Archive for the ‘Europe’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Europe Still Sleeps, and Europeans Still Die

March 30, 2016

Europe Still Sleeps, and Europeans Still Die, Front Page Magazine, Bruce Thornton, March 30, 2016

bt

While England Slept is the title of Winston Churchill’s 1938 book documenting the failure of England to counter Germany’s rearmament. Despite the gruesome price paid for ignoring Churchill’s warnings, postwar Europe has slumbered for decades while its cultural dysfunctions have nurtured the jihadist violence erupting across Europe. Last week’s attacks in Brussels, coming four months after the Paris attacks that killed 130, suggests there are more attacks to come. According to AP, 400-600 ISIS-trained terrorists are making their way to Europe.

Europe can’t say it wasn’t warned. In 2002 Oriana Fallaci published The Rage and the Pride, a passionate defense of Western civilization and an indictment of those who appease Islamic illiberalism.  Ten years ago Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept gave first-hand reports of Europe’s feckless immigration policies that fostered and appeased Muslim radicalism and violence. A year later Claire Berlinski’s Menace in Europe and Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan sounded the same alarms. And there are the dystopian novels of Michel Houellebecq like Platform and last year’s Submission, which link Europe’s cultural and spiritual exhaustion to the rise of homegrown jihadism and Islamization.

An even more important prophet is Bat Ye’or, whose Eurabia (2005) documented “Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilization that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it.” The result is the dhimmi mentality of Europe’s elites, which manifests in word and deed Western inferiority to Islam, and guilt over alleged crimes against the Muslim world.

But a secularized Europe committed to multicultural fantasies and la dolce vita as the highest goods has dismissed these prophets as bigots and “Islamophobes” who distort the “religion of peace.” Yet after the collapse of the Ottoman caliphate in 1923––the “catastrophe” Osama bin Laden mentioned after 9/11–– the theorists of modern jihadism were forthright and plain in expressing the intolerant and triumphalist Islamic beliefs and jihadist imperative consistent with Ye’or’s analysis. Islam’s nature, Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna wrote, is “to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations, and extend its power to the entire planet.” Fellow Muslim Brother Sayyid Qutb concurred: “Islam has a right to remove all those obstacles which are in its path.” The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of the Iranian Revolution, agreed: “The great prophet of Islam carried in one hand the Koran and in the other a sword; the sword is for crushing the traitor and the Koran for guidance . . . Islam is a religion of blood for infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

Nor are these sentiments alien to traditional Islamic beliefs as codified in the Koran, Hadith, Muslim histories, and the biographies of Mohammed. As such, the jihadist imperative, despite anticolonial and nationalist rhetoric, was the foundational motivation for the military attacks on Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and today it still drives the terror campaigns against Israel waged by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO. Jihad in the name of Allah sparked the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and the subsequent launching of the Iranian terrorist mother ship from which numerous jihadist organizations have continued to receive training and financial support. The Taliban who gave sanctuary to al Qaeda in Afghanistan are close students of jihad and shari’a law, executing transgressors in a soccer stadium paid for by the EU.

Nor has the West been spared. Jihad lay at the heart of al Qaeda’s serial attacks on the U.S. and its military in 1993 (first World Trade Center bombing), 1996 (Khobar Towers), 1998 (East African embassies), 2000 (U.S.S. Cole), and the spectacular carnage of September 11, 2001, as well as inspiring the terrorist murders in Madrid (2004), London (2005), Fort Hood (2013), Boston (2013), San Bernardino (2015), Paris (January and November, 2015), and now Brussels. And don’t forget the torture, rape, and murders perpetrated by ISIS, the latest and most successful example of modern jihadism inspired by traditional Islamic doctrine.

We know the terrorists’ Islamic bona fides because they continually tell us why they want to kill us, in speeches, internet videos, and writings filled with Koranic verses and precedents from the life of Mohammed. Yet despite this evidence, elites in Europe and the U.S. refuse to confront the religious origins of jihadism, settling for the stale environmental and psychological causes dear to the materialist mentality. Thus they continue to chant the “nothing to do with Islam” mantra, as our president did in response to the Brussels attack. “ISIL is not ‘Islamic,’” the president asserted. “No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.” The first two clauses are patently false to Koranic commands and Islamic history, and the third is a non sequitur.

But the most powerful refutation of this common delusion is the scarcity of public protests by observant Muslims against the “extremists” who allegedly have “hijacked” their faith. After each jihadist atrocity there is typically more celebratory ululation and cries of “Allahu Akbar” in the Muslim world than marches against terrorism by heretical “extremists.” There are no “million Muslim marches,” no “not in our name movements,” no large scale Muslim attendance at memorial services for the victims. Yet perceived insults to Islam or Mohammed will produce violent mobs and lethal rampages.

Nor should this surprise us, when poll after poll registers significant pluralities and majorities of Muslims who approve of violence against infidels, and support the implementation of illiberal shari’a law. The latest evidence for such support from “moderate Muslims” comes from Brussels, where the planner of the Paris and Brussels attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was hiding in plain sight in the Muslim-dominant district of Molenbeek. Yet it still took four months for Belgian police to find him, and when they moved in for the arrest, they were met with rocks and bottles from residents who knew he was there and never tipped off the authorities.

Yet this is just one of many such enclaves in Europe. Ca n’Anglada in Barcelona, Marxloh and Neukölln in Germany, Seine-Saint-Denis and Clichy-sous-Bois in France, Malmo in Sweden, and many other towns and neighborhoods across Europe house disaffected and unassimilated Muslim immigrants whose faith predisposes them to contempt for the infidel and his secular laws, and justifies violence against the enemies of Islam. And despite the segregation, unemployment, crime, costly welfare transfers, and jihad-preaching mosques in these neighborhoods, Europe has accepted hundreds of thousands more Muslim immigrants in 2015 alone. Undoubtedly among them are untold numbers of ISIS-trained terrorists, many of them from the 5000 European Muslims who have gone to fight for ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

That is the reality everyone knows who wants to know. But too many in the West do not want to know, just as those enamored of Soviet communism did not want to know about the gulags and show-trials and engineered famines that killed at least 20 million. Like yesterday’s communist sympathizers, today the sleepwalkers of Europe are trapped in their ideological fever-dreams––fashionable self-loathing, guilt for colonialism and imperialism, sentimental one-worldism, and noble-savage multicultural fantasies. Worst of all, they are crippled by a refusal to appreciate and defend their political and cultural inheritance––prosperity, human rights, freedom, consensual government, and tolerance––created by their ancestors.

The character of Michel in Houellebecq’s Platform (2001) articulates the failure of civilizational nerve that has paved the way for metastasizing jihadist violence. Europe’s forbears, the jaded hedonist Michel muses, “believed in the superiority of their civilization,” and “invented dreams, progress, utopia, the future.” But their “civilizing mission,” their “innocent sense of their natural right to dominate the world and direct the path of history had disappeared.” All that is left is the dwindling cultural capital being squandered by their descendants, who have lost “those qualities of intelligence and determination,” and who exist only for the present and its material pleasures. Like like Michel, they are “decadent” and “given over entirely to selfishness.”

But at least Michel, unlike the sleepwalking European elite, recognizes that this is cultural suicide: “I was aware, however, that such a situation was barely tenable, that people like me were incapable of ensuring the survival of a society. Perhaps, more simply, we were unworthy of life.”

The terrorists of Paris and Brussels agree.

Categories: Europe, Foreign leaders, Free world, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and human rights, Islamic invasion, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Muslim assimilation, national security
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Ethics of Muslim Immigration, Pt. 1

March 30, 2016

Ethics of Muslim Immigration, Pt. 1 – European Infiltration, PJTV via You Tube, March 29, 2016

European Infiltration

 

US Under Siege?

 

 

–

Categories: Europe, Islamic immigration
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Free Speech on Trial in the Netherlands – Again

March 29, 2016

Free Speech on Trial in the Netherlands – Again, Gatestone Institute, Robbie Travers, March 29, 2016

♦ Freedom of speech is the ultimate liberal value — and it is the first value that people who wish to control us would take away.

♦ If a court in a Western society decides to censor or punish Geert Wilders or others for non-violent speech, the court not only attacks the very humanistic values and liberal society we claim to hold dear; it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. Even the idea of having an “acceptable” range of views is inherently totalitarian.

♦ But what does one do if immigrants prefer not to assimilate? Europeans may be faced with a painful choice: What do they want more, the humanistic values of individual freedom or an Islamized Europe?

♦ Censorship is not a path we should wish to take. While we may rightly fear those on the political right, we would do well to fear even more the autocratic thought-police and censorship on the political left.

You are not truly a proponent of free speech unless you defend speech you dislike as fervently as speech you like.

There are many issues concerning the views of the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, head of rapidly growing political party, the Freedom Party (Partij voor de Vrijheid, or PVV). Dutch prosecutors have charged Wilders with insulting deliberately a group of people because of their race and inciting hatred. Wilders’s trial focuses on a speech he gave, in which he asked a crowd of supports whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. In another instance, Wilders is reported to have stated that The Hague should be “a city with fewer burdens and if possible fewer Moroccans.” Wilders admits to having made the remarks.

761 (1)Geert Wilders during his March 2014 speech, where he asked “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” (Image source: nos.nl video screenshot)

The remarks Wilders made about Moroccans, as they target only one nationality rather than immigration in general, may sound ill-judged or distasteful to some. But do Wilders’s comments, that there should be fewer Moroccans, actually incite hatred or violence? His remarks do not suggest that people attack Moroccans or that people should hate Moroccans; they simply suggest that there should be lower levels of immigration from Morocco.

While Wilder’s comments could certainly be convincingly portrayed as preying on people’s anti-immigration sentiment, does that actually make them an insult to Moroccans, or is he simply supporting policies he thinks would benefit his country? As Wilders himself said in court last week, “What if someone had said, ‘Fewer Syrians?'”

As a society, individuals are responsible for their actions, so if someone acts upon a distortion of Wilders’s words, or is violent because of them, Wilders should not be held responsible for their actions, even if he might choose his words more carefully in the future. A line is dangerous to draw: if we start criminalizing people who have anti-immigration views, poorly expressed or not, then where do we stop?

Is it also possible that because Wilders is labelled as politically “far right,” people on the political “left,” instead of proposing counterarguments, would like to shut him up by branding him a “racist”?

Here are several more statements, none from Wilders; no one who said them has been prosecuted:

  • “We also have s*** Moroccans over here.” Rob Oudkerk, a Dutch Labour Party (PvDA) politician.
  • “We must humiliate Moroccans.” Hans Spekman, PvDA politician.
  • “Moroccans have the ethnic monopoly on trouble-making.” Diederik Samsom, PvDA politician.

One can see that these statements by politicians of the Labour Party, which is one of the current governing parties of the Netherlands, are more inciting, condemnable statements against Moroccans than anything Wilders has said. Yet no prosecution has been initiated against these individuals.

Would it not be better to discuss a nuanced immigration policy openly, like adults, and thereby eliminate prejudice through rational argument?

Prosecuting Wilders has only emboldened the anti-immigrationists, making them less responsive to reason and discussion. Ironically, this trial has moved many left-liberals, who might be criticizing his views, instead to defend his fundamental rights.

On limiting immigration in general, some critics consider that calling for a moratorium on immigration is illiberal — often other groups such as Christians and Yazidis might be fleeing from ISIS or other extremist Islamic organizations. Basing immigration on nationality might also bring back memories of Nazi Germany, when restrictions often were based on crude religious, ethnic and national caricatures. Other critics seem uncomfortable with calls for the dominance of “Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions” within Dutch culture. How, they ask, can one effectively police a “culture” without seemingly authoritarian restrictions on those who might not fit into it?

Still other critics argue that prohibiting the construction of new mosques restricts religious freedom, and could cause further tension with members of the Islamic community, instead of working with them to solve their conflicts with the West.

But what does one do if immigrants prefer not to assimilate?

That, for example, is not an anti-immigration argument; it is a legitimate question that needs to be answered. There are also many questions that pertain to what a society might look like if there is a tectonic demographic shift, along with a tectonic shift in culture that might accompany it.

As one commentator explained, if you have an apple pie with a few cranberries, it is still an apple pie; but if you keep adding more and more cranberries, at some point it is no longer an apple pie, it is a cranberry pie. That is what the Aztecs faced when the Spaniards arrived in South America. That is what Christianity faced in Turkey when the Muslim Turks arrived. Today, in much of the Middle East, Judaism and Christianity have virtually ceased to exist.

Hard as it might be to contemplate, Europeans might at some point be faced with a painful choice: Which do they want more, the humanistic values of individual freedom or an Islamized Europe?

Whether or not one agrees, especially with the tone, this is the dilemma Wilders has chosen to face — before a transformation becomes so fundamental that it cannot be reversed.

Although he has come down on the side of liberal values, this is seen by critics as violating other liberal values, such as not to judge one culture superior to another.

But what should one tolerate, if the other culture advocates stoning women to death for adultery? Or, without four male witnesses attesting to the contrary, regarding rape as adultery? Or executing people for having a different sexual preference, or religion, or for leaving the religion? Or beating one’s wife? Or condoning slavery? Or officially regarding women as worth half a man? Is it a humanistic, liberal value to stay silent — to condemn at least half the population to that?

What if before the Civil War in the United States people had said, “Slavery? But that is their culture!” The British in India outlawed suttee — a ritual in which widows are thrown live onto their husband’s funeral pyre. Is it humanistic say “but that is their culture”?

These are values over which wars have been fought.

So even if many of the policies of Wilders might drastically differ even from those of this author, in a truly liberal, humanistic society, it is one’s duty defend Wilders’s right to express his views without fear of retribution.

If we fail to do that, what we end up with is an authoritarian state in which government agencies decide which views are acceptable and which are not. We have lived through that before with the Soviet Union, and we are now living through it again with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran. A happy picture, they are not.

As history shows, as in the French or Russian or Cuban Revolutions, when one person’s views are suppressed, eventually everyone’s views are suppressed. Who decides on the deciders?

If a court in a Western society decides to censor or punish Geert Wilders or others for non-violent speech, the court not only attacks the very humanistic values and liberal society we claim to hold dear; it brings us a step closer to totalitarianism. Even the idea of having an “acceptable” range of views is inherently totalitarian.

“Acceptable” thoughts, by definition, do not need protecting. It is the “unacceptable” thoughts that do. The reason the right to freedom of speech exists is to protect the minority from the majority — so we can openly, freely exchange opinions and have discussions.

If we wish to have any kind of democracy in more than just name, people need to able openly to challenge ideas that are considered unquestionable, even sacred, as well as people who are considered sacred.

Only open discussion can have a beneficial influence by highlighting problems and shaping policy. In discussing even outlandish views, we are reaffirming our right to say them, justifying why liberal values of freedom are paramount. Freedom of speech is the ultimate liberal value — and it is the first freedom that people who wish to control us would take away. As the historian Clare Spark wrote, “Most of European history, with the exception of England, repressed speech that was anti-authoritarian. One might think of Plato, the Spanish Inquisition, and the career of Spinoza for just a few examples.”

Therefore, no proponent of democracy, humanism or liberal values should call for Wilders to be punished or censored for his remarks, even if they might be thought questionably expressed. When you defend the fundamental right of another to express his view, it does not mean that you agree with the view. It does not mean that you would refrain from attacking that view if it seemed based on flawed premises — or even if it did not. Freedom of speech means opposing someone with counterarguments, not trying to silence him.

If Wilders’ views are thought to be anti-humanistic, criminalizing his right to speak freely is even more so. Criminalizing speech only harks back to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for “blasphemy,” for saying there were a plurality of worlds; or to the trial of Galileo Galilei for claiming that the earth moves around the sun; or the Scopes trial, which attempted to criminalize Darwin’s theory of evolution.

It is restrictions on free speech that are producing many of the worst mockeries of justice today, in countries such as China, North Korea, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, and Iran.

Repressing speech only dangerously hinders the liberal cause. Groups that, in an authoritarian manner, call for censorship and the suppression of debate are being allowed to thrive. We are seeing this now in America on campuses and in the authoritarian attempts to prevent voters from hearing presidential candidates by disrupting speeches. When one fails to answer difficult questions or tries to silence their proponents, instead of solving the problem of prejudice, you are in reality feeding their prejudices and allowing them to grow unchallenged.

We urgently need be concerned about laws that would make “being insulted,” a criminal offense. Where does an “insult” start or stop? In addition, people who claim to be offended might just be using the law to try to silence others with whom they disagree. The culpatory aspect of these laws should probably be reconsidered, and possibly revised by the Dutch government, the United Nations in its UNHRC Resolution 16/18, and others trying to restrict free speech.

Finally, criminalizing views such as those of Wilders does not extinguish them. Yes, people might feel intimidated from raising ideas for fear of reprisals, but the suppressed ideas will continue to fester, often with an even stronger force.

It is completely understandable why many are not quick to come to the aid of Wilders because they deem him an opponent. However, if there is one rallying call to those who are in doubt of whether to support Wilders, it is this: authoritarianism is our enemy, whether it comes from Islamism, or laws restricting speech. We may not like that we have to defend people we may even regard as racists or xenophobes, but if we do not defend the rights of all, then who will be next among us to have his rights eroded?

Censorship is not a path we should wish to take. While we may rightly fear those on the political right, we would do well to fear even more the autocratic thought-police and censorship on the political left.

Wilders should not be standing trial for what he has said. Could there be a question of the case against Wilders being political? It sure looks like that.

Categories: Europe, Freedom of speech, Geert Wilders, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Netherlands
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Pakistan on the Mediterranean

March 28, 2016

Pakistan on the Mediterranean, Washington Free Beacon, , March 28, 2016

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan listens during a ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in Canakkale, Turkey, Friday, March 18, 2016. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned Europe that it, too, could fall victim to attacks by Kurdish militants following a terror attack in Ankara that killed 37 people. (Kayhan Ozer, Presidential Press Service, Pool via AP)

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan listens during a ceremony to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in Canakkale, Turkey, Friday, March 18, 2016. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday warned Europe that it, too, could fall victim to attacks by Kurdish militants following a terror attack in Ankara that killed 37 people. (Kayhan Ozer, Presidential Press Service, Pool via AP)

President Obama will welcome Erdoğan to Washington this week for a strategy meeting about countering the ISIS.

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

On March 18, European and Turkish diplomats signed off on a comprehensive deal on migrants pouring from Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East through Turkey and into the European Union. Under the terms of the deal, for every illegal migrant the E.U. returns to Turkey, Turkey would send one refugee for resettlement in Europe. Additionally, Turkey and Europe agreed to re-open discussions concerning the Muslim country’s efforts to join the E.U., and Europe agreed to allow Turks visa-free travel throughout the Schengen zone.

Two days after the deal was announced, a Turk who had joined the Islamic State blew himself up among tourists on Istanbul’s Istiklal Street, one of the city’s major shopping and tourism districts. Two days after that, ISIS suicide bombers killed dozens in two separate attacks in Brussels. ISIS called what occurred in Belgium “a drop in the sea” compared with what the terrorists have in store for “nations of disbelief.”

Turkey and its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have used the growing threat to argue that the West must better conform its policies to Turkey’s desires. In the wake of the Brussels attacks, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu chided Europe. “Europe has no partner other than Turkey to provide its regional security,” he declared, adding a subtle threat: “They should see this reality and act accordingly.” Meanwhile President Obama will welcome Erdoğan to Washington this week for a strategy meeting about countering the ISIS.

The reality Davutoğlu deliberately ignores, however, is his own country’s role in allowing ISIS to develop and metastasize. The Turkish government is adept at pulling the wool over Western officials’ eyes. Erdoğan pays lip service in meetings with European and American officials to the importance of both democracy and the Turkish partnership with the West, for example, declaring, “Secularism is the protector of all beliefs and religions.” He speaks differently to his Turkish audience. As mayor of Istanbul, he described himself as “the imam of Istanbul” and declared, “Thank God almighty, I am a servant of Shari‘a.” He is famous for his quip, “Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off.” In recent years, he has declared his goal to be to “raise a religious generation.”

This “religious generation” is flowing into the cauldron of Syria and Iraq. More than 30,000 foreign fighters from as many as 100 countries now fight with the Islamic State. The bulk of these soldiers—perhaps 90 percent—crossed into the Islamic State from Turkey. Turkish visa policy contributes to the problem. A direct correlation can be drawn between foreign fighters serving ISIS and those nationalities from which Turkish authorities require no visa or provide waivers: Several thousand more Moroccans and Tunisians, who need no visas to transit Turkey, fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq than Algerians and Libyans, who do. If Erdoğan simply required visas in advance for those under the age of 40 coming from countries like Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Jordan—or, for that matter, from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Australia—the flood of recruits into the Islamic State would slow to a trickle.

ISIS terrorists regularly traverse the Turkish border, not only for medical care but also for rest and relaxation. Some merchants in Istanbul openly sell ISIS propaganda and promise that proceeds from their sale will benefit the group’s fight in Syria and Iraq. Smugglers peddling contraband oil to fund ISIS rely on Turkey to bring the oil to market, paying off local and perhaps even national officials of the AKP, Turkey’s governing party, along the way.

Turkey has done more than lend passive support to Islamist radicals. In his 13 years in power, Erdoğan has transformed Turkey from a Western-leaning democracy into Pakistan-on-the-Mediterranean. There was, for example,the leak of documents from the Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MİT), Turkey’s intelligence service, showing Turkish support of the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda affiliate operating in Syria. And, rather than give medals to the Turkish soldiers who intercepted truckloads of weaponry destined for Syrian radicals, Erdoğan ordered their arrest.

Likewise, when Turkish journalists exposed—with photographic evidence—the transfer of munitions and other supplies from the Turkish border to ISIS, Erdoğan’s response was not to applaud the media but to seize the newspaper and arrest its editors and many of its reporters.

There is also evidence that, as Kurds fighting ISIS in Kobani in 2014 began to turn the tide against the radical group, Erdoğan and Turkish intelligence officials allowed ISIS fighters to pass through Turkey and attack Kobani from across the border, a flank the town’s largely Kurdish residents assumed was secure.

From the beginning, Erdoğan has looked at the Syrian refugee crisis not as a humanitarian tragedy but an arrow in his quiver. Inside Turkey, he has offered Sunni refugees Turkish citizenship if they settle in Turkish provinces currently dominated by the Shi‘ite offshoot Alevi sect. And, whereas the world condemns ISIS “genocide” against the Yezidi, the Yezidi who sheltered in Turkey were then victimized, again, by local AKP-run municipalities who refused to provide services offered to Sunni refugees.

Allowing Turkey to choose which refugees to send to Europe and promising to eliminate visa restrictions for Turks only rewards Erdoğan for his behavior and gives him additional leverage in his dealings with the West. Nor is this the type of policy Erdoğan’s neighbors would support. Earlier this year, King Abdullah II of Jordan told Congress, “The fact that terrorists are going to Europe is part of Turkish policy and Turkey keeps on getting a slap on the hand, but they are let off the hook.” He added that, “radicalization was being manufactured in Turkey.”

Abdullah’s message fell on deaf in ears in Washington, Brussels, Paris, and Berlin. It is Erdoğan who has the initiative as he pursues the Islamicization of Turkey and neo-Ottoman imperialism. He has built a Pakistan on the Mediterranean: an incubator of terror that markets itself as the only available partner of the West, with tragic results.

Categories: Erdogan, Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic State, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Middle East, Obama and Islamic State, Obama and Turkey, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Report: UK Pays Millions to Known Terrorists

March 27, 2016

Report: UK Pays Millions to Known Terrorists, The Jewish Press, March 27, 2016

Palestinian-presidential-palaceThe PA presidential palace / Photo credit: Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR)

Thousands of Palestinian terrorists, including masterminds of suicide bombings and murderers of women and children, are given cash handouts by the UK, the Daily Mail revealed Sunday. A Mail two-month global investigation has revealed that in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, “despite promises by the ruling Palestinian Authority (PA) to end the practice of paying aid money to convicted terrorists … [have] simply duped the West by allowing the Palestine Liberation Organization to hand out the cash instead.”

Britain gives £72 million ($101 million) a year to the Palestinian Arabs, according to the report, “more than one-third of which goes straight to the PA,” which “openly admits supporting terrorists whom it hails as heroes for fighting illegal occupation, awarding lifetime payments that rise depending on time spent in jail and the seriousness of crimes.”

One example is a Hamas “master bomber” Abdallah Barghouti, who was given 67 life sentences: he has received a total of £106,000 ($150,000). UK funds also pay out “salaries” to the families of suicide bombers, as well as to “teenagers involved in the latest upsurge of deadly attacks on Israel.”

The UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) and the European Union “are still effectively supporting these payments to thousands of terrorists – despite claims to have ended such links two years ago,” the Daily Mail report insists. This has been confirmed “by former prisoners and families receiving the cash, and in official statements by the PA.” Chairman Mahmoud Abbas used part of the UK gifts — £8 million ($11.31 million) — to build a palace in Ramallah.

The Sunday report presents an interview with Ahmad Musa, a convicted double murderer sentenced to life in prison, who was released from Israeli prison after five years, as part of Israel’s gestures to move along the “peace process.” He gets £605 ($855) every month. Others like him get much more, and after they die, the cash goes to their families. The money for these payments comes from British and European taxpayers. Amjad Awad, who murdered Ehud and Ruth Fogel and their three children in 2011, has received an estimated £16,000 ($22,600) from the fund so far.

Amr Nasser, adviser to the PA minister of social affairs, told the Mail: “It is not a crime to be fighting occupation. These people are heroes. We could be giving them much more money and it would not be enough.” Nasser added that, when Palestine wins its independence, its government would seek reparations from Britain for its historic role in encouraging Zionism. “You should pay us more money,” he stated.

Categories: Britain, Europe, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian terrorists
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes

March 26, 2016

American Fascists and delicate little snowflakes, Dan Miller’s Blog, March 26, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Fascists want to take away our freedom of speech. So do the delicate little snowflakes infesting our institutions of “higher learning.” How much worse will it get over the next few years? Substantially worse, I fear.

In the above video, Bill Whittle recounts numerous Fascist attempts to shut down those with different ideas. I’ll not repeat what he says. Instead, I’ll point out a few other Fascist efforts.

Islamist Fascists

In line with its “misconception” that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, the Obama administration has consistently courted the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which do everything they can to shut down all discussion of whether Islam is peaceful and tolerant and whether it should change. The Obama administration, following its lead, has ignored Muslim voices for reform.

What does Hillary Clinton think? Apparently that Islam is fine the way it is.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a different view.

220px-ayaan-hirsi-ali-vvd-nl-1200x1600

As I noted here, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim. She had been scheduled to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University in April of 2014. However,

Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.” [Emphasis added.]

Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.

. . . .

More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.

“This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

“But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.” [Emphasis added.]

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also got into the act:

“It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”

The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

“This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.” [Emphasis added.]

On September 15, Hirsi Ali spoke at Yale University. The usual suspects did not want her to speak.

WFB Program president Rich Lizardo tells the story of events that followed the WFB Program’s public announcement of the event in the Yale Daily News column “We invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at Yale–and outrage ensued.”

Following the public announcement, the Muslim Students Association at Yale went through its usual routine, first seeking to have Ms. Hirsi Ali disinvited (though it disputes this), then to limit the subject matter of her speech, then to impose conditions on her speech that would stigmatize her. In the spirit of WFB himself, Lizardo stood firm.

The MSA routine worked at Brandeis; at Yale, not so much. Not this time.

Poor delicate little snowflakes. Isn’t it a shame that they might be exposed to new ideas that are alien to them? That they were not required to attend and listen to those ideas is, apparently, inconsequential. They did not anyone to listen to them.

Here’s a video of her remarks. The introductions are a trifle long and add little value. The questions she was asked at the end and her answers are, however, interesting. They begin at 55 minutes into the video.

When I posted the video here, I observed that

She seemed to be speaking less to the “choir” and more to a broader audience which she was trying to convince. To that end, she was as conciliatory as she could be without abandoning her thesis that Islam is the religion of repression, submission and death, not peace; that it is highly dangerous to Western civilization, including our concepts of freedom and democracy. “Radical” Islam is rising, becoming even worse and it must be defeated.

Even to try to defeat Islam, we need to defeat the increasing efforts to eliminate freedom of speech at home in favor of speech that is politically and multiculturally correct and therefore not free. [Emphasis added.]

On April 7, 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at the National Press Club. Here’s a video of her remarks on the Clash of Civilizations, largely based on her book Heretic, which I later reviewed here. There, she writes optimistically of the possibility (but not the probability) of an Islamic revolution, someday.

There is a clash of civilizations. Muslims in Western countries generally refuse to help the police prevent Islamic terror attacks, such as recently occurred in Brussels.

There is a reason why Israel razes the homes of terrorists. It is because Israelis know that a terrorist cannot plot and carry out an attack without the knowledge and help of his or her immediate relatives, and further, the entire community. Punitive home demolition is meant to serve as a deterrent, the idea being that a would-be terrorist’s family will fear losing their home and thus persuade him or her against the attack.

In fact, knowing that it “takes a village” to aid and abet a terrorist is precisely why the terrorists responsible for the Paris and recent Brussels bombings could operate “right under the noses” of their victims. And it is why some are calling for heightened scrutiny of Muslim communities across the West, and right here in the U.S., despite cries of Islamophobia.

The MailOnline reports that police in Molenbeek — a district known for spawning jihadis like the France and Brussels attackers — have pleaded with local Muslims for help in finding the terror suspects only to have their pleas rebuffed.

Western nations which welcome and care for them are spit upon. “See something, say something” did not work before the San Bernardino Islamic attack. Perhaps those who saw something but said nothing remained silent because they feared being characterized as Islamophobes.

Here is a recent video of an interview with a teenage Yazidi girl who escaped the Islamic State. Is Islam the religion of peace and respect for females? For people of other religions?

In the unlikely event that any delicate little snowflakes watch it, will they be offended by its presence on You Tube, by the “lies” told by the Yazidi girl or by the truth of her statements?

Multicultural Fascists

Europe has many multicultural Fascists and Obama’s America has fewer. However, those who propagate the multicultural fantasy are winning. In the past, we sought immigrants who brought with them cultures compatible with ours. Now, Obama demands that we accept immigrants whose cultures of violence, drugs, gangs, crime and the like are not compatible. We have sanctuary cities where gang, other violence and drug smuggling and use are endemic. Although state efforts to enforce Federal immigration laws which the Obama administration refuses to enforce have been struck down by the judiciary, the Obama administration somewhat impotently challenged the sanctuary cities this year, only following pressure from the Congress.

Here is a video of remarks made by Victor Davis Hanson about one year ago on the travesty of “illiberal illegal immigration.” Illegal immigration breeds illegality across the board.

https://vimeo.com/122160603

A transcript of his remarks is available here. Here’s just a short snippet:

[I]t’s a controversial topic.  If I had said to you 20 years ago, 10 years ago, we’re going to get in a situation in the United States where 160,000 people are going to arrive at the border and break immigration law and we’re going to let them all in at once without any prior check, medical histories, you would think I was a right-wing conspiracist.  If I had said to you, we’re going to have a president who is going to not only nullify existing federal immigration law, but on 22 occasions prior to that nullification warn us that he couldn’t nullify it, or, if I had said, he’s not only going to nullify federal immigration law, which he said would be unconstitutional, but that he is going to punish members of ICE, the border patrol, who follow existing law rather than his own unlawful existing order, I could go on, but you’d all think this was surreal, Orwellian, it couldn’t happen.  Yet that’s the status quo as we look at it today.

Our borders are worse than porous; they are open and little effort is being made to keep criminals, drug dealers, gang members and other violent people out. While Obama has many “top” priorities, doing that is not among them.

As noted in a post at American Thinker,

Cultures are either consciously abandoned, or consciously enforced. The theory of multiculturalism has always been a tonic for simpletons, since it celebrates the perpetuation and imposition of an incompatible culture, still being practiced by those who carry it, upon a host culture with which it is mutually exclusive. Multiculturalism is entirely subversive. It is intended to force one or more cultures upon the hosts who do not want or need them. Since both cultures cannot successfully coexist within the host, which has its own successful working culture, the purpose of the exercise has always been fraudulent. The “melting pot” concept worked not because of the concept of multiculturalism, but as testament against it. Those who came here in our parents’ and grandparents’ generation consciously chose to abandon the cultures they left in favor of the American culture. They became Americans, embracing one culture.

If one was being less generous than to call multiculturalism a tonic for simpletons, it would be more accurate to say that modern leftist multiculturalism is actually a weapon. Its purpose is not to enhance the host, but to consume it. If the host’s culture is peaceful, it has no use for malcontents who insist upon the dominance of their native culture. Malcontents, in the form of angry and entitled guests, foment chaos and disorder. And yet, the leftists insist that we demonstrate our cultural superiority by abandoning the superiority of our own culture and importing incompatible languages, traditions, practices, and morals.

Here’s a snapshot of our current Southern border by Sharyl Attkisson:

Conclusions

The delicate little snowflakes who demand safe spaces from reality in what were once institutions of higher learning seem to be increasing in number. They are our next generation and will soon begin to elect those with whose milquetoast views they agree. It will be a sad day for America when our nation mirrors those “educational” institutions. Solutions? I have none to offer, other than the development of backbones by their university administrators and teachers; perhaps even by their own parents. Perhaps some little snowflakes will be told, “If you don’t want to be exposed to views inconsistent with those you already hold, don’t come here.”

Living in America should be an honor not granted those who despise and abuse her by coming illegally, by illegally bringing crime and violence or by supporting those who do. Falsely characterizing Islam as the religion of peace and tolerance should not be “who we are” as Obama claims. Most of us are not deluded fools, I hope.

Oh well. Somehow we got Obama as the Commander in Chief. Twice.

This message was posted just eight days before the recent Islamic attack in Brussels, Belgium:

 

Categories: Academia, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brussels terror attack, CAIR, Europe, Freedom of speech, Hate speech, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, Iran - human rights, Islam - the religion of war, Islam and girls, Islam and human rights, Islamic immigration, Islamic reformation, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Mecca Islam, Medina Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and crime, Obama and Islam, Obama's America, Reform Islam, Saudi Arabia, Sisi, Supporting Islamic terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain

March 24, 2016

Hashtag: We Are Neville Chamberlain, Front Page Magazine, Ann Coulter, March 24, 2016

brussels-airport

Immigration is the new “No Nukes/Save the Whales” movement, only with more body bags.

After the mass murder committed by Muslims in San Bernardino, which came on the heels of the mass murder committed by Muslims in Paris, Donald Trump proposed a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

Explaining the idea on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” he talked about how Muslim immigration was infecting Europe: “Look at what happened in Paris, the horrible carnage. … We have places in London and other places that are so radicalized that the police are afraid for their own lives. We have to be very smart and very vigilant.”

Trump’s reference to London’s no-go zones was met with a massive round of sneering, which is what passes for argument in America these days. Jeb! said Trump was “unhinged,”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called him “foolish,” and former vice president Dick Cheney said Trump’s remarks went “against everything we stand for and believe in.” (Based on Trump’s crushing primary victories, Cheney is no longer qualified to say what “we” believe in.)

To prove Trump wrong, reporters called British authorities and asked them: Are you doing your jobs? They responded, Why, yes we are! The head of London’s police said, “Mr. Trump could not be more wrong,” and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trump’s comments “utter nonsense.”

Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:

UK Daily Mail: ‘TRUMP’S NOT WRONG — WE CAN’T WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS’: Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So ‘Radicalised’ They Are No-Go Areas

The Sun: ‘THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON’: Policemen Back Trump’s Controversial Comments

UK Daily Express: ‘TRUMP IS RIGHT!’ Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation

Then, in January of this year, Trump talked specifically about the Muslim invasion of Brussels on the Maria Bartiromo show. “There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. … There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Sharia law … There is something bad going on.”

The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: “Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels.” News is no longer about communicating information; it’s about imparting an attitude. Trump is rude, so whether he’s right is irrelevant. As the saying goes, “Better dead than rude.”

Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times reported, “deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of Belgium’s beloved beer and chocolate.” Liberals have gone from not understanding jokes to not understanding English. When Trump talked about unassimilated Muslim immigrants demanding Sharia law, I don’t think he was knocking Belgium’s beer and chocolate.

Rudi Vervoort, the president of the Brussels region (who evidently survived this week’s bombing), rebuked Trump, saying, “We can reassure the Americans that Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.”

After multiculturalism struck this week, Vervoort said, “I would like to express my support to the victims of the attacks of this morning …” Twitter bristled with supportive hashtags, the Belgian flag and professions of solidarity. The Times editorialized: “Brussels, Europe, the world must brace for a long struggle against this form of terrorism.”

All this would be perfectly normal if we were talking about an earthquake or some other natural disaster — something humans have no capacity to prevent. But Muslims pouring into our countries and committing mass murder isn’t natural at all. It’s the direct result of government policy.

It’s as if the government were dumping rats in our houses, and then, whenever someone died of the plague, those same government officials issued heartfelt condolences, Twitter lit up with sympathetic hashtags and the Times editorialized about effective rodent control, but no one ever bothered to say, Hey! Maybe the government should stop putting rats in our houses!

When people are killing in the name of their religion, it’s not an irrelevancy to refuse to keep admitting more practitioners of that religion.

But this is the madness that has seized Europe and America — a psychosis Peter Brimelow calls “Hitler’s revenge.”

Apparently, what we have learned from Hitler is not: Don’t kill Jews. To the contrary, the only people who openly proclaim their desire to kill Jews are … Muslims.

What we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Don’t attempt to seize hegemonic control over entire continents. The only people vowing to conquer the world are … Muslims.

And what we’ve learned from Hitler is not: Beware violent uprisings of angry young men. The only hordes of violent, angry young men are, again … Muslims. (And Trump protesters.)

But instead of learning our lesson and recoiling with horror at this modern iteration of Nazism, we welcome the danger with open arms — because the one and only lesson we’ve learned from Hitler is: DON’T DISCRIMINATE!

Categories: Brussels terror attack, Donald Trump, Europe, Immigration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Multiculturalism, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Do Terror Attacks Doom the European Union?

March 24, 2016

Do Terror Attacks Doom the European Union? Power Line, John Hinderaker, March 23, 2016

Details continue to emerge regarding the recent terrorist bombings in Brussels, but the basic story is familiar. In Melbourne’s Herald Sun, columnist Andrew Bolt answers the question: Why Brussels?

Why Brussels? Why have Muslim terrorists in Brussels this week slaughtered 34 civilians in the city’s airport and underground?

Why did Muslim terrorists from Brussels earlier join the Islamic State attack in Paris that killed 130 people?

Why did a Muslim terrorist in Brussels kill four people at the city’s Jewish museum? Why did Muslim terrorists from Brussels have a deadly shootout with police last year and again last week? Why have an astonishing 450 Belgian Muslims–the vast majority from Brussels–served with Islamic State?

The answer? There are now 300,000 Muslims in Brussels. That’s why.

Brussels is Europe’s biggest Muslim city, home to a virtual colony large enough to sustain its own culture and hide entire networks of terrorists from the police. What’s more, the huge Muslim enclave is in a European country already torn between its Flemish and Walloon halves, making newcomers in this militantly multicultural land more likely to take refuge in their own ethnic identity, too.

Bolt argues that in the wake of mass Islamic immigration, it is too late for Europe:

The vast demographic experiment of the West–importing largely unskilled immigrants from an essentially hostile culture–has failed and cannot be undone.

Europe is now paying the deadly price. There have been mass murders by Muslim extremists in Madrid, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, Brussels and Toulouse.

There have been attacks on cartoonists in Denmark, riots against Jews in Paris, a rape epidemic in Scandinavia, pack attacks on women in Cologne and the assassination in Amsterdam of a film director who mocked Islam.

For Australia, Bolt writes, there is still hope, if that country “severely restrict[s] immigration from Muslim nations until we prove we can assimilate those here already,” and ends “[t]he state-sponsored denigration of Australia,” along with government-encouraged tribalization. The same prescription would seem to apply to the United States.

Meanwhile, persistent terrorism clouds the future of the European Union. The first duty of any government is to maintain order and protect its citizens. The EU’s inability to defend Europeans against Islamic terror, or even contribute seriously to that effort, makes starkly evident the fact that the EU is not a government, despite its nanny-state pretentions, and “Europe” is not a country.

But the reality is worse. Through the Schengen Treaty, the EU mandates open borders among member states. It thereby opens the door to terrorists, about whom it is powerless to do anything. With respect to the most basic duties of a state, the European Union is worse than useless. Thus, we are seeing the inevitable nationalist backlash across the continent, as Europeans try to re-institute borders and shore up the only authorities that have any ability to maintain security.

Categories: Europe, European Union, Islam and human rights, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamisation
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

Terror in Brussels intelligence: What German mainstream media conceal the citizens of backgrounds

March 23, 2016

error in Brussels intelligence: What German mainstream media conceal the citizens of backgrounds,  Koop Online, March 23, 2016

(H/t Joopklepzeiker. This is a web translation. I have tried to make it more intelligible, but it’s still flawed. Perhaps the ideas come through. — DM)

The latest Brussels terrorist attacks have many people extremely distressed. Western security circles know thatParis and Brussels are only testing for an upcoming series of much larger terrorist attacks that will change the state of Europe for decades.The leaders know what is being planned in the background: attacks with Iridium 192nd.

Police officers stay on high alert in Brussels on March 22, 2016, after the Belgian capital was hit by terrorist attacks, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility. More than 30 people were killed and about 230 others were injured in the two bomb attacks at an international airport and a subway station. (Kyodo)

Police officers stay on high alert in Brussels on March 22, 2016, after the Belgian capital was hit by terrorist attacks, for which Islamic State has claimed responsibility. More than 30 people were killed and about 230 others were injured in the two bomb attacks at an international airport and a subway station. (Kyodo)

Exactly three weeks ago US intelligence and Washington newspaper Washington Times disclosed that Belgian security authorities in anti-terror raids  have found evidence of planned attacks with “dirty bombs.”  The future attack plans therefore concern large cities in France, Belgium, Great Britain – and Germany. The metropolitan areas concerned would have uninhabitable areas after such an attack for months or even years rather than weeks. What does this mean, can hardly imagine safety circuits in reality itself.

It is also clear that Islamic terrorists in the past few weeks have witnessed nuclear professionals in a number of European nuclear power stations and wanted to kidnap at least one of them.

In reported American, British and  Belgian media – just no German. The Islamic state is trying for some time, a “dirty bomb” to build – and indeed in Europe . Since a few days the report  leading US journals about.

Two days before the Brussels attacks also have British special forces SAS practiced how to deal with an “in case of (expected) attack on London dirty bomb could do.” Because the British expect such a terrorist attack with radioactive material now “daily” .

And in Germany it is known to reduce the risk that one but rather conceals the public. European intelligence sources have pointed out to Kopp online that in recent weeks in Iraq (as well as in Syria) multiple radioactive material was stolen from atomic testing centers, which only appeared in some later.

Thus it is also clear that the IS in recent months had contacts with unscrupulous international arms dealers who have also material for nuclear weapons and dirty bombs on offer.  Since 2014 such acquisition attempts have been registered by Western intelligence agencies.

Even more: It is also known that Muslims Belgian base Kleine Brogel Airbase have spied (in Flanders in the province of Limburg), where the US kept ready in Belgium US nuclear weapons (which is hardly a Belgian site). They were inspired by reports in Belgian newspapers reported how lax the security arrangements are there.

Only in this context can be understood to say intelligence sources, why after the recent attacks immediately Brussels, Belgian nuclear power plants were first evacuated and then backed up by the Belgian Army . It is known that Muslims have spied on these to prepare an attack with nuclear materials and may want to also penetrate into the control room of a nuclear power plant.

Recently, after information of Kopp from the intelligence community in a special suitcase secure radioactive material that belonged to the Istanbul-based company SGS, was stolen.The contents:  ten grams Iridium-192, which is ideal for the construction of a “dirty bomb” .

The case became public – many other similar instances are not because a news blackout was imposed. Because a “dirty bomb” would cause panic and chaos, which would no longer be manageable for a government.

However, now missing for more than 500 grams of Iridium-192, the “inexplicably gone missing” are. Western intelligence agencies are convinced that the highly hazardous material now with the influx of refugees anywhere in Germany, was transported to Belgium or France.

The recent attacks, which our interlocutors are convinced are some “exercises” of IS-groups which want to study, for example, the reaction times of Western forces for attacks with “dirty bombs”. “The practice but currently only” our interlocutor says senior circles of the security authorities.

And he claims that it long ago informal discussions between senior representatives of the backers of the IS and European governments, according to which Europeans are blackmailed with attacks such as those in Paris and Brussels, the Europeans, so its details, are more Islamic mass immigration from the Middle East and North Africa allow – or their governments are made and swept incapacitated by increasingly frequent terrorist attacks and also “dirty bombs.” The asylum industry is accordingly buffo Islamic terrorists.

”It’s only a matter of time before terrorist groups gain access to nuclear weapons, the fact that so far with still no disaster: Meanwhile, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, said. such weapons had come, “we owe pure luck.” The open borders of Angela Merkel could end very quickly the happiness of Europeans now however.

The possible expiration of a stop with “dirty bombs” (eng.):

Categories: Brussels terror attack, Dirty bomb, Europe
Tags: , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel?

March 23, 2016

Op-Ed: After Brussels, is it time to deport Merkel? Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, March 23, 2016

Authorities need look no further than Angela Merkel as the prime suspect for the latest carnage in Brussels.

More than anyone, it was Merkel who opened the floodgates to the migrants — armies of men without women posing as refugees from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan found trampling throughout Europe. When they are caught misbehaving, they smirk and say, “I am here as a guest of Angela Merkel,” and they are correct and nearly untouchable.

Merkel stands by her open borders policy, the safety of her people be damned.

Over the past 12 months, more then a million of them have already crossed into Germany alone; 300,000 have been given asylum.

Of Brussels at this hour, all Western Europe leadership is guilty with Merkel sharing the largest part of the blame. These are her pets.

“Don’t go out unless you have to” is the hot new message circulating throughout Europe now that the “refugees” have arrived. You could get raped.

You could also get killed, and that’s what happened when the citizens of Brussels dared to go out Tuesday morning during rush hour. Scores were slain and wounded from yet another Islamic terror attack and people all over want to know how to make this stop.

Stop the influx. How’s that for an idea that needs no Einstein? Deport them instead. Maybe starting with Merkel, who invited the stampede.

The Saudis and the princes from the other Gulf States have it neatly figured out.

(So does Trump who wants to stop it and saw it coming as did this must-read thriller.)

Those titled Arabs don’t want that crowd within 100 miles even though they are fellow Muslims. But they do not want that type entering their borders, bringing with them their license to rape, their rivalries and tribal feuds, hell no, so why not Europe, and Europe says, sure, why not? Bring them on!

How clueless!

This is how. Only a few days ago, there they sat around a big table in Brussels, the smooth rulers of the EU, congratulating themselves on the capture of the final “mastermind” behind the November attack in Paris that killed 130. The French president was there, the Belgium prime minister was there and all the rest together expressed joy to the world that Salah Abdeslam had been caught.

Merkel sent in her gratitude for the superb police work.

At the moment they were hi-fiving the one success, 10,000 more “refugees” streamed in, plenty of them likewise “masterminds.”

Can no one do the math?

We pass the point of absurdity when “open borders” imperils us all throughout the world. There is no stopping the mad dash across continents.

Nor can we stop the madness that afflicts the world’s leaders.

Merkel and the rest of you clueless rulers of Europe, your misguided liberal sympathies and migrant leniencies are killing us.

Hence, Obama has chimed in his condolences for the pain in Brussels. “The entire world must unite,” he said. Yeah, sure, thanks. Will do.

Now back to the game, Mr. President.

Employing European wisdom, he wants to bring more of them into the United States. Thanks again.

Likewise Hillary and Trudeau. First the condolences followed by “we must resist Islamophobia” and keep the influx coming.

Hillary demands that we bring in 65,000 of them. Trudeau is ahead of her. He’s already got them in Canada.

It takes no prophet to know what’s coming for Canada and what’s next for the United States.

Don’t blame the terrorists, only. They are murderers but they know what they are doing.

The same cannot be said for the men and women who run our world.

Categories: Donald Trump, Europe, Foreign policy, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamisation, Merkel, Obama, Saudi Arabia
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »