Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We need to face problem of radical Islam, Fox News, November 17, 2015
Archive for the ‘Islam’ category
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: We need to face problem of radical Islam
November 17, 2015Muslim Activists Demand Action vs Islamist Extremism
November 17, 2015Muslim Activists Demand Action vs Islamist Extremism, Clarion Project, Elliot Friedland, November 13, 2015
(Shhh. Don’t tell Obama, but these Muslims think that the Islamic State is Islamic and want reform. He might treat them as he does Egyptian President Sisi.– DM)
Protesters in Iraq march against anti-women sharia legislation. (Photo: © Reuters)
“The threat of global terrorism is unlikely to end until the resolution of the civil war of ideas between Muslim modernisers and those adhering to an outmoded theology of Islamic dominance.”
***************************
In the aftermath of Friday’s Paris attacks, Muslim human rights activists around the world are galvanizing the fightback against the Islamist extremist ideology and those who deny the conection between the Islamic State and Islam.
The chairman of the UK’s Conservative Muslim Forum, Mohammed Amin, slammed the inaction of Muslim groups saying “condemning terrorism is not enough if you are unwilling to acknowledge its causes.”
He said condemnations of terrorism from groups like Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Council of Britain left him “feeling frustrated – because they look so incomplete.”
“I am utterly fed up with hearing people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, argue that the religious views of the terrorists are irrelevant,” he said.
Counter-extremism activist Maajid Nawaz supported Amin on Facebook saying,“None of us Muslims deserves an infantile pat on the back merely for condemning ISIS, which even al-Qaeda does.”
Anti-extremism activist and journalist Felix Marquardt went further, demanding “We Muslims must hunt down these monsters who make a mockery of our religion” in a fiery op-ed in Britain’s The Daily Telegraph.
He called out Muslims who merely say ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam,” despite that being the first reaction of a Muslim. He labelled it “dubious intellectually and altogether irresponsible to keep our reaction at that.”
Dr. Zudhi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, identified a “cultural battle, a battle of ideologies” as the root cause.
Raheel Raza of the Council of Muslims Facing Tomorrow implored both Muslims and non-Muslims to “connect the dots to get to the root of terrorism,” arguing that “Since 9/11, the West has been waffling in the quicksand of political correctness and refuse to call a spade a spade.”
She too identifies the root cause of the Islamic State as the ideology of radical Islamism.
The former ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, Hussein Haqqani, also pointed to extremist ideology as the root cause of the Paris attacks.
“Just as the post-9/11 war against al-Qaeda degraded Osama bin Laden’s group but gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)” he writes, “extremist Islamist ideology will likely give birth to ‘Terrorism 3.0’ once the world has fought, contained and eliminated ISIL.”
This is because, he argues, “The threat of global terrorism is unlikely to end until the resolution of the civil war of ideas between Muslim modernisers and those adhering to an outmoded theology of Islamic dominance.”
Haqqani resoundingly concludes “only a concerted ideological campaign against medieval Islamist ideology, like the one that discredited and contained communism, could turn the tide.”
These are just a handful of the growing number of Muslims who are fighting the Islamist ideology on the front lines and within their own communities.
They, more than anyone, know that this is not a “clash of civilizations” between East and West but a political battle between tolerance and intolerance, between fundamentalism and openness and between theocracy and democracy.
These brave thinkers and leaders are sounding the charge and deserve our support.
Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation names the Islamist ideology:
Cartoon of the day
November 17, 2015
The West and Islam
November 17, 2015The West and Islam, Washington Times, Robert W. Merry, November 16, 2015
Illustration on the clash of civilizations by Linas Garsys/The Washington Times
France’s 4.7 million Muslims now constitute about 7.5 percent of the country’s population, and that number is projected to hit nearly 7 million by 2030. Generally, these people have not assimilated well into French society and hence constitute a mass of political and cultural anger that can only intensify in coming years.
**********************
As the full magnitude of Friday’s Paris carnage became known, President Obama spoke to America people and the world about the horrific bloodshed in that great Western city. The president said this was not an attack simply on Paris or the French people. “It was an attack,” he said, “on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.”
This is dangerously wrongheaded. History is not about all of humanity struggling to preserve and protect universal values against benighted peoples here and there who operate outside the confines of those shared values. History is about distinct civilizations and cultures that struggle to define themselves and maintain their identities in the face of ongoing threats and challenges from other civilizations and cultures.
Compare the president’s gauzy notion to what the late Samuel P. Huntington, probably the greatest political scientist of his generation, had to say about the relationship between the West and Islam. “Some Westerners,” wrote Huntington, ” have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamist extremists. Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”
This is not to say, of course, that all or even most Muslims are Islamist extremists or that Western values don’t inspire many within that civilization. But the Islamist fervor we see bubbling up within Middle Eastern Islam today emanates directly from the doctrines and history of Islam. Most Muslims of the Levant know in their hearts, in a way that most Westerners don’t recognize, that Islam and the West have been locked in a civilizational struggle for centuries — reflected in the Moors’ conquest of Spain and incursion into France in the 8th century; the centuries-long Spanish struggle to push the Moors south and finally expel them entirely from Iberia; the wars of the Crusades, inexplicable as anything but a civilizational clash; the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans and slow push up the Danube to Vienna; the two Ottoman sieges at Vienna; the long effort to push the decaying Ottoman forces back toward Istanbul (a highly civilized seat of Christianity before it fell to Islam in 1453); the European takeover of large segments of the Islamic Middle East after World War I; and the eventual pushback by angry and frustrated Muslims bent on protecting their civilization through whatever means they can devise.
That’s a lot of civilizational clash, and it belies the notion that the Paris slaughter reflects the forces of civilization struggling to preserve universal values against the forces of darkness bent on destroying those values. Huntington again: “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world.”
If Huntington presents the more accurate depiction of the relationship between the West and Islam, then certain conclusions follow. First, expect the clash to intensify with Western military incursions into the lands of Islam. This isn’t conjecture. President George W. Bush played into the hands of Islamist extremists when he invaded Iraq, and Mr. Obama did the same when he expanded the Afghanistan mission to reshape political structures and behavior in the Afghan countryside. The threat to the West is greater today than it was before those actions were undertaken.
Second, Muslim immigration into the West inevitably will heighten prospects for bloodshed of the kind we saw in Paris on Friday. We learn from news reports that at least one of the Paris killers probably entered the country with the refugees now flooding into Europe. That should not surprise anyone, certainly not those who understand the true nature of the civilizational clash between the West and Islam.
France’s 4.7 million Muslims now constitute about 7.5 percent of the country’s population, and that number is projected to hit nearly 7 million by 2030. Generally, these people have not assimilated well into French society and hence constitute a mass of political and cultural anger that can only intensify in coming years.
And yet we see the Continent’s most influential leader, Germany’s Angela Merkel, beating the drums for ever greater infusions of Muslim refugees into Europe. And we see the editors of The Economist labeling her “the indispensable European.” This is what happens when humanitarian universalism supplants civilizational consciousness.
Europe is beginning to show some signs of civilizational consciousness, and that sentiment likely will intensify in the wake of the Paris bloodshed. But humanitarian universalism is powerfully embedded into the Western consciousness. Mrs. Merkel’s remarks after the Paris massacre showed little inclination to adjust her view of the world or of Europe’s future. Certainly the editors of The Economist and other like-minded liberals will never alter their gauzy notions. And news coverage of the Paris aftermath reflected the prevailing sentiment by habitually characterizing those who want to curtail Europe’s Muslim immigration as “xenophobic” and “radical.”
But the Muslim infusion represents an existential threat to Europe and the West. Maybe the people there will get rid of their current leaders now living in another world and install leaders who understand the true nature of the threat. Then again, maybe not.
Why Islam is a religion of war
November 16, 2015Why Islam is a religion of war, Sultan Knish Blog, Daniel Greenfield, November 15, 2015
Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.
****************************
“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” Koran 61:9
Islamic violence is a religious problem.
Islam derives meaning from physical supremacy, so war becomes an act of faith. To believe in Islam, is to have faith that it will conquer the entire world. And to be a true Muslim, is to feel called to aid in that global conquest, whether by providing money to the Jihadists or to become a Jihadist.
The fulfillment of Islam depends on the subjugation of non-Muslims so that violence against non-Muslims become the essence of religion.
When Hamas states that, “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah” or the ISIS rapists tell Yazidi girls that rape “draws them closer to Allah”, they really do mean it.
They are not perverting a great religion, as our politicians claim, they are living it.
Everything they do is based on the Koran, the body of Islamic law and the greater history of Islam.
What the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, or the resurrection of Jesus is for the Christian– the physical dominance of Islam is to the Muslim. It is the basis and fulfillment of his faith.
Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning. It is the deepest expression of faith.
To its followers the validity of Islam is directly connected to its physical supremacy. As followers of the purported “final revelation” to mankind, Muslims not only have the obligation to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world, their religion is meaningful to the extent that they can carry on the work begun by Mohammed. The Jihadis who massacre non-Muslims are missionaries of their faith.
Anything that suggests Islam is not absolutely superior becomes blasphemy. When Muslims explode into outbursts of violent rage over seemingly petty things like a cartoon or a video, it is because to them, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy because it challenges its supremacy.
Truth and power in Islam are identical. It is not a religion of the oppressed, but of the oppressors.
Mohammed’s prophecies are validated by his conquests. The truth of Islam is seen in the expansion of Islam. When Muslims succeed in killing non-Muslims, they prove the truth of their religion.
That is why Muslim terrorists shout, “Allahu Akbar”, “Allah is greater.” The old Mohammedan taunt aimed at Jews was then directed at Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and all the world’s religions. By killing their non-Muslim victims, the Muslims proved that Allah was greater than their gods.
Islam is not only a tribal and materialistic religion, but it is closely linked to the honor-shame code of its Arab originators. Islam is not primarily an inward spiritual experience, but an outward expression of tribal honor. Its religious expression is the upholding of the honor of Islam and its expansion in the same exact ways as the honor and expansion of the tribe are upheld.
That is why Islam suffers from the classically tribal obsession of protecting “honor” by controlling women so that the blood of the tribe is not polluted by outsiders. That is why it is obsessed with any insult, real or imaginary to Mohammed, its theological tribal founder. And why it must continually expand its territory through conflict so that the tribe grows and so that the surplus sons don’t stay behind to fight each other over tribal territory. This is true of Syria on a much larger scale.
Forcing non-Muslims into a submissive position affirms the truth and power of Islam. By causing infidels to “lose face”, the Muslim fulfills the Koranic verse which promises that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam supreme over all religions. By contrast when Islam “loses face”, an act of blasphemy has been committed, which can only be righted religiously by killing the non-Muslims, thereby forcing them to lose face and once again affirming the physical superiority of Islam.
This creates the cycle of violence, which is not the result of Christian or Jewish oppression, but of the need for Muslims to validate the truth of their faith by oppressing non-Muslims. To co-exist with non-Muslims is blasphemous for a Muslim, when his Koran proclaims “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends” (Koran 5:51). Mohammed’s final command was to ethnically cleanse the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. ISIS sees itself as completing the work that he began.
Islam does not co-exist, for its followers its truth can only be found in conquering non-Muslims.
Whereas most religions can accept being in the inferior position because their fundamental faith in spiritual, rather than material– Islam has little to it but the material. Even its paradise exists in the form of the sort of physical pleasures that its followers crave, fancy robes, exquisite banquets, golden couches, and of course that famed appeal to the dedicated Jihadist, “curvaceous virgins… and an overflowing cup” (Koran 78:33-34). Islamic Heaven is a grossly exaggerated version of the kind of loot that Mohammed’s followers expected to find by following him in the first place, gold, jewels, silk, spices and young girls.
The gang of throat slitters who accompanied Mohammed on his massacres across the region were given a religious incentive that would transcend death.
Even if they died in battle and would not live to enjoy all the jewels, overflowing cups and girls– the Koran promised it to them in heaven anyway. The gang of robbers, escaped slaves and ambitious desert rats trailed after Mohammed across sand dunes, their minds filled with the promises of rich loot from the caravans they were raiding. And in the feverish heat, the idea that they would receive even better loot if they were to die in battle, making death preferable to life, would have seemed plausible.
Out of such petty greed and lust did Islam initially expand. Its code was that of the tribesman, to lose face or engage in vendetta. Except Islam’s face and vendetta did not involve a single man or a clan, it came to involve over a billion people, who found meaning in working toward the final conquest of Islam. The global triumph of a desert raider’s clumsily hammered together mass of Jewish and Christian beliefs and tribal customs and legends, and his own biography, used as a tool of conquest, forging temporary unities out of quarreling tribes and clans.
And now Islam’s vendetta is worldwide. Every insecurity translates into a provocation. Every jealous impulse never satisfied explodes into violent rage. Every conflict for thousands of years breeds a new vendetta. Did Muslims once live somewhere? They must reclaim it, for to fail to do so is blasphemous and a betrayal of Mohammed’s mission. Did Muslims never live somewhere? Then they must go there now, and raise up minarets and proclaim the superiority of Islam, for to do otherwise is a failure to expand the borders of the Ummah, which is a betrayal of Allah’s will.
The very existence of people living free from Islamic dominion, is blasphemy. Blasphemy that must be remedied by bringing them under the rule of Islamic law.
Meanwhile people who were once under Islamic dominion living free of Islam, is worse than blasphemy, it is an insult and an attack on Islam. That is what is behind the Muslim homicidal obsession with Israel, which had until recently been in Muslim hands under the Ottoman Empire. However even nations such as Spain, which had been lost to the Ummah long ago, still inspire rage. The liberation of the Jews from Islamic dominion is a particularly sore point, but not the only one.
The intersection of Islam and Terrorism is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest.
The actions of non-Muslim nations serve only as variables to create a context within which the supremacism of Islam expresses itself. These contexts may vary as often as the justifications used in a ISIS video. But the context itself is irrelevant in the larger history and theology of Islam. Because in the end, the problem of Islamic violence is the problem of Islam.
The migrant jihad has begun in Paris
November 14, 2015The migrant jihad has begun in Paris, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 14, 2015
Barack Obama was true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his statement on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama Administration.
[A]s the Western intelligentsia fell into familiar patterns of response, it only ensured that there would be many, many more attacks, in Europe and the U.S., like the one in Paris Friday. It seems as if no amount of disconfirming evidence will move the establishment Left to remove its blinkers, discard its politically correct fantasies, and face the jihad threat realistically. The Leftists in the corridors of power are today ensuring that there will be much, much more bloodshed.
***************************
That didn’t take long: one of the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadis who murdered at least 160 people in Paris on Friday held a Syrian passport and passed through Greece in October. In October, he was a “refugee” seeking asylum in Europe from the Syrian war zone; in November, he was murdering French civilians for the Islamic caliphate. The Migrant Jihad has begun.
French and European authorities can’t say they weren’t warned. Last February, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister recently said that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have recently come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.
So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”
A year before that the Islamic State issued a call for jihad murders of French civilians: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.”
Then after the attacks the Islamic State issued a statement claiming responsibility for them, and warning: “Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.”
So war was declared, and acts of war carried out – and the response has been drearily predictable. German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere was swift to try to dissociate the Paris attacks from the migrant influx into Europe: “I would like to make this urgent plea to avoid drawing such swift links to the situation surrounding refugees.” Alas for de Maiziere, there was the inconvenient fact of that Syrian “refugee” who pass through Greece on his way to jihad in Paris.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama was true to form, not mentioning Islam or Muslims in his statement on the Paris attacks, and not giving a hint that it was his precipitous and politically motivated withdrawal from Iraq that created the vacuum that allowed for the rise of the Islamic State. Indeed, the Islamic State could end up being the most significant legacy of the Obama Administration. Obviously American troops couldn’t have stayed in Iraq forever, and the Iraq project from its beginnings was based on false assumptions about Islam, ignoring its political, supremacist and violent aspects; but Obama’s hasty and ill-thought out withdrawal took into account none of the realities on the ground: the Sunni/Shi’ite divide, the Iranian influence in Baghdad, the Sunnis’ unwillingness to participate in the Baghdad government and the Shi’ites’ refusal to allow them to do so in any significant way, and more. France today is paying the price for the willful ignorance and short-sightedness of Obama and his administration.
The Leftist media is firmly stuck in willful ignorance mode as well. Salon published a piece entitled, “Our terrorism double standard: After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves,” and another entitled, “And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists.” The Guardian worried that after the Paris jihad murders Friday, “far-right groups may well fuel more hatred.” Neither Salon nor the Guardian, nor any other mainstream media outlet, published any realistic assessment of the advancing jihad threat in France and the West in general.
And so as the Western intelligentsia fell into familiar patterns of response, it only ensured that there would be many, many more attacks, in Europe and the U.S., like the one in Paris Friday. It seems as if no amount of disconfirming evidence will move the establishment Left to remove its blinkers, discard its politically correct fantasies, and face the jihad threat realistically. The Leftists in the corridors of power are today ensuring that there will be much, much more bloodshed.
Paris suicide bomber arrived as Syrian “refugee”
November 14, 2015Paris suicide bomber arrived as Syrian “refugee” DEBKAfile, November 14, 2015
(How many others and was he actually from Syria? Please see also, We just have to trust what they write down”: Europe lets fake Syrian refugees self-register as “Syrians.” Are Obama’s “Syrian refugees” coming to America being vetted more rigorously?— DM)
A Greek minister confirmed Saturday night that one of the suicide bombers identified by his Syrian passport had passed through the island of Leros on Oct. 3 as a refugee before reaching France. He blew himself up outside the Stade de France during a French-German soccer match in one of the multiple terror attacks that struck Paris Friday. DEBKAfile: This discovery offered proof of the Islamic State’s exploitation of the Syrian refugee exodus to infiltrate terrorists in the West. French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel reject this contention and insist on accepting the Syrian refugees on humanitarian grounds, giving sleepless nights to their security services who have no way of tracking the refugees’ real origins.
The War That Hasn’t Ended
November 14, 2015The War That Hasn’t Ended, National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy, November 13, 2015
There is always the chance that the next attack will knock the scales from our eyes. Always the chance that we will realize the enemy is at war with us, even as we foolishly believe we can end the war by not fighting it, by surrendering. As this is written, the death count in Paris is 158. That number will grow higher, and very many more will be counted among the wounded and terrorized.
“Allahu Akbar!” cried the jihadists as they killed innocent after French innocent. The commentators told us it means “God is great.” But it doesn’t. It means “Allah is greater!” It is a comparative, a cry of combative aggression: “Our God is mightier than yours.” It is central to a construction of Islam, mainstream in the Middle East, that sees itself at war with the West.
It is what animates our enemies.
Barack Obama tells us — harangues us — that he is the president who came to end wars. Is that noble? Reflective of an America that honors “our values”? No, it is juvenile.
In the real world, the world of aggression — not “micro-aggression” — you don’t get to end wars by pronouncing them over, or mistaken, or contrary to “our values.”
You end them by winning them . . . or losing them.
If you demonstrate that you are willing to lose, then you lose. If you sympathize with the enemy’s critique of the West on the lunatic theory that this will appease the enemy, you invite more attacks, more mass murder.
France is hoping the night’s bloodshed is done as it counts its dead. And perhaps it is for now. But the atrocities are not over, not even close.
In Paris, it has been but the blink of an eye since the Charlie Hebdo massacre, after which Western nations joined together in supposed solidarity, supporting the fundamental right to free expression.
That lasted about five minutes.
Intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic rationalized that, while we of course (ahem) champion free expression — “Je suis Charlie!” and all that — columnists and cartoonists who dare lampoon a totalitarian ideology are bringing the jihad on themselves.
It was a familiar story. In 2012, jihadists attacked an American compound in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other officials. The president responded by . . . condemning an anti-Muslim video that had nothing to do with the attack, and by proclaiming that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Islamic supremacism killed Americans, and America’s president validated Islamic supremacism.
How did the French and the rest of the West react when jihadists attacked Charlie Hebdo in Paris?
After a fleeting pro-Western pose, they condemned . . . themselves.
What happened when American commentators who had spent years studying Islamic-supremacist ideology warned that mainstream Muslim doctrine was fueling jihad against the West?
The Obama administration — the president and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — reacted by targeting the messengers, not the aggressors.
Jihadist terror would be obfuscated by euphemisms like “violent extremism” and “workplace violence.” The critics of jihadist terror would be smeared as racist “Islamophobes.” Mrs. Clinton led the administration’s effort to portray examination of Islamic doctrine as hate speech, to brand commentary about radical Islam as illegal incitement.
Wouldn’t that be a betrayal of First Amendment free expression? If so, Mrs. Clinton declared, the government had other ways to suppress it. The administration, she said, would resort to extra-legal extortion: “old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”
American government intimidation, not against the jihad but against opponents of the jihad. Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we don’t think we are worth defending? Could we tell the enemy any more clearly that we are ripe for the taking?
Hard experience has taught us that when jihadists have safe haven, they attack the United States and our Western allies. But as ISIS and al Qaeda expand their safe haven in Syria and Iraq, we tell the world it is everyone else’s problem — the Kurds have to do the fighting, or the Yazidis, the Iraqis, the “rebels,” anyone but us.
As hundreds of thousands of refugees flee the region — many of them young, fighting-fit men whose potential terrorist ties cannot possibly be vetted — we encourage Europe to open its arms and borders to them, promising to open our own as well.
After all, to do otherwise would be to concede that the war is against us — and Obama is the president who “ends” war.
The enemy is not impressed. What Obama calls “ending” war the enemy sees as surrender, as the lack of a will to fight, much less to prevail.
So, as night follows day, the enemy attacked Paris tonight, yet again. Jihadists brazenly proclaimed that they were from Syria, spreading their jihad to France.
Obama responded by soft-peddling the atrocity as a “tragedy,” the acts of war as a “crime.” A “crime” that tonight killed 158 people (and counting). A “crime” by “criminals” who vow more jihadist acts of war against Paris, Rome, London, Tel Aviv, and New York.
We did not ask for a war with jihadists. Years ago, they commenced a war of aggression against us. Pace Obama, you can’t end such a war by withdrawing, or by pretending it is just a crime. You end it by winning it or losing it.
The enemy senses that we are willing to lose it. Tonight, they pressed their advantage. It won’t be the last time.
Salon, Guardian blame “right-wing” for Paris jihad attacks
November 14, 2015Salon, Guardian blame “right-wing” for Paris jihad attacks, Pamela Geller, November 14, 2015
Outrageous, but not surprising. The enemedia is aligned with the jihad force. As the jihad heats up in the West, the media is becoming more clumsy and desperate in its attempts to deflect attention away from the jihad and back to its favorite bogeyman, “right-wing extremists.” Now, even when the evidence of Islamic jihad responsibility is everywhere, as it is with the Paris attacks, “journalists” still find ways to put the blame on the “right-wing” that they hate far more than they do bloodthirsty jihadis, whom they don’t dislike at all.
When Muslims attack, the left attacks …… us.
“Salon: Paris jihad massacre shows that ‘right-wing’ needs to ‘moderate their rhetoric,” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, November 14, 2015:
The American Left is beyond parody. Apparently Salon would have us believe that the Paris jihad massacre happened because “the right wing media” criticized the Black Lives Matter movement. Islamic jihad? Warfare against unbelievers? The Islamic State’s stated imperative to murder French civilians? Only greasy Islamophobes take such things seriously: everyone knows Fox News and Ben Carson are the real culprits!
“And so the hate speech begins: Let Paris be the end of the right’s violent language toward activists,” by Chauncey DeVega, Salon, November 13, 2015:
In a still developing situation, the city of Paris, France, is under attack by terrorists armed with guns and explosives. Many dozens of people have been killed. A still undetermined number of people have been wounded. The terrorists took dozens of hostages in a concert hall. French police and military forces have been deployed. There is mayhem and blood in the streets of Paris….
In the United States, the right-wing media and movement conservatives have for decades consistently used eliminationist and other violent rhetoric to describe liberals, progressives and other people with whom they disagree. As was seen in the recent attacks on a Charleston-area black church, and other violence by right-wing anti-government militias, such rhetoric does not float in the ether of the public discourse, harmless and unacknowledged. No, it does in fact lead to action.
In recent months, the right-wing media has used language such as “terrorism” and “violent,” or that the latter is “targeting police for murder” to describe the Black Lives Matter movement. Such bombastic and ugly screeds–which are wholly unfounded, with no basis in empirical reality–have also been used by right-wing opinion leaders to describe the African-American students who are fighting against racism at Yale and the University of Missouri….
Real terrorists have killed people in the streets of Paris. The right-wing media needs to take note of that fact and moderate their rhetoric and abusive language accordingly.
Given the American right-wing’s casual habit of using violent language to describe their foes, and to gin up fear and anxiety among the movement conservative base, the Fox News’ right-wing echo chamber and its elites should be ashamed given the death and destruction that terrorism actually reaps in practice.
And from The Guardian:
Guardian: After Paris jihad, ‘far-right groups may well fuel more hatred,’” by Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, November 14, 2015:
The Guardian doesn’t worry about the Islamic State presence in France. It isn’t concerned about how many Islamic State sympathizers are living in France now. It couldn’t care less how many more jihadis will enter France via the refugee crisis. No, the Guardian is only concerned about the sole matter that worries the Western intelligentsia: will “far-right groups” exploit this jihad massacre to “fuel more hatred”? I.e., will those who believe in free societies start calling attention to the jihad threat again?
“Paris attacks leave France in trauma, fearing for the future,” by Natalie Nougayrède, Guardian, November 13, 2015:
…Muslims in France will now increasingly fear being associated with fanaticism and terror. Populist, far-right groups may well fuel more hatred. After Charlie Hebdo, thousands of French soldiers were dispatched across the country to secure key installations, schools, train stations, institutions….
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments