Archive for the ‘Genocide’ category

« WarSclerotic home page

Yazidi Activist: Islamic State Cut Open My Friend, Raped Her Baby, Then Raped Her

April 15, 2017

Yazidi Activist: Islamic State Cut Open My Friend, Raped Her Baby, Then Raped Her, Breitbart, John Hayward, April 14, 2017

(What are feminists doing about these atrocities? What more can be done? — DM)

YouTube

Women for Women International has posted an astonishing interview conducted by its founder,Zainab Salbi, of two eyewitnesses to the horrors of the Islamic State.The tale was not easy to tell, as you can see from the video below, and it is not easy to hear.

The interviewees are Shireen Ibrahim, a Yazidi woman who escaped Islamic State slavery, and activist Feryal Pirali, who handles translation duties.

Ibrahim was captured by ISIS in 2014 while attempting to flee their assault on Iraqi Kurdistan. The Yazidis are a religious minority despised by the Islamic State and considered “devil worshipers” by some other Muslims because they pray to an archangel who is often misidentified as Satan. More details about them can be found here.

Ibrahim became one of many Yazidis held as slaves by the Islamic State, with women and even very young girls often used as sex slaves. She was taken to Sinjar and separated from some forty family members taken with her. She said in her interview with Salbi that half of her family is now missing or dead.

Ibrahim avoided rape at the hands of her ISIS captors for a while by pretending to be married to her cousin and claiming her nephew was her son. She was taken to Syria and tormented in various ways, including ISIS fighters shooting guns into the ground around her, while she was wrapped in a blanket while telling her she would be killed, and pouring some unknown substance down her throat. After she was recaptured during an escape attempt, they tortured her with electric shocks.

“They did everything to me,” Ibrahim said. “They did every bad thing you can think of to me because I ran away.”

She said she was sold as a slave five times during her Islamic State captivity. “The first time I got sold was by a doctor, a guy who came to Syria to buy me,” she recalled. “The last time I got sold it was to the same guy, the same doctor.”

Ibrahim said the price of her first sale was just one dollar. The buyer told her she was a cheap purchase.

The last time she was sold, the ISIS militant hired to transport her helped her escape for reasons she does not know. She currently lives in a camp in northern Iraq for Yazidis who have been rescued from the Islamic State. Ibrahim said she is too traumatized and fearful of ISIS to ever return to her family home in Sinjar.

“It’s hard for us,” Ibrahim said of the other women at the camp who escaped from the Islamic State. “Every minute is like a year.”

The most horrifying story in the interview came from Pirali, who is herself a Yazidi from the Sinjar region. She said she left Iraq in 2010, leaving behind a high school friend who got married and was pregnant with a baby girl when ISIS arrived.

“When ISIS took over our town, when they were trying to run away, because she was heavy, she was pregnant, she couldn’t run a lot,” Pirali said. “So she told her family to leave her behind, ‘save yourself, go.’ She was going to walk slowly until she gets to where they are.”

“Unfortunately, she didn’t make it, The ISIS people got her. What they did to her, they opened up her stomach, like from here to here” — Pirali pantomimed a cut horizontally across her entire stomach — “they opened her up, and they got her baby girl out. They raped the baby, and they also raped her. And she survived.”

“The baby did not make it,” she added. “They thought she was dead. They left her behind. The ISIS fighters, they left her. Her family came back, saw her just like that, in that situation.”

Pirali said this was the atrocity that prompted her to become an activist. In 2015, she circulated a petition asking then-President Barack Obama to help women and girls in ISIS captivity. The petition attracted 100,000 supporters.

“The message I want to send to ISIS people is that we are Yazidis, and we are going to be Yazidis. We are not going to change our religion, no matter what,” Ibrahim said defiantly, with Pirali translating her words.

She wept as she passed along her message to the civilized world: “Save our people that is in ISIS captivity. They’re killing kids in front of our eyes, and they’re bombing them.”

On Tuesday, a Kurdish official told CNN that the bodies of between 1,300 and 1,500 Yazidis have been found in the area around Sinjar, interred in 35 mass graves plus over 100 individual graves. The Kurds believe they will find more mass graves as more territory is recaptured from the Islamic State. The official who spoke to CNN believed there are up to a dozen mass graves in a single village still controlled by ISIS and identified as a site of mass killings by the United Nations.

The United Nations has formally accused the Islamic State of committing genocide against the Yazidis.

Unfortunately, Yazidis in northern Iraq who only recently returned to their homes have been displaced again, as Kurdish and Yazidi militia battle ISIS fighters in the region. The Kurdish Regional Government is seeking to persuade armed Yazidis to break away from the PKK — a militant group engaged in separatist violence in Turkey, which recruited and trained many Yazidis to fight ISIS in the Sinjar region — and join the Kurdish Peshmerga instead.

The world’s largest Yazidi temple, seen by many as a sign of renewal for their religion, is currently under construction in Armenia. Yazidis are a large and respected minority in Armenia, but many of them have relocated to Europe, Russia, and the U.S. in search of jobs, due to a slow economy.

Categories: Assad, Female fighters, Feminists, Genocide, Iraq, Islamic State, Rape, Rape jihad, Rapefugees, Sex slaves, Syria, Yazidis
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Immigration Priorities: Translators, and Victims of Genocide

January 27, 2017

Immigration Priorities: Translators, and Victims of Genocide, Gatestone Institute, Shoshana Bryen, January 27, 2017

Secretary Kerry described his understanding that Christian women were sold as sex slaves, and both women and men were massacred in areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by ISIS. But of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from Syria, only 56 (0.5 percent) were Christian.

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

Prioritize two groups from the Middle East: those who have worked for the U.S. military as translators (and their families); and Middle East Christians who, according to then-Secretary of State Kerry, were being subjected to genocide in Syria and Iraq.

In 2008, Congress authorized 20,000 special visas for Iraqis who served the U.S. for a year or more; and in 2009, authorized 7,500 visas over seven years for Afghan translators. The idea was to get allies who had risked their lives for American troops out as quickly as possible, but thousands have waited for years.

Iraq and Afghanistan are countries in which being tagged as helpful to the U.S. military can be, and has been, a death sentence. And worse, in July 2016, an extension of the visa program failed to make it out of the Senate.

Of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from Syria, only 56 (0.5 percent) were Christian.

Making a concerted effort to bring those two desperately threatened groups to the United States would meet our commitment to the translators, give concrete expression to our revulsion at genocide, protect the interests of the American people, and ensure that America remains hospitable to immigrants and refugees.

If you want security clearances in the United States, the government “vets” you quite thoroughly. They begin by asking you questions and then ask for a list of people to interview — family, friends, employers, etc. They take your list and ask those people for more people who will talk about you, then take that list and ask those people for more people who will talk about you — and so on until the lists have the right number and combination of names that overlap. If you have a vindictive ex-wife, watch out. They do a credit check, a criminal background check, a motor vehicle records check, and a medical records check. Psychiatrist? That too.

When discussing visas for people coming to the U.S. from countries with terrorism issues, it is useful to know what it means to “vet” and why there is no possibility of vetting (or “extreme vetting,” whatever that means) refugees and potential immigrants who have no links to their former lives. Vetting — whether for security clearances or visas — is all about your life to this point.

President Trump’s executive order halting immigration from seven countries for 30 days — for a start — is a reasonable response to the increasing understanding that people from certain countries can pose more of a security risk than people from other countries, even when all the countries are Muslim-majority. The seven are Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia; the U.S. government, under previous presidents, had cited all for terror links. Countries such as Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Oman and Tunisia and other Muslim-majority countries are not affected.

A “Muslim ban” would be racist, wrong, and a violation of deeply held American principles; but the claim by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that visa restrictions are tantamount to slavery and denying women the right to vote is slanderous, exaggerated, inaccurate and anti-American. Restrictions — and post-fact checks — on people who enter the United States from countries with clear links to terrorism, and to which we cannot turn for record-checks and interviews, are simply something the United States does.

In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran was occupied by radical Islamists bent on war with the United States. The Carter Administration ordered all Iranians with student visas to report physically to U.S. immigration officials or face possible deportation. Ten months later (Carter’s order had to go through the courts), the New York Times, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service spokesman, reported that nearly 60,000 students had registered as required, about 430 had been deported, and 5,000 had left voluntarily. In the interim, Carter ordered federal officials to:

“invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.”

Iran remains at war with the United States and al Qaeda and ISIS are no less at war simply because they lack a central government.

In 2015, the assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Consular Affairs told a House hearing that the U.S. government had revoked more than 9,500 visas over terrorism concerns since 2001 (the number is now more than 13,000). The attacks of 9/11 were followed by more attacks and plots against symbols of American military, law, justice, and governance as well as trains, bars, and shopping centers that are symbols of everyday life. Mass-casualty attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando were only the latest catalysts for Americans’ underlying concern that have been growing for years about terrorism and the government’s ability to protect us.

If “vetting” is not possible and American security requirements are real, is there a way to bring together our historic sympathy for refugees and historic welcome of immigrants with our reasonable concerns?

Yes.

Prioritize two groups from the Middle East: those who have worked for the U.S. military as translators (and their families); and Middle East Christians who, according to then-Secretary of State Kerry, were being subjected to genocide in Syria and Iraq.

In 2008, Congress authorized 20,000 special visas for Iraqis who served the U.S. for a year or more; and in 2009, authorized 7,500 visas over seven years for Afghan translators. The idea was to get allies who had risked their lives for American troops out as quickly as possible, but thousands have waited for years. Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Spencer Case wrote early in 2016:

“State Department numbers show that an Iraqi applying for a special visa could expect to wait for 292 business days before hearing back — and hearing back may just be another delay or a denial. In Afghanistan, the average wait time is 417 business days.”

Iraq and Afghanistan are countries in which being tagged as helpful to the United States military can be, and has been, a death sentence. And worse, in July 2016, an extension of the visa program failed to make it out of the Senate.

Secretary Kerry described his understanding that Christian women were sold as sex slaves, and both women and men were massacred in areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by ISIS. But of the 10,801 refugees accepted in fiscal 2016 from Syria, only 56 (0.5 percent) were Christian.

1261-1When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the countries persecuting them, possibly to be enslaved, raped, or murdered. Pictured above: Members of California’s Iraqi Christian community and their supporters protest the months-long detention of Iraqi Christian asylum-seekers at the Otay Mesa detention center. (Image source Al Jazeera video screenshot)

Making a concerted effort to bring those two desperately threatened groups to the United States would meet our commitment to the translators, give concrete expression to our revulsion at genocide, protect the interests of the American people, and ensure that America remains hospitable to immigrants and refugees.

Categories: "Muslim ban", Christian refugees, Genocide, Military translators, Refugees
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Obstructed Boko Haram’s Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In

July 28, 2016

Hillary Obstructed Boko Haram’s Terror Designation as Her Donors Cashed In, PJ Media, Patrick Poole, July 28, 2016

(But hashtags should have worked.

bring back our gals

— DM)

boka harem

In January 2015, I was one of the first to report on a massive massacre by Nigerian terror group Boko Haram in Borno State in northwest Nigeria, with reportedly thousands killed. Witnesses on the ground reported that bodies littered the landscape for miles as towns and villages had been burned to the ground, their populations murdered or fled.

By that time, Boko Haram had already become the most lethal terrorist organization in the world, now responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Just yesterday, the United Nations accused Boko Haram of “almost unimaginable” levels of violence and brutality.

And yet, as Boko Haram began to ramp up its terror campaign in 2011 and 2012, Hillary Clinton obstructed the official terror designation of the group over the objections of Congress, the FBI, the CIA and the Justice Department.

boko death

Why did Hillary Clinton’s State Department drag its feet on the terror designation in the face of near unanimous opposition from the rest of the U.S. government?

A recent series of reports exposes that a close Clinton family confidante — and Hillary campaign bundler — who profited from Nigeria’s lucrative oil fields. He engaged in multiple illegal deals throughout Africa.

Also, other donors to the Clinton Global Initiative are deeply involved in Nigeria’s corrupt oil industry.

Were they the motivation behind Hillary’s inexplicable position on Boko Haram?

As PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson has previously asked, is Boko Haram Hillary Clinton’s biggest scandal? Hillary Clinton is set to accept the Democratic Party nomination for president of the United States. Why is no one in the media talking about Hillary and Boko Haram?

It is worth nothing that Congress had to drag a reluctant State Department kicking and screaming to get Boko Haram designated in November 2013, after Hillary Clinton had left office.

Hillary Clinton’s willful obstruction in the matter is easy to document:

  • Members of Congress discovered in 2014 that the Clinton State Department intentionally lied and downplayed the threat from Boko Haram, and worked to kill bills in both the House and the Senate calling for their designation in 2012.
  • As Reuters reported, the Justice Department’s National Security Division strongly urged the State Department to designate Boko Haram, but then a group of 21 American academics rallied to the State Department’s aid by sending a letter to Hillary Clinton strongly arguing against Boko Haram’s designation.
  • We also now know that the Obama administration was sitting on intelligence — obtained as a result of the Bin Laden raid — that revealed Boko Haram’s direct connection to al-Qaeda and the international terror network in 2011 and 2012. In other words, Hillary’s State Department was arguing that Boko Haram had no such connections, that it wasn’t a transnational terror threat, even though the Obama administration — and likely Clinton herself — knew that was false.

An important two-part investigative series by WORLD Magazine reporters Mindy Belz and J.C. Derrick provides some insight:

Belz and Derrick discovered that Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram designation, and the continuing chaos in northern Nigeria — Africa’s largest economy and the 10th largest oil producer in the world — directly benefited Clinton Global Initiative donors and a close Clinton confidante who bundled campaign cash for Hillary.

From Belz’s and Derrick’s second article:

Perhaps the most prominent Nigerian with ties to the Clintons is Houston-based Kase Lawal. The founder of CAMAC Energy, an oil exploration and energy consortium, Lawal had a long history with Bill Clinton before becoming a “bundler” for Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid, amassing $100,000 in contributions and hosting a fundraiser in his Houston home — a 14-room, 15,264-square-foot mansion. Lawal maxed out donations to Hillary’s 2016 primary campaign, and his wife Eileen donated $50,000 — the most allowed — to President Obama’s 2009 inaugural committee.Lawal describes himself as a devout Muslim who began memorizing the Quran at age 3 while attending an Islamic school. “Religion played a very important role in our lives,” he told a reporter in 2006. “Every time you finish a chapter they kill a chicken, and if you finish the whole thing, a goat.”

Today the Houston oil exec — who retired in May as CEO but continues as chairman of the board of CAMAC, now called Erin Energy — tops the list of wealthiest Nigerians living in North America. His firm reports about $2.5 billion in annual revenue, making it one of the top private companies in the United States.

In Africa, Lawal has been at the center of multiple criminal proceedings, even operating as a fugitive. Over the last decade, he faced charges in South Africa over an illegal oil scheme along with charges in Nigeria of illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lawal arranged a 2011 plot to purchase 4 tons of gold from a rebel warlord, Bosco Ntaganda, linked to massacres and mass rapes. Ntaganda was on a U.S. sanctions list, meaning anyone doing business with him could face up to 20 years in prison. Lawal contacted Clinton’s State Department, and authorities in Congo released his plane and associates in the plot.

He never faced charges in the United States, and he remains a commissioner for the Port Authority of Houston.

Lawal’s energy firm holds lucrative offshore oil licenses in Nigeria, as well as exploration and production licenses in Gambia, Ghana, and Kenya, where he operates in a conflict-ridden area largely controlled by Somalia’s al-Shabaab militants.

The firm also has held contracts in Nigeria for crude oil lifting, or transferring oil from its collection point to refineries. Until last year, when newly elected President Muhammadu Buhari began an effort to reform the process, contracting for lifting has been awash in kickbacks, bribes, and illegal activity.

Overland lifting contracts often involve partnership with the North’s past and present governors, including those who serve as quasi-warlords with ties to Boko Haram and other militants.

Lawal’s enterprises have long been rumored to be involved in such deals, as have indigenous oil concerns like Petro Energy and Oando, Nigeria’s largest private oil and gas company, based in Lagos and headed by Adewale Tinubu, another controversial Clinton donor.

In 2014, Oando pledged 1.5 percent of that year’s pre-tax profits and 1 percent of future profits to a Clinton Global Initiative education program. This year, Adewale gained notoriety when the Panama Papers revealed he holds at least 12 shell companies, leading to suspicion of money laundering, tax evasion, and other corruption.

In 2013 Bill Clinton stood alongside Adewale’s uncle, Bola Tinubu, while attending the dedication of a massive, controversial reclamation project called Eko Atlantic. Critics call Bola Tinubu, leader of the ruling All Progressives Congress party, Nigeria’s “looter in chief.” A Nigerian documentary says that when the billionaire landowner was governor of Lagos State (1999-2007), he funneled huge amounts of state funds — up to 15 percent of annual tax revenues — to a private consulting firm in which he had controlling interest.

In the United States, where he studied and worked in the 1970s and ’80s, Tinubu is still a suspect in connection with a Chicago heroin ring he allegedly operated with his wife and three other family members. In 1993 Tinubu forfeited $460,000 to American authorities, who believe he trafficked drugs and laundered the proceeds.

But wait, there’s more:

Beneath the surface, literally, Boko Haram was making it possible for illicit operators to lay claim to the area for their own purposes, and to pump oil from Nigeria’s underground reserves to Chad. Using 3-D drilling, Chad operators can extract Nigerian oil — without violating Nigerian property rights — to sell on open markets. One benefactor of the arrangement is Ali Modu Sheriff, a leading politician in the North, Borno State governor until 2011, and an alleged sponsor of Boko Haram, who is close friends with longtime Chad President Idriss Déby.The very terrorism that seems to be deterring oil exploration in reality can help illicit extraction, forcing residents to flee and giving cover to under-the-table oil traders. In 2015, a year when overall oil prices dipped 6 percent, Lawal’s Erin Energy stock value skyrocketed 295 percent—the best-performing oil and gas stock in the United States.

Every word of Belz’s and Derrick’s two-part investigative series is worth reading.

Of course, Hillary’s defenders will claim all of this — Clinton obstructing the terrorist designation of what is now the most lethal terrorist organization in the world on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors and close Clinton family confidantes — is crazy conspiracy talk.

But they also said that about Hillary’s role in the fast-tracking approval of Russia’s acquisition of a large chunk of America’s uranium supply — while the Clinton Foundation was taking money from those profiting from the deal.

Hillary Clinton’s obstruction of the Boko Haram terror designation in the face of FBI, CIA, DOJ, and Congressional urging to do so is a documented fact. But the reason for Hillary’s obstruction, which the establishment media has never pressed Clinton for, remains unanswered.

Don’t expect any of the talking heads on tonight’s coverage of Hillary’s DNC convention acceptance speech to press the matter, either.

Categories: Boko Haram, Clinton character, Clinton Crime Family, Clinton Foundation, Crooked Hillary, Department of State, Foreign policy, Genocide, Hillary Clinton, Islam and girls, Nigeria, Rape jihad
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 6 Comments

Obama’s Refugee Policy: Yes to Potential Terrorists, No to Victims of Genocide

June 5, 2016

Obama’s Refugee Policy: Yes to Potential Terrorists, No to Victims of Genocide, Gatestone Institute, Raymond Ibrahim, June 5, 2016

(Please see also, No Refuge for the Victims of Jihadist Genocide. — DM)

♦ “Without doubt, Syrians of all confessions are being victimized by this savage war and are facing unimaginable suffering. But only Christians and other religious minorities are the deliberate targets of systematic persecution and genocide.” — U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, March 17, 1016.

♦ Christians account for 10% of Syria’s total population — yet they account for less than 0.5% of the refugees received into America. Sunni Muslims are 74% of Syria’s population — yet 99% of those received into America. In other words, there should be 20 times more Christians and about one-quarter fewer Sunnis granted refugee status than there already have been.

♦ ISIS is “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants to insert operatives into that flow.” — James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence.

♦ Although the U.N. and U.S. know that Sunni refugees are terrorizing Christians in their camps, they abandon the true victims who deserve sanctuary in the West, while “humanitarianly” taking in their persecutors.

The Obama administration has been escalating a policy that both abandons Mideast Christians and exposes Americans to the jihad.

Late last year it was revealed that 97% of Syrian refugees accepted into the U.S. were Sunni Muslims — the same Islamic sect to which the Islamic State belongs— while fewer than half-a-percent were Christians.

This disparity has since gotten worse. From May 1 to May 23, 499 Syrian refugees — a number that exceeds the total number of refugees admitted during the last three years — were received into the United States. Zero Christians were among them; 99 percent were Sunni (the remaining one percent was simply listed as “Muslim”).

These numbers are troubling.

First, from a strictly humanitarian point of view — and humanitarian reasons are the chief reason being cited in accepting refugees — Christians should receive priority simply because currently they are among the most persecuted groups in the Middle East. Along with the Yazidis, Christians are experiencing genocide at the hands of ISIS, as the State Department recently determined. The Islamic State has repeatedly forced Christians to renounce Christ or die; has enslaved and raped them, and desecrated or destroyed more than 400 of their churches.

As Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) put it this March, “Without doubt, Syrians of all confessions are being victimized by this savage war and are facing unimaginable suffering. But only Christians and other religious minorities are the deliberate targets of systematic persecution and genocide.”

Sunni Muslims are not being slaughtered, beheaded, and raped for refusing to renounce their faith; they are not having their mosques burned, nor are they being jailed and killed for apostasy, blasphemy, or proselytization. On the contrary, non-ISIS affiliated Sunnis are responsible for committing dozens of such atrocities against Christian minorities every single month all throughout the Islamic world.[1]

Unsurprisingly, many Sunnis entering America and Europe — including the terrorists who killed 120 people in Paris, 32 people in Brussels, and 12 in California — share the same Sunni-sanctioned hate for and opposition to non-Muslim “infidels.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admits that ISIS is “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants to insert operatives into that flow.”

Even if one were to operate under the assumption that refugee status must be made available to all Syrians, regardless of religion, the simple demographics of Syria expose the pro-Sunni, anti-Christian bias of the current Obama refugee policy: Christians account for 10% of Syria’s total population — yet they account for less than 0.5% of the refugees received into America. Sunni Muslims are 74% of Syria’s population — yet 99% of those received into America. In other words, there should be 20 times more Christians and about one-quarter fewer Sunnis granted refugee status than there already have been.

Finally, the excuse given by those who defend this disparity rings totally false: According to the U.N. refugee agency UNHCR, Christian and other minorities “fear that registration might bring retribution from other refugees.” So supposedly they do not register and are left out of the process. As ongoing reports reveal, however, the majority of those at refugee camps — Sunnis — are persecuting the Christians in their midst, sometimes killing them. During one Mediterranean crossing from Libya to Sicily, Muslim “refugees” shouted “Allahu Akbar!” [“Allah is the Greatest!”] as they hurled as many as 53 Christians overboard.

1638Migrants arrive by boat in Italy after crossing from Libya. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Vito Manzari)

Although the U.N. and U.S. know that Sunni refugees are terrorizing Christians in their camps, they abandon the true victims who deserve sanctuary in the West, while “humanitarianly” taking in their persecutors.

The Catholic Church and several mainline Protestant denominations are equally guilty. Most recently, “Christian refugees [were] ‘let down’ by Pope [Francis]: he promised to take them to Italy but then took only Muslims instead.”

Such hypocrisy has been on open display since recent the problem of the U.S. accepting refugees from the Middle East arose. Months ago, Barack Obama — who was raised a Sunni Muslim — described the proposal that preference should be given to Christian minorities as “shameful”: “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,” he said loftily.

Today, however, it is clear from the statistics alone that there is a very clear bias[2] in the refugee program: it favors those most prone to committing acts of terror in America while ignoring those experiencing genocide. It is the Obama administration’s own refugee policies that are “shameful,” “not American,” and do not represent “who we are.”
___________________________

[1] Even before ISIS’ new “caliphate” was established, Christians were and continue to be targeted by Muslims— Muslim mobs, Muslim individuals, Muslim regimes, and Muslim terrorists, from Muslim countries of all races (Arab, African, Asian, etc.) — and for the same reason: Christians are infidel number one. See Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christiansf or hundreds of anecdotes before the rise of ISIS as well as the Muslim doctrines that create such hatred and contempt for Christians who are especially deserving of refugee status.

[2] These recent revelations of the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian policies fit a clear and established pattern of religious bias within his administration. Examples follow:

  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department is in the habit of denying visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the lion’s den.
  • When the Nigerian government waged a strong offensive against Boko Haram, killing some of its jihadi terrorists, Secretary of State John Kerry called for the “human rights” of the jihadis, who regularly slaughter and rape Christians and burn their churches. More recently, Kerry “urged Tajikistan not to go overboard in its crackdown on Islam.”
  • When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013, the U.S. said no.
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.

Categories: Christians, Genocide, Islam and Christianity, Islam in America, Islamic refugees, Islamic State, Islamisation, Obama and Christians, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Mixed Legacy of Nuremberg

May 4, 2016

The Mixed Legacy of Nuremberg, Front Page Magazine, Alan M. Dershowitz, May 4, 2016

This year commemorates the 80th anniversary of the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the Nazi racist enactments that formed the legal basis for the Holocaust. Ironically, it also marks the 70thanniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, which provided the legal basis for prosecuting the Nazi war criminals who murdered millions of Jews and others following the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws.

1580

There is little dispute about the evil of the Nuremberg Laws. As Justice Robert H. Jackson, who was America’s chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, put it: “The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice.”

There is some dispute, however, about the Nuremberg trials themselves. Did they represent objective justice or, as Hermann Göring characterized it, merely “victor’s justice?” Were the rules under which the Nazi leaders were tried and convicted ex post facto laws, enacted after the crimes were committed in an effort to secure legal justice for the most immoral of crimes? Did the prosecution and conviction of a relatively small number of Nazi leaders exculpate too many hands-on perpetrators? Do the principles that emerged from the Nuremberg Trials have continued relevance in today’s world?

Following the Holocaust, the world took a collective oath encapsulated in the powerful phrase “never again”, but following the Nuremberg Trials, mass murders, war crimes and even genocides have been permitted to occur again and again and again and again. Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, the former Yugoslavia and now Syria. Why has the promise of “never again” been so frequently been broken? Why have the Nuremberg principles not been effectively applied to prevent and punish these unspeakable crimes? Will the International Criminal Court, established in 2002, be capable of enforcing the Nuremberg principles and deterring future genocides by punishing past ones?

Whether the captured Nazi leaders — those who did not commit suicide or escape — should have been placed on trial, rather than summarily shot, was the subject of much controversy. Even before the end of the war, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau had proposed that a list of major war criminals be drawn up, and as soon as they were captured and identified, they would be shot. President Roosevelt was initially sympathetic to such rough justice, but eventually both he and President Truman were persuaded by Secretary of War Henry Stimson that summary execution was inconsistent with the American commitment to due process and the rule of law.

It was decided, therefore, to convene an international tribunal to sit in judgment over the Nazi leaders. But this proposal was not without considerable difficulties. Justice must be seen to be done, but it must also be done in reality. A show trial, with predictable verdicts and sentences, would be little better than no trial at all. Indeed, Justice Jackson went so far as to suggest, early on, that it would be preferable to shoot Nazi criminals out of hand than to discredit our judicial process by conducting farcical trials.

The challenge of the Nuremberg tribunal, therefore, was to do real justice in the context of a trial by the victors against the vanquished — and specifically those leaders of the vanquished who had been instrumental in the most barbaric genocide and mass slaughter of civilians in history. Moreover, the blood of Hitler’s millions of victims was still fresh at the time of the trials. Indeed, the magnitude of Nazi crimes was being learned by many for the first time during the trial itself. Was a fair trial possible against this emotional backdrop?

Even putting aside the formidable jurisprudential hurdles — the retroactive nature of the newly announced laws and the jurisdictional problems posed by a multinational court — there was a fundamental question of justice posed. Contemporary commentators wondered whether judges appointed by the victorious governments — and politically accountable to those governments — could be expected to listen with an open mind to the prosecution evidence offered by the Allies and to the defense claims submitted on behalf of erstwhile enemies.

A review of the trial nearly 70 years after the fact leads to the conclusion that the judges did a commendable job of trying to be fair. They did, after all, acquit three of the twenty-two defendants, and they sentenced another seven to prison terms rather than hanging. But results, of course, are not the only or even the best criteria for evaluating the fairness of a trial. Furthermore, it is impossible to determine with hindsight whether the core leaders, such as Göring, von Ribbentrop and Rosenberg, ever had a chance, or whether the acquittals and lesser sentences for some of the others was a ploy to make it appear that proportional justice was being done.

In the end, it was the documentary evidence — the Germans’ own detailed record of their aggression and genocide — that provided the smoking guns. Document after document proved beyond any doubt that the Nazis had conducted two wars: One was their aggressive war against Europe (and eventually America) for military, political, geographic, and economic domination. The other was their genocidal war to destroy “inferior” races, primarily the Jews and Gypsies. Its war aim was eventually crushed by the combined might of the Americans and the Russians. Their genocidal aims came very close to succeeding. Nearly the entire Jewish and Gypsy populations within the control of the Third Reich were systematically murdered while the rest of the world — including those nations sitting in judgment — turned a blind eye.

The Nuremberg tribunal and those that followed it administered justice to a tiny fraction of those guilty of the worst barbarism ever inflicted on humankind. The vast majority of German killers were eventually “denazified” and allowed to live normal and often productive lives.

It is necessary to ask whether, on balance, the Nuremberg Trials did more good than harm. By convicting and executing a tiny number of the most flagrant criminals, the Nuremberg tribunal permitted the world to get on with business as usual. The German economy was quickly rebuilt, unification between East and West Germany became a reality, and anti-Semitism is once again rife through Europe.

Perhaps Henry Morgenthau was asking for too much when he demanded that Germany’s industry and military capacity be destroyed “forever,” and that Germany must be “reduced to a nation of farmers.” But perhaps the Nuremberg tribunal asked too little when it implicitly expiated those guilty of thousands of hands-on murders by focusing culpability on a small number of leaders who could never have carried out their wholesale slaughter without the enthusiastic assistance of an army — both military and civilian — of wholesale butchers.

The Nuremberg trial was an example of both “victor’s justice” and of the possible beginning of a “new legal order” of accountability. Trying the culprits was plainly preferable to simply killing them. But trying so few of them sent out a powerful message that the “new legal order” would be lenient with those who were “just following orders.”

The reality that, following Nuremberg, the world was to experience genocide again and again demonstrated that trials alone cannot put an end to human barbarity. But the fact that tribunals were established to judge at least some of these crimes against humanity also demonstrates a willingness to at least attempt to prevent and punish evil using the rule of law.

These and other issues have challenged and continue to challenge thinking. That is why a major conference of judges, academics, prosecutors, victims and government officials is convening today, May 4, 2016, at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland to consider the duel legacies of the Nuremberg Laws and the Nuremberg Trials. We plan to explore all sides of these enduring issues in a series of talks, panels and visual presentations. The goal of the conference is symbolized by Santayana’s famous dictum: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The world cannot afford to repeat the tragedies of the Holocaust and so we must learn from the duel legacies of Nuremberg.

One of the most important lessons of history is that for genocide and other mass killings to be carried out requires the active participation of numerous individuals, from those who do the actual killing to those who incite, organize and provide the means. The Holocaust itself required hundreds of thousands of active co-conspirators and millions more of morally complicit people who remained silent while it was being carried out around them. Not only were most of these guilty participants immunized from prosecution, but many were rewarded with good jobs and other economic benefits. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Nuremberg trials did not effectively deter subsequent mass killings. Indeed, the use of civilians as weapons of war — victims of genocide, mass rapes and human shields — has continued, with only a few handfuls of leaders and perpetrators prosecuted and punished. The challenge of Nuremberg is to construct an effective, ongoing, legal regime that punishes not just the leaders, but each and every guilty participant in the most egregious of war crimes.

Categories: Genocide, Justice, Nuremberg laws, Nuremberg trials
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Kerry to say Islamic State engaged in genocide

March 17, 2016

Kerry to say Islamic State engaged in genocide, Washington Examiner, Pete Kasperowicz, March 17, 2016

Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to announce Thursday morning that he believes the Islamic State is committing genocide against Christians and others in Iraq and Syria, according to the Associated Press.

Kerry was set to deliver remarks at 9 a.m. from the State Department.

His remarks are a quick turnaround from Wednesday, when the State Department said it would miss today’s deadline under federal law for determining whether the terror group’s actions should be deemed genocide.

Categories: Christians, Genocide, Islamic State, Kerry
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

State: Kerry Needs More Evidence to Determine Genocide by ISIS and Assad

March 16, 2016

State: Kerry Needs More Evidence to Determine Genocide by ISIS and Assad, Washington Free Beacon,  , March 16, 2016

(Kerry is big on evidence. Just look at the Iran scam and nuke inspections. — DM)

 

 

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said Wednesday that his boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, needs more evidence to determine if the Islamic State has committed genocide with its slaughter of thousands of innocents throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

Congress had set Kerry a deadline of March 17 to officially determine whether atrocities committed by ISIS constitute genocide, but Toner told reporters during the State Department’s daily press briefing that the department will not have a decision by that date.

“Determining these kinds of legal definitions, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, require a very detailed, rigorous legal analysis,” Toner said. “[Kerry] is a lawyer, and, of course, that’s going to weigh into [how he makes his decision].”

“There are a lot of lawyers on [Captiol] Hill, too,” Associated Press reporter Matt Lee said in response, referring to the House of Representatives unanimously voting 393-0 on Monday to pass a resolution labeling the barbarity ISIS has perpetrated against Christians and other religious minority groups in the Middle East as “genocide.”

Toner clarified that his “only point is that he [Kerry] wants to base his decision on the best evidence available, and he has requested additional evidence, information, in order to [do so].”

“It just seems like there is a lot of evidence already out there,” Lee said in response.

The international community has decried ISIS’ slaughter and enslavement of anyone who does not submit to its uncompromising brand of Sunni Islam, killing Muslims as well as other religious and ethnic groups.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum determined last year in a report that ISIS is guilty of carrying out genocide against the Yazidi religious minority in northern Iraq, a term the museum rarely uses.

“We believe Islamic State has been and is perpetrating genocide against the Yazidi people,” the report says. “Islamic State’s stated intent and patterns of violence against Shia Shabak and Shia Turkmen also raise concerns about the commission and risk of genocide against these groups.”

The jihadist group has also carried out brutal violence against Christians and other groups, with Muslims making up the highest number of its victims.

The European Parliament voted last month to describe ISIS’ atrocities in Iraq and Syria as genocide.

There has been some debate as to whether using the term “genocide” with ISIS in an official capacity would legally obligate the U.S. to take further action against the jihadist group, which some people have argued is why the Obama administration is reluctant to do so.

Toner made clear at Monday’s press briefing that no legal requirement comes with using the term, but he stressed the international community has an obligation under the United Nations to stop crimes against humanity and other such atrocities like the ones being committed by ISIS.

In addition to the resolution on genocide passed Monday, the House also voted 392-3 to pass a measure calling for the creation of an international tribunal to try the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad for war crimes.

Assad triggered the Syrian civil war in 2011 by slaughtering his own people for peacefully protesting his authoritarian rule. He has since waged a war against the Syrian people who formed an opposition in response, resulting thus far in about 400,000 deaths and the displacement of millions of others.

Assad has received help from Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Russia to stay in power.

Categories: Assad, Genocide, Islam and Christianity, Islamic State, Kerry, Obama and Islamic State
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

American blackmail

January 8, 2016

American blackmail, Israel Hayom, Sarah N. Stern, January 8, 2016

Yossi Melman, noted Israeli author and security analyst, who is certainly no right-winger, wrote a piece in a recent edition of The Jerusalem Report which opens with: “The U.S administration is concerned about the possibility of a new confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest nuclear shenanigans. ‘We hope it won’t happen,’ a senior U.S. official tells The Jerusalem Report, ‘but if it does, it will be a completely different ball game. The administration will not sit idly by this time, and it will be vindictive.'”

This is akin to telling parents that a known child predator wants to abduct their children and has expressed the explicit desire to murder them, but if they notify the police, it will be a completely different ball game. The local government will not sit idly by this time, and it will be vindictive — against the parents who have the responsibility of protecting their children.

In actuality, the Obama administration’s outrage is completely legitimate, but it is directed at the wrong target: Israel. However, after seven years of the Orwellian world that we now inhabit, we have become conditioned to believe that this statement is almost normal.

Under international law, however, this is clearly upside-down and backward. It is Iran, after all, that violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 (by firing missiles), the understandings reached in the July nuclear agreement and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, Iran should legitimately be the target of American as well as international outrage.

Iran is guilty of conspiracy to commit genocide. The IAEA is complicit in this guilt by closing the file on Iran’s nuclear program despite the fact that certain fundamental questions regarding prior military dimensions remain unanswered. The IAEA admitted as much on December 2, 2015, yet still decided to close the Iran file under what can only be explained as political pressure.

In 1948, in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, the U.N. passed United Nations General Assembly Resolution 260, the Convention on the Punishment and the Crime of Genocide. Article 3 of this convention lists crimes that should be punished as (a) genocide; (b) conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) attempt to commit genocide and (e) complicity in genocide.

The Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention has compiled an outstanding collection of remarks made by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei between 2000 and 2015. The center came up with a few significant findings, including the fact that “Iranian state incitement against Israel has been explicit in its calls for destruction of the Jewish state. Pre-war Nazi propaganda used euphemisms and never explicitly called for the destruction of the Jews.” Official Iranian threats and incitement have “lasted for more than 30 years, as compared with Nazi governmental incitement, which lasted 12 years.”

They also found that the frequency and the intensity of Iran’s incitement to commit genocide has only increased the more the international community eased sanctions.

In fact, shortly after the July 14 agreement was reached, Khamenei issued a book titled “Palestine,” outlining in painstaking detail the steps that should be taken to annihilate Israel, which he described as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the threats and hegemony of the United States will be replaced by Iran.”

The book sketches out how to eliminate Israel through an eternal chain of low-intensity assaults that will eventually make life so unbearable for Israelis that they will pack their bags and leave. He also wrote that the Iranian nuclear bomb would inhibit the Israelis against any sort of retaliation.

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was reached on July 14, both Iran and U.S. President Barack Obama have behaved in predictable ways. Iran has conducted two missile tests, one on Oct. 10 and one on Nov. 21, and on Dec. 29 fired a rocket within 1,500 yards of an American aircraft carrier, the USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz.

While Obama was trying to sell the JCPOA to Congress and a skeptical American public last summer, we were constantly assured of “immediate, snapback sanctions.”

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal last month, the U.S. Department of Treasury notified Congress that approximately a dozen companies or individuals in Hong Kong, the UAE and Iran were to face sanctions for working on the Iranian missile program, which not only violated the JCPOA but also U.N. Security Resolution 1929.

The Iranian government was quick to denounce the threat of new sanctions, calling them, “unilateral, arbitrary and illegal.” And just as swiftly and predictably, Obama caved under Iranian pressure and decided to delay imposing new sanctions, for an unspecified period of time. And now Iran has publicly unveiled a new underground missile site.

According to a report in The Washington Free Beacon, Democratic members of Congress who backed the deal are disappointed with the White House. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said: “We are always in a sensitive moment in our dealings with Iran, and there is never a perfect time to take such actions. … But Iran must know with certainty that violating U.N. Security Council resolutions, both inside and outside the scope of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, will be met with serious consequences.”

Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) told The Wall Street Journal: “I believe in the power of vigorous enforcement that pushes back on Iran’s bad behavior. If we don’t do that, we invite Iran to cheat.”

It appears that America’s moral backbone, the IAEA and all the Democratic members of Congress who believed Obama’s reassurances of “immediate snapback sanctions” are currently being blackmailed by Obama’s quest for a foreign policy legacy.

Yes, Obama will, indeed, have a foreign policy legacy, but it will prove to be the same as Neville Chamberlain’s.

Categories: Genocide, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran and Israel, Iran scam, Israel, Obama and Iran, Obama and Israel
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hillary Clinton Finally Decides Christians are Suffering Genocide

December 30, 2015

Hillary Clinton Finally Decides Christians are Suffering Genocide, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, December 30, 2015

(Did Ms. Clinton refer to the non-Islamic Islamic State? If so, Muslims must not be doing it. Perhaps others might be. Mormons? Amish? Jews? Who knows?  Please see, Muslims “Have Nothing Whatsoever to do with Terrorism” — DM)

dd3cd-hilly2

How nice of Hillary.

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday called the killing of Christians and other religious groups in the Middle East a “genocide” -— a term she had previously been reluctant to use.

“Yes, I will now. I will because we now have enough evidence,” Clinton told a man during atown hall at Berlin High School, who asked whether she would join the Pope and other religious and political leaders in using the term.

What “new evidence” suddenly showed up to change her mind?

The statistics have been there for some time now. ISIS has been at it ever since it began its campaign in Syria.

Of course not. Only Muslims can really suffer. When Christians are killed, they are “these communities”. When Jews are killed, they’re “random folks in a deli”. But when a Muslim gets a dirty look, it’s an Islamophobic crisis that is immediately on the front page of every newspaper and requires immediate intervention by the Attorney General. Not to mention an Obama speech.

Tonight, Clinton said she had been asked to use the term a few months ago, but declined then.

“I said, you know that term carries with it, legal import. It’s a very important concept and label for behavior that deserves that name. And I said we are only beginning to see this and I’m not sure yet we have enough evidence,” she said, “I’m sure now we have enough evidence.”

So is ISIS is killing more Christians now than it was a few months ago? What missing evidence did Hillary suddenly come up with? Or is she just worried enough about a Webb independent run that she decided to admit what everyone knew last year?

Categories: Genocide, Hillary Clinton, Islam and Christianity, Islamic State
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment