims as “Asians” to comply with the politically correct norms of British multiculturalism, has held its ground. It said:
“No one listening to our reporting could be in any doubt what kind of organization this is. We call the group by the name it uses itself, and regularly review our approach. We also use additional descriptions to help make it clear we are referring to the group as they refer to themselves, such as ‘so-called Islamic State.'”
The presenter of the BBC’s “The World This Weekend” radio program, Mark Mardell, added:
“It seems to me, once we start passing comment on the accuracy of the names people call their organizations, we will constantly be expected to make value judgements. Is China really a ‘People’s Republic?’ After the Scottish referendum, is the UK only the ‘so-called United Kingdom?’ With the Greek debacle, there is not much sign of ‘European Union.'”
London Mayor Boris Johnson believes both viewpoints are valid. In a June 28 opinion article published by the Telegraph, he wrote:
“Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behavior; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favor of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh,” and his point deserves a wider hearing.
“But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism — and here I am afraid I disagree….
“Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority? …
“Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears.
“You can’t say “Salafist,” because there are many law-abiding and peaceful Salafists. You can’t say jihadi, because jihad — the idea of struggle — is a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness. The only word that seems to carry general support among Muslim leaders is Kharijite — which means a heretic — and which is not, to put it mildly, a word in general use among the British public.
“We can’t just call it “terrorism”, as some have suggested, because we need to distinguish it from any other type of terrorism — whether animal rights terrorists or Sendero Luminoso Marxists. We need to speak plainly, to call a spade a spade. We can’t censor the use of “Muslim” or “Islamic.”
“That just lets too many people off the hook. If we deny any connection between terrorism and religion, then we are saying there is no problem in any of the mosques; that there is nothing in the religious texts that is capable of being twisted or misunderstood; that there are no religious leaders whipping up hatred of the west, no perverting of religious belief for political ends.”
What does the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, have to say? In a May 2015 audio message, he summed it up this way:
“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war. Your Prophet (peace be upon him) was dispatched with the sword as a mercy to the creation. He was ordered to wage war until Allah is worshipped alone. He (peace be upon him) said to the polytheists of his people, ‘I came to you with slaughter.’ He fought both the Arabs and non-Arabs in all their various colors. He himself left to fight and took part in dozens of battles. He never for a day grew tired of war.
“So there is no excuse for any Muslim who is capable of performing hijrah [migration] to the Islamic State, or capable of carrying a weapon where he is, for Allah (the Blessed and Exalted) has commanded him with hijrah and jihad, and has made fighting obligatory upon him.”
Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron (L) says of the Islamic State, “Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (R), leader of the Islamic State, say, “Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war. Your Prophet (peace be upon him) was dispatched with the sword as a mercy to the creation.”
While Western politicians claim that the Islamic State is not Islamic, millions of Muslims around the world — referring to what is approved in the Islamic texts — believe that it is. While the former are performing politically correct linguistic gymnastics, the latter are planning their next religiously-inspired attacks against the West. A new twist on an old English adage: The sword is mightier than the pen.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant moved ominously close to Israel’s borders Wednesday, July 1 – not as predicted in the north, but in the south, from the Sinai Peninsula. There, ISIS followed up on its Ramadan terror outrages in France, Tunisia, Kuwait and Kobani, with a massive assault on Egyptian forces in the northern Sinai region of Sheikh Zuwaid close to the Israeli and Gaza Strip borders.
Not just a terrorist attack, ISIS launched a full-scale military assault, starting with mortar fire and suicide bombings against five Egyptian military checkpoints.
Using a tactic similar to that employed in the capture of the Iraqi town of Ramadi last month, ISIS gunmen followed this initial assault by riding in on minivans, backed by heavy mortar fire, to storm the positions held by stunned Egyptian troops. Altogether some 20 Egyptian army positions were attacked in and around Sheikh Zuwaid.
Egyptian troop reinforcements setting out from El Arish to the northeast to aid the beleaguered force, went up on mine and bomb traps secretly planted around their camps and police stations. Egyptian Apache assault helicopters striking the ISIS force themselves faced ground fire from shoulder-borne anti-air missiles.
Egyptian forces are reported to have sustained heavy casualties, at least 64 dead and many more wounded. The Islamists are additionally said to have taken Egyptian prisoners as hostages.
As the fighting grew fierce during Wednesday, Israel to shut its border crossings with Egypt and the Gaza Strip, and sent reinforcements south in case the jihadis launched an attack on Israel from northern Sinai.
Our military sources also report that US Middle East forces located in Jordan and at Sharm el-Sheikh are on the ready in case the Islamic State decides to attack the US officers and men at the Multinational Force facility in Sinai, which is located near the Sheikh Zuwaid battlefield.
The ISIS Sinai offensive is part and parcel of the reign of terror launched last Friday by Yassin Sahli when he beheaded his French boss, and Seifeddine Rezgui, who murdered 39 holidaymakers on a Tunisian beach. Standing ready for the Islamist offensive in Sinai were the jihadis of the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, which recently declared Sinai a province of the Islamic State and took an oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
ISIS draws on two additional major sources for its fighting manpower: the infrastructure it established in turbulent Libya for training and arming jihadis to cross the Egyptian border into Sinai; and the fatal attraction its radicalizing ideology holds for young Muslims who are taught that the brutal murder of Islam’s foes is a cleansing and purifying act.
It is a desperate attempt by the French government to buy a few more days of quiet from its Muslim community, especially from the members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist organizations to which it gave birth — all waiting for the order to run riot through the streets of France.
If it succeeds, may Allah prevent it, it will lead to an ISIS and Hamas takeover of every inch of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws if coerced by the initiative.
It is evidently too frustrating and unrewarding just to sit in the U.N. and not think of some project supposedly to spread beneficence that could make your country look important to the other 190 members — even if this beneficence is lethal to its recipient.
When the Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Empire, the churches, including the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were turned into mosques; that is the dream of the Islamists today, to turn the Vatican into a mosque.
Currently, Qatar is currently investing millions to overthrow the Egyptian regime. It is investing millions to finance incitement among Muslims around the globe by means of its Islamist network and da’wah, the cunning preaching of the Muslim Brotherhood’s variety of Islam.
The Arabs always secretly believed that anyone who hated their mutual enemies, the Jews, as deeply as the Europeans did, and who actually tried to achieve their total physical destruction during the Second World War, would be their ally and help to expel them from occupied Palestine.
Apparently, the commonly-held hatred between the Europeans and the Arabs was not enough to halt the Jews, so now the Arabs pay huge sums to bribe the leaders of Europe to help them get rid of the Jews now.
The latest missile to split the skies over the Middle East is not a rocket; it is the French “peace” initiative.
No one in the Middle East has the slightest doubt that whatever its objective may be, it will not promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a desperate attempt by the French government to buy a few more days of quiet from its Muslim community, especially from the members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist organizations to which it gave birth — all waiting for the order to run riot through the streets of France.
We, the Palestinians, have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the creation of the Islamist terrorist organizations within the Palestinian Authority territory; it is they who keep us from reaching a peace agreement with the Jews.
One has to be deaf, dumb and blind — or genuinely desperate, which is more likely — to present a unilateral peace agreement like the French one. If it succeeds, may Allah prevent it, it will lead to an ISIS and Hamas takeover of every inch of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws if coerced by the initiative.
One also has to be simply ignorant not to understand that the Middle East is going up in flames and that the Arab states are disintegrating. There is no logical reason, therefore, to construct a new state, which will be both unstable and prey to local and regional subversion. It will also be subject to a quick takeover, and the first people who will suffer will be the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
The Israelis know how to look out for themselves, but we will be left to the tender mercies of Hamas and ISIS mujahedeen. Just as they have done in Iraq and Syria, they will slaughter us without thinking twice, on the grounds that as we did not all become shaheeds [“martyrs” for Islam] trying to kill the Zionists, and even tried to reach a peace agreement with them, we are not sufficiently Muslim.
The French initiative is not a benevolent gesture meant to help the Palestinians. Without a doubt, the French government and its intelligence services know full well that the secret of the Palestinian Authority’s existence today — and its ability to function as a sovereign entity, demilitarized and de facto recognizing the State of Israel — is its security collaboration with the Israelis. It serves the interests of both sides. When, therefore, a Palestinian state is declared unilaterally, as the French propose, Israel will stop collaborating with it and the state, not even fully formed, will almost instantly fall prey to Islamist extremists. That is obvious to us: even our institutions of higher learning are ruled by Hamas today, as can be seen by Hamas’s landslide victory in the recent student elections in Bir Zeit University.
The recent visit of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham to Israel helped the Palestinians understand even more thoroughly that behind the French initiative is an attempt, as with many members of the U.N., to “be a player.” It is evidently too frustrating and unrewarding just to sit in the U.N. and not think of some project supposedly to spread beneficence that could make your country look important to the other 190 members — even if this beneficence is lethal to its recipient. One way of doing spreading such beneficence is to take over the peace process through the Security Council, force both sides into a unilateral solution, and not even to feign dismay when its first victims are the Palestinians.
Senator Graham referred to the drastic nature of the initiative and stressed that the United States supported the solution of two states for two peoples, according to the vision of Israel’s current Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. It favors a demilitarized Palestinian state that would recognize Israel as a Jewish state and make it possible for everyone, both Jews and Palestinians, to live with self-respect and independence.
Graham threatened the UN, saying that if promotes the French initiative, he would bid to halt American funding for the UN — nearly a quarter of its budget.
Today, the UN’s funds are twisted into sending peacekeepers, who have diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be sued, out to Africa to demand sex, often from children, in exchange for food or other necessities; and to passing resolutions aimed at harming Israel, while the organization callously ignores floggings in Saudi Arabia, slavery in Mauritania; escalating executions, calls for genocide and violations of nuclear treaties in Iran, just for a start.
The situation is grotesque. They are basically accusing Israel of “terrorism” for defending itself against by rockets fired from Hamas, in a confrontation where Gazan children were hurt because Hamas used them as human shields — while ignoring the real terrorism against the children of Africa committed by the U.N.’s own peacekeepers, Boko Haram, Iran and Sudan. When they so twist logic as to accuse Israel of “terrorism,” while turning their back on the horrendous abuses by other states, they are essentially giving paedophile UN “peacekeepers,” Iran’s torturers, executioners, and nuclear weapons factories a green light.
Graham was very clear about the American point of view. He said that any country that tried to bring Israel to the International Criminal Court in The Hague would have sanctions imposed on it by the United States.
The parade of the grotesque is the direct result of the Western surrender to Islamic terrorism. Now, sadly, the Vatican has also joined France. The assumption that the Islamists can be pandered to and propitiated by harming the Jews is yet another prevalent misconception. Every gesture to the Islamists, even if it is aimed at “helping” the Palestinians, sends a message of weakness and vulnerability, and increases the Islamists’ aggression against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.
In the Middle East, anyone who “turns the other cheek,” such as the Pope saying that the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, could be “an angel of peace,” will find his neck under the sword. When Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Empire, its churches, including the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, were turned into mosques; that is the dream of the Islamists today, to turn the Vatican into a mosque.
The dangerous European surrender to radical Islam is not only an attempt to hold off its threat to the free society of Europe just a little longer. It is also the result of the economic distress of the Western world, which is seeking to keep afloat by selling itself, literally, for petro-dollars. The Vatican is in desperate financial straits — there are fewer practicing Catholics and therefore fewer donating Catholics. It is hard not to feel that the anti-Israel manipulations of the Vatican administration are motivated not by a genuine desire to help the Palestinians or to save Christians in the Middle East, but by a genuine desire to extricate itself from its financial straits.
Judas sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver; Boko Haram sells girls for the price of a pack of cigarettes, and Europe is selling itself and the Israelis to Qatar.
Europe is in the same situation as the Vatican; and so are many American universities, which are selling radical Islamist education for petro-dollars from the Persian Gulf. This enables the Islamists to rewrite history and endanger the open way of life in the gullible West.
There is already a Muslim Brotherhood lobby in the United States, a syndicate trying to force the administration to undermine the current Egyptian president, who is an enemy of the murderous Muslim Brotherhood. Their aim is to restore to power the Islamist dictator Mohamed Morsi (who is also a member of the Muslim Brotherhood), and to sabotage the measures Egypt is currently taking to rehabilitate itself.
The ease with which Qatar, the petro-dollar heavyweight, manipulates terrorist organizations in the Middle East is unnerving. The country both hosts and finances senior Muslim Brotherhood figures such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others responsible for spreading the doctrine of radical Islamism and terrorism around the world.
Qatar finances a wide range of subversive Islamist terrorist organizations, among them ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and various other global jihad organizations operating under the aegis of the Arab-Muslim regimes. Qatar also seeks to carve out enclaves in Africa and the West, and to turn the West’s pluralistic melting pot into a seething cauldron of terrorist operatives who will, when given the signal, bludgeon Europe and America to the ground.
The petro-dollars of the Qatari feudal lords, totalitarians who dictate their whims to a population with no rights, direct a global network of propaganda and incitement, through vehicles such as Al-Jazeera TV in Arabic, light years more toxic than Al Jazeera in English. It crowns kings and topples regimes throughout the Middle East, as it did by endlessly replaying the self-immolation of the young Tunisian fruit vendor who could not get a license, until it whipped up the Tunisians and Egyptians to start the “Arab Spring.” Currently, Qatar is investing millions to overthrow the Egyptian regime. It is investing millions to finance incitement among Muslims around the globe by means of its Islamist network and da’wah, the cunning preaching of the Muslim Brotherhood’s variety of Islam.
The Arabs always felt that the Europeans had a soft spot in their hearts for them. They always secretly believed that anyone who hated their mutual enemies, the Jews, as deeply as the Europeans did, and who actually tried to achieve their total physical destruction during the Second World War, would be their ally and help to expel them from occupied Palestine. Apparently, the commonly-held hatred between the Europeans and the Arabs was not enough to halt the Jews, so now the Arabs pay huge sums to bribe the leaders of Europe to help them get rid of the Jews now.
Just look at the extensive corruption of the heads of FIFA, bought and paid-for by Qatar. All it took was $100 million, and Qatar could host the World Cup. It makes one wonder what Qatar would be willing to pay for other projects, doesn’t it?
Now where did that envelope of cash go…?
Joseph “Sepp” Blatter (R), then president of FIFA, is pictured patting his jacket pocket a moment after awarding the hosting of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar’s Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (L), on December 2, 2010. (Image source: PBS Newshour video screenshot)
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments