Archive for the ‘Islam and terrorism’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Plotting Jihad in the Poconos—Who the Hell is Fethullah Gulen?

May 10, 2016

Plotting Jihad in the Poconos—Who the Hell is Fethullah Gulen? Accuracy in Media, Paul L. Williams, May 10, 2016

Jihad in Poconos

[T]he Gulen schools continue to open at the monumental rate of eight to ten a year throughout the U.S. and leading politicians – – both Democratic and Republicans – – regularly appear at Gulen gatherings to offer their endorsement of the militant imam’s educational endeavors.

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

Fethullah Gulen is a proponent of stealth jihad. In one of his sermons, the fiery imam said that in order to reach the ideal Muslim society “every method and path is acceptable, [including] lying to people.”

In another  he instructed his followers: “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere.”

His instructions have been well-heeded.

Gulen’s tentacles now extend into “all the power centers” of the U. S. government, including the Oval Office.

Dalia Mogahed, President Obama’s Muslim advisor, has endorsed the Gulen movement which critics believe seeks to restore the Ottoman Empire and to establish a universal caliphate.

Recently Ms. Mogahed, the first woman to wear a veil in the White House, said: “I think the Gülen movement offers people a model of what is possible if a dedicated group of people work together for the good of the society. I also think that it is an inspiration for other people and Muslims for what they can accomplish.”

Asked about the movement’s hidden agenda, Ms. Mogahed told Sunday’s Zaman, a Turkish newspaper owned by Gulen, that she usually does not attach any importance to such allegations.

Gulen and his millions of minions have helped to topple Turkey’s secular government, establish thousands of madrassahs (Muslim religious schools) throughout Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, and form a new country known as East Turkistan, a radical Islamic state.

His schools serve to indoctrinate students in Turkish language, culture and religion so that they may take part in the restoration of the Ottoman Empire.

Nurettin Veren, a top administrator of the Gulen schools says: “These schools are like shop windows. Recruitment and Islamization activities are carried out through night classes.”

Rachel Sharon-Krespin, MEMRI’s chief Turkey analyst, writes: “His (Gulen’s) followers target youth in the eighth through twelfth grades, mentor and indoctrinate them in the ???kevi, educate them in the Fethullah schools, and prepare them for future careers in legal, political, and educational professions in order to create the ruling classes of the future Islamist, Turkish state.”

Over 150 Gulen schools have been established throughout the United States – – and all receive full funding from US taxpayers.

The schools are manned, for the most part, by Turkish administrators and teachers who arrive in the US with H1B visas – – visas for individuals who are needed to occupy positions that cannot be filled by domestic workers. In truth, many of these imported educators teach in subject areas, such as elementary education, where unemployed and fully certified American teachers are standing in the unemployment lines.

Most of the imported Turkish educators are expected to kick-back 60% of their salaries to the Gulen movement.

The Gulen schools are so radical in their political and religious objectives that they have been outlawed in Russia and Uzbekistan.  Even the Netherlands, a nation that embraces pluralism and tolerance, has moved to cut funding to the Gulen schools because of their imminent threat to the social order.

Yet the Gulen schools continue to open at the monumental rate of eight to ten a year throughout the U.S. and leading politicians – – both Democratic and Republicans – – regularly appear at Gulen gatherings to offer their endorsement of the militant imam’s educational endeavors.

The new spokeswomen for the Cosmos Foundation, a non-profit Gulen enterprise that operates thirty-three charter schools in Texas, is Karen Hughes, who previously served as President George W. Bush’s Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy.

Ms. Hughes has declined to state how much money she is receiving for her efforts to further the Gulen schools.

The Texas Education Agency shelled out $68 million in 2010 to the Cosmos Foundation.

Few Texas tax-payers have uttered a word of protest.

Thanks, in part, to friends like Senator Bob Casey, the Gulen movement recently has opened several charter schools in Pennsylvania, including the Young Scholars of Central Pennsylvania in State College, the now-failing Truebright Science Academy in Philadelphia, and the Young Scholars of Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh.

Categories: Fethullah Gülen, Islam and terrorism, Islamic charities, Islamic indoctrination of children, Islamic jihad, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Obama and Islam
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Importing Terror

May 6, 2016

Importing Terror, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, May 6, 2016

Obama with Syrians

President Obama is willing to gamble with the lives of American citizens. He is intent on emptying Guantanamo of as many of the detainees as possible, even as some of the released jihadists have returned to the battlefield to fight against our soldiers. Now the Obama administration is reportedly planning to accelerate the screening process for Syrians claiming refugee status, so that they can be rapidly resettled in communities across the United States.

The Washington Free Beacon has reported that, according to its sources, “The Obama administration has committed to bring at least 10,000 Syrian refugees onto American soil in fiscal year 2016 by accelerating security screening procedures from 18-24 months to around three months.”

The current resettlement vetting process for self-proclaimed refugees begins with an initial screening by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).  The applications of some who make it through this preliminary UN screen are referred to United States authorities for further consideration and possible resettlement. UNCHR’s role in the front end of the vetting process should be reason enough for alarm.

The United Nations has called for more open borders to accommodate the millions of “refugees” and other migrants whom have left the Middle East and North Africa. To this end, UNCHR is said to be looking for alternative avenues to admit Syrian refugees that are faster than the current refugee “resettlement” vetting process. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi suggested a number of such alternatives last March, at a high-level meeting held in Geneva to discuss “global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees.”

Among the alternative “pathways” listed by the UNCHR High Commissioner for Refugees were “labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons.” He added, “Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well.”

The net effect of expanding the grounds for admitting Syrian refugees to include job and student related visas could be to bump American citizens from jobs and scholarships that are given to the refugees instead.

Apparently, the Obama administration is onboard with looking for alternatives to the current refugee resettlement system that depends on cooperation with the states. Perhaps it is reacting to the fact that numerous states have recently elected to opt out of refugee resettlement programs, including New Jersey.

“The United States joins UNHCR in calling for new ways nations, civil society, the private sector, and individuals can together address the global refugee challenge,” the State Department wrote in a Media Note following the Geneva conference. The State Department added that it has “created a program to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file refugee applications for their Syrian family members.”

Who are such “family members?” Would they include siblings and cousins of fighting age? Do we really want to add more loopholes to the existing visa system, which was already breached by the female jihadist who took part in the San Bernardino massacre after being admitted to the United States on a “fiancé” visa? Apparently so, if the Obama administration gets its way. Speeding up the “refugee” admission process and avoiding state roadblocks in the current refugee resettlement pathway appear to have become its top priority.

Meanwhile, Obama administration officials tell us not to worry. They assure us they have a “robust” screening process in place to vet Syrians claiming to be refugees. Don’t believe them. They are deliberately turning a blind eye to the warnings of experts such as FBI Director James Comey, who said last year, during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing, that the federal government lacked the data to adequately vet “refugees” seeking entry to the U.S.

“We can only query against that which we have collected,” Comey told the committee. “So if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned earlier this year that he considered ISIS and its branches to be the number 1 terrorist threat. Clapper pointed to ISIS’s success in “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants to insert operatives into that flow.”

Even those “refugees” who enter the United States without pre-existing ties to ISIS are vulnerable to indoctrination by jihadists already in this country. Somali “refugees” are a prime example. As Andrew Liepman, who was serving as deputy director for intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center until he retired from government service in 2012, said during the first year of Obama’s presidency: “Despite significant efforts to facilitate their settlement into American communities, many Somali immigrants face isolation.”

Jihadists have been busy “recruiting and radicalizing young people,” Liepman added.

Nevertheless, seven years later, the Obama administration continues to send as many as 700 Somali “refugees” per month to cities across the United States, with the largest number settling in Minnesota where large concentrations of Somalis already live.

Barack Obama has said that it is wrong to “start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.” He refuses to associate Islam or jihad with acts of terrorism or with what he calls violent extremism. He rails against “negative stereotypes of Islam” and “those who slander the prophet of Islam.” But telling the truth about the violent and supremacist strains in Islamic ideology, rooted in the Koran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, is neither stereotyping nor slander. It is identifying the enemy we are fighting. And wanting to make sure that we have a foolproof vetting system in place before admitting more Muslims from the sectarian conflict-ravaged areas in the Middle East or North Africa is neither fear-mongering nor discrimination. It is common sense defense of the American people from undue risk of attacks in our homeland, which is the primary duty of every U.S. president as commander-in-chief including Barack Obama.

Categories: Homeland Security, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islam in America, Islamic immigration, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Obama and GITMO, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, Obama's America 2016, UNCHR
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Foreign Policy

April 29, 2016

Turkey’s Islamic Supremacist Foreign Policy, Gatestone Institute, Uzay Bulut, April 29, 2016

♦ “We have never been involved in an attack against Turkey … we were never involved in such an action… Davutoglu wants to pave the way for an offensive on Syria and Rojava and cover up Turkey’s relations with the ISIS which is known to the whole world by now.” — YPG (Kurdish) General Command.

♦ “Thousands of settlers from Anatolia were shipped in by the Turkish government to occupy former Greek villages and to change Cypriot demography — in the same manner the occupying Ottoman Empire once did in the 16th century.” — Victor Davis Hanson, historian.

♦ Turkey, for more than 40 years, has been illegally occupying the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus, historically a Greek and Christian nation, which it invaded with a bloody military campaign in 1974.

♦ What Turkey would call a crime if committed by a non-Turkish or a non-Sunni state, Turkey sees as legitimate if Turkey itself commits it.

Between March 29 and April 2, 2016, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, paid a visit to Washington D.C. to participate in the 4th Nuclear Security Summit hosted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

In an interview with CNN broadcast March 31, Erdogan said, “We will not allow an act such as giving northern Syria to a terrorist organization… We will never forgive such a wrong. We are determined about that.”

Asked which terror organization he was referring to, Erdogan said: “The YPG [Kurdish People’s Protection Units], the PYD [Democratic Union Party] … and if Daesh [ISIS] has an intention of that sort then it would also never be allowed.”

Erdogan was thereby once again attempting to equate Islamic State (ISIS), which has tortured, raped, sold or slaughtered so many innocent people in Syria and Iraq, with the Kurdish PYD, and its YPG militia, whose members have been fighting with their lives to defeat genocidal jihadist groups such as al-Nusra and ISIS.

The question is not why Erdogan or his government have such an intense hatred for Kurds. Turkey’s genocidal policies against the Kurds are not a secret. Turkey’s most recent deadly attacks are ongoing in Kurdish districts even now. The more important question is why Erdogan thinks that Turkey is the one to decide to whom the predominantly Kurdish north of Syria will belong — or who will not rule that part of Syria.

On February 17, Turkey’s capital, Ankara, was shaken by a car bomb that killed 28 people and wounded 61 others.

Turkey’s Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, immediately announced that the perpetrator was a Syrian national with links to the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

“A direct link between the attack and the YPG has been established,” Davutoglu said. “The YPG attack was carried out with logistical support from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) inside Turkey. Just as al-Qaeda or Daesh do not have seats at the table, the YPG, which is a terrorist organization, cannot have one.” He then once again refused to permit Kurdish YPG participation in U.N.-brokered Syria peace talks in Geneva.

Saleh Muslim, the head of Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), replied via Agence France-Presse: “We deny any involvement in this attack. These accusations are clearly related to Turkish attempts to intervene in Syria.”

The General Command of the YPG also denied any involvement in the attack:

“Under challenging conditions, we are protecting our people from barbaric gangs such as ISIS and Al-Nusra. Countless states and media outlets have repeatedly reported about the support Turkey has been providing to these terrorist groups. Apart from the terrorist groups attacking us, we as YPG have engaged in no military activity against the neighboring states or other forces.

“We would like to repeat our message to the people of Turkey and the world: We have no links to this incident… We have never been involved in an attack against Turkey. The Turkish state cannot possibly prove our engagement in any kind of attack on their side because we were never involved in such an action. Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu’s remarks ‘Ankara attack was conducted by YPG’ is a lie and far away from the truth. With this statement, Davutoglu wants to pave the way for an offensive on Syria and Rojava and cover up Turkey’s relations with the ISIS which is known to the whole world by now.”

The Middle East is going through mass murders, kidnappings, rapes, the sexual slavery of women and other crimes. And Turkey’s aggressive and supremacist foreign policy, which does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbors, has played a large role in this situation.

Syria and Iraq, Turkey’s southern neighbors, are now the breeding ground of genocidal jihadist groups, foremost the Islamic State (ISIS). Many reporters, experts and eyewitnesses have revealed that Turkey has contributed to the rise of jihadist terrorists in the region — by letting ISIS members get in and out of Turkey and even by providing funds, logistics, and arms for ISIS.

Inside its own boundaries, Turkey has been engaged in an all-out war against its own Kurdish citizens since last August. Turkey has been murdering them indiscriminately and destroying their homes and neighborhoods.

Turkey’s hatred of Kurds is so intense that it also targets Kurdish defense forces in Syria.

On February 13, Davutoglu confirmed shelling the Kurdish YPG group in Syria, after the YPG advanced on the rebel-held town of Azaz in Syria. “We will retaliate against every step [by the YPG],” Davutoglu said. “The YPG will immediately withdraw from Azaz and the surrounding area and will not go close to it again.”

The rebels in Azaz and elsewhere in Syria are mostly Islamist jihadists. According to the scholar Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, Azaz was mostly controlled in early 2015 by the group Liwa Asifat al-Shamal (“Northern Storm Brigade”), affiliated with the Islamic Front. Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (“Al-Nusra Front”) also had a presence there.

“Azaz is a symbol for Turkey,” said Fabrice Balanche of the Washington Institute For Near East Policy. “Prime Minister Davutoglu fears that if the Kurds capture Azaz, they could start a big offensive from Kobane to the west and from Afrin to the east,” he told BBC.

As widely reported, the crisis in the region reached a peak when a Turkish Air Force F-16 fighter jet shot down a Russian Air Force Su-24 bomber along the Turkey-Syria border on November 24, killing the pilot, Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov. The Turkish government tried to excuse the attack by claiming that the jet was downed after it had violated Turkish airspace for 17 seconds.

The Russia Defense Ministry, however, denied the aircraft ever left Syrian airspace, and released a video they claimed shows that the Su-24 was not in Turkish airspace when it was shot down.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s neighbor to its West, Greece, has long been a victim of Turkey’s violations of its sovereign airspace. According to data recorded by the Greek military, in 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft violated Greek airspace 2,244 times. On just one day, February 15, Turkish warplanes violated Greek airspace 22 times, according to Athens News Agency.

After Syria, Greece and Russia, Turkey’s next target was its other southern neighbor, Iraq. In December, Iraq’s President, Fuad Masum, said, “The presence of the Turkish Army Forces in Mosul Province without our permission violates international rules. I want Turkish officials to get its force out of Iraq’s territory immediately.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi also condemned Turkey’s action: “We have not asked Turkey for any force and no one had informed us about the arrival of the force.”

Two neighbors of Turkey, Cyprus and Armenia, have also been victims of Turkish aggression — for an even longer time.

Turkey, for more than 40 years, has been illegally occupying the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus, which it invaded with a bloody military campaign in 1974. According to historian Victor Davis Hanson:

“Thousands of settlers from Anatolia were shipped in by the Turkish government to occupy former Greek villages and to change Cypriot demography — in the same manner the occupying Ottoman Empire once did in the 16th century. … The island remains conquered not because the Greeks have given up, but because their resistance is futile against a NATO power of some 70 million people. Greeks know that Turkey worries little about what world thinks of its occupation.”

Turkey has also been blockading yet another neighbor since 1993: “Turkey and Azerbaijan have effectively been exercising an illegal unilateral economic blockade against Armenia, which has hurt the latter economically,” wrote Armen V. Sahakyan, the executive director of the Eurasian Research and Analysis Institute. “Turkey and Azerbaijan are in clear violation of the Principle of Good Neighborliness, as well as all of the General Assembly resolutions condemning unilateral coercive measures.”

Turkey has been assaulting its neighbors in what appears as outbursts of Turkish Islamic supremacy. What Turkey would call a crime if committed by a non-Turkish or a non-Sunni state, Turkey sees as legitimate if Turkey itself commits it.

When Turkey invaded Cyprus, historically a Greek and Christian nation, it is not called an invasion. Turkey still refers to the 1974 military campaign as a “peace operation.” Senior politicians and military officials from Turkey also participate in the official ceremonies called “the Peace and Freedom Festival,” organized in occupied northern Cyprus on July 20 every year, to celebrate what they “achieved” more than 40 years ago — namely, an ethnic cleansing and colonization campaign that they conducted through many crimes, including mass murders, wholesale and repeated rapes, torture and inhuman treatment, plundering Cypriot cultural heritage and destroying churches, among others.

1569The crumbling buildings of the Varosha district of Famagusta, Cyprus, photographed in 2009. The area lies within Turkish-controlled northern Cyprus. The inhabitants fled during the 1974 Turkish invasion and the district has been abandoned since then. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

If anyone blockaded another state, especially a Sunni state, Turkey would most certainly condemn it. But when Turkey itself blockades a Christian nation, it is always “justified” — most often as a response to some “unacceptable wrongdoing” by the other side.

If a non-Turkish, or non-Sunni state, treated a Turkish or Sunni minority brutally, Turkey would passionately condemn it. But Turkey sees no harm in slaughtering its own Kurdish citizens, and devastating their towns. Turkey claims this is a just way of “fighting against terrorism.”

Turkey can shoot down a Russian plane in the blink of an eye, because supposedly no one can violate Turkish airspace even for a few seconds — or even if no such violation takes place. But Turkey can violate the Greek sovereign airspace countless times as a national sport or hobby whenever it feels like it?

If Western authorities criticize Turkey for its policies, Turkey accuses them of “intervening in Turkey’s internal affairs.”

For instance, when a group of journalists close to the movement of the Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen were detained in a mass arrest operation on December 14, 2014 in Turkey, the European Commission, in a joint statement, criticized the police raids and arrests of the media representatives.

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini and the commissioner heading EU enlargement talks also said the arrests went “against European values.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded in a public speech:

“When we take a step, someone in the European Union immediately comes up and makes a statement. According to what do you make this statement? What do you know?

“Those who have made this country wait at the gate of the European Union for 50 years, do you ever know what this [our] step is? The elements that threaten our national security — be they members of the press, or this or that — will get the required response. It is impossible for us to make them sovereign in this country.

“And when we take such a step, we do not think about ‘what will the European Union say?’ or ‘will the EU accept us [as a member]?’ We do not have such concerns. We will pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Please keep your intellect to yourselves.”

Erdogan also said that the detentions were not an “issue” of press freedom and claimed that the Fethullah Gulen movement was backed by Israel, which Erdogan referred to as “the country in the south that he [Gulen] loves.”

So, the European Union, of which Turkey is allegedly “striving” to be a member, cannot even issue a critical statement concerning Turkey’s policies because that would “intervene in Turkish steps for national security,” but Turkey can send jihadist fighters, arms or funds into Syria or Iraq and destroy lives and civilizations there?

Turkey seems to believe it always has to be strong and a leading force in the region. But if Kurds — an indigenous, stateless and persecuted people — are to gain a single right anywhere in the world, does Turkey find that unacceptable?

The entire history of Turkey as well as its current policies demonstrate that Turkey believes Kurds are inferior to Turks. Turkey does not even recognize the Kurds’ right to be educated in Kurdish, evidently in an attempt to separate them from their identity.

“The policy of Republican Turkey since its establishment in 1923,” wrote the author Amir Hassanpour, “is a typical case of what has been called ‘linguicide’ or ‘linguistic genocide.’ Forcing the Kurds to abandon their language and become native speakers of Turkish is the primary goal of the language policy.”

Freedom and sovereignty are for Turks only. Kurds are just to be murdered or to be Turkey’s servants. This has been the state policy of Turkey ever since it was founded in 1923.

“The master in this country is the Turk,” said Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, Turkey’s first Minister of Justice, in 1930. “Those who are not genuine Turks can have only one right in the Turkish fatherland, and that is to be a servant, to be a slave. We are in the most free country of the world. They call this Turkey.”

 

Categories: Cyprus, Erdogan, Erdogan and Islamic jihad, Foreign policy, Freedom, Islam and terrorism, Islamic State, Israel, Kurdish fighters, Kurds, Turkey and human rights, Turkey and Islamic State
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Poetry in Erdogan’s Turkey: Jihad in, Satire out

April 26, 2016

Poetry in Erdogan’s Turkey: Jihad in, Satire out, Clarion Project, Uzay Bulut, April 26, 2016

Erdogan-Jan-Bohmermann-HPTurkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) reads a poem about violent jihad in May, 2015, at a public opening ceremony in the province of Siirt. The Turkish government has called a satirical poem about Erdogan by German comedian Jan Bohmermann (right) a ‘serious crime against humanity.’

On March 8, the Turkish Minister of Finance Naci Agbal read verses from a poem titled Amentu (“I believe”) by Ismet Ozel. The verses recall the Turkish -Greek war in 1920s in Anatolia and refer to the Greeks as kafirs (infidels).

“The adhan (call to prayer) is no longer heard. The cross has been erected on minibars (mosque pulpit),

The kafir Greek has flown his flag on mosques, on everywhere

Then come, my brother, join our hands altogether

Let’s explode the bombs and silence the [church] bells everywhere.”

While the finance minister of Turkey, a country that fancies itself as a candidate for EU membership, read these verses during his speech at Turkey’s parliament, the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, met with his Greek colleague, Alexis Tsipras, in Izmir and told him, “Let’s remove the word ‘war’ from our relations.”

Apparently, the poem which openly calls for “exploding the bombs and silencing the [church] bells everywhere” is perfectly fine according to Turkish-Islamic standards. No state authority or prosecutor has demanded the minister be brought to account for reading it.

At the same time, the satirical, obscene poem read by the German comedian, Jan Bohmermann, which was critical of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, however, put the Turkish government in an extreme state of rage.

On March 31, Bohmermann “offered to illustrate impermissible ‘abusive criticism,’ saying, ‘You’re not allowed to do this,’ and read the poem on German TV. Besides its crude sexual references, the piece accused Erdogan of repressing minorities and mistreating Kurds and Christians,” reported Reuters.

If there were a normal government in Turkey ruled by somewhat democratic people, the poem by the German artist would never be a matter of such a frantic debate.

Some people would just laugh at it, others would be disturbed. Some would think it was an intriguing example of artistic expression; others would think it was done in poor taste. Wise ones in Turkey would probably try to learn lessons from it: “Why is that artist criticizing or even mocking us like that? Maybe we are at fault and we should change our ways.” All in all, the poem would probably be in the news for a few days, and then be mostly forgotten.

But above all, the artist would never be exposed to any criminal prosecution for reading a poem that contained profanity but that did not call for violence in any way, shape or form.

The Turkish government authorities could have as well ignored the poem and focused on the real problems of the country – including why the perpetrators who sell Yazidi women in the southeastern province of Gaziantep, Turkey were recently acquitted of any crime.

In December, 2015, the German NDR and SWR TV channels produced footage documenting the slave trade being conducted by the Islamic State (ISIS) through a liaison office in the province of Gaziantep in Turkey, near the border with Syria.

On April 17, 2016, the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported that the Gaziantep police department had raided the said office and found $310,000, many foreign (non-Turkish) passports and 1,768 pages of Arabic receipts that demonstrate the transfer of millions of dollars between Turkey and Syria.

Six people were brought to court for their involvement in crimes including “being members of an armed terrorist organization.” But the complainant, the Gaziantep Bar Association, was not even invited to attend the hearings that lasted for only 16 days.

“We learnt the ruling accidentally. The court made the decision of acquittal without looking into the documents found by police,” said Bektas Sarkli, the head of the Gaziantep Bar Association, adding that they will go for an appeal.

Apparently, in Turkey, selling Yazidi women and children is not a very big deal. The real “crime,” according to the Turkish government, is the poem of Bohmermann.

Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, and the spokesperson of the government, called the poem a “serious crime against humanity.”

The comedian, who now stands accused of “insulting a foreign leader,” a crime in Germany, could face jail time for reciting a satirical poem on German television. The “sensitive” Turkish government prefers to prosecute those who recite “offensive” poems, but not the ISIS members who sell Yazidi women and children.

Erdogan, too, made a complaint against Bohmermann as a private person on charges of “being insulted by the poem.”

Ironically, in 1999, Erdogan, then mayor of Istanbul, spent four months in jail after a conviction for religious incitement through a poem he publicly read. The poem by the pan-Turkic author Ziya Gokalp (1876 – 1924) had an overtly violent message:

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.”

In July, 2011, Erdogan, who was then prime minister, read the same verses at Turkey’s parliament.

In May, 2015, at a public opening ceremony in the province of Siirt, President Erdogan read the poem once more (see video below) – this time together with his supporters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vY30O83Go

The poem openly called for jihad – but according to the Islamic ideology, if violence will bring about the Islamization of the victims or their descendants, it is not criminal.

Many Islamists do not see jihad as a crime. For their scriptures openly command them “to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.”

Historically and today, the expansionist Islamist raids against non-Muslim peoples are accompanied by mass murders, mass rapes, sex slavery, forced conversions, looting, plundering, mass deportations and so on.

Hence, what the rest of the world would describe as “genocide,” “massacre,” “terrorism” or “ethnic cleansing,” many Islamists describe as “righteous” ways of spreading Islam and of liberating “infidel” lands as well as a good deed (halal) that will open the “doors of Heaven.”

The problem in general seems to be that according to the Islamist mindset, anything inside Islamic scriptures or sharia law such as beating, raping, throat-slitting, beheading, crucifying or selling women as sex slaves is acceptable and not a crime.

But anything outside sharia such as Christmas, a satirical poem, a cartoon of Mohammad and free speech is a crime and must be dealt with by the full force of the law.

The key point is to see the enormous differences between the Islamist ideology — which aims for supremacism, global caliphate and death to or subjugation of non-Muslims — and Western civilization, which protects and even encourages intellectual dissent, free expression and human freedom.

Under German law, prosecutions for insulting a foreign leader can only take place with the express permission of the German government. Although there are currently attempts to pass a bill to abolish the law before Bohmermann’s case can come to court, the Merkel government decided to allow the prosecution to take place.

Sadly, Germany chose to disregard this gigantic civilizational difference and has taken a noxious step to kneeling down to the stealthy threats of Islamists.

Categories: Erdogan, Erdogan and Islamic jihad, Europe, Freedom of speech, Germany, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Turkey
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Saudi Influence in Washington Must End

April 22, 2016

Saudi Influence in Washington Must End, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, April 22, 2016

buddies

The 28 pages of a Congressional report detailing where the 9/11 hijackers got their financing have been classified for years, but what they contain is an open secret. Former Senator Bob Graham explained: “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier.” So why keep this information secret? Because the Saudis wield undue influence in Washington, among both parties – an influence that has deformed our response to the global jihad threat, and continues to do so.

Responding to a bill that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue governments linked to terror attacks inside the U.S., the Saudis have acted like neither an ally nor an innocent party: they’ve threatened to sell $750 billion in U.S. asserts, vividly demonstrating why their influence in Washington is so detrimental.

Nonetheless, they still have a friend in Barack Obama, a man who has never hesitated to reach out in friendship to those who threaten the United States. Obama is trying to get Congress to reject the bill, and his solicitude for the Saudis is drawing criticism even from members of his own party. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) called on him to release the 28 pages: “If the president is going to meet with the Saudi Arabian leadership and the royal family, they think it would be appropriate that this document be released before the president makes that trip, so that they can talk about whatever issues are in that document.”

The New York Daily News, normally a reliable Democratic Party organ, fumed: “If the President allows himself to get pushed around this way in front of the world, then he earns every bit of the anger being directed at him by the extended family of September 11.”

Of course, all too many Republicans are just as much in the tank for the Saudis as the Democrats. CBS News reported on September 30, 2001, on George W. Bush’s watch, that “two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington.” If Hitler had had twenty-four relatives on U.S. soil on December 8, 1941, would FDR have urgently evacuated them to Berlin?

The FBI under both Bush and Obama has likewise been an apparently willing servant of the Saudis. The Miami Herald reported on July 1, 2014 that “freshly released but heavily censored FBI documents include tantalizing new information about events connected to the Sarasota Saudis who moved suddenly out of their home about two weeks before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, leaving behind clothing, jewelry and cars….This release suggests that the FBI has covered up information that is vitally important to public safety.” These “Sarasota Saudis” were a family that abruptly fled the country shortly before 9/11, “leaving behind three vehicles, food in the refrigerator and toys in the swimming pool.” Mohammed Atta may have visited their home. Yet for years, the FBI insisted that they had nothing to do with the 9/11 jihad plot, and has been extremely reticent about sharing information about their investigation. Whom is the FBI protecting, and why?

Meanwhile, the Saudis have spent untold billions of dollars spreading their Wahhabi ideology, including material such as “Jihad: The Forgotten Obligation,” in areas of the Islamic world where jihad had indeed been forgotten, largely if not completely. The Saudis have, in reawakening Muslims to this obligation, set the world on fire: al-Qaeda was a product of the Wahhabi ideology, and the Islamic State, with its unquenchable desire to commit as many jihad mass murder attacks as possible on American soil, despises the House of Saud and is determined to overthrow it but is nevertheless its demon child. The Saudis remain one of the world’s chief financiers of jihad terror.

This is an ally of the United States? No. The Saudis are not an ally of the U.S. and have not been since 9/11 and before. A presidential candidate who really wants to strike a blow against the global jihad would vow to release the 28 pages and to stand up to the Saudis’ threats, and to break the Saudis’ economic hold on the U.S. by putting the full weight of the U.S. government behind offshore drilling, oil pipelines, fracking, and the development of alternative energy sources.

In 1942, Franklin Delano Roosevelt not only wasn’t making sure that Hitler’s relatives were safely back home; he also wasn’t meeting with the Führer to discuss a German-U.S. alliance. It is long past time that the United States stop behaving like a weak client state of the House of Saud.

 

Categories: 9/11, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Islam and terrorism, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic jihad, Obama and Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Supporting Islamic terrorism, Wahhabi
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Will vs. Way Explains Islam vs. West

April 19, 2016

Will vs. Way Explains Islam vs. West, American Thinker, Raymond Ibrahim, April 19, 2016

Yet here is the free and mighty West, refusing to use its powers — even in the name of self-preservation — while empowering an Islam that openly vows to, and will, subjugate the West, once the way to do so becomes available. 

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

In the ongoing struggle between Islam and the West, one important fact is regularly overlooked:  one civilization has the will to triumph, but not the way; the other has the way to triumph, but not the will.

Some who fear Islam do not seem to understand this.  They think that Islam is an irresistible force to be reckoned with; they see Muslim migrants as hordes of violent men invading Europe; they call on Western men to make a stand, resist the onslaught, save their women and children.

To be sure, this portrayal is historically valid: for one thousand years, Muslims repeatedly invaded and conquered portions of Europe — terrorizing, massacring, raping and enslaving in the name of Allah — and were only repulsed by force of arms.

Today’s situation is far less dramatic and epic; it’s actually quite pathetic.  Muslim terrorists, rapists, and ISIS-sympathizers are not entering the West against its will but because of it.  In other words, the West is 100% responsible for this “invasion.”

Consider it by analogy.  What if zoos began to maintain that it’s a slanderous stereotype to say that lions by nature prey on zebras?  Zoos start introducing lions into zebra enclosures.  The inevitable happens: although well fed, some lions continue chasing and mauling zebras.  Surely only a great fool would blame the ensuing carnage on lions — who, after all, are merely being lions — while ignoring those who insist on placing lions with zebras in the first place.

Similarly, those Western policy makers who continue insisting that Islam is peaceful (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), and that Muslim immigration is fine (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), are 100% to blame when Muslims terrorize, rape, and kill non-Muslims in the West — that is, when they do what comes natural back home.

Still, Western politicians get away with warped policies because the general public — including the average voter — has been bred on warped views.  Thus, even as Germans were being overwhelmed by a million Muslim migrants, Dr. Stefanie von Berg, speaking before parliament, loudly proclaimed:

Mrs. President, ladies and gentlemen. Our society will change. Our city will change radically. I hold that in 20, 30 years there will no longer be a [German] majority in our city. …. And I want to make it very clear, especially towards those right wingers: This is a good thing!

Such suicidal words can be spoken and enacted only because voters have been conditioned to accept and support suicidal policies (which of course are dressed up to satisfy Western vanity). If they hadn’t, people like Berg, far from being elected to parliament, would be incarcerated for treason or committed into mental wards.

In the end, the relationship between Islam and the West is understood by the dichotomy of the will and the way.  The West has the way — including the military and economic might — to utterly neutralize Islam, one way or the other.  Yet it doesn’t even have the will to preserve itself.   Ban Islam’s presence from the West — which is doable, provided the will is there — and Islamic terrorism on Western soil ceases.  It’s that simple.

Conversely, Islam most certainly has the will to eliminate the West, though it currently doesn’t have the way (minus those ways the West gives it).  Historically, for over one millennium, whenever Islam had the way, it always went on the offensive.

Back then, when much of the world was limited to fighting with swords and spears, arrows and fire — back when Islam was on an even footing with its neighbors — untold millions of non-Muslims were slaughtered, enslaved, or converted to Islam.  This is seen in the historical fact that the overwhelming majority of territory that today constitutes the “Muslim world” was seized from non-Muslims by great violence and bloodshed.

Western military technology eventually progressed to the point that Islam was left in the dust.   Its will to dominate went dormant but remained intact.

Put differently, if Islam was the one to develop sophisticated armaments and weapons of mass destruction, while the West was still using swords and spears, there would be no West to speak of today.  Faced before Islam’s three choices — conversion, enslavement, or annihilation — the West would’ve gone the way of the dodo, like many civilizations before it.

Yet here is the free and mighty West, refusing to use its powers — even in the name of self-preservation — while empowering an Islam that openly vows to, and will, subjugate the West, once the way to do so becomes available.

 

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and terrorism, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK: What British Muslims Really Think

April 17, 2016

UK: What British Muslims Really Think, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, April 17, 2016

♦ The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

♦ “[W]e have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism… Britain’s liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. … There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides… We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little — and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims.” — Trevor Phillips, former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission.

♦ The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in Britain allows them to do whatever they want.

Many British Muslims do not share the values of their non-Muslim compatriots, and say they want to lead separate lives under Islamic Sharia law, according to the findings of a new survey.

The poll — which shows that a significant part of the British Muslim community is becoming a separate “nation within a nation” — has reignited the long-running debate about the failure of 30 years of British multiculturalism and the need for stronger measures to promote Muslim integration.

The survey was conducted by ICM Research for the Channel 4 documentary, “What British Muslims Really Think,” which aired on April 13.

The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

1552

Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.

The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.

Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.

In an essay for the Sunday Times, Trevor Phillips, the host of the documentary and a former head of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, warned of a growing “chasm” between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain that “isn’t going to disappear any time soon.”

Phillips wrote that the poll reveals “the unacknowledged creation of a nation within the nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future.” He added: “I thought Europe’s Muslims would gradually blend into the landscape. I should have known better.”

Phillips was referring to his rather ignominious role in commissioning the 1997 report, “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All.” Also known as the Runnymede Report, the document popularized the term “Islamophobia” in Britain and had a singular role in silencing criticism of mass immigration from the Muslim world. Twenty years later, Phillips now concedes that he has had a change of heart.

In an essay for the Daily Mail, Phillips, wrote:

“There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam — and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides.

“Four per cent — the equivalent of more than 100,000 British Muslims — told the researchers that they had sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice. Asked if they knew that someone was involved with supporting terrorism in Syria, just one in three would report it to the police.

“There is one truly terrifying finding. Muslims who have separatist views about how they want to live in Britain are far more likely to support terrorism than those who do not. And there are far too many of the former for us to feel that we can gradually defeat the threat.

“Liberal-minded Muslims have been saying for some time that our live-and-let-live attitudes have allowed a climate to grow in which extremist ideas have flourished within Britain’s Muslim communities. Our politicians have tried to reassure us that only a tiny minority hold dangerous views.

“All the while, girls are shipped off to have their genitals mutilated, young women and men are being pressured into marriages they do not want, and teenagers are being seduced into donning suicide vests or becoming jihadi brides.

“We have ‘understood’ too much, and challenged too little — and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims.

“In my view, we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism.”

Philips added:

“Muslims want to be part of Britain — but many do not accept the values and behaviors that make Britain what it is; they believe that Islam offers a better future. And a small number feel that these sincerely held beliefs justify attempts to destroy our democracy.

“Britain’s liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. The complacency we’ve displayed so far is leaving them to fight alone, and putting our society in danger. We cannot continue to sit on the fence in the hope that the problem will go away.”

The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in the UK allows them to do whatever they want.

Some British Muslims have rejected the conclusions of the survey, which they say uses a flawed methodology because it was conducted in areas where Muslims make up more than 20% of the population, compared to 5.5% overall. They say the survey results are skewed because they are indicative of Muslims in these areas and not of British Muslims as a whole.

In an interview with CNN, however, ICM Director Martin Boon said that more than half of all British Muslims live in areas that are more than 20% Muslim and that the survey findings are sound. “In my view, this is the most rigorous survey of Muslims outside of the largest and most expensive surveys conducted by the UK government,” Boon said.

The president of the British Polling Council, John Curtice, told CNN that ICM had followed standard methods of polling ethnic minorities in the UK.

Unlike many other surveys of Muslim opinion, which have usually been conducted by telephone or online, ICM used face-to-face, in-home research to question a representative sample of 1,081 Muslims across Britain.

The Muslim population of Britain surpassed 3.5 million in 2015 to become around 5.5% of the overall population of 64 million, according to figures extrapolated from a recent study on the growth of the Muslim population in Europe. In real terms, Britain has the third-largest Muslim population in the European Union, after France, then Germany.

In a statement, the Muslim Council of Britain (which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) claimed the poll lacks “academic rigor” and warned it would “do nothing but harden attitudes on all sides.” It continued:

“Many British Muslims will find it bemusing that commentators and the media have constantly tried and failed to paint a picture of British Muslims at odds with the rest of the country. The way this poll has been formulated and presented in this climate of fear against Muslims is most unfortunate.”

In an opinion article for the Guardian, Miqdaad Versi, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, argued that Philips “lacks nuance” and has a “distorted interpretation of the UK’s diverse Muslim communities.” He wrote:

“Discussions and proposals to promote integration and cohesion are always welcome. But the starting point should not be that Muslims are the problem, not quite British enough, and must be civilized into a pre-existing notion of Britishness.”

By contrast, Sir Gerald Howarth, Tory MP for Aldershot, said:

“Three cheers for Trevor Phillips. I think he is absolutely right. There’s an element in the Muslim community which reject our values, while enjoying our tolerance.

“We are a tolerant nation because we are routed in the Christian faith, which is a tolerant religion. As our own religious observance declines, a vacuum is being created into which the hardline Islamist community is stepping.

“We have been a very complacent society.”

Allison Pearson, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, called for an immediate ban on all Sharia courts in Britain and called on the government to ensure that all citizens are subject to British law. She summed up the British predicament:

“This is serious. Unless we succeed, the live-and-let-live attitude which makes Britain such a great place could end up being its death warrant.”

Categories: Islam - submission, Islam and homosexuality, Islam and human rights, Islam and terrorism, Islam and women, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamism, Sharia law, UK
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Belgian Interior Minister: ‘Significant’ part of Muslim community ‘danced’ in wake of attacks

April 17, 2016

Belgian Interior Minister: ‘Significant’ part of Muslim community ‘danced’ in wake of attacks, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, April 17, 2016

In an interview yesterday, Belgium’s Interior Minister Jam Jambon charged that a large part of the country’s Muslim population celebrated terrors attacks:

AFP reports:

“A significant section of the Muslim community danced when attacks took place,” Jambon said in an interview with the Flemish-language De Standaard newspaper.

The Belgian minister also accused Muslim residents of Brussels’ largely immigrant Molenbeek neighbourhood of attacking police during an operation last month to arrest a suspect in connection with the deadly attacks in Paris last November.

“They threw stones and bottles at police and press during the arrest of Salah Abdeslam. This is the real problem. Terrorists we can pick up, remove from society. But they are just a boil. Underneath is a cancer that is much more difficult to treat. We can do it, but it won’t be overnight,” he said. (snip)

In Saturday’s interview he said that the danger linked to the radicalisation of youth from third and fourth generation families is “too deeply rooted” in some areas because Belgium “have for many years ignored the warning signs”.

Shades of Donald Trump charging that Muslims in the US celebrated after 9/11, a charge that has lacked a lot of corroborating evidence. Jambon’s portfolio presumably includes police and security forces, so perhaps he has access to more information than Trump.

Hat tip: Jim Netolick

Categories: Belgium, Brussels terror attack, Islam and terrorism, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamisation, Molenbeek
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Islamophobia in one State (6)

April 17, 2016

Islamophobia in one State (6), Power Line, Scott Johnson, April 17, 2016

In addition to the Twin Cities, Somali Muslim immigrants to Minnesota have settled in rural areas such as St. Cloud, Mankato and Willmar. Concern about the continuing waves of immigration from Somalia in particular is not confined to the Twin Cities. Thus Matt McKinney’s Star Tribune contribution to stifling discussion of the related issues in  “Anti-Muslim speaking circuit runs through rural Minnesota.”

McKinney’s piece is pitiful. It presents all related concerns as manifestations of “Islamophobia.” It calls on Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR, to render his opinion as an impartial expert. McKinney quotes Hussein: “A lot of these fears are coming from that type of general fear of the ‘other,’ and not real knowledge of Islam.”

I would say “a lot of these fears are coming from” Somali Minnesotans’ support for foreign terrorist organizations waging jihad. The support is manifested in the charges brought against the “Minnesota men” seeking to join ISIS in 2014 and 2015. Somali community sentiment is itself apparently supportive of the “Minnesota men” if not the cause. Rather than investigate the possibly rational causes of the “fears,” McKinney simply presents the concerns as evidence of bigotry.

I offered the opposing case in the Star Tribune column “Islam and Minnesota: Can we hear some straight talk for a change.” With McKinney’s column today, think we have the definitive answer to that question.

McKinney revisits the Dorsey & Whitney conference on “Islamophobia” in Minnesota last week. He recites that those in attendance included former Vice President Walter Mondale and members of the legal community, including U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger. McKinney quotes Luger in classic form, saying that, left unchecked, “Islamaphobia is going to destroy the social fabric of the state.” Shut up, he explained.

McKinney does not know that CAIR itself is part of the problem. CAIR, however, is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network, and it aims to silence critics of Islamic supremacism via useful idiots such as McKinney. Andrew McCarthy devoted a particularly useful chapter of The Grand Jihad to CAIR. NR has posted an adapted excerpt of it here.

The Muslim Brotherhood — they’re Islamic, right? Hamas — Islamic, right? It’s a shame McKinney didn’t even try to get a straight answer from the local CAIR leader. He might have learned somethings from the exercise.

Categories: CAIR, Hamas, Islam and terrorism, Islam and the Islamic State, Islam in America, Minnesota, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama's America
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Europe: Suicide by Jihad

April 16, 2016

Europe: Suicide by Jihad, Gatestone Institute, Guy Millière, April 16, 2016

♦ In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law.

♦ One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal. Police did not ask him anything about the jihadist networks with which he worked. Officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who hid him were not indicted.

♦ Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

♦ Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed pressure on Israel. When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists.

The March 22 jihadist attacks in Brussels were predictable. What is surprising is that they did not take place sooner. What is also surprising is that more people were not killed. It seems that the authors of the attacks had larger projects in mind; they wanted to attack a nuclear power plant. Others may succeed in doing just that.

In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law. Almost all the women wear veils or burqas; those who do not take risks. Drug trafficking and radical mosques are everyplace. The police stay outside and intervene only in cases of extreme emergency, using military-like commando operations. Other areas of Belgium, such as Shaerbeek and Anderlecht have the same status as Molenbeek.

The Belgian authorities have allowed the situation to deteriorate. The situation in the country now is virtually equivalent to a surrender.

They seemed to hope that willful blindness and accepting the unacceptable would permit the country to be spared. It did not.

The attack on Belgium’s Jewish Museum on May 24, 2014 should have served as a warning. It did not. That “only” Jews were the target led the Belgian government to underestimate the threat. The jihadi who wanted to kill passengers on train from Amsterdam to Paris, on August 21, 2015, prepared his attack in Brussels. That three American heroes neutralized him before he could start shooting again led the Belgian government to think the danger was not large.

The jihadis who struck Paris on November 13, 2015 had also organized their attacks from Molenbeek, but the blood was not spilled in Belgium. Belgian authorities perhaps assumed that Belgium would be spared. They spoke of “imminent danger” for a day or so, but never increased security.

One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most wanted terrorist criminal, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal, not a jihadi terrorist. Police did not ask him anything concerning the jihadist networks with which he worked. Because he was hurt during police operations, officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who agreed to hide him for so long were not considered suspects and were not indicted.

The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later.

Despite the worst attacks on Belgium soil since World War II, Belgian authorities do not seem ready to change their behavior.

1365 (1)Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), one of the planners of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, was — like many terrorists in Europe — from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.

After the attacks, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel denounced “violent and cowardly acts” and stressed his “determination,” without saying what he intended to do. He did not speak of the necessity of changing the Belgian laws to make them more effective. He did not mention any enemy. He never used words such as “jihad” or “radical Islam.”

He behaved and talked as most of his European counterparts did. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls used more courageous words and said many times he is fighting “radical jihad” and “Islamism.” The French parliament passed laws allowing what is still impossible in Belgium: police searches at night. But France stands alone, and effectively the situation in France is no better than in Belgium. Islamist enclaves exists in many suburbs. Whole cities are controlled by thugs and radical imams: cities such as Roubaix, Trappes, Aubervilliers and Sevran in the northeast of Paris.

Islamist enclaves also exist in other European countries: Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden.

European leaders have been making choices. After World War II, they decided Europe would be a region of the world where war would be banished and all problems solved through diplomacy and appeasement. They gradually abandoned financing defense and security activities. Instead, they built welfare states. They thought that taking care of people from cradle to grave would suppress anger and conflicts. They denied the existence of totalitarian dangers and the necessity of showing strength. To this day, their statements indicate that European leaders think both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire fell thanks to the benevolence of Mikhail Gorbachev, not thanks to the determination of Ronald Reagan. To this day, they seem to think that Islam is essentially a religion of peace and that the jihadis belong to a tiny, marginal sect.

Decades ago, Europe’s leaders adopted a general policy of “openness” to the Islamic world in general, and the Arab world in particular. They decided to welcome migrants from the Muslim world by hundreds of thousands but without asking them to integrate. They made cultural relativism and multiculturalism their guiding principles. They acted as if Islam could mingle in the Western world harmoniously and without difficulty. Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims and had to pay for its sins. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

When in the Muslim world jihadis started to kill, Europe’s leaders wanted to believe that the attacks would take place in the Muslim world only. They thought that by not interfering with what European jihadis were planning, they would not risk jihadi attacks on European soil.

When Jews were attacked, Europe’s leaders decided that the problem was not jihad, but Israel. They stressed the need not to “export Middle East conflict in Europe.” Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed increasing pressure on Israel. They also increased their financial and political support for the “Palestinian cause.”

When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists. They still do not know how to react.

Many of them now say privately what they will never say in public: it is probably too late.

There are six to eight million Muslims in France, and more than thirty million in Western Europe. Hundreds of jihadis are trained and ready to act — anytime, anyplace. European intelligence services know that they want to make “dirty bombs.” Surveys show that tens of thousands of Muslims living in Europe approve of jihadi attacks in Europe. Millions of Muslims living in Europe keep silent, behave as if they see nothing and hear nothing, and protest only when they think they have to defend Islam.

European political leaders know that every decision they make may provoke reactions among the Muslims living in Europe. Muslim votes matter. Riots occur easily. In France, Belgium, other European countries, Islamists are present in the army and police forces. In the meantime, Islamist organizations recruit and Islamic lobbies gain ground.

European governments are now hostages. The European media are also hostages.

In most European countries, “Islamophobia” is considered a crime — and any criticism of Islam may be considered “Islamophobic.” People trying to warn Europe, such as the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, despite an apparently biased judge and forged documents against him, are now on trial.

Books on radical Islam are still published but surrounded by silence. Books praising the glory of Islam are in every bookstore. When Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia was published in Europe, she was denounced and received hundreds of death threats. Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept, published in the U.S., was not even available in Europe. Ten years later, the situation is worse.

Political movements expressing anger and concerns are rising. All are demonized by political power holders and the media. They have almost no chance of gaining more influence.

Populations are gnawed by fear, frustration and impotence. They are looking for answers, but cannot find them. A few hours after the attacks on Brussels, a man on Belgian television said that Europe is on the verge of suicide.

Europe looks like a dying civilization. European governments created a situation that can only lead to more attacks, more massacres, and maybe unspeakable disasters. Europe’s leaders continue to react with speeches and a few police operations.

If some European governments decided to restore their abolished borders, it could take years, and most European leaders would probably disagree with such a policy. Meanwhile, millions more “migrants” will enter Europe, and among them many more jihadis. In spite of the mayhem created in Germany by “migrants” who arrived in 2015, Angela Merkel said she would not change her decisions. No Western European government dared to disagree with her, except Viktor Orbán in Hungary, a lone voice of dissent.

In Brussels, as in Paris earlier, people gathered where the attacks took place. They brought candles and flowers to mourn the victims. They sang sentimental songs. They cried. There were no shouts of revolt against jihad. Members of the Belgian government called on the Belgian people to avoid reactions of violence, and declared that Muslims are the main victims of terrorism.

In Europe’s near future, more people will bring candles, flowers and songs to mourn victims. Another two or three jihadists will be arrested. But nothing will be done.

Categories: Europe, Hungary, Islam - submission, Islam and terrorism, Islamic indoctrination, Islamic integration, Islamic invasion, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamisation, Islamophobia, Israel, Israel and Europe, Merkel, Palestinians, UK
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »